Late night indicators for the election

[sidney]

Now here is the opposite of my early thread on early indicators -- How you could end up staying up all night :eek:

I assume by now that everyone is hooked on fivethirtyeight.com and have seen his reference to a paper (PDF 88KB) (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/%7Egelman/research/unpublished/electionnight.pdf) that uses his simulation results to describe what we might be able to glean from early results as they come in. But I won't assume that you are going to read a technical paper, that's my job, so I'll hit some high points for you :)

What happens if the election results don't match the polls, and furthermore that we don't see something like early strong results for Obama in Georgia indicating at 7pm that he has a landslide? What if the fates want to play with us for as long as possible tonight? What would that look like?

First, let's assume that the networks call the winners when they can, but just tell us who wins each state, not exact voting percentages. (Remember were assuming that we are going to be kept on the hook for as long as possible, and not knowing the percentages will be part of that).

The first polls to close at 7pm that are interesting for this purpose (e.g., not Vermont, as realistically it will not surprise us by going for McCain) are Virginia, Indiana, and Georgia. If McCain wins Virginia, he is certain to also win the other two, and winning them is the only way he has any chance at all at winning the election. But if he does win those three he will then have only about a 50/50 chance of getting the rest of what he needs. Edge of seat time.

That takes us to the 7:30 closing polls, Ohio, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Right now Obama is favored in the first two by whiskers, but the scenario in which McCain has won Virginia would imply that he would do better than that, having 87% chance of winning those three states. So in this scenario there is that 87% chance that we continue on the edge of our seats while the probabilities for winning the entire election stay close to even.

Which takes us to the 8pm states, the interesting ones being New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If we get to this point in the scenario, Obama would have an expected slight lead in the first two of 3% and 2% respectively. McCain would have an expected 4% lead in Florida. If the results give Pennsylvania to McCain, he is pretty much guaranteed a win. If he doesn't get PA, but wins New Hampshire and Florida, he will have a remaining 79% chance of winning with 277 electoral votes, and there will be a whopping 12% chance of a tie. We really are talking cliffhanger territory here. However, the most likely possibility, 80% of the time, he would only win Florida of these three. That would leave him with an expected 264 electoral votes and a 33% chance of winning, still a long night as we continue to find out if this is the 2 out of 3 times he ends up with about 264 electoral votes or the 1 out of 3 that he wins.

If McCain wins Missouri as well as Florida, his chances of winning the election go up to 66%, Obama's is 30%, and there is 4% chance of a tie.

Arkansas is the only state to close at 8:30, but that won't tell us anything new when it goes to McCain. That brings us to 9pm, of which the interesting states are Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. If we get to this point in the scenario Obama will have only a whisker expected lead in Colorado of 1%, only 4% in New Mexico and Minnesota, 5% in Wisconsin and a relatively safe 6% lead in Michigan. Obama would have to take all five of those states to have a good 97% chance of winning. But if McCain takes any one of them he has a 90% chance of winning and if he takes two he is pretty much home free.

So that's about as far as the cliffhanger can go if someone is going to win, but notice the chances for an electoral vote tie, which would be the ultimate cliffhanger. Also, this scenario did not take into account some state being so close that there will be a recount and the long delays from that. And it listed times that polls close, which may not be the times that the networks can call results for those states.

I should close with the conclusion of the paper:

"Again, though, we only estimate a 4% chance overall of this happening. Most likely the election will be over by 7pm."

[MollyM/CA]

I am not strong enough to contemplate all this. It makes me feel like the Swann and Flanders ostrich who hides his head in the sand and hopes all's well -- in a nuclear testing ground.

Also I hate the pandering to the press that allows ANY results to be reported before ALL the polls are closed. There are a lot of people standing around in the wind and the rain who'll be likely to just pack up and go home -- and leave local elections hanging. Positions that are important where you live -- school board and irrigation board, for us-- are often decided by a handful of votes. Since California is so late, between the time difference and the polls that stay open late, it could even make a difference in a state election -- the same-sex marriage amendment, for instance, which was getting closer and closer in polls.

m

[Judy G. Russell]

"Most likely the election will be over by 7pm."Okay, so 11 p.m.

[Lindsey]

Okay, so 11 p.m.

Nah, I'm going to say ~9:30, when Ohio was called for Obama. At that point, with Obama having done well enough in Georgia to keep it from being called until almost two hours after the polls had closed, and with Pennsylvania having fallen handily to him, it was almost inevitable that he had it. Winning all of the Kerry states, which was looking like a sure bet at that point, would have given him 252 electoral votes, and adding Ohio out of the Bush states put him at 272. Game, set, match.

I was a little worried about Pennsylvania going into today; all those Republicans who kept saying that the election results would be tighter than the polls predicted had me a little spooked. But when that didn't pan out to be anywhere close to the case, I was feeling pretty good.

[Mike]

...the same-sex marriage amendment, for instance, which was getting closer and closer in polls.
As I'm typing this, it appears that "yes on 8" will win.

I suspect I'll awaken in in the morning as a second-class citizen once again.

[Lindsey]

As I'm typing this, it appears that "yes on 8" will win.

I suspect I'll awaken in in the morning as a second-class citizen once again.

I was just about to start a new thread entitled "Bittersweet note on a joyful day," but it will fit just as well here. I saw this message (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/tell_us_your_voting_stories.php#comment-3271588) on one of the open threads TPM had going for people to report their experiences at the polls:

I cast my vote for Obama in Brooklyn today and wished I could have been there with my partner, my same-sex partner, now my husband who is from Croatia. He can’t vote in the USA. He has never voted, not once, in any election, anywhere in his entire adult life. He has been here in the USA for 15 years as a student through high school, university, and graduate school and then the past 6 years as a hard-working, tax-paying H1B visa holder. His visa will expire at the end of this year and he will have to leave the country before Obama takes office.

