Georgia Goes North, Kansas Goes South, and Colorado Returns to the Middle

"El", the SanityIID model for the Senate race has been updated for October 19, 2014. The full set of charts can be found on the "El – US Senate Election at a Glance" page. Overall, the Democrats chances of maintaining control of the Senate have improved slightly to 33.4%, but the Republicans still hold a statistically significant probability of 63.4% of taking control of the Senate.

There haven't been many state level changes since my last writeup. Michelle Nunn (D) has the chance to gain ground in the Georgia race for the US Senate after the Democrats poured $1 million into the race. While Nunn (D) hadn't been far behind Perdue (R), she had been behind consistently. The latest three polls, however, have either shown Nunn (D) tied or slightly leading Perdue (R). While these results are interesting, it is too early to determine whether this is a short term gain or the start of a real movement for the Democrats in Georgia.

Kansas is having the opposite movement from Georgia. Republicans have come to the rescue of Senator Roberts (R). Roberts has access to new people and more money in an attempt to keep Orman (I) from taking the traditionally Republican seat. While Orman might caucus with either the Democrats or the Republicans, if Robers wins then the seat stays firmly in Republican control. And the money and expertise has been making a difference in Kansas. The latest polls show that Roberts is either tied or slightly ahead of Orman. The odds of Kansas staying in Republican hands is increasing with each passing day.

And a tiny bit of good news for Democrats in Colorado. Recent polling there has shown that, in the short term at least, the Democrats are pulling the state back to a tie status. Both of the recent polls that were released in Colorado were partisan polls done for the Democrats, so the gains have to be taken with just a hint of skepticism. Still, El takes all polls whether partisan or not and lets them average out over time. Even with the new polls, its only enough for Udall (D) to pull the state back to a short term tie with Gardner (R).

Senate Race updated for October 16, 2014

Polling has been updated at "El -- US Senate Race at a Glance". Republicans continue to solidify their lead as we approach election day.

The most probable outcome is for Republicans to win 51 seats. If Orman then caucuses with the controlling party, that will give the Republicans a grand total of 52 seats.

One thing that has changed is that the second most probable outcome is that the Republicans outright win 52 seats, and, again, if Orman caucuses with them, getting a grand total of 53 seats.

More graphs, as well as a state by state breakdown, can be found at the "El -- US Senate Race at a Glance" page.

US Senate Update for October 9, 2014

The quick overview? The Republicans take a statistically significant lead.

It has been a while since I have posted an update, so let's give every state that El (the SanityIID model) is following.

In Alaska, El is still screaming a warning about a lack of data. There just isn't enough polling happening in Alaska for a race that appears to be this close. Still, the recent polls are all going in Sullivan's (R) favor.  The long term probability for a Republican win in Alaska is now at 65%. Expect this percentage to continue to rise unless Begich (D) starts getting better polling numbers.

The new polling in Arkansas shows that the state is slipping more firmly into Cotton's (R) hand. Current long term estimates show Cotton with an 81% chance of winning the state.

Colorado appears to be leaning Republican with Gardner (R) having a 65% long term chance of taking the state. Udall (D) has slipped behind and the race seems to be stabilizing in the Republican's favor.

Georgia seems to be leaning toward the Republican's as well. The lastest polls show Perdue (R) with a 77% probability of taking the state over the long term. Nunn (D) has been consistently falling behind in the polling. If upcoming polls don't any increase for Nunn, expect the probability of Perdue to win to increase over time.

Democrats are losing ground in Iowa as well. Ernst (R) currently has a 71% long term chance of taking the state. While the mid term and short term chances are a little less stable, they are all still showing strong support for Ernst (R) over Braley (D).

The Independent candidate, Orman (I), is still showing well in Kansas. There have been a few recent polls that are startling in their sudden change, but the long term chances are still showing solidly for Orman (I) over Roberts (R). We will have to wait and see whether the most recent polls in Kansas are outliers or whether they are the start of a comeback for Roberts.

