Best moment: woman selling bottles of water. Doing a good job on a hot day (nice rap: "ice cold water here!" -- delivered in attention-getting manner) except that she was sitting within about 30 feet of one of only three drinking fountains I saw on the entire 6-mile route ...

Via Garmin Connect: Central Park Loop

Via Garmin Connect

Well, we've arrived in Istanbul after a 10-hour flight with no wi-fi and no electrical outlets. I tried to nap, did a bit of reading, a bit of programming, and did some ... thinking about programming. A few puzzles here and there and we were here.

The first thing I noticed is that here's how a word association game would go if you were having one with the Turkish government:

You: An American
Them: Patient Zero
You: American visitors
Them: Vectors
You: United States current events
Them: Epidemic
You: President Obama's biggest challenge
Them: Swine flu

We were not only filling out medical histories on the plane (entirely related to swine flu), but were met by a team of mask-outfitted Turks when we deplaned who ... well, I don't know what they were doing. Collecting the medical histories, I guess. Then there were signs everywhere about H1N1, etc.

Anyway, we had a nice lunch and a nice dinner, checked into our charming hotel and currently I'm posting this from a charming nearby cafe that has free wi-fi. Can't complain much. Tomorrow we commence tourism.

From a GQ interview:

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?

Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.

I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Olympia, WA apparently has what's known as an "equal benefits ordinance," in which city contractors are required to provide benefits to domestic partners (if they do so for spouses). So a company there is going to lose a contract for over $2 million for building "a new water utility pump station and water mains" because they don't have domestic partner benefits.

Sure, deciding who builds water pump stations is ordinarily not the sexiest public policy issue. All the better that equality is a decisive factor in who gets to do it.

Maybe in our city's future? Gotta defend the domestic partnership registry first.

From the January 6 Washington Post:

We have to do it in the Facebook, with the Twittering, the different technology that young people are using today.

-- Mike Duncan, Republican National Committee chair, on how the Republicans need to do better youth outreach

Dear Friend,

If you've been following the Cleveland news, you're aware of the legislation just recently passed by Cleveland's City Council regarding a domestic partner registry (Ordinance 1745-08). Because of our concern to honor the Lord and seek the best for our community, I am joining with a large group of pastors who are encouraging church members who live in the city of Cleveland to sign a petition this Sunday that will put this issue to a ballot for voters (rather than being decided by a small group of city council members). If you live in the suburbs, you're welcome to pass along this email to others who live in Cleveland...and to pray diligently. There's no doubt that what happens in the suburbs affects the city and vice versa.

The proposed domestic partner registry would mean that any 2 people, regardless of gender and no matter where they live, could come to Cleveland and attest that they are committed to one another in an intimate relationship. When they do this, they will receive a legal document from the City of Cleveland. The ordinance purports to "remove the administrative burden on hospitals, universities, employers, and other businesses to define and verify the existence of these committed non-marital relationships." However, we believe that deciding these kinds of issues by a vote of all the people rather than by a handful of politicians will provide a much more fair representation of what the public wants.

In reading through the ordinance, there are many places that it appears to be internally inconsistent, claiming not to alter the definition of marriage but defining a "domestic relationship" in terms traditionally used to describe the marriage relationship [see section 109.01(1)] and giving status to many "family" activities like rearing children. The ordinance claims not to recognize any legal status that approximates marriage but comes very close to doing that. Our question: If there is no legal implication to this ordinance, then why have it to begin with? We believe that this ordinance is, at the very least, a beginning of the redefinition of a traditional God- ordained marriage.

With the Mayor of Cleveland planning to sign the ordinance into law, the only recourse the residents of Cleveland have is to petition for a general election of this issue.

When a government sets policies in place that may lead to behavior that does not conform to the will of God, believers who are citizens under that government have a responsibility to act for the good of the community (Romans 13:3). When we speak up for justice and God's good directions, we are following the examples of godly people in the Bible like Moses, who stood up to Pharaoh (Exodus 1-14), the judges (Judges 2:14-16), Daniel and his friends (Daniel 1), and others (Daniel
4:27; Luke 3:18-19; Acts 24:24-25; Hebrews 11:33). Influencing a government to make good laws is one way of obeying Jesus' command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39), for good laws benefit all people.

