It appears humans really are all the same

There's an old saying:

If it bleeds, it leads.

According to the internet (and specifically this site), that phrase was first used in an article in the New York Magazine in 1989. I guess it's not really that old then, but it sure feels that way.

It happens that I don't get the New York Magazine. It also happens that I only get one dead tree edition of anything, and that's Science News, a publication where that journalistic philosophy doesn't apply.

But I do read the news online, using Google News as my aggregator. When we moved to Vancouver I adjusted my feed. Google News tracks what you read and click on to build things, but it also lets you pick places you are interested in, and I am pretty sure it also taps your physical location as well.

The current political situation in the US is such a disaster that I can't stop clicking on articles about the latest idiocy committed by the orange menace and his rabid followers, so my feed still has a lot of US based news in it. With luck that will drop over time, possibly because of an impeachment. If that happens, the feed should naturally shift towards more Canadian news.

However, tying this post back to the introduction, Canada suffers from "If it bleeds, it leads" syndrome just as much as the US does. There is a difference, though: Canada has a lot less violence overall, and only about 10% of the population of the US. As a result, the news media here has to go farther afield to find blood, but they do it.

Every morning in the local sections about Vancouver and Richmond, I scan headlines about bodies found, gun shots, accidents, and so on. These are local news sources, and there probably isn't that much local news every day, so they fill their pages with whatever they can get. Blood first, though.

Sadly the national news does the same thing. I read about violence in Victoria, murders in Manitoba, and serial killers in Saskatoon. (Yes, some - ok, a lot of - liberties were taken with the truth in that sentence, but I like it.)

It's actually rather depressing, but reality is a bit different from what you might think (and in particular from what the idiotic minion in charge of the US Justice Department wants you to believe):

• In 2015, the murder rate in the US was 4.88 per 100,000 people. Wikipedia puts that at 94 out of 219 countries. There are 93 countries with higher murder rates.
• In 2014, the murder rate in Canada as 1.68 per 100,000 people, and the same article puts that at position 158 out of 219.
• Due to the population difference, the actual numbers are starkly different: there were 15,696 murders in the US in 2015, and 604 in Canada in 2014.
• Violent crime rates in the US - and, indeed, just about all crime there - have been steadily declining for 20+ years now.
• Similarly, crime rates in Canada are mostly dropping as well.

Despite all of that - actual information! - people in both the US and Canada believe they are always in danger, and worry about highly unlikely events for no reason at all. And in both countries it plays into the hands of politicians wanting power to exaggerate those fears.

I'm tired of that.

In the US the deluge of crime and bad news - due simply to population size - means that if you live in Florida you probably don't read about murders in Oregon unless something really awful happened. And in big cities you don't read about every murder that happens just for lack of space in publications to document them. (Again that is due to population size, not overall crime rates.) So while"if it bleeds, it leads" is still true, there is other news on the front page, at least some of the time.

Here in Canada, though, we read about every murder, shooting, major accidents, and so on all over the country. The simple act of listing them all out in headlines can make you think that crime and death are rampant. It's actually a bit depressing.

I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this. I mean, the political headlines from the US are depressing enough, but add in the major crimes in cities 3000 miles away, and suddenly the news is just an awful read. I don't have any answers yet, but I am open to suggestions.

And yes, it really is safe here. It's lovely, and safe. Just avoid the news.

---

Note: This is a secret post. That is, I am not emailing an announcement about this one because I've written a lot of posts lately, and sent email about them. I don't want to drive people getting those emails nuts. This will get announced on FB, and on G+. And I need to think about twitter too, I guess... hmmm. But I won't email the announcement list. If you find this post you are thus a member of a very select club. Congratulations. Being a member gets you absolutely nothing, but you're in. Yay! You can join the club by getting in touch - email, DM on FB, telegram, phone call(!), whatever - and giving me an email address where you'd like to receive notices of new posts. Once school starts I'll almost certainly post less often, so you shouldn't get flooded with email. Thanks!

Thoughts on Charlottesville

Two brief notes before I get to the gist of this post:

1. Some readers of this blog know me from a large mailing list where I was a moderator. In that role, I kept my political leanings and most other opinions to myself. In this blog, I don't do that. If that bothers you, feel free to skip those posts or stop reading entirely, but I am not going to limit my posts here based on the restrictions I faced in another - completely different - forum.
2. The content of this post was first published on Facebook. I've revised it slightly for the blog format, but the basic ideas are the same.

And with that:

---

I am going to be a bit harsh here, but it is deserved, so...

I am appalled at the idiocy that went on in Charlottesville. Nazis have no place in America - or the world - and a president that supports them - even implicitly - has no place in the oval office. If you support the so-called "Alt Right" or the "New Right" (or any other variant on that lunacy) you're a Nazi, and I want nothing to do with you. There is no place for that in our society. World War II was supposed to have settled that.

Also, the south lost the civil war. It's over. Stop flying that horrible flag and move on. All humans deserve respect and dignity. If you can't do that, get lost.

It's sad that we've come to the point where making statements like that is necessary, but I have too many friends of different backgrounds, skin colors, and immigration statuses to be silent about this.

What happened in Charlottesville cannot happen again.

And I Respond to Senator Feinstein's Response... Not That She Cares In The Least

Back on July 4th, I posted the contents of the letters I sent to some of my elected representatives, discussing the NSA spying situation and various related things.

Then, on July 11th, I shared the response I received from Senator Feinstein's office.  Sadly, thanks to limited formatting options in Blogger, I had to post her response on my personal website to make it legible.

Today I post my response to what I got from Senator Feinstein.  Again, though, the format doesn't work well, so you'll have to visit the page on my website to read it.  Apologies, but with limited column width and no real way to indent text effectively, it's better this way.

I invite you to comment.  Even more, though, I invite you to send your thoughts to your elected representatives.  Even if you disagree with me, they need to hear what the people think.  But - and this is important - we need to be educated.  We need to read the news reports about what the NSA has admitted doing (or been forced to admit), along with what governments in other countries are doing as well.  And we need to think deeply about what this country stands for, and is (or should be) afraid of.

If you've done those things and still disagree with me, that's fine.  Rational disagreement is possible on these topics, and I accept that.  If, however, you're just taking it on blind faith that our government can do no wrong and that terrorism is the ultimate threat, I suggest you need to do a lot more reading about these things.

Anyway, feel free to read any or all of the above links.  I hope they are interesting and possibly useful.

And Senator Feinstein (actually, her staff, I'm sure) Responds to my email:

In an earlier post I shared copies of emails I recently sent to my state senators and the president.  Today I got a response from Senator Feinstein's office.

I tried several times to include the text of the email in this post, but it turns out that Blogger's editor really doesn't have an easy way to make it look nice, or even readable. Kind of a problem.  And since I couldn't manage to do that I didn't even bother trying to include the contents of the PDF file here either.

Instead, I've posted both the email and the attachment on my personal website.  You can read them over there:

http://www.bangtherockstogether.com/nsa_flap/

As you'll see, I didn't write up my response just yet.  For now, suffice it to say that I think her email and the PDF embody the same, tired reply the government has been giving the press for weeks.  "These programs really do work." "There really is effective oversight." You know the drill.

In short, in my opinion, it's a crappy canned response that some harried senate staffer decided was the most appropriate given what little s/he read of my email and the choices they had available.  If I am lucky they added one to some total of complaint letters they got about the NSA issue as well.  If I am unlucky, they forwarded my email to both the FBI and the CIA, and I am now undergoing "additional scrutiny", since I am such a threat to the security of our homeland.

That said, something funny happened when I tried to reply directly to the message I got.

