Not sure why, but I had a monster headache in the afternoon (note to self: maybe don't have those chicken gyoza again). I slept part of it off in the evening after R. got home. I'm hoping it's completely gone, but we'll see.
Long phone conversation with a Seattle friend. I've been having some great phone/email and chat convos with friends, mostly in PacNW, a few out here, about what their thoughts are on politics and policy, now that the 2016 race is really ramping up. My goal in these conversations is to better understand what people who I like and who share my values think about the candidates and the issues, and why. My secondary goal is to share the ludicrous amount of commentary I cover to help other people understand what some of the articles they read mean when they refer to stuff. I'm trying to be the political version of the person who makes an otherwise boring sporting event interesting by being able to answer all of your questions and also offer up periodic bits of juicy, somewhat insider-y gossip.
In every national election cycle, there are some issues that are still available to either party -- they haven't become completely identified with one party, so that everything the other side does is a reaction. Those are often the issues I find most interesting, altho this time around I am starting to be interested in some of the reaction-offerings. So, for example, as implausible as it may sound, the GOP has a family leave offering (I know, right?). It's exactly the kind of thing you would expect out of them (okay, they have a couple -- the GOP Senators have a weird comp time thing http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/24/senate-republicans-offer-their-own-paid-family-leave-proposal, and Rubio has a tax credit http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/rubio-parental-leave/409285/). It's harder to identify what precisely is going on with drug legalization and various Republican candidates. Trump, for example, appears to hold all possible positions on the issue (in the past, he wanted to legalize/decriminalize; then more recently, he didn't even want marijuana legalized; and he also has said some stuff about letting each state decide). Debates have tended to focus specifically on medical marijuana (http://www.ibtimes.com/republicans-debate-marijuana-legalization-jeb-bush-admits-smoking-pot-2098797).
One friend of mine is spending a lot of time on ISideWith.com, and I'm starting to really wonder about some of their sourcing on candidate positions. For example, Trump is listed as supporting drug decriminalization, but lists a 1990 source long, long before he was running in this cycle. In this cycle, his more recent comments have been directly opposed even to legalizing MJ.
ISideWith.com source quote for Trump supports drug decriminalization:
More recent Trump quotes from this election cycle, while he campaigns:
Hannity interviews Trump and asks about Colorado and recreational MJ. Trump says he's against it. Hannity brings up states rights, Trump says if they vote for it, they vote for it, but then notes they have a lot of problems in Colorado right now (no further specificity on the problems or how they relate to rec MJ). Trump is fairly clearly separating medical MJ from rec MJ, and appears to be in favor of medical MJ. This clip is from June.
ISideWith listing Trump as favoring decriminalization is a wild inaccuracy. A lot of people are using ISideWith without drilling down into sourcing, but even when you _do_ drill down into sourcing, that doesn't necessarily tell you that the person has changed their mind. Don't you want to know what the candidates are campaigning on in _this_ millenium? I'll see if there is any way to move them in a more accurate direction.
ETA: I have sent in a correction. We shall see whether anything happens.