We believe that sexual intimacy is to be confined to marriage, and marriage is to be only between one man and one woman, following the pattern established by God in creation. As a church, we also believe that [church members] should always act with love and compassion toward those who do not share our view. Pray with us, that we will model that grace and truth reflected so powerfully in the life of Jesus.

For all those at [Church] who live in the city of Cleveland, there will be an opportunity to sign a petition calling for a vote on this issue at a general election. This referendum with 10,000 signatures needs to be returned to the City of Cleveland by this Monday, January 5. So, this Sunday you are welcome to sign this petition at a designated table in the church lobby. Acquiring 10,000 signatures on such a short notice will be a challenge.

Here's what the public pollsters think happened.  See this summary from someone who attended a panel discussion, along with some video interviews of two participants:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ca_pollsters_on_prop_8.php

The Field poll guy cites some comparison work he did between the internals of the network exit polls and his polls, stating that the movement from No to Yes took place amongst certain demographics, including Catholics and regular churchgoers (and that turnout was affected as well).  I haven't replicated his research, but it's an interesting approach.  He thinks the error is introduced on the Sunday before the election, in church; this I am quite dubious about but it is consistent with his data.  He also claims that people's attitudes toward gay marriage are stable over time -- he says that results for particular age cohorts have been stable for 30 years (but does this account for changing demographics?).  Finally, he advises the No side to go for a 2012 election to maximize turnout, citing the fact that the electorate is older (and thus worse for us) in a low-turnout election.

The PPIC guy did a post-election survey, and says that something resembling "wrong-way" voting (where you are confused about what Yes and No votes mean) decreased.

Their survey (before the election) showed us losing 49-47 if the question was phrased "do you support gay marriage."  But it showed 19% of Prop 8 opponents opposed gay marriage.  In their post-election survey, only 8% of Prop 8 opponents opposed gay marriage.  He's cautious about interpreting this -- he's not sure whether it was "wrong-way" voting as we'd define it or whether they were persuaded to cast a "yes" vote.  He writes:

Our pre-election surveys showed that a significant percentage of voters opposed to same-sex marriage were nevertheless planning to vote against Proposition 8. Whether this contradictory intent indicated ambivalence about supporting a constitutional ban or confusion about the meaning of a no vote, enough of these voters were persuaded to switch sides to provide a narrow victory for the measure.

In a separate point, he cautions that race influenced the outcome much less than education and income.  He writes:

While much has been made of the importance of race and ethnicity in passage of this initiative, the socioeconomic divide was the more powerful factor: Prop. 8 won among both white and nonwhite voters without a college degree and among lower-income households, while it lost among both white and non-white voters with college degrees and among upper-income households.

He disagrees on the church effect.  Finally, he disagrees on the "generational replacement" theory above, citing my concern above -- the age cohorts in California change over time due to immigration and outmigration.  So he doesn't necessarily believe time is on our side there -- he believes that migration into California tilts toward our opponents.

In corruption.

More here.

Hey, it's fun.  And as a gay rights activist, I so want Sarah Palin to be the face of the Republican Party right now.

I've seen two polls that look at 2012, with wildly different results:

NBC/WSJ poll apparently conducted on Election Day (see First Read) which seemed to ask who the party's "leader" should be, with only three choices:  Romney 33%, Huckabee 20%, Palin 18%.

Rasmussen poll which asked who the next Republican nominee should be, conducted the next day: Palin 64% (!), Huckabee 12%, Romney 11%, Jindal 4%, Crist 2%, Pawlenty 1%.  (Didn't ask about other candidates, like Giuliani.)

Rasmussen shows 91%-8% favorable/unfavorable ratings for Palin amongst Republican "likely voters."

So she's the frontrunner!  (For now, and probably for a while.)

The bettors at Intrade are trading so lightly that it's hard to evaluate, but they have Romney as the frontrunner (in the low 20s), followed by Bobby Jindal (15ish), and then Huckabee and Palin (10ish).  I'd have to think more before I'd decide whether I like those prices.

Oh, and by the way, Romney operatives are apparently leaking all the stuff about Palin (like how she didn't know the countries in NAFTA, or didn't know Africa was a continent rather than a country).  I totally believe they're doing it.  I'm not sure I believe the "continent" thing but the NAFTA thing ... could it be true?