The senator's email came from senator@feinstein.senate.gov, so that is where my reply was going to.  Amusingly, it bounced with the following error message:

550 5.1.1 <senator@feinstein.senate.gov>... User unknown

If only it was the case that Senator Feinstein was unknown, and that someone who cared about civil liberties was in her place.  And I love the fact that my own senator is sending email with forged headers.  Cool, eh?  I wonder if the CAN-SPAM act makes that a crime?  I may have to look that up.

I will mark up Senator Feinstein's response and share it here in a few days, when I can make the time.  It will wind up on my website as well, no doubt, but I'll publish a link here when it's ready to go.

Letters to my Elected Representatives

I am finally writing to my senators and the President about the NSA programs I abhor.  On July 4th. It seems fitting. And since I am no doubt getting myself onto a bunch of government watch lists in the process, I will share them here too. Maybe you will find them amusing, or not.

You may disagree with me and my conclusions. That's fine.

To President Obama:

I am deeply disappointed in you and your administration. I believed your promise of a more open government after the dark years of the Bush administration. Sadly, I now see I was mislead.

Edward Snowden has shown that the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community are operating without oversight, and without concern for the civil liberties of Americans. They are building huge datasets that can easily be used to tar anyone with a crime as an excuse for shutting them up. Every repressive government on the planet now looks to the US as a shining example of how to do exactly what they have wanted to do all along.

You are making that possible. Yes these programs have been around for a long time, and we know the Bush administration supported them, but I hoped you would reign them in. Clearly not.

These programs are violating the civil liberties of Americans every day. The data being accumulated can - and will - be used against the citizens of this country in various ways. This very message is Un-American enough to put me on a watch list, I am sure, and should you or some future administration decide I am a problem, it will be used against me.

Put simply, the US has too many secrets, and doing things in the dark has become the norm. We must not have secret interpretations of US laws. We should not support programs that violate the constitution. Edward Snowden should not have felt he had to release secret documents about secret programs to draw attention to them.

Your website says: "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

Grand words that you have not lived up to.

We agree on many things. I believe in health care reform, though I think the program as it stands doesn't go nearly far enough. I believe in protecting women's rights. I believe in using the government as a force for good.

Alas we disagree vehemently where the NSA is concerned.

I do not want to live in a police state, but that is what we're coming to. If that isn't the case, prove it. Show the people what these programs really do, and how they are not a threat. Put clear limits on data collection, and real safeguards on stockpiles of collected data to avoid its misuse by anyone, now or in the future. Expose the workings of the FISA court while you're at it, and create mechanisms by which it can be challenged, or dismantle it entirely.

Secrets, in short, must be avoided. If I may quote John F. Kennedy: "The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society.

It is time to change course. It is time declassify much of what the NSA is doing, and to stop treating all Americans as criminals. It is time to have an open debate about their programs, and let journalists help us determine whether or not they actually work. It can and must be done. If it is not then we are lost and George Orwell's 1984 will go down in history as the most prescient work of fiction ever written. That is, of course, if history isn't rewritten to avoid that truth.

To Senator Boxer:

Back in 2005 and 2006 you took a principled stance against the outlandish spying being done by the NSA under the direction of the Bush administration. In case you have forgotten, here are some links to refresh your memory:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barbara-boxer/we-need-to-know-the-truth_b_109007.html
• http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_65/-11633-1.html
• http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/051206.cfm
• http://www.chicoer.com/news/bayarea/ci_3822487

With that background, I must ask why it is that nine years later your voice isn't as stridently opposed to the same - and possibly worse - offenses being committed by the NSA? Is it perhaps because you've abandoned your principles to support a Democratic administration? Have you lost sight of the difference between right and wrong?

Here's an extract from a recent article - http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/mounting-concern-over-nsa-in-congress-92422.html - quoting you:

But some senators held the line on Friday, when the Obama administration continued to defend the surveillance practices as necessary to defend the nation. 

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), though emphasizing the necessary balance between privacy and security, said that Internet monitoring had helped thwart terrorist plots, as congressional intelligence leaders said Thursday of the phone monitoring practice. 

“What they were doing is trying to save lives. I know for a fact lives were saved in both these programs. The issue is finding the balance between protecting people and our freedoms and that’s what I’m always after,” Boxer said, adding again: “I know they’ve saved lives.”

So now you worry about "balance"? When the NSA has a standing order from the FISA court letting it collect metadata on millions of phone calls? When we're performing computer espionage against even our allies? Now balance matters?

And you say you know these programs have saved lives. In response I say "prove it". Declassify enough information to show at least the broad outline of what these programs do. There is no harm in that.

Bin Laden himself wasn't using cellular or satellite phones when we finally got to him. The bad guys already have a clue, so saying that data about thwarted attack X was gathered by the NSA screening calls from the US to and from country A would be a start. Letting journalists actually dig into the meat of such claims would be even better. Every time I've seen such claims in the past it has been shown that the NSA was lying. They've claimed their data was key to preventing some attack or making some arrest when it really wasn't.

And we know the head of the NSA - General Clapper - has lied to congress about these very programs. Where is your call to see him removed for doing that? How can we trust a man who outright lies to those who supposedly oversee the programs he runs?

In fact, the only other thing I have heard from you on this topic recently was the misguided assertion that these programs employ too many contractors, as if "real" government employees could be trusted more. In response I give you these simple words: Private First Class Bradley Manning. Clearly he was a government employee. I'm sure that stopped him from giving a boatload of secret documents to Wikileaks. Oh, wait.

In fact the real problem is that people cannot keep secrets, and that we have far too many secrets that need keeping. It doesn't matter who someone works for, they are still human.

So, despite the fact that a Democrat sits in the whitehouse, it is long past time to reign in the NSA, and to shine a very bright light into all of its darkened corridors. We the people - the supposed source of political power in this nation - need to know what the government is doing to and "for" us, clearly and simply. Perhaps we will decide - as a nation - that the collection of phone call metadata is fine. Maybe the implication that we are all a threat is fine with the masses. But perhaps not. Perhaps we don't want to live in a police state, where every move is watched and every communication monitored. Only an informed public can answer that, and that is what you owe the people: the chance to be informed.

It is long past time to get our house in order. We are nothing like a shining beacon of democracy when we spy on our own citizens in ways the Stasi could only dream of.

Please stop worrying about Edward Snowden himself and start worrying about what he's exposed. The NSA is running amok, with no effective oversight. It is violating our civil liberties every single day. It's at least as bad as it was nine years ago, and probably much worse. It is time for you to voice those concerns and help lead the effort to bring it under control.

If you do not, I won't be voting for you again. These liberties are key to our way of life. If you have lost sight of the need to defend them, I will vote for a candidate who will do so.

You have a choice. I hope you make the wise one.

To Senator Feinstein:

I write you in astonishment. The recent revelations about the NSA's clearly unconstitutional surveillance programs have me very upset. I know you are a supporter, and I suspect the fact that I am opposed to these programs - and anything like them that we haven't yet been told about - means that you will never personally read this message. That's a shame.

It is clear to me that the NSA - and probably most of the US Intelligence Community - needs to be reigned in. As a country, we've let ourselves become afraid of every little shadow, and the results are obvious. We've allowed ill thought out laws - like the Patriot Act - to govern far too much of our lives, and we've let terrible practices - like secret courts and secret interpretations of laws - become the norm. And I doubt I need to remind you of things like enhanced interrogation techniques, renditions, secret prisons, and other obscenities from the previous administration. Sadly, I have to hold both Presidents Bush and Obama as well as congress - and you - responsible for this. At least I am realistic enough to know there is nothing significant I can do about it beyond complaining.

I cannot convey to you the depth of my revulsion for the things the NSA and other agencies are doing (and have done) to (and "for") the people of the United States. We are being treated as though we are all criminals, suspected of crimes - and terrorism - without charge. Without evidence. We are being spied upon in ways that should never have been allowed, and we are spying on the rest of the world as if we own it. This must stop.

