Rossputin.com

Yesterday, I posted to these pages a blog note of 619 words on the subject of the politics of Obama’s flip-flop-flip on gay marriage. Of these, four words were “as we should be” which I used in reference to the nation’s getting more comfortable with homosexual relationships.

To be perfectly clear, I am neither gay nor willing to learn. But not being gay doesn’t cause me to automatically dislike gays anymore than not being black causes me to automatically dislike blacks. Of course, I’m perfectly willing to dislike any individual based on his or her own merits.

When I wrote those four words, I knew they would generate some controversy on the blog pages, but I did not expect that of the large number of comments to the note nearly 90 percent would be in reference to four words rather than to the other 615 words, in which I argued that Barack Obama’s rapid “evolution” on gay marriage was not turning into political success, though it was bolstering his Manhattan and Hollywood fundraising.

Since you, esteemed readers, were so interested in those four words, I thought it only fair to respond.

A few specific replies. I won’t mention commenters’ names. You know who?you are, or you know if you agree with those who made the initial points:

• Libertarian is not the same as libertine. I presume you know that and are intentionally misrepresenting what you know, or should know, I stand for. If you don’t know, then stop using terms you don’t understand. (Beyond that, I am more Objectivist than libertarian, though some consider the difference subtle. Certainly Ayn Rand didn’t…but that’s a story for another day.)
• I did not say “celebrate” homosexuality, nor did I say people should become comfortable with (much less celebrate) “homosexual acts.” It is perfectly natural to feel uncomfortable with something so outside of one’s own inclinations. What I talked about quite specifically was tolerance of two people’s relationship, and I stand by my assertion that such tolerance is better than its opposite. It is better morally and better politically; the former is more important.
• I understand that some people believe the bible says that homosexuals are going to hell. With you I have an unbridgeable gap; we will never convince each other and I am not trying to talk you out of your deeply-held religious beliefs. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice for most gays and lesbians. Therefore, I do not believe it is moral to hate homosexuals for whom they fall in love with (or whom they have sex with) any more that it is moral to hate blacks for their color.
• I never said that morality is an “oppressive device.” I said that oppressive devices, i.e. the federal government, should not be used to impose morality. If any of you can convince others to follow your moral code by explaining it to them, by telling them why you think you’re right and why you think your prescription is good medicine for our nation or culture, more power to you. But government is force and it must not be used, either by a majority or by a minority, to impose morality beyond those fundamental natural rights understood by our Founders and already protected by them, at least theoretically, in our Founding documents.
• Thanks to the person who said that Objectivists are not liberals or “secular humanists.” You are quite right. As you are right that I object to altruism as the left uses the term, though I do believe strongly in giving VOLUNTARILY to charities. I certainly don’t believe in “social responsibility", again the way the left uses the term, but that does not mean I do not place value on helping others VOLUNTARILY. Feel free to read Ayn Rand’s short non-fiction book “The Virtue of Selfishness.”
• What exactly is a “homosexual public display?” If it’s two guys holding hands, I admit that makes me a little uncomfortable (though much less than it used to.) If it’s two guys kissing, it makes me more than a little uncomfortable. But it doesn’t make me hate them.
• I don’t suggest you/we (straight white guys) join in a Gay Pride parade any more than I suggest we join in an MLK Day parade or that non-Italians join in Columbus Day parades, waving the Italian flag. I do suggest you avoid literally or rhetorically bashing gays any more than you bash blacks or Italians, even if you are none of the above.
• “Spouses” was in quotes because 60 percent of our United States (or somewhat less than 60 percent if you believe there are 57 states) don’t allow gay marriage. Therefore, one state’s spouse is another state’s ___ (you fill in the blank; I don’t know the answer.)
• As for orgies in the back yard that neighborhood kids can see, that is improper (and I presume illegal) no matter the gender or sexual orientation of those participating.
• I don’t want to pay for higher health care costs for any group because of their behavior. So get the government out of health care costs. And let private companies discriminate, i.e. permit higher (health and life) insurance premiums for gay people. If they don’t really cost more to insure, competition will bring prices down. If they do cost more, they should pay more just as smokers often do for insurance. People should live with the costs of their own behavior. I’ll bet you that gays in committed relationships have little or no actuarial difference in health/life risks. Here is one example of a benefit from encouraging committed relationships among gays. Another example would be that, just as with heterosexual couples, if one hits a financial rough spot, the other can help out and keep an American off welfare, food stamps, and the government dole generally.
• For the person who suggests that gays will “roast on Beelzebub’s spit,” I suggest a long look in the mirror when considering what God really thinks is OK.
• For those name-callers out there (i.e. those going after me personally because of a disagreement of philosophy/religion), I can only think of this worst-possible insult: Your behavior reminds me of what I would expect from liberals, who routinely take political disagreement as personal attack.

