Relaunching the Situationalist: Looking at the American Marriage

What a great day to relaunch the Situationalist Blogsite after two years on leave pursuing my masters. Today marks a historic day in American politics as the Supreme Court continues to wow us with their judicial power. The past two week felt like a roller coaster ride with this slightly right leaning bench. We first saw the Affirmative Action case being taken back to the lower courts even though the estimated vote count was 5-3 considering Kennedy's opposition to affirmative action programming. Then it was expected and affirmed that the Voting Rights case would be shut down. Now, we see the court taking a huge milestone in the political debate on same sex marriages. 

Although I would admit that recognizing same sex marriages for benefit reasons is a huge milestone, one should dive deeper for what that means and how will this progress the conversation of homosexuality in this country. On the surface, if a same sex partner were to die and leave an estate to his/her significant other, it is now only up to the states to make regulations on those procedures. This means the Federal Government cannot interfere with same sex couple benefits through such laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This also meant that Proposition 8 in California that stopped the state from giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples was unconstitutional as well. 

Unfortunately, one could tell these rulings did not seem to end the political divide on homosexuality. Instead, it gave a political point to the left while the religious right are handing out to those supporting the result a ticket to hell. On one end, eventually we will all see the financial and social ramifications for such decision. On another hand, we are still in the middle of the river waiting to get to the other side. So what is a reasonable answer that includes appeasing those who consider marriage a vital and living sacrament in their religious beliefs while allowing free American couples, regardless of religion, to live and make decisions how they want. 

The answer is simple. Take the religious ceremonial responsibilities out of the government. I understand that some people believe I am anti-Christian for saying this, but I truly believe my American Catholic beliefs are not affected by this position. Isn't it not true that conservatives abide religiously to the constitution? Is it also not true that liberals are okay with religious institutions to worship as they please as long as it doesn't violate the laws of the land? 

At the end of the day, it should be recognized that civil unions can support a union between two individuals regardless of who they are and what they believe. Isn't this an example for why our forefathers created this country to begin with? Those of us who are Christians and want to protect the sanctity of Marriage should have the right to do so as a religious organization. If and when this view on Marriage and civil unions eventually takes place, I will only start to protest the government if it starts forcing religious institutions to perform their traditional ceremonies on people they cannot justify to God. One may not agree on a church's justification on denying a marriage, but that is up to God to judge that decision and the couple's freedom to find another church they can get married in if that's what they want. 

Take one situation at a time. 

Mike Lampe

Relooking the "Liberal Media" Argument

Since the beginning of my time in the modern political arena, there's not a political cycle that goes by that I hear a conservative friend of mine say the media, in general, is exaggeratedly slanted to the left. They site the research that shows that Obama had way more positive news stories than McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election, as if Sarah Palin had nothing to do with it. They also site that out of the major news outlets, in television, only one news station has a noticeable bias to the right. Although I do agree that these arguments have some merit, I do not believe the "liberal media" is trying to brainwash America into becoming a far left socialist country.

Why... the first concern for me with this argument is that my conservative friends constantly talk only about the news media on television. They look at how FOX News has to go up against the mean and highly manipulative MSNBC and CNN. Yet, they fail to discuss the popular and numerous conservative radio talk shows that do not get as much scrutiny when they get the information wrong. Here in Milwaukee, there was not a time when listening to Newsradio 620 or WISN 1330 that I heard the conservative talk show host take a news article or report and conservatively spin it to the point where angry liberal callers get cut short and the conservative callers seem like the smartest political analysts since sliced bread was invented. Driving in my car, it was very difficult for me to find one liberal radio talk show host that could spin the issues like the conservative talk show hosts could.

This phony argument goes deeper than just the conservative radio and the liberal television stations. Lets take a look at the NBC, the company that is more widely known as being owned by General Electric. NBC also has the liberally slanted news channel MSNBC. While at this point, these points strikes up to big arguments for this news organization to be slanted to the left. NBC also has the news state in Wisconsin with the call name TMJ4. Wait, isn't TMJ4 connected with WTMJ Newsradio 620... the conservative talk radio. This is a great example where media companies are not a liberal army, but rather another company that is profit motivated that finds the best way to diversify their consumers. The same example can be applied to ABC which is connected to WISN 12 News and WISN 1330 radio in Wisconsin. One could even look at Rupert Murdoch's Empire (Owner of FOX News) where he supports one side of an argument in one country and is against it in another country with a different news name (he owns multiple international news organizations).

So there you have it, my reason why the liberal media argument has little merit.