Long term predictions for Kentucky are showing McConnell (R) with a commanding lead over Grimes (D). The long term predictions show McConnell (R) with an 86% chance of winning the election. The short and mid term predictions aren't quite as rosy for McConnell, but they still show him with a solid lead.

Louisiana? Republican. Virtually all polls have been favoring Cassidy (R) over Landrieu (D). While El does give a data warning for not enough polling, there is still a 78% long term chance of a Republican victory in Louisiana. The mid and short term probabilities only increase for the Republicans.

Michigan is the first good news story for the Democrats. Long term, Peters (D) has an incredible lead over Land (R). The long term probability of Peters winning is pegged at the limit of El's accuracy. It is also reported in the news that the Republican's are going to pull their television commercials in favor of spending that money on more competitive races. While there will always be a statistical possibility that Land (R) could win, the chances are very, very small indeed.

New Hampshire also looks good for the Democrats. Shaheen (D) is still holding a stable lead over Brown (R). Long term, the Republicans only have a 23% chance of having New Hampshire in their column.

And finally, the last state that the El model is following: North Carolina. North Carolina is another spot that looks good for Democrats. While the polling is close, it is also stable. Not a single poll is showing in the Republicans' favor. Hagan (D) is leading Tillis (R) by a margin that pegs the model in the Democrats' favor. The only clouds on the horizon is that it wouldn't take much of a change to begin dramatically swinging North Carolina toward the Republicans.

For the full details and charts of the latest model run, check the "El – US Senate at a Glance" page.

And Just like that, the Republicans retake the lead in the race for the U.S. Senate

Today, we have five new polls covering four states since the last update. These new polls – even though they didn't change the lead of any state – have moved the probable outcome to a tie (or ever so slightly in the favor of Republicans).

The probability that the Democrats will control the Senate after the midterm elections has fallen to 49.9%. This percentage, however, is within the margin or error for the SanityIID model.

Alternately, there is a different way to look at the output from the model. Instead of calculating probabilities, the model also outputs the expected number of seats won by each party. It does this by assuming that the polls will be their eventual outcome instead of assigning them probabilities.

Using this method, we can see that the Republicans continue to gain ground:

Using this data, the Republicans are leading in the short, medium, and long term outlooks for the model. Even the states that are considered ties in the medium and long outlook are expected to go to the Republicans in the short term.

This is exactly what we would expect to see if the Republicans are indeed gaining ground in their effort to take control of the Senate.

As for the individual polls, a new NBC/Marist poll was released for Iowa. The poll put Ernst (R) in front of Braley (D) by 46 to 44. This, in addition to how well Ernst has been doing over the past several polls, has increased the Republican chance of taking Iowa from 60.6% to 71%

Kansas received two new polls since the last time I updated: NBC/Marist and CBS/NYT/YouGov. These polls were for Roberts (R) 38 and 40% respectively, and Orman (I) 48 and 40% respectively. Because of the one tie poll, the SanityIID model increased the chances of Republicans taking the state from 17% to 19%. Keep in mind, however, that the model is still warning that there isn't enough data to make an accurate prediction. In addition, Roberts is just starting to get his campaign machine geared toward Orman as a challenger.

The latest poll for Michigan was from Lake Research. It has Land (R) with 36% of the vote and Peters (D) with 45% of the vote. The SanityIID model essentially stayed the same at a 2% chance that the Republicans will win Michigan.

Finally NBC/Marist released a poll for North Carolina. This poll has Tillis (R) at 40% and Hagan at 44%. Essentially this changed the prediction from Republicans having a 2% chance to have no chance in North Carolina. Or course, since the model's margin of error is greater than this, the chance will be held at 5% chance for Republicans.

#Democrats retake the lead in SanityIID U.S. #Senate #polling model

A few days, several new polls, and the Democrats retake the lead. But don't get your hopes up too high. The Democrats lead is so slight that it is practically nonexistent. According to the SanityIID U.S. Senate model, the Democrats have about a 52% chance to retain control of the Senate.