Now, one thing I could have made clearer: I did and do mean that I believe we should be getting more comfortable with those in same-sex relationships…with those people as individual human beings or as couples. I did not say and did not mean we should necessarily be more comfortable with “gay marriage” per se (and not with particular sexual acts, though that is no more your business than your sexual acts are anyone else¡¯s business.)

Even Barack Obama, in 2004, noted that marriage has a specific meaning with thousands of years of history behind it. I am among those who think that part of the problem with this debate is the use of the word marriage. My wife asks rhetorically: if the majority of us have to suffer through marriage, why should gays be exempt? I concur except for the use of the word marriage.

I understand that civil unions and domestic partnerships may be perceived, and may be intended by some, as the camel’s nose under the tent – a giant step toward gay marriage. But having spoken to a few gays about this, I know that a substantial percentage of them don’t care about the word marriage as much as they care about equal treatment under the law. And in that a least they have a reasonable argument.

I maintain my view that we should get government out of marriage, allow any two people to make any contract they want to (which does not infringe on the natural rights of others), allow any house of worship to decide whom they will or won’t marry, and only have government involved insofar as contract enforcement.

Lest my conservative friends and readers on these pages think I am a full-fledged apologist for “gay rights,” allow me a couple more points:

Some gays wildly exaggerate the “rights” that they don’t have. But more importantly, “gay rights¡± crusaders, just as many other crusaders for other “victim groups” that the left likes to create in their permanent divide-and-conquer strategy, misunderstand and misuse the word “rights.”

Our rights are inherent in our being human beings. Our Founders said that our rights come from God. It is in that sense of us being equally human – no matter your view of God – that we have equal rights. But we are a nation of negative rights, which is to say that our fundamental law, the Constitution, is a code which says what government may NOT do to us. Neither the Constitution nor any politician gives us rights. (In fact, this was part of the original argument about the Bill of Rights: James Madison, among others, initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights as potentially implying that rights not spelled out were rights not retained by citizens; thus the inclusion of the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.)

No group has a claim to special ¡°rights¡± that others don¡¯t have. (One example of the government violating this precept is the existence of “hate crime” laws. There should not be a bigger penalty for beating up a gay or black than for beating up a straight white guy.) Furthermore, I believe that private businesses and private citizens have a First Amendment right NOT to associate with people just as much as we have our rights of association as normally considered. Thus, those who dislike gays or blacks or Jews or left-handed people or people who enjoy the sport of curling should have the right to exclude them, or anyone else they don¡¯t like for any reason whatever, from their private property.

The other side of the coin, however, is that the government should not be able to discriminate at all. Government¡¯s picking winners and losers in no more appropriate in society or culture than in business; I say this in complete realization that today¡¯s government does all of the above. Because, I repeat, government is force. This means that government must not treat gays, blacks or any others worse than they treat members of society¡¯s (then current) majority; but it means just as importantly that government must not treat them better than they treat others.

One commenter got something right yesterday: When I deleted those four words ? not because I was backing away from my position, but because I wanted people to focus on the other 615 words ? someone suggested I should have left them. I probably should have. After all, the virulent reaction of several commenters, both against gays and against me, says at least as much about them as my words said about me.

In any case, I am appreciative, as always, of the conversation and of those who engage in a civil discussion on issues, regardless of whether we agree or disagree.

A CBS News/New York Times poll shows that two thirds of Americans believe that President Obama’s recent “evolution” on gay marriage was a political stunt while one quarter thinks his change was ¡°mostly because he thinks it is right.¡±

Amusingly, an Obama campaign official claimed that the poll used a “biased sample.” Surely she recognizes that this poll was done by two of the most pro-Obama organizations in America.

Perhaps what we are witnessing, pace Andrew Sullivan, is America’s First Gay Ex-President.

Political bettors also don’t think Obama’s flip-flop-flip (he was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it) is a winner, with Obama’s betting odds (to be elected president) slightly lower than they were prior to his May 9th position change. Still, Obama leads Mitt Romney in current betting by about 20 points, roughly 59 percent to 39 percent. (I’ve been buying Romney and selling Obama just a few points from these levels.)