My Experience at the Barrett Camp Election Night

Besides my election party I had with Sam Dunlop who ran for State Assembly, I never went to a big election night party such as the one I went to for Tom Barrett Tuesday Evening. I did not go because I was an avid Barrett supporter. However, I felt the need to experience something that was quite historic considering Walker was the first American Governor in history to survive a recall election. I also want to send a personal thank you to my friend Caitlin for accompanying me last night! I do not think I would have had the guts to go by myself!

As a political analyst, I have always tried to stay as non-biased as possible. However, I found it difficult to fully understand what was happening with the election. Between being shocked to meet Jesse Jackson and trying to utilize my smart phone in a crowded room, I started getting my information on the hardcore supporters being overly optimistic about Barrett and discrediting the projections coming out of the news media. An example of this  was when people in the crowd saying that Milwaukee and Racine had still more people waiting to vote when the polls closed at 8PM.

As a person going along for the campaign ride, I was able to meet some awesome people, some angry and some just plain cool. I randomly walked up to a bunch of teachers with solidarity t-shirts and we had a small discussion on education and the issues relating to accountability. I also met some differently dressed firefighters who were part of the biker brigade. They personally knew Mahlon Mitchell and were also part of the Firefighters Union. I had a great conversation with them about the decline of the working class and why they felt it was important to keep fighting.

Most importantly, I was able to rethink about how politics is not a game... people's livelihoods are at stake when any policy is put into action. When Barrett lost, I felt bad to see that there were people in that room were hoping for someone to listen to them and fight for their struggles that seem impossible to overcome. Although I predicted Barrett would lose, one should not discredit the passion of the people I met in that room tonight. I also have to praise Governor Walker on his speech last night where he made it clear of wanting to work together. As of now, it appears as if he truly understands that he could have done things better when communicating his policies.

In the future, I could definitely see Mahlon Mitchell coming up through the Democratic ranks. It almost seemed like he was better when he was not reading from his notes. He did a great job to re-energize the party whom just heard Barrett give his concession speech. Now that all this is over, we can stop this election nonsense for a while... oh wait... Republican Primaries for U.S. Senate is coming up... 

Lampe's Analysis and Predictions on the Recall Election (VOTE TODAY)!

It is finally here. The recall election that will determine the fate of Governor Walker. Throughout the course of the recall campaign, I expressed concern of the shady conversations Walker had with donors and avid supports, while also expressing weak political campaigning from Tom Barrett. I do have to note that Barrett came out strong the week before the vote today bringing President Clinton for a surprise last minute visit and confidently and harshly calling out Walker about his policies and actions during the last debate at the Marquette University Law School.

Wisconsin also noticed that polls have given Walker a slight edge. Some polls showed him up as many as 8 points, while others should him around 4 points up. In my prediction, I believe Walker will win by three points. That is, if likely voters only vote today. The other side of my prediction is that Barrett could win by 1 point. After calling some of my sources throughout the state, registration lines have been busy to vote for the first time in their wards. We wont know if these new registered voters were leaning more Republican or Democrat. One could reason that, when Walker won, Democrats were not energized during the 2010 election that gave Walker the slight edge last go around. This time, Democrats/Liberals are angerly energized from the hard line Republican Policies.

So there you have it... although I think Walker has an advantage, I believe the polls might be slightly off due to the possibility of unlikely voters voting this going around (hence my analyzed margin of error).

Walker wins by 3%
or
Barrett wins by 1%

The Simple Economics of Discrimination

Diversity is a topic that comes up quite frequently, whether having debates on affirmative action policies or hate crimes against a particular marginalized group in society. I'm surprised when working in higher education when the topic of diversity does not come up. It could just be me, but I get the perception that the voices I usually hear  are the loud voices of those who feel there is too much government interference on hiring minority candidates and those who feel that American Society is still as racist as it was in the Early 1900's. 

Considering the diversity conversations usually get brought up by the confronting fringes of society, I wanted to bring this topic more down to earth and explore the economics behind discrimination. This article will take a micro-economic approach that views the production of a business firm selling a good or service to consumers. The one assumption to this analysis is that discrimination of a producer leads to a direct or indirect action. It then also leads to them not selling to a consumer or indirectly influencing the consumer not to buy that good or service on the basis of feeling discriminated against. 

