perSpEctivE

Getting back to "The State that Works"

2012-01-12T09:30:00.000-06:00

I came to Minnesota for college, but I stayed for theculture. As a student of political science, I was in awe of Minnesota’sefficiency and kept hearing and seeing this “Minnesota Miracle.” Our statestill has much to be proud of in this regard.

I grew up in Illinois, a state that definitely doesn’t work.On my 16^th birthday, my mother took me to get my driver’s license atan Illinois DMV. The DMV opened at 8am, but we arrived at 7am in order to beatthe crowds. We still ended up behind 30 other people with the same idea. Thedoors opened at 8am, but it still took over an hour to get things settled.Nothing efficient about it.

We thought Illinois was bad, but then learned this. In 2011,my parents moved to Colorado. My father went to get his updated driver’slicense. It took 5 hours. Yes, you read that right – 5 hours.

Me, on the other hand? I’ve changed addresses withinMinnesota multiple times in the past several years and have updated my driver’slicense every time. I have never waited more than 20 minutes, and the three-to-sixweeks they promise to mail the license is usually closer to only one. And allthat service is delivered with a genuine smile from the employees.

Minnesota is the state that works.

That’s why it’s confusing when there are a couple serviceswe can’t seem to get right. Last winter’s pot-holes were horrific, and they’reonly ok this year because our weather isn’t as bad, not because we actuallyimproved our roads. Our education system produces one of the largestachievement gaps in the nation. Our metropolitan region has the largestunemployment disparity in the nation. So maybe the more exact phrase is thatMinnesota is the state that mostlyworks, and not for everybody.

We need a renewed effort to make Minnesota better. There aremany things we do well, but we must also step up and tackle those we don’t dowell. That means we need education solutions that improve our schools, not onesthat dismantle them. We need to rev up our road infrastructure. And we need agovernment that sees problems and finds ways to fix them.

Next time you’re at the DMV, take a moment and acknowledgehow good we’ve got it. Then think about how much better our state could be andwork toward that.

Creating instability

2011-11-02T11:19:00.000-05:00

There's an article in Time today about a Super PAC allied with Obama who keeps hitting Romney and none of the other Republican candidates.

It's such a smart strategy.

Romney has been consistent at about 23-25% of the vote, but he hasn't been able to increase that. Meanwhile, every other candidate's support goes up and down faster than they can open their mouth. First it was Bachmann, then Cain, then Perry, then Cain again. Cain is the only person to have any sustained support (at least until the sexual harassment allegations came to light).

Many have argued that eventually, conservatives will just have to swallow the pill that is Romney, as he's probably the only one to have a decent shot against Obama and get the moderate vote. Yet, like penguins at the edge of the water, no one wants to go first, so they keep hopping from one candidate to another.

So the Super PAC's actions: genius. They keep making Romney look undesirable, drawing out the split among conservatives, creating true instability, while Obama gets to keep fundraising and outfundraising them.

The thing is, though I wouldn't support any of the viable GOP candidates (although Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman have a certain appeal, but, like I said, "viable."), I still would like an actual challenge for Obama, otherwise he coasts by without having to atone for his mistakes.

Overheard at the airport

2011-10-07T15:04:00.002-05:00

Last weekend, I was headed off to Boston for my cousin's wedding (Congratulations Jim and Danielle!). As I waiting in line for security at the airport (at the glorious hour of 5am), I overheard 4 women heading off to some spa retreat discussing the TSA employees. One said, "I hear they make a lot of money. Like $40,000."

Stop the train.

Two things struck me about this. First, since when is $40,000 a lot? It's less than the national average, even further below Minnesota's. It's pretty darn difficult to provide for a family of four on just that salary. But moreso, what is the fair wage for the people who are charged with keeping our airtravel safe. I've quibbled before about whether the TSA is necessary, but assuming it is, what is a fair salary.

Well, I went and looked up the actual statistics. It turns out that $40,000 is more of an average. Most of the people you see and interact with only make $20k-$30k. The higher salaries go, no surprise, to the managers, and those can get up into the $60k range. To me, this seems like a very typical government job that feeds the middle class. You won't get rich, but if you're frugal, you can be comfortable.