Despite the issue not working so far, Democrats are doubling down, with 17 Senate Democrats (actually 16 Democrats plus socialist Bernie Sanders) asking the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to stop refusing green cards to foreign gay “spouses” of Americans.

It is true that Americans are steadily becoming more comfortable with homosexual relationships (as we should be), and even with gay marriage, but we’re not comfortable with radicals shoving their views down our throats, even to the point of the President refusing to defend the duly-passed Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

Voters recognize the tyranny of (so-called) good intentions when we see it, and that’s why the Democrats’ full-court pander on “gay rights” and gay marriage will not work except among college students and as a short-term fund-raising ploy – which is probably more than enough for an Obama campaign which has struggled to raise money outside of Hollywood and Manhattan. Of course, this only helps them raise money in Hollywood and Manhattan, but those are very fat arteries for the leeches that are Obama bundlers (of whom a reported one in six is gay) to bite into.

It is also worth noting that the “gay rights” activists are hearing what they want to hear, rather than what Obama is really saying: this president, who never found an issue that he didn’t want the federal government to dominate, says that individual states should decide on the permissibility of gay marriage.? This following last Tuesday’s vote in North Carolina which by a stunning 61 percent to 39 percent margin became the 30th state to ban gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage has never passed a statewide vote of the people in any state in our republic. If “gay rights” are the moral equivalent of civil rights for blacks or voting rights for women, as Obama claims, how can he justify leaving the issue to the states – something few people (other than true racists) would have said about key 1960s civil rights legislation.

Obama was trying to have it both ways on the issue of gay marriage until Joe Biden pushed him off the fence. He’s still trying to have it both ways, but it’s not working. Conservatives, and some independents, are being pushed toward Romney while Obama shores up part, but not the African-American part, of his voting base. If his gleeful gay bundlers were paying attention to Obama’s actual policy prescription, they would be a lot less happy than Ricky Martin seems to be. But when you have the “first gay president,” facts be damned! How can you not just write a check?

Again, despite all the media frenzy and Hollywood hosannas, in the real world Americans are not fooled by Barack Obama’s transparently political ploy.

Barack Obama got the best of the gay marriage debate ? for the first 24 hours. But like the Democrats’ “war on women” rhetoric, it is already backfiring on him, as anyone outside the president’s far-left echo chamber might have warned him.

The first Gallup poll since Obama’s flip-flop-flip (he was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it) show that of the people whose vote is likely to be swayed by Obama’s Biden-induced move, twice as many ? including twice as many independents ? are now more likely to vote against Obama than for him.

Perhaps more importantly, Mitt Romney need only offer a modest defense of marriage – an issue on which he does not have a history of changing his view – in order to attract the socially conservative wing of the GOP base, formerly supportive of Rick Santorum and perhaps Newt Gingrich, who have been reticent to support Romney. That movement was evident in the warm reception received by Romney when he gave the commencement speech to the evangelical Liberty University ? a place which teaches that Mormonism is a cult ? on Saturday. Evangelical leaders such as Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins, who have substantial influence over many Christian conservative voters, both praised Romney¡¯s speech in which Romney, at least in part, was able to play off Obama¡¯s move to overtly support gay marriage.

In short, Obama is shoring up the GOP base more effectively than he’s shoring up his own base. Thanks, Joe!

The Washington Post hit piece on Mitt Romney ? over 5000 words and far too conveniently timed after Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage ? is turning into a bigger embarrassment for the Post than for Romney. At least two key claims of the article have turned out to be wrong, and perhaps outright fabrications. And the newspaper was also caught changing the online version of the article ? to make it look like one of those lies was never told by the reporter ? without acknowledging that a change was made. How those editors can sleep with themselves can only be explained by realizing that they believe themselves part of the Obama reelection team more than they believe themselves journalists.

But the “jump the shark” moment for the gay marriage issue has to be Newsweek’s upcoming cover showing Barack Obama with a rainbow-colored halo over his head, with the words “The First Gay President” below the president as he stares off, prophet-like, into the distance.

?

?The article inside the magazine is written by Andrew Sullivan, one of the nation’s most well-known openly-gay blogger-columnists. Sullivan arm-chair analyzes Obama: “He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family.”

