Daniel Hannan speculates in the Telegraph about Britain joining the United States. I wouldn’t be opposed. I’d take David Cameron over any of the 2012 contenders. But just out of curiosity I went ahead and figured out how the annexation of Britain would affect things in the US.

It’d involve the addition of four new states. One of them pretty damn big. England, if taken on as one state, would be the largest state in the union. It has 20 million more people than California. Whew. That’d be a very big change. Scotland, with 5.2 million people would be the size of Minnesota and Colorado. Wales, with 3 million people would be the size of Iowa and Mississippi. Northern Ireland (assuming we don’t just insist they join Ireland) has 1.8 million and would fit in between Nebraska & Idaho. Altogether the UK is a bit bigger than California & New York combined.

Overall we have 310 million people. The addition of the United Kingdom would add another 60 million to the country. The increase in population would increase the approximate number of people per congressional district from 709,760 to 857,014. So California would drop from 53 House members to 44. Texas would go from 32 to 30. New York from 29 to 23. (all approximately). We’d see the inclusion of a whopping 60 House members for England. 6 for Scotland, 3-4 for Wales and 2 for Northern Ireland. And of course each would get two Senators.

Calculating how 8 new Senators and 70 new House members from Britain would affect the US balance of power is beyond my ability or interest at the moment, but I can speculate. I imagine that Labor and the Conservatives would be smart enough to merge with the Democrats and Republicans respectively. Both groups pulling their respective American counter parts slightly to the left. I imagine the smaller regional parties like the Scottish National Party would continue on as normal, and Scotland would elect a few SNP House members and a Senator or two. The other minor UK parties like BNP and UKIP would probably still exist and be about as relevant as the US Constitution Party. The Greens would all link up. The fun question is what would happen to the Liberal Democrats? Assuming their vote totals remain consistent from 2010 (unlikely) and assuming how the districts get drawn, they could get 7-10 House seats. I could see them dying out as the new United States of America & Britain moves back to a more traditional American two party system. Actually under such a system, the SNP as a regional party, could actually wield more influence then the LibDems thanks to having some Senators. Of course with more tangible local elections under an American system these smaller UK parties could enjoy some influence as mayors & governors & state legislators. So perhaps the LibDems would fight on. Who knows.

Interesting new poll out:

Packers are the real America’s team

It’s probably time to turn the America’s team label over to the Green Bay Packers. PPP’s newest national survey finds that no matter how you measure it the Packers are more popular than the Dallas Cowboys, and in fact the Cowboys are actually America’s least favorite team.

22% of voters say the Packers are their favorite team in the NFL to 11% for the Cowboys, 8% for the Bears, Giants, and Steelers, 7% for the Saints, 6% for the Patriots, 4% for the Redskins, and 2% for the Jets. 24% say someone else is their favorite team or that they don’t have a favorite.

We also asked favorability questions about both the Cowboys and Packers. The Packers are seen positively by 57% of voters in the country to only 13% who have negative opinion. Their positive image is pretty universal- every subgroup we look at by ideology, gender, party, race, and age has a strong favorable opinion of them. The Cowboys meanwhile are generally viewed negatively, with 29% of voters having a favorable opinion of them to 41% with a negative one.

Finally we also asked a straight up ‘horse race’ style question about whether people like the Cowboys or Packers better. The Packers come out ahead 49-28 on that one. In an era of unprecedented political divisiveness liking the Packers better than the Cowboys is something Americans across the political spectrum can agree on- Democrats prefer the Packers 44-26, Republicans do 60-29, and independents do 44-30.

The Cowboys did come out first on one question in our poll: Americans’ least favorite NFL team. 22% pick the Cowboys on that front to 11% for the Bears, 8% for the Packers, 7% for the Patriots and Redskins, 6% for the Steelers, 4% for the Jets and Giants, and 1% for the Saints. The Cowboys may deliver awesome tv ratings but these numbers suggest that’s in large part because people are watching them and hoping they lose.

It’s a murkier picture when it comes to crowning America’s most popular quarterback. When you just ask straight up who’s your favorite quarterback Tim Tebow comes out ahead by the narrowest of margins with 15% to 14% for Eli Manning, 12% for Peyton Manning, 10% each for Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers, 6% for Michael Vick, and 4% for Ben Roethlisberger and Tony Romo. The Mannings are clearly very popular but since they’re ’splitting the vote’ it allows Tebow to finish first.

When you look at it in terms of ranking the quarterbacks by their net favorability though Peyton Manning emerges on top at +42 (51/9), followed by Brees at +40 (46/6), Tebow at +35 (50/15), Eli Manning at +32 (44/12), Aaron Rodgers at +31 (39/8), Tom Brady at +18 (35/17), Tony Romo at -4 (23/27), Ben Roethlisberger at -11 (20/31), and Michael Vick at -19 (24/43).