So as I cast that vote today I did so with a great amount of hope for the future. Hope that things will change so that I as a US citizen will have the right to sponsor my husband to obtain lawful permanent resident status just like any opposite-sex, married couple would be able to do. Hope that Obama will cast away DOMA and support UAFA. Hope that my vote today will pave the way for a future in which I will be treated equally among my fellow citizens. Hope that I will realize the civil right to extend that right to sponsor the individual with whom I intend to spend the rest of my life with. Hope that we will be able to return to this country with full, legal status sooner rather that later to live our lives without governments treating us as less-than-others.

And I hope I will be there someday to witness my husband cast his first vote.

NPR just a minute ago said that the vote on Prop 8 is too close to call, so I will keep my fingers crossed that it fails after all.

[Mike]

...so I will keep my fingers crossed that it fails after all.
The "yes on 8" campaign just claimed victory, and the spokesman, in his speech, begged the "no on 8" campaign to follow the will of the people.

F*ck that. If "the will of the people" determined all social policy, blacks still would be using separate drinking fountains and riding in the back of the bus.

[Judy G. Russell]

Nah, I'm going to say ~9:30, when Ohio was called for Obama.My problem was that I couldn't believe it. I'm still not sure I believe it!

[Judy G. Russell]

The "yes on 8" campaign just claimed victory, and the spokesman, in his speech, begged the "no on 8" campaign to follow the will of the people. F*ck that. If "the will of the people" determined all social policy, blacks still would be using separate drinking fountains and riding in the back of the bus.Mike, I am so sorry. I can't believe that anybody in the world gives a flying you-know-what about stopping good and decent people who love each other from being married.

But you know what I think about the whole "marriage" issue. "Marriage" is NOT what government should be in the business of recognizing. I think the right-wingers are right (or at least I don't care to argue the issue with them): let marriage be a religious sacrament and leave that up to the churches. Government should only care about civil unions, and EVERYBODY who wants to be treated as a partnership -- gay, straight, whatever -- should have to have a civil union, and everyone who HAS a civil union should have the same civil rights.

Let the religious fanatics worry about "marriage." If they want the damned word so badly, let 'em have it.

[ktinkel]

The "yes on 8" campaign just claimed victory, and the spokesman, in his speech, begged the "no on 8" campaign to follow the will of the people.

F*ck that. If "the will of the people" determined all social policy, blacks still would be using separate drinking fountains and riding in the back of the bus.Ugh. Sorry, Mike. Good thing you and Brent were married last month.

Does this have the force of the constitution? Can it (is it likely to be) reviewed by the courts?

[ktinkel]

Even Rendell was saying PA would be tight; guess he wanted to be sure every Dem voted.

[ktinkel]

My problem was that I couldn't believe it. I'm still not sure I believe it!I went to bed before anyone was willing to call it.

So I awoke to the news when our alarm radio went off at 7 a.m. and I heard NPR give us the news.

[Bill Hirst]

Mike, I am so sorry. I can't believe that anybody in the world gives a flying you-know-what about stopping good and decent people who love each other from being married.

But you know what I think about the whole "marriage" issue. "Marriage" is NOT what government should be in the business of recognizing. I think the right-wingers are right (or at least I don't care to argue the issue with them): let marriage be a religious sacrament and leave that up to the churches. Government should only care about civil unions, and EVERYBODY who wants to be treated as a partnership -- gay, straight, whatever -- should have to have a civil union, and everyone who HAS a civil union should have the same civil rights.

Let the religious fanatics worry about "marriage." If they want the damned word so badly, let 'em have it.
Unfortunately, Florida's amendment 2 would also prohibit civil unions: "This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." The amendment is obviously aimed at gays, but it has caught others in the crossfire.
Henceforth, I plan to refer to my girlfriend and fiancee of ten years as "wife." (Yeah, we're "living in sin" without benefit of clergy and we're going to hell just like people who cheat on their taxes.) Hospitals have never asked for proof before, and I can't see an overworked nursing staff scrutinizing documents. Enforcing this amendment on heterosexual unmarried couples would require everyone keep their marriage license in the car's glove box in case there's an emergency hospital admission.

-Bill

[sidney]

Nah, I'm going to say ~9:30, when Ohio was called for Obama

I didn't notice that call right away because I was busy refreshing a frustrating overloaded and slow Virginia Board of Elections web page watching what started as a McCain 35,000 vote lead count so s-l-o-w-l-y down. At that point almost all of the uncounted votes were in Arlington County and Fairfax County, who at that point were almost 2:1 for Obama, so it was absolutely clear that Obama would take Virginia, but I just had to see Obama take the lead before I had to go pick up the kids from the schoolbus.

When I got home after picking them up I found that Ohio had already been called by then.

[sidney]

Does this have the force of the constitution? Can it (is it likely to be) reviewed by the courts?

My understanding is that it is a constitutional amendment. I recall reading about some possible constitutional challenges to it, but I got the impression that it would be a long shot. There will be an attempt to challenge it in Federal court on some kind of US Constitutional grounds. I didn't understand from the article how that would apply to anything except how existing marriages are treated, i.e., something in the Constitution that would prevent the measure from having a retroactive effect.

[Judy G. Russell]

The amendment is obviously aimed at gays, but it has caught others in the crossfire.Someday those others will push back. Let's hope we live to see that as well.

[Judy G. Russell]

At that point almost all of the uncounted votes were in Arlington County and Fairfax County.You missed one of the great joys: Suffolk County, down southeast, is very very heavily minority. Its votes were among the very last to come in!