Here is the statistical breakdown:

As you can see, the most probable outcome is for the Democrats to retain 50 seats. Of course, it is important to remember that this model both expects Orman to win Kansas and to caucus with the Democrats. If either of those assumptions prove to be untrue, then the Republicans would hold a substantial, but not insurmountable, lead.

As for the individual races that I am following here at SanityIID:

Rasmussen released a new poll that slightly helps Garner (R) in Colorado. Garner's chances increased from 50.9% to 53.7% This is still a virtual tie, but if this keeps up Garner will move out of the margin of error and have a real lead.

GQR released a new poll for Iowa. This poll helps Braley (D) ever so slightly. Current modeling suggests his lead has increased from 59% to 60.6%. While this latest poll helps us gain confidence in our model, it doesn't significantly change the outcome.

Suffolk/USA Today released a poll for Kansas. This poll favors Orman (I) to win. A note of warning: the SanityIID model is showing a data warning on Kansas. This is caused by their being a lack of polls to gain sufficient confidence in the model. While it is true that the model shows him as the current favorite by a significant margin, the lack of polling makes the margin suspect. I would personally give the lead to Mr. Orman, but it is still so close that anything could happen.

Mellman released a new poll for Kentucky. The poll doesn't significantly change anything as far as the statistics are concerned. The model still shows Mitch McConnell with about the best lead that this model can produce. Mitch McConnell's lead decreased from 94.9% to 93%. The only thing significant about this poll is that it is the first time that Alison Grimes has led Mitch McConnell. This poll by itself isn't significant. Still, if this turns into a trend then there might actually be something to watch over the next month -- if the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee doesn't pull the finding. It's going to be a difficult decision for the Democrats to decide whether money spent on Kentucky is a waste or not. Unfortunately, my model says that it is.

The latest Mitchell Research poll for Michigan shows that Peters (D) maintains his lead. The statistics provided by the SanityIID model show that his lead has increased to a point greater than the model's margin of error. The model shows that he has increased from 97% chance of winning to a 98% chance of winning. Take this with a grain of salt, however, since the model's accuracy is only 95%.

And finally New Hampshire. A new ARG poll in New Hampshire shows that Shaheen (D) is still winning. Even though the poll shows her ahead, the new poll pushed some old data out of the bottom of the queue. This, ironically, had the effect of decreasing her overall odds since the poll that was replaced showed her as doing better than the new ARG poll. The model is still showing her about a 76% chance of winning with increased short and medium term outlooks.

With a month and a day until the election, we can expect things to begin heating up from here.

SanityIID #Senate #model for October 1, 2014

Welcome to October. Just a little over a month until the U.S. elections.

The SanityIID Senate model run for this morning shows the Republicans solidifying their lead in the short term and making the long term predictions more stable.

As you can see, the most likely probability is that Democrats will win 49 out of 100 U.S. Senate seats, giving control of the Senate to the Republicans. But remember, this model assumes that Orman will caucus with the Democrats. If he decides to caucus with the Republicans due to their taking control of the Senate, then the most probable outcome will be for the Democrats to win 48 out of 100 seats.

Since my last writing, I have added a few more predictions to the SanityIID model. These predictions use the same polling data, but they force the outcome into a win-lose-tie decision. While not as helpful overall as a probabilistic outcome like the above graph, it does help to see where the polling is going over time.

I have broken the data down into long term, medium term, and short term deterministic predictions. Here are the deterministic predictions from the SanityIID model:

		Short Term
	Democrat	Republican	Tie
Assumed Wins	44	45
Model Predicts	4	7	1
Total Seats Per Party	48	52
		Med. Term
	44	45
	4	6	1
	48	51
		Long Term
	44	45
	4	5	2
	48	50

As you can see, using the long term data, the Republicans win 50 seats, the Democrats 48 seats, and two seats are considered a tie. Medium term data gives one of the tie seats to the Republicans for a 51-48 split with one tie remaining. And finally, with the short term data, the final tie is given to the Republicans showing them at 52-48.