Even worse, from what I read, congress is not providing any meaningful oversight of any of our spying programs, and the FISA court is merely a rubber stamp, approving just about every request it gets. And there are other, obvious, structural problems with the FISA court as well, like who can possibly oppose a request presented to it? Answer: no one. There are no checks on what it can and cannot allow, and no disclosure about what it does. That's wrong, plain and simple, and creates a system rife with abuse.

The huge data sets the NSA has collected - and is still collecting - are a threat to anyone. Fishing expeditions can easily make anyone look bad. I look Un-American just for writing this message, and if someone at the NSA decides to look it up in a few years, they could use it to tar me as a traitor. And that same strategy can be used against any citizen.

Keeping so many secrets is counter to our democratic principles. We need much more sunlight on these programs, and clear safeguards to protect the people from the misuse of the data they collect. But speaking as a professional programmer, it is my opinion that the only way to keep such data truly safe is to avoid collecting it in the first place.

Remember Watergate? Remember the McCarthy hearings? The ways the Prism program could be misused will make those look like a walk in the park.

Given what I have seen from you in the press, I suspect you completely disagree with me, and are ready to throw the freedoms we cherish under the bus. And in truth it may be too late. Maybe those freedoms are already gone. Perhaps we've gone from being the land of the free to the land of a few free oligarchs and 300 million oppressed people.

But still, I implore you to see reason. Edward Snowden himself is a distraction. He's a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. What matters is what the NSA and other agencies are actually doing, and just how much is being kept from the people - the people - who are supposedly the source of political power in the US. You were elected to represent the people, but on this issue you have failed us.

Unless you change your course I am done voting for you. I'll vote for a Green party candidate instead, even if they cannot win, simply because I find your stance on these issues repugnant.

The people deserve better. They deserve knowledge of what the government is doing to and for them, real oversight of any challenging programs, and a government they can trust. Given recent events it is clear we lack all of those things. Your job should be to find a way to get them back.

Somehow I think that will never happen, but I can dream.

If You Read This, You Will Probably Be Offended

I've been asked for my political opinions of late, which just goes to show that some people don't have nearly enough to do. In any case, here's a list of things that influence how I will be voting in the coming election, and what I think about politics in general. There was no way to keep this short enough to read if I justified even a single item, so I gave up on that. It's just a list. You will almost certainly disagree with at least some of it. Don't say you weren't warned.

You might consider looking at pictures of cute kittens instead. You will stay calmer, and sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

• By the time anyone is running for (or being appointed to) high office, I assume they are totally corrupt. No exceptions.
• Politicians and their campaign staffs will - deliberately - take anything their opponent says out of context in an attempt to make him or her look bad. I call this what it is: lying.
• No politician - of any party - will be able to reduce the deficit. They will never be allowed to stop spending. Both will get bloodied by their constituencies if they even try. Don't even bother listening when a candidate claims otherwise.
• The only way to shrink the deficit is to get the economy moving again, and then avoid both increasing spending and pay down the deficit while times are good. Yes, that is highly unlikely, but it is the only approach that could work.
• Just how important is the deficit in the short term? I honestly don't know. But if it is as bad as some make it out to be, why is the rest of the world loaning us money at about 2.6% for 30 years as I write this? That doesn't even cover inflation. We must look like a good bet, or everyone else looks really bad. Right now, at that interest rate, borrowing money isn't all that big a deal. Heck, simple (low) inflation will pay the interest and even some of the principle.
• In the longer term, the national debt is unsustainable. That has to be fixed over time, and the fix will require several things:
• Stop spending money on pointless wars. Get us out of the ones we are in now.
• Stop spending money on pointless military weapon systems.
• Reduce the size of the standing army.
• Reduce the nuclear arsenal stockpile in a big way.
• Phase in cost savings to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That probably means gradually increasing the age at which people can collect, and gradually introducing means testing, so the wealthy collect less, or not at all.
• Increase taxes on the wealthy.
• Here's a big hint: we cannot solve the nation's fiscal problems with only spending cuts or tax increases: nothing is ever that simple. Nothing. Current tax rates are at record lows and spending is at a peak. Changes to both things must be part of the solution. A growing economy would help too.
• Despite stating above that we have to make changes to our social programs, there is an iron clad, real, need for a social safety net. It must remain, and probably be made even more effective in the process, given the number of people who are falling through it now. To remove or reduce what we have in any substantial way is immoral and repugnant.
• In any system - government or business - there will always be people who cheat and take advantage of it for personal gain. This is not a good thing, but pointing the finger at government corruption without admitting that the problem is just as big in industry - or vice versa - is missing the point. Reducing corruption is a good thing, and the way to do it is openness and accountability in all transactions, both public and private. Until we get to that - or at least closer to it - there will always be corruption, regardless of which system you prefer. And that corruption hurts us all, regardless of where it occurs. Don't be so narrow minded as to think that business is better than government on this front, or the other way around. Humans are the real problem.
• Not all regulation is evil. More regulation and monitoring of the high risk mortgage and derivative markets would have been a good thing back before 2008, and we are still suffering from that lack. That said, regulation can be overbearing and stop things that are actually good if it gets out of hand. The trick is to walk the razor's edge, and it is hard to do. Mistakes will be made - in both directions - and need to be corrected without going too far the other way and causing significant new issues.
• Unions aren't my favorite thing. There was a time when they were required - in certain industries, at least - to offset serious abuses. I get that. And there may be similar problems in places now. But every union is made of people, and people cheat, work systems for personal gain, and so on. Unions are just as corrupt as business and government. It has to be that way thanks to the human element. Besides that, unions simply cannot be universally good. How does a great employee shine in an environment where she cannot ask for a raise or get promoted more quickly than her peers because of union rules and agreements? Waiting for everyone who was hired before you to be promoted, quit, retire, or die is not good for anyone's job or position in an organization. I don't think unions work well with human nature because of this issue.
• Personal responsibility should be a bigger part our our culture. People need do much more on at least these fronts in my opinion:
• Save for their retirement.
• Save for their own health care.
• Keep their debt down.
• Defer instant gratification in favor of longer term stability and financial security.
• Stop suing everyone for every little thing.

Such things would let phasing in changes to our social programs be simpler and more effective, among other things.

