The Living Room Times

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

My frequently-declared, rarely-adhered-to Twitter “hiatuses” have become, understandably, an object of mockery among my friends on Twitter. I have a long history of spending more time declaring “hiatuses” than actually sticking with them. #SelfControlPANIC! #TwitterAddictDOOM! 🙂

Definitionally, a “hiatus” is when I change my Twitter password to something unknown to me, thus locking myself out of web Twitter, and also disable my most commonly used apps (like Tweetbot). This forces me to reset my password (and then re-enable my apps) before I can effectively use Twitter again. That said, during a “hiatus,” I will still typically post a steady trickle of photos, Instagrams, Spotify tweets, etc. – those are allowed, because they are non-interactive when I can’t see replies and RTs, and thus they don’t open the door to Twitter becoming a massive time-sink, like it can when I get into conversations on it. (Plus, those occasional tweets keep my account “active,” dodging any unfollow scripts that track such things.)

But while the occasional Instagram isn’t incompatible with a “hiatus” as I define that term, it doesn’t typically take much to cause me to truly “cheat” on a hiatus – “temporarily” changing my password back to normal, re-enabling Tweetbot, etc., and resume “normal” tweeting – in order to post about a severe weather event somewhere in the country, a major (or somewhat major) bit of political news, a breaking conference-realignment story, or whatever. The excuses can be pretty flimsy. Sometimes, the only way you’d even notice that I was ever “on hiatus” is that I said so at some point (only to almost immediately “cheat” on my own self-imposed rules).

Lost in this running joke at my expense, however, is the fact that I actually did take a somewhat-successful hiatus last spring after March Madness, starting April 5. Here is what my tweets-per-day count looked like from March 25 through April 23. With the exception of April 15, when I took a “hiatus break” because of the massive tornado outbreak, I did pretty well:

I had somewhat less success with subsequent efforts at a “hiatus” through late April and early-mid May. Indeed, I completely gave up and called the hiatus off entirely during the first 10 days of May. But then, after going crazy live-tweeting the Colorado civil unions debacle (indeed, I tweeted so much on May 8-9 that I got sent to Twitmo, leading to the birth of @BrendanInTwitmo), I went on a new hiatus for a brief while. Here’s another fun chart that I made last year:

If you do the math, I published 450 tweets in the 33 days that fall within either of the “hiatus” periods, April 5-29 (hiatus #1) or May 11-18 (hiatus #2). That’s 13.6 tweets per day. It drops to 4.4 per day if you include only the days between April 6-21 and May 11-18, and if you also exclude the April 15 tornado. But that’s some #FuzzyMath right there.

By contrast, if you include the in-between “non-hiatus” period from April 30-May 10, the grand total is 1,866 tweets in 44 days, or 42.4 per day. That doesn’t sound like much of a “hiatus,” though it’s still well below my long-term average of ~115 tweets per day since my 50,000th tweet in September 2011.

I mention all of this by way of introduction to my latest hiatus – and my latest “pool.” I’ve decided to do another post-March Madness spring Twitter hiatus. I’ve got a busy month ahead, and I need to set aside the distraction of Twitter for a while. So, starting Wednesday, April 10 (the day after the women’s NCAA championship game), and continuing through Thursday, May 9, I intend to take a month-long hiatus.

My past failures at following through on such plans invites the concept of the “pool.” It’s a simple prediction contest. The question is: How many tweets will I post during that 30-day period, from April 10 through May 9 (inclusive)? Leave your guess in comments, and try to earn – well, maybe not Eternal Glory, but at least some temporary bragging rights, and the ability to make fun of me. 🙂

The deadline to make your prediction is 11:59 11:00 PM Mountain Time on Tuesday, April 9. Some ground rules: the number of tweets will be calculated from midnight on April 10 through 11:59pm on May 9, all times Mountain. Tweets from all of my Twitter accounts, including @brendanloy, @MileHighMids, @BrendanInTwitmo, and any other accounts that I own or may create in the interim, will count toward the total. Here on this Tumblr, I will post the pertinent accounts’ totals as of midnight April 10 when the hiatus starts, and again on May 10 after the hiatus is over. The winner will be the person closest to the correct number, regardless of whether they are over or under. (No “Price is Right” rules.) In the event of a tie, the person who posted his or her prediction earlier will win.

By way of context, to help you arrive at your prediction, here are the 30-day totals that the above-stated averages would yield:

Long-term, non-hiatus average (115 tweets per day): 3,450
Last year’s entire April 5-May 18 period (42.4 per day): 1,272
Last year’s “hiatus #1” and “hiatus #2” (13.6 per day): 408
Last year’s “successful” hiatus days (4.4 per day): 132

So, what’s your prediction?