While these aren't necessarily the way I expect the elections to come out (I much prefer the probabilistic model as shown by the graph), it does show that the more recent the polling, the more likely they show the Republicans in the lead. Is this a trend? If so, will the trend continue? We only have a little over a month to wait to find out.

Small update to the SanityIID Senate model

While this isn't a regular day that I update my model, I made some changes and I wanted to post the results.

I added three new states to the model's statistics: Georgia, Kentucky, and Michigan. While these didn't really have any effect on the outcome, periodically there are political reports that discuss these three states. I guess you could say that I added them to the SanityIID Senate model just to be sure I wasn't missing anything.

Secondly, I made a change to the number of Monte Carlo iterations that the model performs. I originally didn't want to do this since it can give the impression of having more confidence in the model than the underlying numbers would justify; but on the other hand, it does keep the probabilities from swinging too far without any underlying polling behind the number.

Here is the histogram from the last run using the data from September 24, 2014:

Republicans still on track to retake Senate

There's only been a few polls updated since the last run of the SanityIID Senate model. The changes those few polls made only had the effect of making the Republicans slightly more likely to retake the Senate.

As for the details; Alaska, Colorado, and Iowa are a tossup. Their mean (average) polling is so close that statistics aren't really meaningful. They are essentially a coin toss at this point in time. The Monte Carlo distribution I am using shows this in the elevated probabilities of 48, 49, or 50 seats.

As for Kansas, it desperately needs to clarify the issue of exactly which candidates are going to be on the ballot. Once that is done, there needs to be more polling if there is going to be better predictions.

As of this writing, my model is showing Kansas with about a 75% chance of electing Orman, but I also believe these percentages to be overly skewed toward him due to lack of polling. There are only four (4) polls that come from different polling places and are relatively new. Since the state of Kansas is still in flux, expect this to change in the coming weeks and months.

Enemies of science

Science always seems to be under attack. Basic scientific teaching has been under attack by creationists since evolution was first discovered. The only thing that has changed with time is that even more science is under attack from various directions.

Social, behavioral and economic (SBE) science research is the latest target by conservative Republicans. It seems like they are beginning to make have an effect on the budgets, and therefore the research, of the various sciences.

Roll Call reports on the cuts led by people like Tom Coburn (R-OK). They even include a plausible reason why they are making those cuts:

Despite such obvious benefits, critics of SBE (social, behavioral, and economic) programs have asserted that they provide few societal returns and are rife with examples of frivolous research. But there might be a more insidious reason for such opposition: a conviction that SBE research outcomes will not conform to conservative ideology.

The longer our nation operates by trying to ignore basic scientific research in order to meet nearsighted conservative goals, the more danger our nation is in of falling behind the rest of the world and seeing our economy reliant on other countries' prosperity. If that happens, we won't have anyone to blame but the rest of the idiot Americans.

Inhofe's Christian Crime Connection

While Sen Jim Inhofe (R-OK) might not have a formal Christian crime ring, his actions would make more sense if he did. I can almost imagine him saying something like, "Nice planet you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

I generally believe that there isn't anything inherently wrong with being a Christian. While I feel confident that Christians are wrong in their beliefs, I also don't feel like those beliefs steer them in a heinous direction. People can generally be good with or without god. It has to do more with someone's moral grounding which is mostly shared by the religious and non-religious. But Jim Inhofe gives a perfect example of why there is still a danger to the world from Christianity.

In a response to The News on 6 in Oklahoma, Inhofe said:

"The book of Genesis tells us that the cold and heat, summers and winters will not cease, and I believe the God who spoke these words is still up there and in control. We have seen environmentalists disregarded the term 'global warming' and adopt the phrase 'climate change,' because there will be cold, there will be heat, there will be summer and there will be winter, but the earth shall not cease. Furthermore, more than 60 percent of weathercasters recently polled for a study done by George Mason University believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of 'natural variation' and not 'human activities.' There is no question that we should be good stewards of what God has given us, but the global warming alarmists are using gloom-and-doom, fear-based tactics to advance their environmentalist agenda which will eliminate job opportunities and slow economic growth."