• Health care in the US is all screwed up. The wrong incentives are used to pay too much for the wrong things. In addition, the legal system creates additional, perverse incentives that drive prices up as well. The net result is that we pay way too much for comparatively poor health outcomes.
• Insurance companies are evil. Give me a single payer system any day, but remember that the wealthy should pay for more (or all of) their health care themselves, probably by reimbursing the single payer system for some or all of their care.
• Anyone who thinks his religion trumps our (man made) laws is inherently unfit for office.
• Anyone who thinks forcing his view of religion on others is acceptable is also unfit for office, and is pretty much unfit in general.
• Anyone who discriminates on the basis of religion, creed, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, etc. is unfit for office - and generally - as well.
• Abortion is for the woman (or the woman and her partner) to decide upon, not the government, which should stay out of it entirely.
• The war on drugs is lost. Decriminalize most of it and tax it. Release - at a minimum - anyone in jail for charges solely related to drug possession (for use) and who has no history of violence.
• Mandatory sentencing laws are, in general, idiotic.
• Marriage is a loaded term. We should stop using it in any legal way. Instead, all states and the federal government should recognize contractual, civil unions. Anyone of age should be allowed to specify who their partner is - regardless of gender - and all the things that currently go with marriage (hospital decision making, visitation rights, child custody, inheritance, etc.) should be based on that contract. If you want to get married - in the eyes of your church - that's fine, but it should have no benefit as far as the government is concerned. You can set that up with your church and do whatever you want there.
• Assuming that we cannot get to a strict civil union setup, it is important to note that your marriage is in no way threatened by the marriage of a gay or lesbian couple. Get a grip on reality and let them be happy together, in the eyes of the law such as we have it setup now.
• What consenting adults do in their bedroom is no one's business but their own. Butt out. As an aside, I'd bet that anyone who disagrees with this would be very uncomfortable if someone started digging into their private lives in the same way. "Don't mind me... I'm just setting up a bunch of wireless video cameras in your bedroom and, oh heck... your whole house. Just go about your business. You'll never know you're being watched if you have nothing to hide."
• Personal liberty - which I will inadequately define as freedom of expression and the avoidance of pointless, intrusive surveillance - is critical, and must be supported. In passing I note that ever since 9/11 the entire US population is so terrified of its own shadow that any government from any party has no problem passing just about any law that claims to make the population safer in some way, no matter how idiotic said law might be. And those laws are places where all kinds of abuse can hide.
• I like clean air & water. Regulation is needed to avoid pollution because humans are weak and stupid and some of them will do the wrong things. And pollution doesn't keep to state or other boundaries... it moves around. We're all much better off since the EPA was created. It - and a few other organizations like it - need to stick around. But always with that pendulum in mind. If any organization gets too nasty and causes more problems than it fixes, it needs to be reigned in.
• Global warming is real - very real - and humans are causing it. Get over your pointless disbelief and let's work to figure out what - if anything - we can do to mitigate the problem. I worry that it is already too late, but I don't have kids who will suffer. You might... let's do something about that.
• I like markets that are fair. Capitalism may be the most efficient way to move goods and services around, but it is subject to the same thing I have been harping on: people are weak and stupid and some will cheat if they can. That cheating, when it happens, can affect millions of us, and regulation is needed to reduce the chances that it will happen, and to correct the problems when it does. Again, though, the caveat about pendulums and keeping both regulations and regulators in check is key.
• Do you remember the saying: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"? Well, guns are the very last refuge of the most incompetent. It is just barely possible you could be the 1 in 100 (or whatever... it's a tiny number) who happens to have his firearm handy sometime in his life when it can be used to save a life or stop a crime. Statistically, though, you're much more likely to have it stolen, or worse. The wild west is (thankfully) long gone, and we don't need firearms around all the time anymore.
• The death penalty is dumb. Remember, people are weak and stupid. Prosecutors and police will sometimes make things up, or just get something wrong. People will confess to things they didn't do because they don't know what else to do, or they are browbeaten, tired, and confused. Lawyers can give bad advice. Juries are notoriously inaccurate as a gauge of the truth. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. And nothing will bring back the dead, not even killing someone who might have committed the crime. We should eliminate the death penalty entirely and stop stooping to the level of state sanctioned murder. We already know we get it wrong from time to time.
• If you are wealthy, you owe more to society. It's really that simple, and it is a key part of the compact that keeps us going. You may be very smart, or have created something new and wonderful that everyone wants, but you stand on the shoulders of those who have come before you, and who did or created things you depend upon. Much of that stuff that came before is now in the commons: roads, bridges, etc. Be generous and willingly pay for your share and use of such things. That's the right way to live. Taxation is the general way such things are paid for, and that's why taxes on the wealthy are higher. It's fair that way, and makes everyone's life better, including that of those paying the taxes.
• Health care for the poor and indigent benefits the wealthy. The reduction in communicable disease is one direct way. The increased output of the economy is another that is less direct. Letting people die when they could be treated is counter productive as well as immoral and unethical. It's also stupid.
• That said, there is a population problem, and more people isn't always better. While we may not yet have reached the maximum capacity of the planet, we will one day. And it will get ugly. The single biggest thing it appears we can do to keep the population under control is educate girls everywhere. Once they start school, they take control of their own reproductive future, and birth rate goes down. That's a good thing, and should be encouraged.
• Communism sounds great on paper - to me, at least - but it will never work in reality. Humans aren't wired like that, and no matter how many times a heart surgeon listens to John Lennon singing Imagine, he is always going to expect to be paid more than a ditch digger, and there will always be people that cheat on their taxes, or find ways to game a system. Sadly, they tend to wind up in power, and then you have serious nastiness.
• Superstition is not an alternative to science, no matter how you sugar coat it. Move on. Science is our best hope for finding the truth, and for saving our species from disaster.

As you might guess from this list, I am a cynic about human nature, and probably a hypocrite about a few things as well. Such is life. I also think the chances of changes I like are vanishingly small, which means I am unlikely to be happy about American politics for the foreseeable future.

So how will I vote in this election? Nothing is certain, but examining the issues I see the following:

• Since I don't think either party will make any headway on the deficit - short term or long - I discard that as a reason to choose one over the other. Mind you, both parties will claim they are going to fix it, but they aren't telling the truth, and the American people won't let them fix it in any case.
• Both presidential candidates will do just about anything to get into (or stay in) office. As a result, neither has a lead there. Honesty would be such a nice change, but neither side has shown it in the heat of the campaign.
• On issues relating to privacy and personal liberty, neither party has an advantage either. Both stink.
• On the ongoing wars and related foreign entanglements, once again neither party has a particular lead. Obama hasn't exactly gotten us out of Iraq and Afghanistan faster than I think a Republican would have, and he may even have delayed our exit as I see these things. Then again, confronted with the situation, McCain might well have kept us in longer than Obama will in the end. No way to tell, and thus I cannot lean one way or another on that.
• That more or less leaves the social issues, and I there come down more on the side of the Democrats. They aren't a perfect match but the Republicans - with their overwhelming religious intolerance, bigotry, and war on women - are actually repugnant, so here the Democrats really do have a lead with me.

So unless things change - and they might, I am not a registered member of any party, and I don't think any of the parties accurately represent my view of things - you can pretty much guess which way I'll go. Those who know me will not be surprised, even if individual items above might surprise (or more likely disappoint) them.

It's Not That SImple

This post has been around for some time.  I wrote some of it a long time back and then sat on it.  Then I read this post by Phil Plate and was inspired to complete it.  Then I let it sit again, just because.  Today I am tired of seeing it in my list of unpublished posts, so it gets kicked out of the nest.  It's still accurate and timely, particularly given the rhetoric of the presidential campaign.

---

Modern politics really bothers me.  It's full of people who only see things one way.

Is the only fix for our current economic situation to get the government out of the way of business?  Or is it that there isn't enough regulation in place to keep things under control?

More importantly, why do so many people I know - and so many pundits and candidates for office - fall into the trap of thinking like that?

Let's start with something obvious.  Governments and businesses share something: they are composed of people, and people inevitably do stupid things.  Whether it's the federal government writing regulations no small business can possibly follow, or wall street bankers creating derivatives no one can possibly understand, the results can be disastrous for all of us, and there are always unintended consequences.

Does anyone honestly think that any given government here in the US is actively trying to stifle business and thus harm the economy?  By the same token, does anyone actually believe that businesses are inherently more honest than any other group of people?

It seems to me that governments and business are both tools.  Sometimes one tool is better than another for a given task.  Arguing over which tool to use may be fine, but suggesting that we should throw one or another tool out of the toolbox entirely is short sighted in the extreme.

There are things that only a government can reasonably be expected to handle, and there are things that business is better off doing.  At any given point in history we, as a nation, are attempting to strike a balance between these two things, and that balance is constantly changing thanks to external influences.

If you're going to argue that the government cannot possibly pay for everything it has to do, fine.  You and/or your elected representatives, though, must make rational suggestions about what to cut and where.  You must be honest in detailing what those cuts mean, and you need to be fair about how the pain of those cuts is apportioned.

Similarly, if you think that businesses of some sort must be reigned in, you need to be honest about your expectations, and forthright in your statements about what needs to be changed or regulated and why.  The results of those regulations must be anticipated as best as possible, and the consequences understood and accepted by all of those affected.  Regulations should not be needlessly burdensome, and limited as best as possible to affect only those things desired.