The crosstabs expose some more interesting divisions on the quarterbacks:

-Tim Tebow is viewed favorably by 68% of Republicans but only 39% of Democrats. Just to put those numbers into some context, none of the Republican Presidential candidates are even seen positively by 68% of Republicans. He’s more popular than any of them.

27% of GOP voters pick him as their favorite QB, putting him in first place by a mile, but among Democrats he’s only tied for 6th at 9%. The Mannings are the preferred quarterbacks of Democratic voters. 13% pick Eli as their favorite and Peyton has the best net favorability with them at +39 (49/10).

-Michael Vick’s numbers are incredibly polarized along racial lines. African Americans see him positively 75/10, but whites see him negatively 16/52. 41% of blacks name him as their favorite quarterback with no one else above 13%, but only 2% of whites say he’s their favorite.

Vick wins the dubious distinction of least popular QB with 26% picking him on that question to 15% for Roethlisberger, 11% for Eli Manning, 8% for Brady, 6% for Romo, 5% for Tebow, and 3% each for Rodgers, Brees, and Peyton Manning.

There are some other interesting groups that aren’t really discussed in the overall coverage of this study, but there are some differences that stick out.

Women

It is interesting that there is suspicion that women like Brady because of his looks, but he is seen as favorable by 42% of men and only 27% of women. Ladies’ favorite QB is Peyton Manning with 45% favorability (56% for men) narrowly beating out Tebow (43% favorable for women and 56% for men). Also, Big Ben is seen as favorable by only 15% of women (and 24% by men), which should be no surprise considering his rather… murky history. However the unfavorable is a bit of a surprise. Men find him more unfavorable by 36% to 25%.

The favorite team selections are pretty evenly split by gender, which one would expect, but the biggest difference is the Steelers. 11% of women pick them as their favorite team (second only to the Packers) yet only 6% of men consider the Steelers their favorite (in 7th place). The same odd discrepancy holds for least favorite team. Why do women like the Steelers so much? Especially with their notorious QB?

Hispanics

And while it may make sense that Vick is the most popular QB for blacks, what is curious is that Brees is the most popular for Hispanics. By a wide margin. Brees is the favorite QB for 8% of whites, 9% of blacks and 26% of Hispanics. Hispanics also like Tebow more than anyone.

Hispanics also hate the Cowboys more than anyone. They are their least favorite team of 37% of Hispanics vs. 21% for whites and 25% for blacks.

Youth

Aaron Rodgers is the favorite QB of 11-14% of those 30 and older, but only 2% of those 18-29. The favorite QB among youth? The Manning brothers, tied with 18% each (more than older age groups). Also, the poll made a big deal out of the Cowboys losing their “America’s Team” moniker, but among young people the name might still hold. While still losing out to the Packers (at 23%) the Cowboys are the second favorite team among young people, selected by 20% of them. This is more than double that of older groups. When given a head to head match up, youth pick Cowboys over the Packers 38% to 26%.

Also strange, the Giants are the favorite team of 14% of 30-45 year olds, but only 5% of everyone else. What a strange, and significant, difference.

I don’t really have much to say, nor time enough to say it. But I suppose in the world of blogging saying something short is better than saying nothing at all.

So I came across this article and I like it. You should check it out.

I’ve known Brandon since elementary school, but for most of that time we weren’t really close friends. We were friendly, certainly, we were the type of friends who talked or hung out only at school. Say a word or two while passing in the hall. But that was mostly it.

We’ve only truly become good friends since high school. We actually became better friends because of our mutual friend Buddy. Its a shame Buddy wasn’t able to join us. I’m sure he would have been happy to come if he wasn’t… detained elsewhere…

But for all the trouble Buddy has caused each of us over the years, I am so glad for the role he played in Brandon and I becoming good friends.

Strangely our friendship blossomed most while I was a few hundred miles away. I guess people like me more when I’m 10 hours away from them. But I’ve been in DC for the last 12 years and only make it back once or twice a year, and out of all my friends here in Michigan, he always made the most time for me. When other friends were busy or had plans or could only squeeze me in, Brandon made me a priority.

No matter what he had going on when I was back in town, he blocked out time to hang out. That is just the kind of guy he is. He’s there for you.

And of all my friends from here in Michigan, Brandon was the first to come visit me in DC. And over the last 12 years has come more than anyone else. I really do appreciate that feeling of being valued.