You can see my reply to his disingenuous portrayal of "weathercasters" (that would be meteorologists) and how he tries to misrepresent climate science on my blog, here. But the thing that stands out about this statement is the total lack of science, reason, or understanding.

He is absolutely wrong on climate change. Climate science is based on known scientific principles. There is no question about the science. What remains is an obvious example of using religion to damage the world and the people in it.

Jim Inhofe gives us the perfect example of where the usage of religion has gone wrong. This is exactly the type of danger that religion poses to the rest of the world. Ultimately it doesn't even matter whether he believes what he is saying or not. The simple fact that there are people out there that will believe what he is saying because of their shared religion is what makes him and religious people like him as dangerous as someone actively trying to destroy the world and everything the human race has built.

Slap a generator on that spin

I can't help but wonder whether Jim Inhofe actually believes the things he says or not. If he believes the things he says then he is one dangerous person to have in political power. If he doesn't, then he is even more dangerous because he has no interest in the truth or the people that the truth will hurt.

In a statement Jim Inhofe gave to the U.S. Senate Comitee on Environment and Public Works: "Climate Change: It’s Happening Now." he said:

Most meteorologists agree [with Allison MacFarlane, when she was asked about whether she thought the tornadoes in Oklahoma or Hurricane Sandy were extreme weather events, she said, “I would not call these events extreme. I would call them normal."]. A recent study by George Mason University reported that 63% of weathercasters believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of “natural variation” and not “human activities.” That is a significant two-to-one majority.

Here is a quote from the study (pdf) that Sen. Inhofe is referring to:

Weathercasters hold a wide range of beliefs about global warming.
Survey participants responded to a variety of questions assessing their beliefs in and attitudes about “global warming,” questions that have been used previously in our public opinion research. More than half of our respondent (54%) indicated that global warming is happening, 25% indicated it isn’t, and 21% say
they don’t know yet. About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in
the environment. Half indicated that they have thought “a lot” about global warming, and a large majority said they are fairly or very well informed about the causes of global warming (93%), the consequences of global warming (89%), and the ways to reduce global warming (86%)—numbers that are much higher than public responses to the same questions. Over half of weathercasters indicated that humans could reduce global warming (58%), and that the U.S. should reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do (63%). Almost half (47%) felt they needed some or a lot more information before forming a firm opinion about global warming, and almost one-third (30%) said they could easily change their mind about global warming. Just over one quarter (27%) agreed with the statement by a prominent TV weathercaster: “global warming is a scam.”

The picture that the study paints -- even the paragraph that Sen. Inhofe quote mined -- shows that meteorologists are geared more toward doing something about global climate change (or global warming if you prefer) than are geared toward ignoring it. And only about one in four think that "global warming is a scam".

But there is more to this study than that. The study was done to gauge what the meteorologists knew about global climate change. It is climate scientists that are doing the science on global climate change, not meteorologists. This was a study to see if the meteorologists were keeping up with what the climate scientists were learning. And while the study shows that the meteorologists are better informed as a group that the average American citizen, they still have a long way to go.

The very next paragraph from the study demonstrates the problem. Sen. Inhofe would have been much more truthful to report this:

Only one third of TV weathercasters believe that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. Despite the strong scientific consensus among climate scientists, almost two-thirds (61%) of TV weathercasters think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening. Perhaps partly as a result, 79% of our respondents indicated that coverage of climate change science must reflect a “balance” of viewpoints just as coverage of political or social issues are covered. Prior research conducted by others, however, has shown that “balanced” news coverage about climate change is misleading in that it tends to give audience members the false impression that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.

Yes, global warming is happening. The science of the cause of global warming isn't new. The science has been well understood for quite some time. Greenhouse gasses make the atmosphere warmer. No one except the scientifically illiterate and the completely deluded would deny that. The deeper Jim Inhofe digs trying to find reputable people that believe the same way as he does, the more he will look like the bottom feeder that he is.