UPDATE, 11pm Wednesday: The polls are CLOSED. Thirty-eight people (!) entered the #HiatusPool. Here are the predictions:

@thrashsoundly: 1,730
@Jamie1999: 1,729
@Nyghtewynd: 1,700
@mamatoes: 1,334
@kesgarnder: 1,200
@AirborneGeek: 999
@KennyOcker: 874
@dinunziodjd: 777
@kevinheaslip: 750
@ecalof: 731
@joeboo22: 669
@davidkreutz: 666
@mjbtompkins: 617
@tmiller2462: 574
@BHartyNMSU: 573
@RealDSean: 551
Matt Wiser: 511
@KevinInABQ: 490
@Iwasrun: 460
@jamesdrygoods: 444
@chrispalm: 433
@MileHighBecky: 419
Mike Wiser: 387
@emande: 380
@RhettLButler: 376.5
@skyvan: 360
@Lord_Chadeous: 345
@thejoshknight: 319
@elephande: 314
Joan Tinker: 292
@EricStrobel: 270
@albolte: 267
Me: 200
@esqcapades: 180
@mpusatera: 94
@pthread: 42
@AngleScott: 2
@KristySez: 0*

*The only way this happens is North Korea hits us with an EMP tonight. #PANIC #DOOM

FINAL UPDATE: Here are my official “before” tweet counts for all of my active accounts:

@brendanloy: 107,024

@MileHighMids: 11,436

@brendanintwitmo: 141

@stapletontower: 62

TOTAL:  118,663

That total will be compared to the total as of 11:59:59pm on May 9 to determine the official number of tweets during the planned #hiatus period.

And now, I’m going to change my Tumblr password, and log off this thing as well. Already changed my Facebook password. Social Media Hiatus, commence!

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

So, based on the questioning at oral argument, @SCOTUSblog believes the Supreme Court will likely punt on California’s Prop 8, because Justice Kennedy “thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm.” This would mean the 9th Circuit decision striking down Prop 8 would remain in place [UPDATE: see clarification below], but there wouldn’t be a nationwide precedent establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.

March 26, 2013

Breaking: key vote Kennedy VERY uncomfortable striking down #prop8. Suggests dismissing case. Would leave in place 9th Cir pro-#ssm ruling.

March 26, 2013

There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time

March 26, 2013

Arguments done. #scotus won’t uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.

March 26, 2013

If the Court strikes down DOMA (that’ll be heard tomorrow, and was always the easier and likelier “win”) and punts on Prop 8 – but doesn’t establish a precedent reversing the 9th Circuit and upholding Prop 8 (which would be a disaster, and was my big fear about this case) – that outcome would be, although disappointing to those of us advocating full equality now, a decent compromise result in the final analysis. It would eliminate the festering unconstitutional boil of DOMA, and would allow continued incremental progress at the ballot box and in the state houses (and in the circuit courts, for that matter), while also opening the door for SCOTUS to review the broader question again in a few years, once the consensus is clearer.

(A “punt” would have the side effect of making the next few presidential elections even more important, of course, and making it harder for marriage equality advocates to consider voting Republican, even if they’re inclined to do so for fiscal or other reasons, because of Supreme Court appointments that could tip the scales on this issue the next time it comes up.)

Remember, fellow advocates of marriage equality, we are winning this issue democratically – and demographically. I do recognize the “fierce urgency of now,” and I know this is easy for me to say as a straight person in a heterosexual marriage that fully grants my rights. But we are winning this argument in the court of public opinion with stunning rapidity (just look at the polls, and the poll trend-line, and then look at the demographic crosstabs – the numbers among young people are overwhelming), and if SCOTUS strikes down DOMA, and doesn’t throw up a roadblock to that democratic progress, equality will prevail, and it will prevail soon.

As Andrew Sullivan might say, “Know Hope.” And, as he also might say, “Meep Meep.”

P.S. Having said all that, a lawyer #protip: trying to divine a court outcome from oral arguments is a tricky business. Stay tuned, as they say.

UPDATE: Speaking of Andrew Sullivan… for what it’s worth, the long-time and fervent advocate of marriage equality prefers the potential result that I’m discussing:

[M]y position on the cases in front of the court today and tomorrow is not a hope for a sudden 50-state Loving vs Virginia-style resolution. If I had my druthers, the perfect outcome would be dismissing the challenge to the ruling striking down Prop 8 on “standing” grounds, thereby allowing civil marriages to continue in California; striking down that part of DOMA which forbids the federal government from recognizing a state’s valid legal marriage licenses, on federalism grounds; and on heightened scrutiny grounds, striking down the “separate-but-equal” segregation of civil unions which are substantively identical to civil marriage.

The end result would be 17 states with marriage equality recognized by the feds, and the debate could then continue democratically as it should state by state.

One point of clarification. I said earlier that a “punt” would leave the Ninth Circuit decision in place, but that’s not necessarily true. The end result would be the same, sort of, but… well, I’ll let SCOTUSblog explain:

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure.  These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice.  If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision. …

I think…the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms.  First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing.  That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8.  Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority.   Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him.  Others on the left may agree.  That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one.  The Court would stay its hand for some time for society to develop its views further.  But combined with a potentially significant ruling in the DOMA case being argued tomorrow, the Term will likely nonetheless end up as very significant to gay rights.

It’s a “modest step forward” if it’s combined with DOMA being overturned, which I believe it should and will be. If DOMA is upheld and the Court punts on Prop 8, that would be a bitter disappointment. It’s all about DOMA.