[Lindsey]

The "yes on 8" campaign just claimed victory, and the spokesman, in his speech, begged the "no on 8" campaign to follow the will of the people.

The last I read, they were still counting, but yes, unfortunately, it wasn't looking encouraging for the No side. If there is any comfort to be taken here, it is in the fact that there is steadily growing support in favor of gay marriage (Prop 22 passed with 61% of the vote; Prop 8 only by 52%), and that young people are far more supportive than older ones. So time is on the side of this civil rights struggle, too. I think we need to take a page from what the right has done on the issue of abortion and just keep putting the measure in front of the electorate. Eventually, the referendum will pass, and those measures will continue to spread from state to state.

Hold that line, baby, hold that line!
Get up, boys, and hit 'em one more time!
We may be losing now, but we can't stop trying,
So hold that line, baby, hold that line!

[Lindsey]

My problem was that I couldn't believe it. I'm still not sure I believe it!

Somehow, last night, it just felt right; even before Ohio fell, everything was falling into place right in line with what one of Sidney's posts had said to watch for.

I think when I went to Five Guys for lunch on Monday afternoon and they were playing "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow," that's when I started to believe it might really happen.

[Lindsey]

Mike, I am so sorry. I can't believe that anybody in the world gives a flying you-know-what about stopping good and decent people who love each other from being married.

There is something of an unintended consequences element in this. From some of Josh Marshall's election night bloging on TPM:

3:28 AM ... I don't know if irony is the word for this. But if this bears out, I'm sure this will be grist for a lot of discussion. According to the AP's analysis of the exit polls in California: "Blacks turning out in droves to support Obama also threw their support strongly behind Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Opposition to the ban held a slight edge among whites, while Lations and Asians were split."

Somewhere else I read that African-American voters went 70% in favor of Prop 8. Right there is an opportunity for targeting outreach and education that might succeed in getting Prop 8 overturned sooner rather than later.

[sidney]

Somewhere else I read that African-American voters went 70% in favor of Prop 8

I just saw a "what we did wrong" article in which the author talked about the No on 8 campaign failing to pro-actively think about the Yes on 8 possible tactics. He said that they should have early advertised Obama's endorsement against Prop 8. Instead the Yes on 8 campaign first got out ads with Obama's picture and a quote that implied that he was for Prop 8. That apparently had a big influence on the African American vote, creating an impression that could not be undone.

[Judy G. Russell]

Somehow, last night, it just felt right; even before Ohio fell, everything was falling into place right in line with what one of Sidney's posts had said to watch for. I think when I went to Five Guys for lunch on Monday afternoon and they were playing "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow," that's when I started to believe it might really happen.Everything was pointing in the right direction, for sure. But I wanted this win so badly, I just couldn't let myself believe. I've always been of the better pleasantly surprised than bitterly disappointed school.

[Lindsey]

I just saw a "what we did wrong" article in which the author talked about the No on 8 campaign failing to pro-actively think about the Yes on 8 possible tactics. He said that they should have early advertised Obama's endorsement against Prop 8. Instead the Yes on 8 campaign first got out ads with Obama's picture and a quote that implied that he was for Prop 8. That apparently had a big influence on the African American vote, creating an impression that could not be undone.

Oh, I see -- yes that could certainly have made enough difference to swing the vote the other way.

[Mike]

Mike, I am so sorry. ... Government should only care about civil unions...

Let the religious fanatics worry about "marriage." If they want the damned word so badly, let 'em have it.
You and I have discussed this before, and as then, I agree with you.

That's the model that European countries use. A couple gets a civil union to get the state rights. If they so choose, they can get a marriage in their religious institution, but it carries no state rights with it.

I explained to someone else that the Prop 8 supporters' claim of "Domestic partnership gives gays all the rights of marriage" is not true. DPs get a list of specifically enumerated rights. And those getting married can present themselves to the County Clerk-Recorder with exactly two items (government-issued picture ID and $84 in cash) and get a marriage license, and they're done. DPs must show proof of cohabitation and financial interdependence, and once "registered," must file a change of address whenever the residence changes. Explain to me how these are equal?

[Mike]

Somewhere else I read that African-American voters went 70% in favor of Prop 8. Right there is an opportunity for targeting outreach and education that might succeed in getting Prop 8 overturned sooner rather than later.
Yup, and the "No on 8" campaign's hindsight recognized that just a few hours ago.

[Mike]

Ugh. Sorry, Mike. Good thing you and Brent were married last month.

Does this have the force of the constitution? Can it (is it likely to be) reviewed by the courts?
Thanks, Kathleen. I'll put full details in my reply to Sidney.

[Mike]

My understanding is that it is a constitutional amendment.
It is an amendment, but in CA, it's not the equivalent of a change to the U.S. Constitution.

In CA, there are two ways to modify the document, an amendment or a revision. The former can be used to make minor changes that don't substantially modify the form or intent (e.g., clarifications) while the latter must be used to make a significant change. The former can occur with a majority vote of the electorate, while the latter must start in the legislature, achieving a 2/3 majority in each house, before going to the electorate and getting a 50% + 1 vote. Prop 8 has not gone through the legislature.

The arguments going to the State Supreme Court claim that a change that removes rights from a specific class of people requires a revision, not an amendment (and the Supreme Court has suggested it would agree, but that's no guarantee how it would rule in this situation). In other words, this "amendment" may be unconstitutional. Note that last summer, the "No on 8" campaign took the issue to the Court, who refused to hear it at the time. (The Court made it clear that it would not hear the issue until after the election; legal analysts conjectured the Court didn't want to bother making a ruling and writing an opinion that could become moot.)

