We voted today. Hubby voted for Romney. He wouldn't have told me, but I did ask, even though politics is rarely a comfortable topic in the House of Neil. I actually stopped in my tracks, stared at him, then gasped "Why??" Turns out Hubby is suspicious of something he says he heard Obama say about future plans for tighter gun control. I knew better than to delve further, because it was being a good day up till then, and we never convince each other to change a position. I guess I should be pleased that he can still surprise me after 26 years.

Turns out Hubby is suspicious of something he says he heard Obama say about future plans for tighter gun control.

Seriously?

He heard that Obama said something about gun control? After three and a half years where he's said (and DONE) nothing about gun control?

I would be less appalled if Obama actually were campaigning for gun control or tried to enact legislation and it were a valid difference of opinion. Those exist and I respect them.

But I am less concerned with the whispered fears that maybe a potential president would try to take away my rights when he's never even hinted at it than the candidate who has promised that is his precise intention.

I swear, sometimes I think we might really deserve the government we get.

edit: that got ranty. I honestly respect people who vote differently than I do but I expect them to do it based on anything factual or idealogical. And the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim who isn't a citizen and wants to take away your guns? It's just not based on reality. We can debate fiscal policy, but we can't debate that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Wow Connie. This is why you are a loving spouse. I think I would lose my cheetah shit if Beau told me he voted for Romney.

I swear, sometimes I think we might really deserve the government we get.

H.L. Mencken said that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Jefferson said democracy is legalized mob rule.

Mobs are not often smart.

This post brought to you by insomnia.

Going to meet Mom and Stepdad in RI today. They are still without power in their area (where we are not meeting), and I think going a little stir crazy. We're going to try to meet up with my cousin and her baby too, because of course I have a Halloween book for her.

Yeah, I remember reading a breakdown of how good Obama has been for the NRA, yet they still bedevil him. It's weird--basically more gun freedom, but I guess they're inherently Republican at the core? I don't know why they'd ignore the past 4 years--maybe he has something up his sleeve.

If you reduce platforms in terms of what needs to be protected--I do think it's ignoring history to decide a vote against Obama is a vote for guns, but if a vote for Republicans is a vote for guns, is a vote for Republicans a vote against wombs? And if so--is that a statement that guns are more important than wombs, or that the Republicans can not usefully be summarised in that way about women's reproductive choices?

It would be overly simplistic, but kind of interesting to list a bunch of hot button topics, ask people which party they thought would do better for the people on them, and then ask which topics they'd be willing to throw under the bus and which they'd prioritise.

As for the California ballots, there is no way I am going to be informed enough to vote on all of them, and even the ones I feel I've done a lot of research on, there's no way, as already said, I can have gotten my hands on all the info or have the education/experience to understand all the ramifications. So.....undecided it will be on those.

And, yeah, I do feel like someone else isn't doing their jobs, for this to come down to me. The biggest political argument I've had at home is about saying I am electing people to make decisions in my place--they will not always make the decisions I feel are right, but that's the weakness of any scalable political system. Or the strength. Maybe they are making that decision because they have access to facts I don't, or they're just brighter than I am. But I don't think I'm meant to suggest that.

I wish there was a propositions debate. Some of these are really confusing.

You know that's not how it works, right?

Yeah, ita !, I do know that is not how it works, but leave me with my delusions, mkay? No. Really. I was fortunate in that my paternal gene meant that everyone before me was grey well before their 30s. My great aunt Mary, in fact, had a shock of grey hair at NINE years old. It helped her to become an international cosmetics model...along with her unbelievably gorgeous skin and stock in Oil of Olay...by which she swore until her last days at 88 when the home health nurse said her cheeks were are smooth as a baby's butt.

I swear, sometimes I think we might really deserve the government we get.

I am now certain that this is true. But can't really endorse an alternative.

Even if someone handed me the presidency, I would not take that job, so I guess I can't complain anymore.

Nicotine addiction is very difficult to overcome, for both physiological and psychological reasons.

We know that there is a substantial genetic contribution to the physiological part, both to how good nicotine feels and how bad withdrawal from nicotine feels. The fact that genetic effects by definition run in families, sets up the paradox where the people who have the most experience with negative effects of smoking (e.g. disease and death in relatives)are frequently the people who have greatest difficulty in quiting, just like their relatives did. So from the outside, it seems that people with these profound experiences should be the first to quit, because from the outside we see only the experiences. That isn't the way that the underlying biology works, and the social interpretation increases the burden for affected individuals.

On the psychological side, the ubiquity of nicotine addiction complicates quiting. A recovering heroin addict can arrange his life so that the chance of encountering another obvious user is very small. Not so for the nicotine addict, who is going to encounter other users, actively partaking, every day.

The one promising thing is that the chances of success in quiting don't seem to diminish much after repeated failures to quit. The chance of a successful quit on one occasion is relatively low (~20%). But it's better to think of it as the chance of NOT quitting in the accumulating sum of all attempts, which starts at ~80% with the first attempt and declines with each repeated attempt. You never have more than a 20% chance on a given occasion, but over time the number of successes accumulates.