More likely, he had to reconcile his black Democratic base, one of the most anti-gay marriage voting blocs in the country, with his Hollywood Democratic base, one of the most pro-gay groups in the country. After Vice-President Biden’s loose lips last Sunday, that reconciliation became urgent. Or more precisely, picking a side, since reconciliation of the irreconcilable is impossible, even for a haloed president. With the Washington Post reporting that “About one in six of Obama¡¯s top campaign ‘bundlers’ are gay, according to a Washington Post review of donor lists, making it difficult for the president to defer the matter,” and a multi-million dollar fund-raiser scheduled for later last week, Obama¡¯s rapid ¡°evolution¡± was no surprise.

As voters see the media functioning as full propagandists for Obama, it can only hurt the president with swing voters who know not just bias, but as Bernard Goldberg put it, ¡°a slobbering love affair¡­between Barack Obama and the mainstream media.¡±

While Obama¡¯s far-left base was initially overjoyed by the president¡¯s ¡°evolution,¡± they should hold their applause; Obama, perhaps for the first time in his presidency, has suggested that he believes in the principles of federalism, and that the determination of the actual permissibility of gay marriage should be left to the states. Quite a laugh from a man who has never before found an issue where he did not want the federal government to trump and trounce the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.

So, just as Barack Obama was about to come out of his pro-gay marriage closet, from which he¡¯s been peeking out for years, the citizens of North Carolina voted by a stunning 61 percent to 39 percent margin to become the 30^th state to ban gay marriage. Gay marriage has never been affirmed by a vote of the people in any state in our republic, though it has been imposed by judges or legislatures in several.

Even as gay marriage has become roughly a 50/50 issue in the United States, the concentration of support is in regions already very likely to vote for Obama (or any Democrat.) In swing states, including North Carolina, the politics of supporting gay marriage is likely to hurt Obama, and perhaps cost him the election.

Again, this will be due in part to swing voters not appreciating Obama¡¯s aggressively pushing his moral code on the rest of us, and in part due to Republican conservatives being more motivated to support Romney, with their labors and their donations, than they might otherwise have been. It is also worth noting that some key swing states, such as North Carolina and Ohio, have large black populations; blacks are perhaps the most consistent anti-gay marriage voting bloc in the nation, with reports suggesting that 70 percent of blacks in California supported Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state, versus 53 percent of Hispanics and only 49 percent of whites.

Perhaps Barack Obama, one of the most hyper-partisan, hyper-political presidents in history, was actually telling the truth when he said that the political ramifications of his support of gay marriage might not be positive for him.

It that is true, and there is plenty of reason to believe it is, we may well see our first Gay Ex-President.

Let’s get this straight: Joe Biden’s latest gaffe forces Barack Obama to “come out” in favor of gay marriage, something he might have done anyway, but not as soon. The media jumps into the frenzy, hoping to make people believe that the 2012 elections are about families with “two mommies” rather than families with zero jobs.

As if that’s not bad enough, barely hours after Obama flip-flops on the issue – just in time for a big Hollywood fundraiser where megamillionaires no doubt think that gay marriage is on the top of everyone else’s mind as well – the Obama campaign releases the bombshell that Mitt Romney was a prankster in high school.

Seriously, they are trying to make the case that Romney, who may have been involved in a 1965 prank in which a male student’s long hair was cut, was (and therefore still is) anti-gay.

Remember, Romney was in high school almost 50 years ago. Even when I was in high school, a little more than 25 years ago, the issue of someone’s sexual preference was far less thought of than it is today, not least because people of all ages stayed “in the closet” far longer and more completely than they do today.

I offer no judgment on people who want to keep such things private; the point is that the idea that the victim of a high school prank would have been “presumed homosexual” in the early 1960s just because of long hair borders on the ridiculous. Fox News reports that the sister of the person whose hair was cut, who died several years ago, has no knowledge of the event ever happening; she believes that the man “would be furious” about the story were he alive today.

That said, even if presumed homosexuality were a factor in a high school prank, what part of “high school” and “nearly fifty years ago” do Democrats think will make this an issue for the electorate?

A note on hypocrisy: Barack Obama, who supports federal domination of every aspect of human life, argues that the issue of marriage should be left to the states. Indeed it should be left to the states, but hearing that argument from Obama who clearly does not believe in federalism should invite great skepticism as it shows Obama yet again trying to have it both ways with the politics of the issue.

Similarly, Mitt Romney who, as a Republican, tends to favor federalism has said he is for a “national standard” defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Either you believe in federalism or you don’t, and Romney’s hypocrisy on this issue is little better than Obama’s.