Note, though, that any change - on the side of business or government - will give rise to unintended consequences, and unexpected behaviours on the part of people somewhere.  None of us can see all the repercussions of our actions in that depth.  The systems we're talking about are far too complicated and variable to allow for accurate predictions.  (If any of this was easy we'd already have agreed on and implemented a fix, don't you think?)

And humans definitely do not always act in their own best interest, even when they know what that interest is, which, frankly, isn't all that often.

For me, the upshot of all this is simple: an opinion about some complicated political issue is just that: an opinion.  You are welcome to it, but none of us can be declared right or wrong until all the data is in, and probably not until well after we're dead.  Until then, polite discussion and compromise are required.  Of all of us.  All of us.

On A More Serious Note

I don't know what to make of the US's recent work in Libya.

First of all, please don't get me wrong.  From what I can tell Gaddafi is a complete nitwit.  He's dangerous and loony, I know.  Getting him out of power, should that happen, is likely to be a good thing.  And keeping him from killing innocents is definitely good as well.

But, where does it all end?

We're currently involved in three simultaneous wars, which has to be some kind of record.

And the costs of such things are staggering.  I hear so many politicians complaining about the budget these days.  The single fastest way to reduce the short term deficit would be to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and (now) Libya.  The cruise missiles we're firing at Libya are awfully expensive things, not to mention planes and pilots.

More interesting to me than costs, though, is our reputation.  The US was already seen by far too many as a bully.  Some countries want us to continue in our role as "world policeman" while others are terrified of that very same thing.  I can't yet find a way that our involvement in Libya does much good for our reputation overall, even if in the end it benefits the Libyan people.  Just wait until there are a few confirmed civilian casualties as a result of coalition air strikes, for example, to see how badly things might go, even in Libya itself.

And we pick our battles so carefully.  We intervene in Iraq and Libya, but not in North Korea, nor China during the Tiananmen Square uprising?  Why or why not?  What about the other middle east countries currently seeing varying levels of protest?  Should we help the Yemenese people if things take an ugly turn there?  How about Bahrain?  Or Saudi Arabia, where recent descriptions of the overwhelming response to a possible protest astounded me.

I suspect we gave up the moral high ground a long, long time ago, and now all the decisions are simply pragmatic in nature.  We can intervene in Libya because we have cover from the UN, and the Arab League, but can't do anything against North Korea or China because they have nukes.  Libya has oil we want, by the way, as does Saudi Arabia.  The calculus around whether intervention helps or hinders our oil habit must be very interesting at the highest levels of power.

I'd rather we stepped back and honesty answered the questions: Should we be intervening?  Why or why not?

I don't claim to know the answers in any given case.  These are complicated issues, and there are arguments on all sides, but it appears to me as if the US is getting involved in far too many conflicts of late, to our own detriment in various ways.  It's like the default is to start shooting.

Something about that feels wrong.

Politics Again. Sure to Upset Everyone Somehow.

This morning as I was leaving for work the phone rang. I picked up only to hear a robo-call from some (I assume) right wing lunatic asking me if I was aware of the tea parties and "what was happening with our government." It closed by asking me to "pay attention."

Well, I have been paying attention. There are many things going on at both the state and federal level, and I have opinions about some of them. Mostly I'm disgusted.

At the state level the recent news is the CA supreme court upholding Prop 8. I've seen blog posts and Facebook status updates from people - including friends - on both sides of this issue, and I'm afraid I have to come down on the side against prop 8. Strongly. I know this may upset some of my friends and coworkers, but here's the thing. I know several gay couples, and marriage - real marriage, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities - matters to them. And you know what? They deserve it.

These people are just as much a part of America as any other citizen, and they are - or should be - the equals of any of us. But no, they're not. Not here in California. Instead of equality we get a slim majority voting away the rights of a minority, and that is appalling. This nation's founding fathers were afraid of the tyranny of the majority, and here we have a textbook example of the principle, in one of the (supposedly) most progressive states in the union.

Here's a thought: next time around let's modify the constitution so that left handed people can't get married. It's a nice narrow subclass - much like gays & lesbians - so the supreme court should have no problem upholding that too. And then, the election after that, we'll stop bald people from getting married. Don't want them to raise children. And then brown eyed people, after all, you can't trust people with brown eyes. And after that? Jews? Non-whites? Gee, for some reason this is starting to sound familiar.

There is no threat to anyone in gay marriage. All prop 8 does is legalize discrimination. So much for the land of the free.

And as if that wasn't bad enough the state's economy continues to crumble. There isn't enough money to go around and there aren't any places to cut without hurting people - a lot of people. California has been ungovernable for a long time and it's only going to get worse in the coming years. I am not optimistic, but I don't know what to do about it. Moving - thanks to our jobs and the roots we've put down in the community - is not an option we like thinking about. I suppose it could come to that, though.

On the federal level - which is what this morning's stupid robo-call was about, I guess - the picture is slightly more mixed. President Obama has changed a number of policies from the Bush administration for the better, and I appreciate that. Even better, the Republicans are being forced to call themselves a "regional party" now, and their falling support is something I can only call a "good thing."

On the other hand I'm not so sure I like the government owning large chunks of major banks and auto manufacturers, but that might have been inevitable. Or not. The bailout is an enormously complicated thing and I can see arguments on all sides of it. I can even appreciate and agree with many of them, and I have to admit that I don't know what the "correct" solution is, or if there even is such a thing.

What disturbs me is we're starting to hear that the Obama administration is doing some things in the way that the Bush administration did. In the most recent example I know of, they are essentially following a Bush administration policy of denying that the list of visitors to the White House is public knowledge.

Excuse me? Didn't we have screaming lawsuits about this when Cheney didn't want to release his list of visitors while he was setting up his "energy policy"? And don't I recall Obama saying he was going to do things differently, starting with a reversal of the "don't disclose it if you don't have to" crap that the Bush administration was doing? They were going to be more open, or so we were told.

Well, it appears the Obama administration isn't quite living up to it's own ideals in all cases. But then again we knew that already, didn't we? We were told "no lobbyists", but there were all those exceptions for key positions. And then there were all the appointments of people who had "tax issues" discovered only after their selections were announced.

How completely unsurprising. People in power abuse that power, regardless of their party affiliation. We saw it - in spades - in the Bush administration and now we're starting to see it in the current crop of politicians as well.

The Obama administration may be more to my liking - on any number of fronts - but they're still politicians, and we should all know what that means by now. Cynicism, I'm sad to say, is the only defensible position when it comes to politics.

And with that I've probably alienated the last three friends I had. That's a shame, but I have this honesty problem...

I'm About Not To Vote...

I think this will be the first time I haven't gone to the polls since moving to California.

I kind of hate myself for not voting, but I've got my reasons.

First of all I live in something of a media vacuum, and so the dire predictions of disaster if the various things on this special election fail have only slowly been getting to me. This has been made worse by my local NPR station - which has been in pledge hell for the last 1.5 weeks, which means I turn it off immediately after hearing it - so I'm less informed than usual.

But beyond that, I'm truly of mixed mind about the mess we're in.

I may be the only person in the state who think the legislators aren't responsible for this mess. No, we, the citizens are, and I can sum up why quite simply:

• We hate paying taxes
• We don't want to give up services
• We keep tying our legislator's hands with rules and initiatives
• We require that every decision of consequence be encoded in the constitution and therefore go before the people for a vote

That set of choices - and they are (or were) choices - leads to disaster every time.

So here we sit staring at a huge budget deficit. If we pass these silly measures it's going to be bad. If we don't pass them it's going to be worse.

Some claim the measures were all written at the last minute with no review. Maybe true. Some claim we'll be letting child rapists out of prison if we don't pass them. Also possibly true.