But you don't have to take my word for it. The study (pdf) isn't that long, and the findings aren't difficult to understand. Go read the study and you will discover just how much Jim Inhofe has to quote out of context to even bend the non-scientists to his viewpoint.

Obamacare and the employers

It is frustrating to hear Republicans complaining about what Obamacare is going to do for the people in the future. Brevard Times has an article that gives us a perfect example to work with:

“Gatorland has 135 full-time employees. Gatorland currently pays 80 percent of the insurance cost for these employees," [U.S. Senator (R-FL) Marco] Rubio said. "But now under ObamaCare, evidently what they are doing is not going to be enough.  ObamaCare, first of all, requires them not just to provide insurance but to provide for them a certain type of insurance, a type of insurance that the government has decided is enough."

If this is indeed the case, then I suspect that the insurance that is being provided for the employees is virtually worthless.

My company provides me with what's called Mini-medical insurance. It has a relatively high deductible and a yearly cap on what it will pay. In addition, it won't cover many of the procedures I might find myself needing from a doctor or hospital.

I might have an insurance card in my purse, and it gives me less blank lines when I'm filling out paperwork for the doctor, but many hospitals put my in the category of uninsured because the insurance is so restricted. I could easily do better by paying my own medical bills without the insurance provided by my employer; the money I would save on premiums would more than pay for the substandard coverage provided by my insurance company.

One thing that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) does is to eliminate mini-medical insurance from the offerings. Since mini-medical isn't enough to actually help anyone, there is no point in pretending like it does. Obamacare is essentially telling employers that they have to provide real insurance instead of smoke and mirror policies.

The working people of America need real medical care, not the scraps that some employer decides they will throw our way. If we are going to end the cycle of sick people skipping care until they have to go the emergency room and leave the debt to the hospital, then we have to provide workers with something that will actually pay for their medical care. Any employer that wants to provide their employees with less is simply taking advantage of other people's needs so they can line their own pockets.

Obamacare didn't go far enough, but it is the best that we have right now. If the politicians (I'm looking at you Republicans) actually wanted to help the American people, they should be looking at how to get people even better insurance instead of trying to eliminate the progress we are making toward a better, and more healthy future for everyone.

Tim Huelskamp Introduces Anti-Marriage Constitutional Amendment

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) introduced a bill that he hopes will change the US Constitution to better represent his anti-gay views. Of course there is no chance that, in today's climate, the Constitution could ever be amended in such a way.

As near as I can tell, the main purpose for the bill is to give Rep. Huelskamp something to show the voters back home. It also provides a vehicle for other like-minded politicians to tout their anti-gay views for their constituents.  The Huffington Post has the following Representatives listed as cosponsors:

... Its cosponsors include Republican Reps. Joe Barton (Texas), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), John Fleming (La.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Ralph Hall (Texas), Andy Harris (Md.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Sam Johnson (Texas), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), James Lankford (Okla.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Steven Palazzo (Miss.), Stevan Pearce (N.M.), Robert Pittenger (N.C.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), David Schweikert (Ariz.), Bill Shuster (Pa.), Chris Smith (N.J.), Steve Stockman (Texas), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.) and Frank Wolf (Va.)

Including Rep. Huelskamp himself, that makes the map of elected officials seeking to write their own prejudicial views into the US Constitution looking something like this:

The red area isn't limited to the Bible belt, even if it includes most of it. Nor is the red area limited to the South, again, even if it includes most of it. What it does show us is the place where we, the people for equality, need to do the most work. Here is where they are still electing anti-equality legislatures. Here is where we need the most help from the kind, decent, and caring people to help bring the entire United States into the light of freedom for all.

The House divided and fractured

I knew that the Republican party was fractured, but I never really thought about it from this perspective (Washington Post).

"Others point to the effects of redistricting, the decennial drawing of congressional lines across the country that, over the past several decades, has made the vast majority of House members untouchable in general elections because of the clear partisan lean of their districts. The only thing they fear, politically speaking, is a challenge from the ideological right in a primary, and they protect against that possibility by hewing as closely as they can to the desires of the conservative base."