Every one of these politicians should get their policies and their thoughts out of other people’s bedrooms. The issue should indeed be left to the states, and the states should allow any two people to make any contract they want to that does not harm others. The state should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religious institutions. And gays would do themselves a favor by discussing the issue in terms of anything other than the word “marriage” which, as many people have said, does indeed have millennia of specific meaning to most cultures within the human race. That meaning may change over time, but it will be a process, not an event. Votes on “gay marriage” across the nation prove that, even as public opinion drifts toward equal treatment of gay and straight relationships.

The big news of the past few days is not Obama’s view on marriage, nor is it Romney’s high school shenanigans. It is that politicians of both parties remain uncomfortable and inept on the issue – which is the most likely outcome whenever government gets involved in an issue in which it has no business.

In the short term, Barack Obama is probably getting the better of the discussion. In the long term, few people will cast votes based on this issue, especially as unemployment remains high, economic growth remains weak, and Democrats remain without a plan to improve anything that people actually care about.

Finally, I wonder when anyone in the “mainstream” media will mention that we now know more about Mitt Romney’s record in high school than we know about Barack Obama’s record in college or graduate school.

On rare occasion, my wife and I get some kid-free time, long enough to take a short trip somewhere. So it was for the past several days with her parents, in from Australia, watching the kids at our home while we drove down to Santa Fe and a nice, relaxing few days at a hot springs “resort” in northern New Mexico.

It’s an interesting part of the country, sparsely populated, with intricate reddish cliffs, and occasional rivers and streams crossing an otherwise very dry landscape dotted with shrubs and cacti. It is peaceful, and although I can’t claim to be a big fan of Georgia O’Keeffe’s art, I understand her attraction to this area; her home and studio of nearly forty years are about half an hour away.

It’s great to have even a few days to relax. One doesn’t realize how tense one’s life is until the tension is given a chance to dissipate, even if briefly, and even if I avoid making the most of it by checking on the stock market during the day.

This morning, we took a hike through some hills to some old mica mines. Quite fantastic seeing gigantic intrusions of the often paper-like mineral, jutting out from dark, white, and rose quartz, gleaming in the sun. I’m bringing some pieces home for my daughter who is the most amateur of mineralogists, thinking most pretty rocks are some form of diamond. I don’t have the heart to correct her, especially as she collects diamonds to feed her collection of unicorns.

Many of you have seen the beer commercial featuring “The Most Interesting Man in the World.” I’m having dinner tonight with a man who is the most interesting I’ve ever met. I’m very glad that Eddie – who will turn 90 this year – is my friend, and if you ever have the chance to read his story, you will agree that it is remarkable that such a life has existed in modern America.

Last night, my wife and I had dinner in Taos, about 45 minutes north of Santa Fe. If you’re ever there, I can offer a wholehearted recommendation for a little restaurant called the Dragonfly Cafe. The interior is like a cozy dining room in a small, old European house. Karen, the chef and owner, takes great pride in her cooking, not just the quality (which includes home-grown herbs, her own chickens’ eggs, even home-cured pancetta), but also the creativity. These meals are labors of love (and reasonably priced for the high quality.) Our waiter, Joel, was quite a character, showing us some of his work doing hand-set letterpress type to making greeting cards, business cards, etc., under the business name “Cowboy Printer.” Even if he couldn’t quite remember whether a particular dessert had blueberries in it or not – which he more than made up for by offering us some fresh berries and cream on the house, which we somehow also managed to eat – Joel is a colorful, ultra-friendly guy and made the evening that much more memorable, not least due to his Salvador Dali-style mustache.

Next paragraph for foodies only…

Our dinner started with a salad of lettuce leaves topped with lentils, crostini, a poached egg, grated Parmesan, and truffle oil. Next was a big bowl of mussels in a light Indian curry sauce reminiscent of tikka masala. We ordered two extra baskets of bread and soaked up and ate almost all the sauce, before moving on to a “Moroccan lamb” plate, sort of like a fancy deconstructed gyro, with local lamb, home-made tzatziki, hummous, diced tomato and onion, and pita bread. While all that was great, the desserts really take the cake at Dragonfly Cafe. My wife’s was a tart, but more of a scone/shortbread consistency, made with orange marmalade and cheddar cheese. I think it’s technically called a “crostata” and it was fantastic, served warm with fresh whipped cream. And my desert was a dulce de leche creation: gooey caramel inside a hard chocolate shell, served with creme anglaise. I may have literally licked the place clean (or maybe just thought about it.) Really, the trip to Taos might be worth it just for this restaurant; the food is fantastic, and the ambience is the food’s equal.