Here are the election results I know about:

Hey, our local paper is doing some good work.  There's no speculation, really, as to the causes -- but at least the system is described in detail.  It includes a fascinating breakdown of two different programs to help first-time offenders, one of which seems to be applied in a race-neutral fashion and the other which does not.  It also explains how one program is, de facto, administered by the prosecutor's office, even though it's supposed to be administered by the judge.  The only disappointing thing is that they don't do analysis that controls for the presence of an attorney -- it mentions that defendants who hire their own lawyers do better, and that whites more often hire their own lawyers -- but doesn't do much beyond that.

However, the data supports the idea that it's not just the lawyers -- I crunched the numbers (see below) and they suggest that the majority of the difference can't be accounted for by attorneys.

Part 2 tomorrow.

I'd say we're at threat level orange.

Did Michigan just lose to the University of Toledo?  When UT came into the game 1-4?  At home?

The OSU-Michigan game could be fun this year.

George Will?  Well, we know he doesn't love McCain.  But wow, does he lash him in yesterday's column.

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama. ... It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

I believe it, having been living there part-time. They also must spend the most money on appearance -- every ad there seems to be for some sort of treatment designed to make you look better. And there are a ton of runners, despite the fact that it's 85 and humid at 8 AM... From Reuters:

Miami residents are most attractive in U.S.: poll

The Daily Show has some good clips comparing how the GOP's talking heads have rallied around Palin on some issues where they have been ... less charitable in the past. Watch!

What a brilliant parody.  It won't be nearly as funny if you haven't seen the original will.i.am "Yes, We Can" video.  Watch!

I've just spent the last two weeks in Miami organizing students to defeat Amendment 2, an anti-gay ballot measure which would ban gay marriage and civil unions in Florida. Adopting their ways (and taking a job which is mostly communication) has been a shock to my communication systems. Text messaging is the best form of communication, many students routinely use their phones for e-mail, and the idea that someone would not be on Facebook is, well, unthinkable. Given that, and the fact that this job is not a computer job, but a leadership job, plus the fact that these students are younger than me, gives me a glimpse of the future.

In that future, the cell phone is the primary tool you use for interacting with the world. You text, you email, you take photos and video. And who knows whether we are racing toward a future in which our Facebook friends know where we are because of our GPS cell phones - young people just might think that would be a net positive, despite the privacy implications. I'm not sure whether it will remain so as they age - whether this is an age difference or a generational one.

One thing remains true - an in-person conversation is still by far more effective communication than anything else with people you don't know well. New technology doesn't seem to be denting that.

But it's a cell phone world. Get better at typing with your thumbs.

(Posted by cell phone, of course.)

LinkedIn is a professional networking site; if you've been around the Internet for a while, it's what SixDegrees wanted to be.

Anyway, they have a feature where they suggest "people you may know."  I look at my top 10 "people I may know" and ... I know six of them!  There is no easy way that I can discern that LinkedIn would know that I know any of them (maybe one; see below).

• One is a woman I went to law school with (LinkedIn does not know I went to law school), with whom I collaborated on a presentation years later to a college group looking to do community service
• The second is a guy who does direct mail who I thought about hiring for a campaign when I was a campaign manager, but I went with someone else.  I assume he is DC based.  There are hundreds of direct mail people -- how did it choose him?
• The third is a woman who is the owner of the firm that did our get-out-the-vote calls in 2003.  Out of all the firms in the country that do this (they are in Kentucky), how did it choose this one?
• The fourth is the ex- of our staffperson from our campaign, and who I know through several other connections.  He is at least gay, well-connected, and lives in Cleveland.  LinkedIn may be deducing my links with the LGBT community by looking at my contact list.  So, OK on this one; this seems like a decent guess.
  
• The next is the first person who ever hired me for an independent consulting job.  There are dozens of people I have dealt with who do this; I have two messages from people who do this in my LinkedIn inbox.  I don't sense that this guy is particularly noteworthy.  How did it choose him?
• The final one is a domestics relations magistrate who volunteered on our campaign in Cleveland Heights.  We used to walk our dogs together.  Please.  How does it do this?