At the current time, the Attorney General's opinion is that existing marriages remain valid, because of the wording of the "amendment."

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29) of Prop 8.

[sidney]

In CA, there are two ways to modify the document, an amendment or a revision

That system makes sense as way of avoiding chaos and the tyranny of the majority. Let's hope that rational sense prevails in the courts in this case.

[Judy G. Russell]

Explain to me how these are equal?They're not. And it's silly for anybody to pretend that they are.

This is a fight that we will eventually win, Mike. People's attitudes are changing, though not nearly as fast as we would like. Case in point: my brother-in-law, who I would charitably have described as a homophobe for the first 12-14 years that I knew him. And then my niece, his step-daughter, came out of the closet. Mike's attitude changed, from disbelief, to grudging acceptance, to willing to take on the world to secure for this lovely young woman and her partner the same rights the rest of us have.

AND he even voted for Obama on Tuesday.

The world IS changing.

[Judy G. Russell]

The Court made it clear that it would not hear the issue until after the election; legal analysts conjectured the Court didn't want to bother making a ruling and writing an opinion that could become moot.There are two legal principles at play in every case: it can't be brought too soon (it isn't "ripe") and it can't be brought too late to make any difference (it's "moot"). A case brought before the election was most assuredly not ripe, and the Court's decision to wait and see if there ever really would be a ripe issue was the right one. Let's hope that it's NEXT decision is also the right one.

[MollyM/CA]

Yeah, but I'm thinking that the new redistricting may change things a lot next time around, in that it won't be so useful to play to the Rabid Religious Right when there are both Democrats and Republicans in more districts (mine! mine! I hope and pray) -- and meantime, with any luck, the amendment will be hung up in the courts. Of course They've moved in with their second attack -- annul all the marriages-- and I'm hoping that that will just be ignored.

This seems to me to be an utterly frivolous amendment, a matter which shouldn't be hitched to a state or national constitution.

I was utterly amazed that 8 passed this time. It suggests to me that many of the young first-time voters were overwhelmed and just voted for the President.

m

[Lindsey]

I explained to someone else that the Prop 8 supporters' claim of "Domestic partnership gives gays all the rights of marriage" is not true. DPs get a list of specifically enumerated rights. And those getting married can present themselves to the County Clerk-Recorder with exactly two items (government-issued picture ID and $84 in cash) and get a marriage license, and they're done. DPs must show proof of cohabitation and financial interdependence, and once "registered," must file a change of address whenever the residence changes.
Thanks! I knew that they were not the same, but I didn't know the details of just how. Now I have some information to argue that case when it comes up elsewhere.

[Lindsey]

The arguments going to the State Supreme Court claim that a change that removes rights from a specific class of people requires a revision, not an amendment (and the Supreme Court has suggested it would agree, but that's no guarantee how it would rule in this situation). In other words, this "amendment" may be unconstitutional.
Here's hoping that the court will follow through with what they had suggested they would do. I can't see that any rights guaranteed in the state constitution are worth much otherwise, if all it takes to remove them is for someone with deep pockets and a sense of righteous mission to get a referendum on the ballot and then demagogue their way to a majority vote.

[Mike]

The world IS changing.
I know. And there is some comfort in knowing the vote (subject to counting a few remaining mail-in ballots) is 52 to 48. When Prop 22 was passed eight years ago, it was 61% in favor of preventing gay marriage.

[Mike]

Now I have some information to argue that case when it comes up elsewhere.
You're welcome. But please be aware that my information reflects California only. YMMV in other states.

[Mike]

... too late to make any difference (it's "moot")
Wow! I didn't realize there was a larger legal meaning.

So, how do your students feel about arguing cases when it's too late to make any difference? <gdr>

[Mike]

... if all it takes to remove them is for someone with deep pockets and a sense of righteous mission to get a referendum on the ballot and then demagogue their way to a majority vote.
That had been bothering me after I first learned that Prop 8 only required a simple majority to have effect. Fortunately, I got the further education.

Received on a listserve today:

It's time to start hitting the Mormons where it will hurt, their bank accounts. I am hoping to gather some information on Mormon-owned and operated businesses to boycott, like the Marriot Hotel chain. That will come in a later post.

In the meantime, here's something quick and easy to do. This site (http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/#petition)has a petition to revoke the Mormon tax exemption. It also has copies of pre-filled IRS forms to print out and send directly to the IRS. (I noticed that the form is missing one bit of information, the Mormon EIN, but I was able to find it on another site (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/) that also has pre-filled forms. ) The EIN is 23-7300405.

BTW, if you're curious about the image in this post, click here. (http://www.whymormons.net/2008/03/beer-of-gods-pay-lay-ale.html) (Sorry, but the Yahoo List doesn't include images)

Here's a bit extracted from the petition site, Mormons Stole Our Rights (http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/#petition).

The Mormon church began in 1830 (http://scriptures.lds.org/chchrono/contents) in New York. The first Mormons were persecuted by the American majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_joseph_smith), and were compelled to emigrate to Utah where they could live unmolested, much like gays and lesbians who lived in the urban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Historic_District)ghettos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castro,_San_Francisco,_California) last century. Mormons had alternative views of what family (http://www.absalom.com/Mormon/polygamy/faq.htm) meant, and were excluded and marginalized from the political process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Mormon_involvement_in_national_politics ). In their arguments against the majority, Mormon Prophet Brigham Young (http://unicomm.byu.edu/about/brigham.aspx) wrote:

Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. (Journal of Discourses, 11:268-9 (http://www.mormondoctrine.net/articles/Bible_vs_LDS_doctrine.htm))

Much has improved for the Mormon people since then. Today, Mormons have powerful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid)representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrin_Hatch) in the Senate, and ran a nationally viable (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1619212,00.html) candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008.