All I know is that I'm sick of the games. If we haven't got the money to pay for things there are only a few valid choices:

• Pay for less
• Pay less for what you get
• Get more money to pay for what you need

That's it, people. Nothing else is sustainable in the long term. Either you spend less in some way or bring in more money. It really, really, (REALLY!) is that simple.

From my - admittedly too brief thanks to work - review, every last one of these measures is a shell game. We're moving money from one year to the next or borrowing now and will have to pay it back later (with interest), or something similar. Frankly it's crap.

It is basically impossible to look at any one state program and say "that's a waste of money." It's possible I feel that way about some programs, but others will always legitimately disagree. I assure you that no one ever said "here's a really stupid way to spend the state's money!" and then we all voted for it. No, it never happens that way. The expenses are all good in and of themselves. There may be some unintended consequences of these things, but actual fraud of intent at the creation of a given law or bill is exceptionally rare.

And of course no one ever wants to admit that they get any value for their tax dollar. "I pay too much in taxes" is all I hear - from everyone, nominally on the left or the right. And then the complaints follow. "Have you noticed the roads? They stink! So many potholes! And my kid's teacher has 43 students in her 4th grade classroom. And my friend just lost his unemployment benefits because he still can't find a job. What kind of system lets those things happen? They must be wasting all our money somewhere." Oh the irony of it all.

In any case we're stuck with it. The economy sucks, people are hurting, and we're being dragged back to the polls to vote on a series of measures that are so complicated no one can predict what they will mean for the budget just a couple of years from now.

Well, I've had it. I am no expert at this, and I can't make informed decisions about it, and for that reason I am not going to vote tomorrow. Part of me wants to avoid damage to the system, but part of me also wants the state to see some shock therapy.

That said, the people that really, really need to get zapped are the voters. The initiative process has gotten entirely out of hand and we've handcuffed our legislators at every turn. They have no money to play with, people. X% for K-14 education (prop 98, right?). No, you can't raise property taxes (prop 13). Y% for roads (some other proposition that was approved a few years back). And so on.

We, collectively, deserve everything that goes wrong as a result of this budget crisis. A smarter electorate would have given their legislators the tools to solve the problem and let them do it, not actively prevented it.

The next few years are going to be ugly. There will be fewer police, fire fighters, teachers, and so on. Taxes will be high and services will be low. The standard of living is going to go down.

Maybe that's necessary, though. Maybe - just maybe - if we all suffer enough someone will start telling people the truth: this is our fault, people. Get it through your thick skulls. We need to spend less or take in more money. Anything else just causes the kind of issues we're seeing now.

Happy suffering.

Strange Silence

Yes, it's been 12 days since my last post here. Or something like that.

You'd think - with the inauguration and all - I'd have something interesting to say. Not really, and that's why I haven't written.

In all honestly, I was happy to see our new president take office. So far he's kept to the script as I envisioned he would, and I agree with the things he's done, at least to the extent that I understand them. But he's still human, as is his staff, and the mistakes and issues will inevitably come.

And that's where I peter out. Happy, but wary. Not much there.

I could write about my own life, right? After all that's not getting any simpler. There's a new printer sitting on the table behind me that hasn't been setup in the week since it arrived. There's the DMV testing I need to finish to finalize the drivers license that will let me drive fire engines. There's work, which brings with it a whole slew of things I need to do and understand. And there are friends and commitments that I need to keep up with. There are dogs to pet, sculptures to carve, and so on.

Mostly, though, it's overwhelming and I'm tired. That's not where I want to be, and it makes for lousy blog entries.

Slowly, however, I can see things changing. I'm actually less exhausted now than I was a month ago. The schedule that came with going back to work is getting a bit easier, and I've ordered a new computer that will make it simpler to work from home a bit, letting me dodge the worst of rush hour, at least.

But that's all pretty mundane stuff. As you can see, I haven't got anything of substance driving this post. Mostly I'm just writing so my readers - and there are a couple of you out there - know that I am still here. Oh, and Paul, I really will write that next update on the water system one of these days.

Someone Beat Me to This Post

My good friend Ducky writes a blog that I read. Her topics vary, like mine, but tend to the more technical at times, which is OK with me. She also comments on politics, and this morning - before I could write almost the exact same words - she had this simple post up.

Since she said it so well, I'll have to say something else. Sadly, that is to point out that in California, prop 8 is probably going to pass, and that's terrible. Where, exactly, is the threat if gay people marry? How is this a problem for traditional marriage? And what gives anyone the right to dictate who can marry and who cannot?

I'm happy Obama got elected. It's a bit of history and I'm glad to have been around when it happened. But the very idea that there are enough bigoted, short sighted, small minded people to pass prop 8 in California just sickens me. I hope something happens at the federal level to make the California law invalid. The sooner the better.

The Crazy California Ballot

It's time to express a simple, easy opinion about the CA ballot: It's stupid!

Why do we insist on allowing initiatives? That process gets us the most awful legislation imaginable, written by anyone with a vested interest in something and enough money to setup an organization with a nice, bland name - something like the "Committee for Continuing California Progress", oh, wait, that would be the CCCP, and I doubt that would fly, but you get the idea - to drive it home.

Oh, I know the claim: "Our legislators aren't doing their job, so we have to do it for them." I say that's crap. If they haven't found a way to deal with it in Sacramento it's because the problem is difficult and the people are split about how to handle it. That's a time for discussion and - yes, I know you'll hate the word - compromise, not for some billionaire from out of state to come in and force the issue onto the ballot by hiring people to stand outside of grocery stores conning voters into signing things they haven't read and don't understand.

The initiative process is the dumbest way to make legislation, and it causes no end of problems, but the issues with the California ballot don't end there.

Why do we insist on enshrining every stinking thing into the state constitution? Why are the specifics of how to fund a high speed rail project in the constitution? Why are the sentences for various crimes in the constitution? What on earth is going on here? Printed out, the California constitution must be 950 pages long. No one can read a ballot measure and understand its impacts because the various bits are spread out all over a huge document that no one fully comprehends.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the constitution to contain a few guiding principles - things we think are core to what makes California the unique place it is - and put the rest of it into laws? Laws that our legislature could simply vote up or down and be done with? (Can you think of any examples where we do this? Hint: here's one place where the Federal goverment is way ahead of the curve.) If we want our legislators to do their jobs, we shouldn't be voting on every single thing they have to do every couple of years, as we have to if it's in the constitution. Instead we should be voting on what they did by putting new legislators in place if we don't like the outcomes.

A related point is that the average voter can't be an expert on everything on the ballot. This time around I need to know about farm animal treatment, high speed rail funding and usage patterns, and ten other subjects. Excuse me? How the hell should I know about these things? We hire our legislators to do this work for a reason: it's not simple. It takes time and effort and research. Our legislators, in turn, should consult with (or hire) experts in various fields to gather enough information to know how to vote intelligently. I don't have the time - not to mention the spare cranial capacity - to do all of that for every issue on the ballot, which again argues for keeping things out of the constitution and instead putting them into laws that our legislators can vote on and change as needed.

Another point about the California ballot is that we're addicted to bond measures. Back when the governator was put into office, there was all kinds of hubbub about how we had too much bond debt and we weren't going to get more credit as a state. Things were near panic. But the debt was refinanced in various ways and life went on. Well, now, here we are again with a boat load of bond measures on the 2008 ballot, and there were bunches in previous elections as well. When do we say enough is enough? Aren't we mortgaging the future of the state to pay for these things now? An occasional bond I can understand, but this state seems to feed on bonds in a way that has no basis in fiscal reality.

And speaking of fiscal reality, let's talk about a way in which we, the voters, have tied the hands of the legislature to keep them from doing their job: fiscal restrictions. So many initiatives have passed that require certain percentages of the state budget be devoted to specific things that there is no way the remainder and accomplish anything useful. Sure, schools are a good cause, but are they always the best place to spend money? Maybe not. Maybe we need to move money around and hire more fire fighters some year, but the budget is so tight we can't.