Monday night, as my wife and I were eating dinner at the bar in the hotel (does it seem like our lives revolve around dinners?), the couple who were sitting next to us stood up to leave. The guy, perhaps in his early 40s, said to me “you look so familiar…where could I know you from?” After figuring out that we probably wouldn’t have met in any place I lived, my wife mentioned that this was my second time in New Mexico, with the first being our wedding, near Santa Fe almost 8 years ago. The gears clicked in the man’s brain: “I photographed your wedding!” he said, and he proceeded to tell us that although he photographs about one wedding a month, our wedding still stands out in his mind as one of the best he’s ever been involved with. I didn’t disagree – our wedding was small and beautiful and designed to bring people together, not overwhelm them with glamor. It’s still one of the best days of my life, second only to when my children were born…and barely second to those.

Speaking of children, I’d like to share a moment with you that only a four year-old child could create. My wife and I were talking with my son on the phone last night before he went to bed. He was telling us about the new toy cars his preschool got, including two convertibles and a race car and a truck. I said to him “Mom doesn’t like convertibles because she thinks they’ll mess up her hair.” My son, without missing a beat – and without trying to be funny – said “Tell mom don’t worry: convertibles don’t drive on her hair; they drive on the road.”

Is that not one of the best pieces of toddler logic of all time?

I’m off to enjoy my last day of vacation, wishing I could completely put aside markets, writing, business, and the various worries of daily life. But even though I may not be relaxing as completely as my wife is, and even though life remains somewhat stressful, days like the past few remind me of how fortunate I am with the life and family that I have.

Proving that in the realm of foreign policy the Obama administration is not only incompetent, but comically incompetent (if you will allow my use of an adverb), I offer this simultaneously serious and amusing article by Jeffrey Goldberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-07/obama-hits-syria-with-brutal-blast-of-adverbs.html

On Sunday, elections were held in France and in Greece. And although the French, who have a large economy, elected a Socialist, the real – and most dangerous – news of the day came from the Greek election in which voters gave strong support, though not a majority, to parties of the extreme left and extreme right, at the expense of the long-ruling parties which had supported recent austerity measures and other efforts to get international bailouts.

The Greek election could be deeply unstabilizing for Europe, not because Greece is in itself a big economic problem for those outside of Greece, even if it defaulted on its debt. Instead, the problem is that it will harm the courage of other nation’s leaders – such as in Portugal, Spain, and Ireland – to make the difficult decisions necessary to get their budgets under control.

To be sure, people get the governments they deserve, and that will happen to Greece “in spades", especially as they support far-right parties who are literally screaming for foreigners to leave the country. The head of the far-right Golden Dawn party is quoted as saying “The time for fear has come for those who betrayed this homeland.”

In the meantime, I expect markets to react somewhat badly, which will include a slightly rising US dollar – meaning (on the bright side) that oil prices will fall and (on the downside for those who have investments in gold and silver) that metals (along with other commodities prices) will also fall. Early indications for the US market are for modest weakness – which is far better than how things looked on Sunday night. One thing to keep in mind is that these election results, especially in France, were expected, and that a lot of traders have short positions on, which will tend to support the market on any sell-off. If the market wants to climb a wall of worry, they now have an even bigger wall.

For traders in financial markets, it’s time to hold on to your seat belts. And for would-be tourists, I recommend avoiding Greece.

All this said, there are a couple of mitigating factors for Greece and markets: First, since there is no majority – and not even a viable coalition – it is somewhat likely that new elections will be needed sooner rather than later, perhaps within a few months. Second, although a majority of Greeks claim to support being in the Euro, it is possible that Sunday’s elections are the first step on a path toward Greece’s exiting the European currency, which would actually strengthen it, weaken the USD, and be good for stocks and commodities. That, however, if it were to happen, would (in my opinion) take until at least early next year and will be accompanied by at least modest turmoil following an effective Greek default on their debt.

And as far as France goes, don’t forget that while Sarkozy was talking austerity (especially for others), the French budgets he proposed had little in the way of spending cuts, and the new Socialist is unlikely to spend substantially more.

Both of these countries, namely their ignorant, dependent voters, are getting just what they deserve. The big question is how much the rest of us will also have to suffer.