The Mormon story is possible because our country is a tolerant and forgiving place. America believes in the rights of its citizens to determine their own fates, and grants rights to individual communities to determine their own norms and values. The Mormon people have been able to flourish because of this country's generous spirit.

But now, history has reversed, and it is the Mormons who have become the oppressor.

The Mormons began with the Boy Scouts of America, originally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America#Origins) a children's club meant to introduce boys and girls to the natural beauty of America. Mormons took financial control (http://www.contracostatimes.com/letters/ci_10738033) of the Boy Scouts by donating more than 28% of their global operating budget per year (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_100407_news_mormons_scouts.1397d6e03.html). Gays and lesbians are barred from participating (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/) in this group not just in Mormon troops, but nationwide, thereby turning our children into a political football.

Some Mormons send their own gay teenage children to "conversion camps," where these children are forced to endure shock therapy and given psychotropic drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay#Controversies_involving_minors). The emotional stress of such experience drives many to contemplate suicide (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E4DA1E3DF934A25754C0A9639C8B 63). The Mormon Church has yet to repudiate these activities.

Now the Mormon Church has set its target on gay and lesbian adults of California. They have started by amending our constitution to deny equal protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) to gays and lesbians. [Note from MG in Texas: Actually they have been targeting gays for many years, starting with marriage in Hawaii back in 1988. See here (http://www.mormonsocialscience.org/?q=node/59) and also here (http://www.lds-mormon.com/doma.shtml).]

Ask the Jews about how freedoms are lost. The concentration camps were not built in a national referendum. They were the product of a systemic reduction of freedoms, year after year, one at a time.

We as citizens of California, Americans, and persons of various beliefs and faiths will not allow this to happen.

[Judy G. Russell]

I know. And there is some comfort in knowing the vote (subject to counting a few remaining mail-in ballots) is 52 to 48. When Prop 22 was passed eight years ago, it was 61% in favor of preventing gay marriage.That is a good indicator, for sure. I keep thinking here about that quote from Dr. King: “Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be; but thank God we ain’t what we was.”

[MollyM/CA]

NPR had a bit -- quite a bit -- tonight (Friday 11/7) about the role of the Mormon church -- the huge percentage of the support money, the pressure they put on members, and their highly organised support tactics. This seems to me to put quite a different color to the result -- highly targeted by one organisation rather than broad-based (if such attempts ever are these days--). And even though judging from the signs on the lawns in my town, 23 of the 26 churches were pushing prop 8 too, the extremely Calvinist and worse churches don't represent a very broad base elsewhere. Yet, and God forbid ever.



m

[Lindsey]

You're welcome. But please be aware that my information reflects California only. YMMV in other states.

Understood. At the moment, it is Prop 8 in California that is being hotly discussed.

[Lindsey]

Received on a listserve today:
Wow, I hadn't realized that the Mormons had essentially bought a controlling interest in the Boy Scouts. That certainly explains a lot.

I like the idea of going after the tax-exempt status when churches have crossed the line into political advocacy. Some churches have been deliberately flouting the law and daring the IRS to do anything about it and trying to spark a case to take to the Supreme Court. I know that backing or working against particular candidates is off limits; I'm not sure about referenda. But it does not seem right for a group that the government exempts from taxes can then pour money into political campaigns to govern how taxpayers can live.

[Mike]

Indeed, the churches throughout the state (heh, throughout the country) were hammering into their congregations to vote "yes" and mobilize others.

Lots of money throughout the world poured into the proponents' coffers, from people who simply aren't affected.

And, come to think of it, no one other than the couples getting married are affected by it.

[Mike]

Understood. At the moment, it is Prop 8 in California that is being hotly discussed.
That's cool.

I also learned today that not only do DPs have to show proof of cohabitation in order to be registered, but they are expected to continue to share a residence. Married couples don't have that restriction. (Yeah, I realize that most rational people want to live in the same home as their life partner, but there are situations where that's difficult; e.g., if one is on job assignment elsewhere. I know of one situation that's exactly that--one had to move to the midwest for one year and be a resident of that state to complete qualifications for a job back here.)

[Mike]

I particularly was intrigued how the Mormon church has contradicted itself about marriage.

Brigham Young didn't like the government's control of the institution.

Now the church wants to tell the government how to define it.

[Judy G. Russell]

I like the idea of going after the tax-exempt status when churches have crossed the line into political advocacy.Agreed. BIG time.

[Judy G. Russell]

I particularly was intrigued how the Mormon church has contradicted itself about marriage. Brigham Young didn't like the government's control of the institution. Now the church wants to tell the government how to define it.Well, then it was HIS ox being gored.

[Lindsey]

Well, then it was HIS ox being gored.
Exactly the phrase I was thinking!

[Mike]

Well, then it was HIS ox being gored.
Maybe that's why his grandson and the grandson's wife supported "no" on Prop 8!?

[Judy G. Russell]

Maybe that's why his grandson and the grandson's wife supported "no" on Prop 8!?That just tells me they have brains (and compassion).

[MollyM/CA]

While you're at it, put in a word for not having to renounce one's birth country to become a citizen (JGR will know that word -- "dual" might not work; I don't know how many countries one could be a citizen of).

[Lindsey]

While you're at it, put in a word for not having to renounce one's birth country to become a citizen (JGR will know that word -- "dual" might not work; I don't know how many countries one could be a citizen of).

I don't believe the U.S. requires you to do that any more -- they will accept dual citizenship. (Is it possible to have triple or quadruple citizenship? I'm not sure. At any rate, I'm assuming you can only have one birth country to have to renounce!)