Any cause can be painted as right and noble. Many truly are. But the state budget is a balancing act, and the legislation that requires specific funding percentages for schools, roads, and shoes for the children of orphaned lumberjacks who don't wear flannel is just ludicrous. The legislature needs to be able to control the majority of the budget. I'd prefer to see them control it all, actually, but for the moment I'll take what I can get.

Here's a thought, people: we have to cooperate, and we can't spend more than we have. If you want to put more money into <your favorite cause> we have to either spend less on <someone else's favorite cause> or we have to take in more money from somewhere, probably taxes. It's not hard to see when spelled out that simply, but getting people to realize that and act based on those simple principles is tough.

In all seriousness I suggest you consider the following when you go to the polls in a few days: vote no on everything at the state level. Yes, you may think that some of the ideas in some of those ballot measures are good, but ask yourself: were they put there for the right reasons, and in balance with everything else going on? Do they cost more money than we have? Will lawyers earn millions as they go through the court system? Could we live without them just fine?

Seriously. Give it some thought.

Something Else Good About Barack Obama

Here's a story about Barack Obama that I'd never heard before, and that others need to hear. I've talked with people that know about it. As far as I can tell, this is true.

I've encountered so much fear about what might happen if Obama is elected. The truth is that he can't live up to the massive positive expectations growing around him - no one could - but he can set an excellent example. He can show the world that America is able to rise above it's past, that anything is possible here. And by providing a steady hand - probably not always right, but generally more reasonable than anything coming out of the Bush whitehouse - he can lead us through this economic mess, get us out of Iraq, and perhaps start some diplomatic efforts in places that haven't seen any effort in recent history. And who knows, if things go well maybe we can make some progress on other issues too, like reducing the debt, health care, energy independance, and so on.

I can't tell you how we do all of those things. I don't think Obama or McCain can tell you either. What matters is who they listen to while making decisions and what sort of leadership they provide when they have the information in their hands. For my money, Obama is a much better leader than McCain, much more inspiring. I can't trust him - or any other politician - completely, but he's a lot better than the competition.

I hope we give him a chance on Nov 4, 2008. That would show America at it's best. The story above is another example of why he's worthy of that chance.

More on formative politics

A while back I wrote a post about my first political memory - Nixon's resignation. Continued thought along that line has lead me to realize what came later: the hostage crisis under Carter, the subsequent failed rescue attempt, and Reagan's reinstatement of selective service registration, which required me to make a trip to my local post office at a particular age.

I think growing up a bit cynical about anything political is justified given those memories.

Looking at today's election mess, I have to admit to a certain frustration and disillusionment born from that underlying cynicism, though I think of it more as realism now. The economy is in the toilet and both major party candidates are still talking as if they will follow through on their plans. I don't think so.

Let me tell you what needs to happen: spending has to go down and taxes have to rise. Both. Period.

The Bush administration has spent us into a hole, squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed attempt to instill democracy at gun point in Iraq. The cost of that mess isn't even in the budget thanks to their accounting tricks, and we'll still be paying for that twenty generations from now. Just how "conservative" is that set of actions, do you think?

As a result of that financial recklessness, and regardless of how much you might like McCain or Obama, the simple fact is that neither of them is telling the actual truth. They're going to have to cut spending in places that hurt, and they're going to have to raise taxes. If they don't, the economic fundamentals won't get any better, and the recession will deepen.

As I keep saying, I'll vote for Obama. He's closer to me on the social issues, and I think he gets a better score on the things that allow a society to be judged "good," but even if he wins a filibuster proof margin in the senate he can't follow through his programs and promises. If he does, the fiscal disaster that results will cripple the nation. And as for McCain, his so called conservatism is a sham, and worse for the country economically than anything Obama ever dreamt of. His social positions are also a disaster, but one that worsens with time as he bends to the will of the far right wing of his party.

And there we hit the crux of the issue with McCain: for a maverick, he's awfully wishy-washy, saying whatever he has to say and doing whatever he has to do to make sure he gets into office. Clearly he has to keep those far right wingers happy, and that's revolting.

Thankfully, though, Nov 4 is getting closer all the time. The election will end - for better or worse - and we can all go back to whatever we were doing before, with our heads firmly stuck in the sand for another four years. Right? Isn't that what you're going to do?

Economics and Personal Lives

The past few weeks have been painful for the world economy, and they've hit some of us directly. I'm one of those so affected.

Three and a half years ago I quit working and assumed the title of "kept man". I had hoped to spend a lot of time working on my art, and the rest of my time doing other things. Looking back, I did do a bit more carving, but not as much as I'd hoped. To be honest, I let other things get in the way. That's not to say the time was wasted. I've been very busy, become a volunteer fire fighter, done a bunch of projects around the house, and so on. But none of that matters at the moment, because the economy has wrecked our plans.

Back when I quit working I always said I was "pseudo-retired". I figured I might decide I wanted to go back or do some contract work. Leaving my options open seemed smart. But I enjoyed my time not working, and it made a lot of sense to stay home. I didn't want to go back to work. I still don't. External forces, however, don't care about my wants.

Next week I go in for an interview. I sent one email, asked one question, and was floored with the response. I'm honored by that reaction. I need a job, and it appears they have something for me. A good fit. And these are good people, creating good products.

I should be happy, and in some ways I am. But tearing up my life because the worldwide economy can't get it's act together - because some nitwits in investment banks decided to sell bad mortgages like they were candy - just feels wrong.

Assuming I get the job I'll still be carving, but my time will be even more limited than it was. And that list of projects I have for around the house will take longer to get through. And I'll be a lot more tired.

So a big, personal "thank you" to the brilliant minds who created sub prime mortgages, credit default swaps, and all the other derivative investments no one really understands. Your poor judgement has impacted many people around the world. I know I'm just another in a very long list, but I also want to see you rot in hell.

From my perspective, Anne and I did everything right. We saved early and often. We invested somewhat aggressively since we're young, and were (and still are) way ahead of the pack in terms of retirement planning. But now - as things continue to get worse with no end in sight - we're back to the basics. And I'm probably going back to work.

As the Economy Melts Down

As the credit market freeze causes the economy to crash, leaving nearly everyone with less of everything, I wondered this morning at the fact that none of the media I see have remarked on how much worse things would be if George Bush had managed to privatize social security. I can't imagine the disaster that would have occurred in the last three weeks had that come to pass.

Then, out of idle curiosity, I wondered what John McCain's position on this issue was. Would the "maverick" have voted against it, or would he have followed his party and supported it?

As with all things I learn about McCain these days, his position is inconsistent, but this youtube video wraps it up pretty nicely. Yes, I know it's from an obviously biased source, but it's only McCain talking.

There are many other sources that say he supported privatizing social security, though I'll bet he doesn't support it now. Here's my google search so you can read them yourself if you want to, and come to your own conclusion.

One more reason we can't afford to have John McCain elected to office.

On not being a boomer and politics

The other day I found myself in an email conversation with some old college friends. We're scattered all over the country, now, but once in a while something gets us talking.

This time it was Jill, asking about whether or not we thought of ourselves as members of the baby boomer generation. This group of people graduated from college in 1986, and were all born in or near 1964. Depending on who you talk to, that may or may not have been included in the baby boom, but I know I was never a baby boomer by culture.

I could call out all kinds of things about my youth to make the point - like the fact that the Beatles were already broken up before I was paying attention - but for me there's really only one thing that matters all that much 40+ years later: my first political memory.

Without research, I can't even tell you when it was. I was still a kid, and tracking events in time wasn't something I did much of. I remember it was an evening, the TV was on, and my parents were watching something that seemed serious. I was bored out of my mind and probably running around. I distinctly remember being told to shut up and sit down because what was on the TV was important!