Pretend you are an owner of a mid-sized grocery store that is located in a mostly Caucasian neighborhood, but also has a noticeable group of African Americans and Latinos in the area. Down the road, there is also a gay bar. being realistic, people do not see "white only" signs anymore or business owners that bluntly kick anyone out due to their backgrounds. However, there are times where people show visible signs of being uncomfortable with a minority cultural group whether intentional or not (microaggressions). In this particular example: If the grocery store owner is prejudice against gay people and has had limited interaction with other racial groups, these minority groups will go elsewhere for their grocery needs and give negative publicity online via social media and review sites about the business. This means less products being purchased in the store and less revenue for the owner. 

Below is a short run supply and demand curve that shows when a business owner engages in discriminatory behavior with marginalized/minority consumers. The demand curve (slanting left to right) shifts to the left because the owner has a change in the consumer base, excluding the marginalized groups. The supply curve (slanting right to left) does not change because the production does not change in the short run. As you can see, Q1 goes to Q2 showing a decrease while there is also a decrease in price from P1 to P2. Although the price drop is good for the loyal consumers in the short run, it stagnates the growth of the owner's business and  decreases its comparative advantage to the business' competitors. (more text below graph).

With this analysis, one could come to an economic and realistic understanding why it is important not to discriminate against marginalized/minority groups. If one looks at it in more of a macro-level perspective, one could argue that the economy can be hindered by discriminatory activity. Especially if a big portion of private or public sector engages in such activity. 

What I learned from the Walker Recall Fiasco

On Tuesday, we saw a historic and rare political event happening with the Recall Election of Gov. Scott Walker. We also noticed that there was a higher voter turning topping a little over 30% (as reported by the Appleton Post Crescent). Although it was an  interesting event that politicos will analyze from now until November, the current political state of Wisconsin is in much need of compromise and repair. Although you hear some political rhetoric about getting along, we are mostly hearing why their economic policy is better and how the other completely destroyed the jobs outlook of the state/city (Milwaukee).

Now what did I learn from this? Quite simply, this election throws a curveball in some politicos' minds about the voter not being rational in the sense of having a short mind-span when it comes to negative political events relating to a political candidate. The original frame of mind comes from how consumers have recently recently reacted to some economic tragedies of well knowing businesses. For example, one could notice consumers forgiving Ford quickly for their tire issue on their expeditions in the 90's and Toyota more recently with their brakes issue. Now, however, one could notice a difference in the Wisconsin voters based on the timeline the recall elections occur. 

One must remember that this all started back in February 2011 (over a year ago) when Gov. Walker introduced the collective bargaining bill to Wisconsin Residents. Once the law went into effect last summer, Wisconsin voters had to wait to petition a recall until the first year of the Governor's term was complete (per election law). Consider that timeline, many voters against the bill had to wait 6 months until they could start the whole process. Also considering all the media slip ups politicians make on almost a daily basis, many politicos did not think the recall election was overwhelmingly possible. Then, the news broke out about how the Democratic Party got over a million signatures, which surprised not only the Walker Campaign Team, but also myself.

We will have to wait and see what happens to Scott Walker in a few months when Barrett faces him in the general recall election, however I am curious what the Obama Campaign Team is thinking right now given this analysis. Considering 2 weeks is usually political eternity for political candidates, angry voters waiting impatiently for 6 months to recall a governor is a new twist in political strategy. Is 6 months for a controversial collective bargaining bill the same as a 2.5 year wait of angry voters wanting to kick Obama out due to his health care bill. Although I still think many voters are going to elect their candidate based on economic indicators, I am considering changing my mind about whether the healthcare bill will pop up as a strong secondary reason why an angry conservative voter will vote for Romney instead of Obama.  

Breaking News: Tom Barrett wins Wisconsin Primary

As mentioned last night in the last blog article, it was to be expected that Barrett would win the election. While Kathleen Falk was there in the beginning, I believe she had too much support from the unions. That made more centered democrats worried what radical policies a Falk Administration begin.

What was more surprising that the fake lt. Governor candidate Isaac Weix got more votes than Ira Robins. Regardless, the round two battle between Walker and Barrett will mostly be on the economy. If Walker can lower the unemployment rates in Wisconsin, he can coast through an election win. If now, expect Barrett to hammer Walker on a poor economic record.

What also still remains is how the state election could be the bell weather election for the national presidential election. If Walker keeps his position as Governor, does that smell trouble for the Obama Administration. The reverse could happen for the Romney Campaign. Final thought: As Carville put it yesterday... "wake up Democrats, You could lose this election." Democrats must not be too confident that they have any election in the bag, considering the Economy has not made up its mind on being a bull or a bear (going up or going down).