[Judy G. Russell]

While you're at it, put in a word for not having to renounce one's birth country to become a citizen (JGR will know that word -- "dual" might not work; I don't know how many countries one could be a citizen of).Lots of people are dual citizens -- my eldest nephews among them (born in Australia of US parents). Don't know about more than two -- but it would sure give new meaning to the world multinational.

[sidney]

I don't believe the U.S. requires you to do that any more -- they will accept dual citizenship

I looked it up when I became eligible for New Zealand citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled, I think some time in the 1960's, that the 14th Amendment, which freed the slaves by granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, also made the laws that revoked citizenship for various actions unconstitutional.

Oh, I found a dual citizenship FAQ (http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html) site that cites the various SCOTUS cases and explains the laws. In essence, it is very hard to lose native-born US citizenship for any reason other than voluntary renunciation of citizenship.

The other part of the State Department's policies on dual citizenship is that they have no control over other countries' laws and policies, so they don't officially care, nor do they officially recognize if some other country chooses to call a US citizen a citizen of that other country. If a person is a US citizen, as far as the US is concerned they are subject to US laws: There is no "dual citizenship" status that changes the effects of the laws in any way.

In practice, the long arm of the US, in the form of the IRS, reaches out to me here in New Zealand. If I move back to the US there will be no long arm of the New Zealand government reaching out to me there. Similarly, I am required by law to use my US passport if I travel to the US, but New Zealand allows me to use my US passport instead of my New Zealand passport when I return.

[Mike]

While we were going through my parents' house last month, we found some extra certified copies of my Italian birth certificate (with the official stamps--sticky stamps as well as rubber stamps). I'm seriously considering visiting the Italian consulate here in the United States to see if I can get an EU passport.

Normally, one has to decide before age 18, and then has to do a mandatory term in the Italian military. I'm wondering if, given my age, that might be waived.

[sidney]

I'm seriously considering visiting the Italian consulate here in the United States to see if I can get an EU passport

If it turns out that you are eligible, it would probably be a really good idea. It can't negatively affect your US citizenship and if Obama doesn't get a reasonable health care reform pushed through it might be a lifesaver some day.

[Lindsey]

In essence, it is very hard to lose native-born US citizenship for any reason other than voluntary renunciation of citizenship.
Not that the current Administration hasn't tried. Something they proposed would have stripped anyone charged with terrorism of their citizenship with the idea that would also strip them of a right to habeas corpus. The Supreme Court has quite obviously put the kibosh on the latter. I don't know for sure, but I hope the former died a well-deserved death in some Congressional committee and is not lurking somewhere in the depths of the so-called "PATRIOT" Act.

[Mike]

If it turns out that you are eligible, it would probably be a really good idea.
As well as expand my possibilities for work!

[ktinkel]

As well as expand my possibilities for work!How’s your Italian? <g>

[Mike]

How’s your Italian?
Not that great--I had to leave the country before I was a year old because I couldn't speak the language!

Ok, seriously... I can read a considerable amount, but I cannot write or carry on a conversation. However, I do have the learning course, and I've been around enough Italian people all my life that it should be fairly easy for me to pick up and learn when I need to.

[ktinkel]

Not that great--I had to leave the country before I was a year old because I couldn't speak the language!

Ok, seriously... I can read a considerable amount, but I cannot write or carry on a conversation. However, I do have the learning course, and I've been around enough Italian people all my life that it should be fairly easy for me to pick up and learn when I need to.I don’t speak Italian either, though I can speak some French. Always thought that Italian is easier, if only because you actually pronounce most of the letters most of the time, and more or less as one does in English.

At least we have all by now learned the Italian names of many good foods, so you could just go around muttering Parmigiana Reggiano, pasta, saltimbocca, cappucino, focaccia, radicchio, etc. so you wouldn’t starve!

[ndebord]

I don’t speak Italian either, though I can speak some French. Always thought that Italian is easier, if only because you actually pronounce most of the letters most of the time, and more or less as one does in English.

At least we have all by now learned the Italian names of many good foods, so you could just go around muttering Parmigiana Reggiano, pasta, saltimbocca, cappucino, focaccia, radicchio, etc. so you wouldn’t starve!

Kathleen,

And of course, the ultimate muttering: fuhgedaboutit

[Mike]

At least we have all by now learned the Italian names of many good foods, so you could just go around muttering Parmigiana Reggiano, pasta, saltimbocca, cappucino, focaccia, radicchio, etc. so you wouldn’t starve!
I do get annoyed when I see someone advertising "panini sandwiches," since "panini" means "sandwiches."

[ktinkel]

I do get annoyed when I see someone advertising "panini sandwiches," since "panini" means "sandwiches."Hah! We have been having a thread on annoying phrases on DTP, and it came around to silly redundancies like that: PDF format, TIF(F) file or format, popped up on the technical side.

I think it is a belts-plus-suspenders kind of thing for people who are uncertain about the subject they are discussing.

[Jeff]

I do get annoyed when I see someone advertising "panini sandwiches," since "panini" means "sandwiches."

From the ads I've seen they always look toasted, like a grilled cheese, so I've thought "panini" was cute for pan.

- Jeff

[Bill Hirst]

I do get annoyed when I see someone advertising "panini sandwiches," since "panini" means "sandwiches."
Some time ago I mentioned a well-known restaurant chain advertising their steak sandwiches "with au jus."

-Bill

[Mike]

...silly redundancies like that: PDF format, TIF(F) file or format, popped up on the technical side.
IRA Account, ATM Machine, ...

[Mike]

..."panini" was cute for pan.
Well...