Are we getting any benefit from the NSA spying on us?

Most of our privacy is gone. We have traded out privacy for benefits from Google, Facebook, and Twitter. What we haven't done is give our government the authority to observe us like lab specimens. We must be aware of what the government is doing before we can decide whether they have gone too far.

One of the worst problems, beside the government hiding from us, is that we are getting lousy return on investment from the information that the government is stealing from us. We are giving up all our privacy to the government and we have nothing to show for it.

CNN reports: "On Thursday, Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, Democrats who both serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and have access to the nation's most sensitive secrets, released a statement contradicting [the] assertion [that the NSA's surveillance programs have stopped many terrorist attacks]. "Gen. Alexander's testimony yesterday suggested that the NSA's bulk phone records collection program helped thwart 'dozens' of terrorist attacks, but all of the plots that he mentioned appear to have been identified using other collection methods," the two senators said."

For giving up all our privacy we should have a government that catches everything that could threaten us in the entire world. What it looks like, however, is that we could trade the entire NSA program for a few friendly police officers and have just as effective of an outcome.

Fetal pain timeline

I am sad and a little discouraged that lawmakers are so ready to ignore science and victimize women in their mad rush for acceptance from the religious fringe.

The New Scientist reports: "The report concludes that fetuses under 24 weeks must be pain-free, because at that age the wiring doesn't exist to send pain signals from nerves around the body to the cortex, the area of the brain where pain is experienced. At which later point such connections form is unknown, so analgesia should still be considered after 24 weeks, the RCOG says."

Democrats are winning

... Now if they just don't lay down and take a nap

I'm not sure that the Democrats will be able to pick up any seats at all in the house during the next election. They might be gaining ground now, but that probably won't hold. The only thing that will help the Democrats is if the Republicans continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Fortunately they seem more than willing to do just that.

The only problem is that the Democrats themselves are becoming a real problem. Without the Republican party to challenge them, the Democrats are really slipping toward problems. By the time they actually lose, the Republicans might actually have rebuilt their party to the point where they will control the United States for an extended period of time again.

The Daily Breast on how the Republicans are still fractured with no sign of it changing.

From where is safety derived?

Everyone that isn't already set for life needs to read and think about the questions brought up by articles like this. What skills do we have? What skills do we need? What if the skill set needed by society changes after we are already trained -- or retrained? How will our families survive? How will we pay off the debt we acquire if our skills are no longer needed?

It seems too easy for people to sneer at the idea of safety nets, but what other alternative is there? If anyone can think of a better idea for protecting people from an uncertain future, I would love to hear it.

Sympathy for the Luddites - NYTimes.com

The NSA whistleblower

It seems like the Obama administration won't have to work too hard to find their latest leak. Edward Snowden has come forward and taken credit for uncovering the NSA's surveillance program against the American people.

It is a shame that someone has to go to such extreme lengths to try to protect the American people from the government that we elected.

It's a good story. I wish Mr. Snowden good luck, and I thank him for the service he has done for our country.

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

We should have control of our information

I have often been at odds with people regarding privacy. I have always hated the way that the Patriot act has given the government an expanded view into our lives. At the same time, I don't think that all information needs to be kept from everyone. What I think is that we should have control over our own information. We should get to decide who has it, how it is used, and who they can share it with. Do you like the new Google or Apple tools? Is it worth enough to you to share your information with them? Fantastic! If not, then we should have the ability to keep our information to ourselves and away from the companies that just feel wasn't it to make money off of us.

Now government is a little different critter they have a legitimate need for some of the information, but they need to be watched closely because of that need. There should be no way that they can obtain our information completely in the dark. We shouldn't have to wonder what kind of information the government is collecting about us, we should know. We might not need to know how, bout we should know. Without knowing what the government is doing, there is no way we can stand up and say that they have gone too far.

And no, it doesn't matter which party is in control, all government employees should be held to the same standards. It shouldn't matter whether a Democrat or Republican is President any more than it matters whether your mailman is a Democrat or Republican.

America the passive - Salon.com