I did so, at least for a while, and do you know what it was? Nixon was resigning.

My first taste of politics was a president quitting office. If that doesn't setup a generation's worth of negative political expectations, I don't know what will.

In previous posts in this blog you've seen me express some of my opinions about both the major presidential candidates. Of the two, I have a strong preference for Obama, but that doesn't mean I trust anyone in power, even him. That's a mistake I try not to make. And with my first political memory being Nixon's resignation on Aug 8, 1974 - when I was 10 - can you blame me?

John McCain Wants Money From Me?

Another in a series of (no doubt) poorly thought out political posts. If you'd rather not know what I think on divisive, political issues, please look at the sculptures instead.

A couple of weeks back - before anyone outside of Alaska had heard of Sarah Palin - I got a letter from John McCain asking for money.

Of course I am well aware that it wasn't really from him. Someone in his campaign or the RNC bought an address list and my name was on it. That is a fascinating thing in and of itself - I cannot imagine why I was on that list - but it isn't relevant to this post.

Rather than just throw the request for funds away I read it, just to see what sort of tripe it contained. I was well rewarded. Consider this gem:

If liberals like Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi control the White House, Congress and statehouses across this country...

... they will raise your taxes. Already, the Obama Democrats have laid out plans to pass record-setting tax increases.

But if Republicans win, we will make the present tax cuts permanent, work to cut additional taxes and simplify the tax code. Republicans know that raising taxes in tough economic times is a recipe for disaster, but tax cuts are proven medicine for getting the economy growing again.

If all of that is true, why does every Obama spokesperson I hear - and Obama himself - claim that he's going to be lowering taxes for the vast majority of Americans? Perhaps it's because he will, and the extraordinarily wealthy few - mostly Republicans - are afraid of the fact that they might have to pay their fair share of taxes again?

And why did McCain originally oppose the Bush tax cuts, but now wants to make them permanent? Perhaps he is pandering to the extreme right wing of his party? Not exactly the "maverick" thing to do, I know, but it seems possible.

Let's move on to the next ray of Republican sunshine in this letter:

If the Obama Democrats and liberal organizations like MoveOn.org have their way, our troops will be recklessly pulled out of Iraq and our enemies will be handed a victory they have neither won nor deserve.

But Republicans will not give up. We will see the way through to victory and make sure the radical Islamic extremists have no sanctuary and no victory.

Where to start on that one? How about this: why are we in Iraq in the first place? It had nothing to do with 9/11 and as we are now certain, they didn't have WMD either. Sadam - for all that he was a terrible guy - was no threat to us. Getting him out of power was a good thing, but it wasn't our job.

"But," I hear someone say, "we're in there now and we need to finish the job. If we pull our troops out now, the place will collapse and become a haven for terrorists." Maybe so, but let's start with defining "victory", shall we. What would victory mean in this case? I honestly have no idea, and neither does George Bush or John McCain. There is no way to fight our way out of this, and the longer we stay there the more Americans and Iraqis will die. What, exactly, are we fighting for and how will we know when we're done? If you think about it, it's clear there is no way to know. What I am sure of is that no matter when we leave, the terrorists will move in. We need an entirely different - non military - approach to the problem.

"But the surge worked!" I hear. "Bull****!" I answer. Several things happened before or at the time of the surge. Maybe it played a part, maybe it didn't. A far as I can tell, the Sunni Awakening and the cease fire declared by Muqtada al-Sadr were a lot more important than the surge.

Let's also ask an interesting question about the surge: why did we do it? Because we had too few troops over there, right? And why was that? Because Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to do this war on the cheap. (I suspect Bush himself was clueless about the results of this choice, making him a really great "decider".)

Invasion plans for Iraq drawn up before Bush was in office called for 300,000 to 450,000 troops, but we did it with less than half that number. In other words, we staffed to win the war, but not preserve the peace. Talk about stupid decisions. How many Americans would have been saved if we'd had armed troops on every street corner in Baghdad? Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are directly responsible for the deaths of all those Americans and Iraqis because they wanted to save money on their war.

We should never have gone into Iraq, but if we were going in anyway, we should have done it with enough force to be sure of finishing the job right from the start.

One last comment on this: McCain is way out of step with the American people on this one. The overwhelming majority want us out of Iraq. I'm not even sure he's pandering to the far Republican right with this stance.

And one last tidbit from the letter before I recycle it:

If the Obama Democrats have their way, government spending will skyrocket as they implement government-run health care and resurrect their entire portfolio of the failed welfare state programs of the 60s and 70s.

But not if we Republicans unite and work together. Or free-market solutions and conservative principles are better for America - and that has proven true time and again.

Wow. There is so much crap in those lines it almost doesn't pay to respond to them. But putting my hip waders on first, I'll try.

Spending worries? Not with Republicans, right? They're the party of "smaller government" aren't they? Well, not really. Regan presided over the largest peace time military buildup in American history. And our current president came into office with a surplus on the books (thanks to the Democrat Bill Clinton), but he's turned it into a deficit of enormous proportions, the largest dollar amount in history, in fact.

Bush is so bad about this that the White House keeps taking things out of the budget so they aren't counted as being in the deficit. Iraq war spending? Off the books. And so on. The deficit he's racked up is vast, and only getting bigger. Does anyone think McCain will do anything differently? I can't see how.

And as for the concerns about "failed welfare state programs", let's see:

• Social Security: seems like people want that to stick around
• Medicare & Medicaid: those look like a requirement
• Head Start: seems good to me

What, exactly, are the failed programs McCain is claiming would be resurrected? I don't hear Obama talking about bringing anything odd back from the dead.

And about those "free-market solutions" McCain is so happy to support. They gave us the savings & loan crisis of some years back, and the housing and mortgage finance crisis we're living through now, among other things. I think a bit of regulation is needed to keep things in check. Our founding fathers thought so about each and every branch of government (despite what George Bush may think) and went on to create a mechanism for doing just that. A bit of a check on unrestrained free market capitalism seems like a fine idea to me. Nothing huge - I'm not promoting Socialism or Communism - but something to keep those in power from taking advantage of everyone else by virtue of their position.

Finally, let's talk about those "conservative principles" the Republicans are so proud of. Here are a few:

• Torture. That must be one of them, since they support it, right?
• Spying on Americans without any limit must be another, based on their actions. And in fact it looks to me like the Republicans favor the most intrusive government possible. Clearly they want to control your most private of actions and choices. I suspect - if they could find an effective way to do it - that they'd control your thoughts too.
• Government support of oil companies via huge subsidies is clearly a good thing, but government support of clean energy research and development is not.
• Equal rights for the lucky, affluent few must be the thing, since equal rights for all, regardless of race, gender, religion, and so on, clearly isn't supported.
• The merging of church & state? Clearly they think that is a good idea.
• Winner take all economics? That's way up at the top of their list.

Those don't look like simple, honest, American values to me. Instead they look like ways for a small group of people to have their way with everyone else.

When I was growing up I was taught that a good way to evaluate the actions and beliefs of others is to look at how they treat the least fortunate among us. If someone gives back to his or her community in meaningful ways, and tries to help those in need, that's good. If someone rakes in the money and can't recognize the pain and suffering going on around them, that's bad. Simple stuff, I know, but I was just a kid.

It looks to me like many Republicans never get beyond "what's good for me" these days. McCain falls into that realm now as well, given all his position changes since starting his campaign., In addition, McCain's trickle down economics don't work. We've tried them several times now and they fail, every single time.

I cannot claim the Democrats are perfect - I'm certain they have their flaws - but under Clinton they were the party that created the budget surplus, kept us out of war, and tried to help those in need to some degree. They didn't always succeed, and I don't completely trust any politician, but I trust them far more than I trust the Republicans. That's why McCain won' be getting any of my money.