Googling a little reveals there is a particular type of grill called a panini, often used to heat a sandwich, or panino (for which the plural is panini).

So...

Perhaps the panini in "panini sandwiches" is being used as an adjective to indicate the sandwiches were heated with a specific type of grill.

Does that mean we'll soon see "gas oven broiled fish" and "electric stovetop chicken noodle soup" on café menus?

<sigh>

[Mike]

...well-known restaurant chain advertising their steak sandwiches "with au jus."
There are several that are fond of doing that. One advert I've heard repeats the phrase several times. It just increases the pain.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

Perhaps the panini in "panini sandwiches" is being used as an adjective to indicate the sandwiches were heated with a specific type of grill.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panini_(sandwich) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panini_%28sandwich%29)

[Judy G. Russell]

silly redundancies like that: PDF format, TIF(F) file or formatNot necessarily silly. The federal courts have moved to electronic filing for most documents, and the instructions to users specify that documents must be filed "in PDF format." I think that's a proper usage. They could have said "you must file a PDF" but "in PDF format" seems perfectly acceptable.

[ktinkel]

Not necessarily silly. The federal courts have moved to electronic filing for most documents, and the instructions to users specify that documents must be filed "in PDF format." I think that's a proper usage. They could have said "you must file a PDF" but "in PDF format" seems perfectly acceptable.I do not think the world will come to an end because people must say “Portable Document Format format,” but wouldn’t PDF file do as well?

But I know a little about bureaucracies, so suppose Format format it must be! <g>

[Bill Hirst]

I do not think the world will come to an end because people must say “Portable Document Format format,” but wouldn’t PDF file do as well?

But I know a little about bureaucracies, so suppose Format format it must be! <g>
Strictly speaking it would be PD format. However, with the courts involved, some would misread it as Police Department format. PDF format has become the accepted norm, like ATM machine and PIN number. (My PI number is 3.14159265358979... and so is yours.) It's illogical, but there are so many irregular things in the English language it hardly seems worthwhile to get upset about it. I'd be happy if we could get grocers to stop using decoration quotes, like "ripe" tomatoes.

-Bill

[Judy G. Russell]

I do not think the world will come to an end because people must say “Portable Document Format format,” but wouldn’t PDF file do as well? But I know a little about bureaucracies, so suppose Format format it must be! <g>But it isn't being presented as "format format" any more than an ICBM missile is being presented as a "missile missile". It's PDF format, not PD Format format. In short, the acronym has become effectively a word, not an abbreviation.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'd be happy if we could get grocers to stop using decoration quotes, like "ripe" tomatoes.I'd be satisfied if we could get people to drop the apostrophe out of "it's" when they mean the possessive...

[Lindsey]

I think that's a proper usage. They could have said "you must file a PDF" but "in PDF format" seems perfectly acceptable.
And actually, I think "in PDF format" is a little clearer -- less likely to prompt the question "What's a PDF?" from someone who doesn't have a clue.

[Lindsey]

I'd be satisfied if we could get people to drop the apostrophe out of "it's" when they mean the possessive...
Or to quit inserting an apostrophe when they mean to make a plural!!! (There's even a name for that one: the greengrocer's apostrophe -- because it's seen so often in grocery stores. :()

[Judy G. Russell]

Or to quit inserting an apostrophe when they mean to make a plural!!! (There's even a name for that one: the greengrocer's apostrophe -- because it's seen so often in grocery stores. :()Yeah, that one too. Drives me nut's.

[sidney]

I'd be happy if we could get grocers to stop using decoration quotes, like "ripe" tomatoes

That one at least is correct. You really think those genetically engineered tomatoes that are picked too early so they survive the shipping and sprayed with some hormone that turns them red in the store are actually non-quote ripe? :p

[sidney]

Drives me nut's.

Should'nt that be "Drive's me nuts"?

My pet peeve is one that only bothers me so much because I have had to admit that I have to give up on it. That one is the phrase "begs the question" used to mean "poses the question" instead of its proper meaning as a certain logical fallacy. What frustrates me about it so much is that I have to admit that the more common "incorrect" usage makes a heck of a lot more sense than the correct one which relies on a Medieval obsolete meaning of the word "beg" and describes an obscure form of logical argument.

[Mike]

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panini_(sandwich) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panini_%28sandwich%29)
Yeah, I left the rolls out of the discussion because most "panini sandwiches" are made from sliced bread or ciabatta.

[Judy G. Russell]

Should'nt that be "Drive's me nuts"?Subtlety, my friend. Subtlety.

My pet peeve is one that only bothers me so much because I have had to admit that I have to give up on it. That one is the phrase "begs the question" used to mean "poses the question" instead of its proper meaning as a certain logical fallacy. What frustrates me about it so much is that I have to admit that the more common "incorrect" usage makes a heck of a lot more sense than the correct one which relies on a Medieval obsolete meaning of the word "beg" and describes an obscure form of logical argument.My current pet peeve is one that would only bother a literate photographer. And that's spelling "lens" as "lense".

[ktinkel]

My current pet peeve is one that would only bother a literate photographer. And that's spelling "lens" as "lense".Or an optician! <g>

[ktinkel]

Oh, yes — grocers’ quotes (and butchers’ if you can remember back to when there were any).

I especially scratch my head over “For Sale” — is it or isn’t it? Maybe it indicates reluctance to part with the item(s) in question.

[ktinkel]

In short, the acronym has become effectively a word, not an abbreviation.I guess.

[sidney]

Subtlety, my friend. Subtlety

Oh, yes, like the pirate attaching the steering wheel to his crotch.