So I am ridiculously honored to be here this weekend as co-best man. If I am ever fortunate enough to one day take the plunge myself, I couldn’t imagine doing it without Brandon standing up next to me at the altar.

Uhh, behind me I mean, not in front of me. Hopefully I can find someone who smells a bit better for that job.

Brandon is lucky he has been such a good friend, because he and Whitney scheduled all this wedding nonsense right in the middle of the Tigers being in the playoffs.

And I know weddings are important, once in a lifetime events, but come on, we all know the Tigers and we all know Brandon. This is just the second time the Tigers have been in the playoffs in the last 20 years, and this is Brandon’s third wedding in 8 years.

But like building a playoff contender, putting together a successful wedding involves building a solid team. Brandon is a smart manager, so no doubt he picked me because he wanted someone with experience. And I’ve been around the block, this is my fourth wedding as best man.

In baseball there is a lot of talk about the triple crown. And winning the triple crown is great and all, I mean no offense to everything Verlander has accomplished this year, but you are all witnesses tonight to my completion of the quadruple crown.

That’s right, I’ve now successfully best manned a Protestant wedding, a Catholic wedding, a Jewish wedding and this weekend, a non-religious wedding.

Now, I’m certainly not saying that I am the Justin Verlander of this wedding… I’m only strongly implying it.

I’ve also got a pretty good batting average of .667 for successful marriages I’ve best manned. So while my best man average isn’t perfect, it is waay better than Brandon’s groom average.

But that’s all going to change now.

Call it best man intuition, or credit it to the fact I know Brandon & Whitney so well, I have no doubts that these two people were made for each other.

Their passion, their tenderness, their love is apparent to all who see them together. It has been a great pleasure to get to know Whitney over these last five years. I can’t imagine another woman more compatible with Brandon. These two have been absolutely inseparable since the moment they met. And I can’t imagine them ever being apart.

So let us raise our glasses and toast a long, happy marriage and pray we never have to come to another wedding for Brandon again.

Delivered on October 1, 2011 in the middle of Lake Charlevoix, MI.

Sorry LeBron…

The Social Security website has a pretty cool feature that shows you popular baby names for each year. It also has another cool feature that shows you how particular names have changed over time. Different names fluctuate in popularity over the years.

For example, when I was born, back in 1981, Alexander was the 70th most popular name for boys born that year. It is pretty damn cool to see how that has changed in the years since. For 2009 it is the 4th most popular name! Wow! Obviously I did much to popularize the name.

Since I’m a bit of a geek, I put the information into a graph:

It grew in popularity every single year from 1981 to 1993. Then held flat at 20-22nd through the rest of the 90’s. Then in 2001 is started to climb even further till finally, last year, peaking at the 4th most popular name in America! I’m such a trend setter! Here is the raw data:

1981 - 70th
1982 - 65th
1983 - 63rd
1984 - 54th
1985 - 50th
1986 - 41st
1987 - 37th
1988 - 34th
1989 - 32nd
1990 - 28th
1991 - 26th
1992 - 23rd
1993 - 21st
1994 - 22nd
1995 - 21st
1996 - 22nd
1997 - 22nd
1998 - 22nd
1999 - 21st
2000 - 20th
2001 - 20th
2002 - 15th
2003 - 16th
2004 - 15th
2005 - 12th
2006 - 12th
2007 - 11th
2008 - 6th
2009 - 4th

Check this link to track your own name.

http://netdugout.com/nocal/2010/06/03/open-letter-to-bud-selig/

An Open Letter to Bud Selig

Commissioner Selig,

I have nothing but good words for you almost across the board. You have been one of the best Major League Baseball Commissioner in the history of the game. You will probably get yourself a place in Cooperstown one day. You have done some great things not only strictly for baseball, but for the city and surrounding communities of Milwaukee. Making the decision that I believe is called for will most likely pale in comparison to many other things that you have done in life. I do believe that it is a decision that must be made though.

All that I ask is that you give a young man his place in history. A young man that earned that place. Only twenty other men have reached Perfection. If it is not the most pristine individual accomplishment in baseball it is certainly one of them. There is a longer list of Presidents than there is of pitchers that have been perfect for nine innings. This game is called America’s. America has always been about earning what you get and getting what you earn. What are you going to do sir? Armando Galarraga earned it. You cannot dispute that. I have not mentioned instant replay. I have not berated Mr. Joyce. None of those things are called for. They call it the human factor for a reason. Humans make mistakes. Whether I agree with it or not, any change in direction on instant replay or anything like it will come to late for Galarraga. He is what this is about. Make the history books reflect reality. Please make the right choice.