On Saturday night, the moon will be near its closest distance to earth of this year, getting as close as 221,802 miles. Since it is the closest full moon this year, this event is called a “Supermoon", which appears 14 percent bigger than when the moon is at its furthest from earth.

Especially when the moon is near the horizon, it will look enormous tonight. Should be a fun thing to show your kids, in addition to being worth any astronomy geek’s time, at least for a minute or two.

More info HERE.

Congratulations to Colorado Republican House Representative BJ Nikkel who sided with Democrats on the Colorado House Judiciary Committee to approve Senate Bill 2, which would permit same-sex (as long as opposite-sex) civil unions in the state. The Committee’s approval does not guarantee that the measure will get to a full House vote, as it needs to pass two more committees, as well as minor but potentially terminal procedural issues, in a Republican-controlled chamber nearing the end of this year’s legislative session.

The bill includes some sensible provisions:

“A priest, minister, rabbi, or other official of a religious institution or denomination or an Indian nation or tribe is not required to certify a civil union in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion.”

Parties to a civil union will have many or most of the same responsibilities and rights of married people, including responsibility for financial support,…the ability to inherit property,…the ability to adopt a child,…survivor benefits,…medical directives,…dependent coverage on life and health insurance.

The measure was clearly written with the intention of getting at least a modicum of Republican support, with these key caveats in the legislation itself:

“The Act shall not be construed to create a marriage between the parties to a civil union or alter the public policy of this state that recognizes only the union of one man and one woman as a marriage. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Act shall not be interpreted to require a child placement agency to place a child for adoption with parties to a civil union.”

I share Rep. Nikkel’s commendable view: “It’s not something I’m passionate about, but I think we ought to move forward and bring it to a vote in the House.“

In particular, I would in fact prefer not to have government involved in marriage in any way, and then allow any two people to make any contract they want to (as long as it’s not a contract aimed to illegally hurt someone else.)

But as long as government has its nose in our private business, I believe there should be “equal protection” regardless of sexual preference.

Furthermore, this is smart politics for Republicans…and especially here in Colorado where two of the biggest funders of leftist candidates are (or have been) gay men: Tim Gill and Jared Polis. While Polis is now in Congress and much less involved in Colorado state-level politics, Mr. Gill remains very active and highly motivated by “gay rights” issues.

[For the record, I don’t believe in gay rights or black rights or Jewish rights or any other rights granted to groups. We have our rights as individual human beings and Americans, not as members of “victim” groups or other politically-targeted segments of society.]

Neutralizing not just Mr. Gill (on this issue, at least) is a good thing. But it’s certainly not the only thing. Whether it’s civil unions or hawkish immigration rhetoric, Republicans too often look intolerant and xenophobic. And it hurts the GOP at the ballot box, so that we’re stuck with Democratic policies in other important areas of government, such as taxation and spending.

I hope that BJ Nikkel is rewarded in her next election – whenever that may be, since she is not running for reelection this year after being redistricted in with another Republican and then stepping aside in his favor – to give some other Republicans the backbone to do what’s right, both morally and politically. I realize this was a tough vote for her, and that more “conservative” and religiously-motivated Republican politicians may disagree for deeply-felt reasons. But for those who vote against civil unions and vote in other ways which cause the GOP reputation for being a party of straight, old white men to persist, I encourage you to ask yourself whether you truly believe your vote or whether you think it’s just what you’re supposed to do, under pressure from a vocal minority intent on imposing morality through government.

It remains uncertain whether this bill will pass (or even reach) the other House committees needed to get to a full floor vote, where it would likely pass given Rep. Nikkel’s support. I hope there are a few other courageous Republicans on those committees. It’s time…past time…to get this done, for reasons of both principle and politics.

Economic data has been mixed and basically stagnant in recent weeks, pointing to an economic recovery which has gone from weak to weaker…and far weaker than we should be seeing at this point in the business cycle, i.e. during a recovery from a deep economic downturn.

On Wednesday morning, the private payrolls firm ADP reported its monthly estimate of private sector employment conditions. The report, for April, came in with a gain of 119,000 jobs, far below the Bloomberg consensus estimate of 183,000 jobs. The prior month was also revised down slightly.

Although the reports do not correlate perfectly, this does not bode well for Friday’s official Labor Department release of the national employment situation. Prior to revisions which may follow the ADP report, the consensus was for 165,000 new jobs to be reported on Friday, including 178,000 new private sector jobs and the loss of 13,000 government jobs.

The unemployment rate is estimated to be unchanged at 8.2 percent, but this is a tricky call because changes in the “participation rate” have had as much impact on changes in the actual number of working Americans in recent months.