[Lindsey]

That one at least is correct. You really think those genetically engineered tomatoes that are picked too early so they survive the shipping and sprayed with some hormone that turns them red in the store are actually non-quote ripe? :p

Haha! Good point! The grocery is inadvertently being completely honest!

[Lindsey]

That one is the phrase "begs the question" used to mean "poses the question" instead of its proper meaning as a certain logical fallacy.

Yes! And unfortunately, I think the original meaning is a lost cause. It's too hard to explain the correct usage.

(oops, I almost left the extra "o" out of "too"!)

[Lindsey]

Subtlety, my friend. Subtlety.

My current pet peeve is one that would only bother a literate photographer. And that's spelling "lens" as "lense".
That's one I haven't seen. But my mother would always use "lens" as a plural, which always made me want to scream.

[Judy G. Russell]

my mother would always use "lens" as a plural, which always made me want to scream.One len, two lens? Oh my...

[sidney]

One len, two lens?

No, that's backwards. "Lens" is the singular, as in "He lens the book from the library," and the other is plural, as in "Can youse len me a buck until Tuesday?"

That also illustrates the grammatical rule that the second personal pronoun takes a plural verb even if you are talking to a singular individual.

[Judy G. Russell]

No, that's backwards. "Lens" is the singular, as in "He lens the book from the library," and the other is plural, as in "Can youse len me a buck until Tuesday?" That also illustrates the grammatical rule that the second personal pronoun takes a plural verb even if you are talking to a singular individual.Excuse me. My head is spinning...

[MollyM/CA]

Don't forget Paul Robeson, who got his passport pulled (ostensibly for complaining abroad about the treatment of blacks in the U.S, in 1950), theoretically putting him under house arrest, or country arrest, but he said up yours and went to live in France. Wikepedia says Howard Fast and W. E. B. DuBois got theirs pulled too. Howard Fast wrote some good SF in the fifties, and a short mystery series under the name of E. V. Cunningham, featuring a Japanese detective in the Beverly Hills police department (if I remember aright). Also Spartacus and Citizen Tom Paine! Being Read, an autobiography, really gave me a feel for those times.

[MollyM/CA]

The so-called "copy editor" who was given the charge of mangling Sam's fish book habitually used it's as a possessive -- I used to write back about "his or her's" and such.

Her boss, The Girl Like I, invariably told us that the ms or whatever would be sent to so and so "and I."

The company that supplied the service went out of business but the (University!) press sent a letter around saying that fortunately they were able to keep the It's girl and The Girl Like I on under private contract...

[MollyM/CA]

I think actually they gas the tomatoes with ethylene gas, which is produced by the skins of many fruits so not exactly unnatural.

[Judy G. Russell]

The company that supplied the service went out of business but the (University!) press sent a letter around saying that fortunately they were able to keep the It's girl and The Girl Like I on under private contract...What a pity...

[Lindsey]

One len, two lens? Oh my...
No, she'd use the same word for both singular and plural. Or maybe she thought I only had one eye.

[Lindsey]

The company that supplied the service went out of business but the (University!) press sent a letter around saying that fortunately they were able to keep the It's girl and The Girl Like I on under private contract...
Oh. My. God.

[Judy G. Russell]

No, she'd use the same word for both singular and plural. Or maybe she thought I only had one eye.ROFL! Well, there are at least some words that word like that. Just not that one!

[sidney]

I'm not sure how this fits into the topic this thread has wandered to, but I keep getting reminded of it as I read the posts here, so...

I've been helping my office-mate, who is Chinese, with some grammar for writing her thesis. She has a good command of English, but asked me to help her to understand the use of articles. Apparently Chinese does not have any words equivalent to "a", "an", "the" and I'm not sure right now but I think does not have plurals. So when she have question about when to use "a" vs "the" I'm not sure that any explanation I come up with will even make sense. The rule is generally that you use "a" to refer to any individual of a class, and "the" to refer to a specific individual, but you don't need any article to refer to a plural unless you are using the plural with "the" to denote a single specific class. But she thinks in a language in which there are no such references at all, so how is she to make such distinctions? Oh, and how would one explain the difference between "A careful cyclist obeys the rules of the road" and "The careful cyclist obeys the rules of the road", or why one would title a book "The Careful Cyclist" but not "A Careful Cyclist" unless you were being somewhat poetic?

And kind of related, I continue to hear new strange differences in the use of the English language here in New Zealand, new to me even though I have lived here six years now. The most recent was discovering whilst listening to the radio that the word women is pronounced the same as woman. It might say something about a lack of focus on women's rights issues in the media that it has taken me this long to notice that :). This relates to my previous paragraph in that it made the speakers sound Chinese every time they to my ears used the singular form of the word (with no indefinite article because plurals do not take them) to refer to a plural.

[Judy G. Russell]

Apparently Chinese does not have any words equivalent to "a", "an", "the" Neither do the eastern European languages. I deal with this every year with my students...

[Bill Hirst]

If we did away with pronouns we could drop that pesky "its" vs. "it's" confusion.

-Bill

[Judy G. Russell]

If we did away with pronouns we could drop that pesky "its" vs. "it's" confusion.Yeah but we'd use up a whole lot of capital letters with proper nouns and names.

[Mike]

Apparently Chinese does not have any words equivalent to "a", "an", "the" and I'm not sure right now but I think does not have plurals.
Exactly. A former co-worker who is American but spoke fluent Mandarin explained it to me.

There are no articles in any of the Chinese dialects, nor are there any plurals. Thus, many people who first learned Chinese also don't understand subject-verb agreement.

So when she have question...
ROFL!!! I can't begin to count the number of times I saw similar sentence construction in documentation from developers whose first language was Chinese. Most of whom had no interest in learning how to improve their written grammar!