Micah McCurry
netdugout.com/nocal.com

I couldn’t agree more. The call was ridiculous and needs to be overturned.

Just shocking and heart breaking. Fix this Selig.

I found this hilarious. Some random candidate in Gordon Brown’s constituency took his spot right behind the podium and stood there for the entire time he was speaking (and the previous person announced the results) with his dark sunglasses on and his fist raised.

Who is this man? Did Galen make it to the UK?

I have been following the UK election pretty closely for an American and I am fascinated. The seeming collapse of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, the resurgence of the Conservatives, and the meteoric rise of Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats after being a perennial also-ran. The drama of having a three-way race and all the implications and possibilities it creates have captivated me. For years third parties in this country have claimed that if they were just allowed to participate in the debates they’d finally get their message heard and be taken seriously by the voters. Nick Clegg’s stunning victory in the first UK election debate certainly makes a strong case for it.

One trouble, though, is while some polls have the Liberal Democrats at 2nd in the popular vote (after the first debate some were even showing 1st) they almost certainly will be in third when it comes to the number of seats in the House of Commons. Britain, like the US, has a first-past-the-post election system. This system has always doomed the viability of a third party and part of the reason why electoral reform is a top priority for the Liberal Democrats.

What is exciting about this election is not the one-time presence of a vocal, active third party, but the possibility for lasting change to the British system. Proposals have been floated by all three parties for having an elected House of Lords, an initiative process, a way to recall unpopular or corrupt MPs, having a written constitution (only 220 years late guys), proportional representation, instant run-off voting (called the alternative vote there), fixed-term parliaments, reducing the size of parliament, and, what is most exciting for me, lowering the voting age to 16.

Both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party have come out in favor (or perhaps “favour”) of lowering the voting age to 16 in UK elections. Austria, parts of Germany & Switzerland, and even parts of the UK (Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey) have already lowered their voting ages to 16. It is an issue that has been up for active discussion here in the United States as well, but has never really taken off.

It may be easy for us to ignore Austria or the tiny island of Guernsey, but if the United Kingdom, our long estranged then reconciled mother country, were to go 16 nationwide? We would have to sit up and pay attention. 16 and 17 year old high school students going to the polls and casting ballots that decide the fate of a nation? Yes, it could soon happen and it would actually be welcome news both for young people and for democracy.

Back in the days when we broke from our aforementioned mother country, our forefathers ranted and raved about taxation without representation. It wasn’t just an effective slogan, it was a valid complaint about relations between the government and its citizens (or, I suppose, subjects). To take money out of someone’s pocket without giving them a voice as to how much or what it is spent on is as tyrannical a concept today as it was in 1776. The trouble is both our countries continue to do it today. Young people have jobs and pay taxes (billions in fact) but have zero say about it.

Not only are young people paying billions in tax, they are also paying into Social Security, a system which may or may not be there when they get older. Most teens I’ve talked to would like to see something done about this faltering program, but our elected officials are pretty content to just keep things the way they are and not rock the boat. Of course their voters are all old enough that they’ll get theirs, so what do they care about their kids and grandkids? Frankly the selfishness of our elders seems to be a defining characteristic of our politics nowadays. Will there be a planet left for our grand children? Who cares, SUVs for everyone! Will there be an economy left for our kids? Who cares, trillion dollar deficits for all!

When young people can’t vote, they don’t have a say in the policies that affect their lives. War, the economy, government spending, the environment, health care, and everything else will continue to hurt their interests if they don’t have a voice. If they don’t have a vote.

Critics say that young people lack the maturity, experience and intelligence necessary to vote. Considering the selfish, short-sighted policies our elders vote for time and time again, are we really going to be foolish enough to call this mature? Somewhere around a third of Democrats believe Bush was behind 9/11 and somewhere around a third of Republicans believe Obama isn’t a US citizen. Are we really calling these voters intelligent?

Frankly with the rancorous debate that has crippled Washington for years, having some fresh eyes on the problems we face and fresh voters not wedded to biter partisanship like our elders, lowering the voting age can only make things better. I certainly am looking forward to trying and look forward to the United Kingdom leading the way.

The Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party both support lowering the voting age to 16 (as well as smaller parties in Scotland, Wales, and the Greens). Because of the electoral system it is unlikely the LibDems will have enough seats to form the government themselves, but it is looking increasingly likely there will be a “hung parliament’ and no party will have a majority of the seats. If that is the case the Liberal Democrats could play kingmaker in this election, throwing their support to the Conservatives or Labour. If they go with Labour it seems almost certain that within the next 2-3 years we will see our friends across the pond lower their voting age to 16.

This is an exciting time for people on either side of the Atlantic and a watershed election for us all.