The ADP result contrasts with a Gallup survey released minutes after ADP which shows Gallup’s Job Creation Index at its best level since July 2008. Gallup released a separate poll on Thursday which showed a 0.1 percent drop in unemployment from March to April without seasonal adjustments but a substantial rise in the seasonally-adjusted rate.

Also on Thursday, the government’s report on initial jobless claims came in slightly better than expectations, while the prior week’s number was revised upwards (i.e. more unemployed.) For several weeks in a row, new claims for unemployment have come in higher than estimates and most of the revisions have been upward.

And later on Thursday morning, the ISM non-manufacturing report came in below the lowest Bloomberg estimate.

Earlier in the week, on Tuesday, a stronger-than-expected report on manufacturing sent the stock market up to a very strong gain, though more than half of the gain had evaporated by the end of the day. ADP’s weak manufacturing employment number (actually showing a loss of 5,000 jobs) was an odd contrast to the Tuesday report.

On Monday, the Chicago Purchasing Managers Index report was substantially weaker than expected, as was the Dallas Fed’s survey of manufacturing. Personal income and spending data, along with recent inflation data, have been roughly in line with expectations – expectations which are typical of moderate-at-best economic growth.

Last Friday, the important GDP report showed an anemic 2.2 percent year-over-year growth, well below the average estimate of 2.5-2.6 percent. You may recall that the stock market did well on Friday, likely because the weak number perversely gave markets hope that the Fed may come back in with “QE3.” We should all hope not; it is remarkable how little the Fed has learned from its failure thus far.

Beyond showing how useless economists are when it comes to estimating what reports will show, the data – to they extent they are consistent with anything – are consistent with the Obama Non-Recovery.

Many months ago, I had the opportunity to be a guest on Larry Kudlow’s TV show. He asked me if I thought we’d see a “V” recovery or a “W” recovery. I said I thought we’d see a “square root” recovery, i.e. a small bounce followed by stagnancy because Obama’s policies would be somewhere between growth-neutral and anti-growth, but certainly not pro-growth.

I’ve been proven right so far, sadly for America.

But if there is a bright side, it is that many of Barack Obama’s 2008 supporters are actually people who would like to have jobs. And other than tenured university professors and their students, who probably represent a good chunk of his support, they must be disappointed at the lack of improvement in employment opportunity under The One.

As for me, I would gladly forgo some, or even much, of the income I hope to make over the next six months if it would mean the defeat of President Obama in November. I realize that many Americans cannot easily afford having little or no income, even for a few months, and that the Obama economy is a true hardship for many.

But wouldn’t it be better to have a weak economy for six more months, allowing the election of a president and members of Congress who will bring in pro-growth policies, than to have the re-election of Obama and another four years of financial repression, persistently high unemployment, and the tyranny of executive agencies out to “crucify” anybody who disagrees with them?

Although two years ago, when liberals said I wanted the American economy to do relatively badly in order to have the political issue, I said they were wrong. And they were wrong, because nearly three years is too long to want the American people to suffer no matter how beneficial the eventual result. But when we’re talking about a few months instead of a few years, my view has changed. At this point, I do in fact hope that the economy doesn’t improve so that Obama loses.

The bottom line, though, is that what I hope is irrelevant. More important is that the Obama administration’s policies, and those of his henchmen in Congress, are antithetical to economic prosperity. To the extent that there is any job growth, it is a testament to the American spirit, and it is happening in spite of, not because of, Barack Obama.

I may be projecting, but I think Americans are realizing that and may indeed be willing to admit they were wrong in 2008 to elect a man whose economic views were so explicitly redistributionist and unAmerican.

If the economic data persist as disappointing as they’ve been recently, the economy may be Mitt Romney’s strongest selling point – which plays right into his technocrat, businessman wheelhouse.

—————

One important thing to keep in mind is that the stock market and the economy (particularly employment) are related, but not the same. In particular, large corporations can find economies of scale and efficiencies which can lead to increased profits without increased employment. Thus, a strong stock market, especially in the large-cap sectors (the biggest companies), does not imply broader economic prosperity – and certainly does not imply better employment since those efficiencies are often achieved by firing people. The flip side of the coin is that a stagnant economy does not mean that stock prices are “wrong” for being relatively strong. An argument can be made that if a Republican president is elected, the EPA stopped, and Obamacare turned back, stocks may be very cheap here.