The second thing that struck me is that there is a trend in our country to believe that because we all pay taxes that support the salaries of public officials, that we believe we have a say over what the salary is. This happens to public school teachers, legislators, and apparently TSA agents. There is a sickness that lets us be rude to public employees on the phone or in person (I've answered those phone calls before - they can be depression-inducing.). I do believe that the public deserves a right to express values for our spending. But if we want good bureaucrats and teachers, we need to offer decent salaries and job stability. Notice I said decent, not exceptional, because I believe that most people who pursue public service do so out of altruism and are willing to accept a slightly lower pay. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

A question was often posed by liberals and/or union members during the Wisconsin blowup - if "you" believe union-jobs receive too good of benefits, why do you punish everyone by lowering those benefits instead of making your own better?

We're so worried that someone else might be doing better than us, so we try to dismember them instead of trying to fix the barriers we ourselves face.

A Debt Deal?

2011-07-26T12:03:00.000-05:00

I've gotten to the point where I don't care about the debt deal anymore. Obama AND Boehner and whoever else speaks for the GOP are just posturing. Democrats are posturing too, but also suggesting that if Obama goes too far, he loses them. It's crazy, but the fact is, we'll have a deal. We'll have one before the Aug 2 deadline (probably only hours ahead), and we won't default. Until then, more posturing, more "We're almost there," more "talks broke off this afternoon" and all that nonsense.

But there's a bigger question: why now? Why are we having this fight now?

Simplest answer? The Tea Party. In 2010, the Tea Party elected super conservative GOP members across the country, pushing the GOP to the right, all with signed pledges to prevent tax increases. Of course, that's not what the election was actually about. The message during the election was jobs, jobs, jobs. And then after election, it was taxes, budget, debt, deficit, spending, and nothing about jobs.

Real quick, let's talk job creation. One argument Repubs have made is that getting the deficit/debt under control will help businesses create job. If this is true, it's only indirectly. The rationale is that, by getting the deficit/debt under control, businesses don't need to be worried about future taxes and they can operate knowing things are stable. It's a leap, but not entirely false. However, this rationale also does not guarantee job creation, only suggests businesses MIGHT be amenable if the deficit/debt is under control.

The second argument is that Obama's spending is out of control. That is categorically false, and I refer you to this chart. The reason our current deficit is so large is primarily due to spending initiated under Bush. Now, Obama is responsible in some measure, that is true. But his programs - the stimulus, etc - were policies designed to combat other problems, like unemployment and infrastructure decline. And the idea behind stimulus spending is that it will boost the economy, resulting in increased tax revenues which ultimately pay for the spending. It doesn't work perfectly, but it is proven to work. Obama is also responsible for the renewal of the Bush tax cuts, which add billions to our deficit. However, he leveraged those to get a deal for other tax cuts which in many ways amounts to a second stimulus.

The third argument is that we can balance the deficit by increasing economic activity through tax cuts. This is where things start to go off the deep end. It is true that tax cuts can have a stimulative effect. However, the results are sketchy. Remember those Bush tax cuts? Well, it is true that after they were enacted, our economy picked up and for a bit our tax revenue was higher. However, that fell again, and it's not a stretch to say that the tax cuts, combined with deregulation and a bull housing market led to our recession.

But moreso on the tax cuts argument, lets look at the bigger picture. Over the past two decades, the income for everyone except the top 10% has been stagnant or even fallen slightly, and that's not due to the recession - the numbers were true leading up to the recession. But over that 20 years, 4 things changes - healthcare costs increased, education costs increased, housing costs increased, and loan availability increased. Families not seeing real income gains could appear to be better off through loans getting them nicer houses, better education, and fancy electronics. When the recession hit, housing prices fell, loans dried up, but education and healthcare costs continue to increase. As healthcare is one of the primary government functions, until healthcare costs are contained, we will face structural deficits for the foreseeable future. Which makes it all the stranger that conservatives want to repeal Obamacare and its cost-saving measures.

But let's talk the top 10%. Over the past two decades, their income and assets have ballooned, particularly the top .1%. Today, the average CEO makes 435 times the amount as the average employee, up from 200 times the amount 20 years ago. Today, the top 400 households have more wealth than the bottom 60% of America. Should I repeat that? The top 400 households have more wealth than the bottom 60%. A question I think becomes fair to ask - why shouldn't we tax the rich, when they have made gains that have not trickled down to anyone else? The idea of trickle-down economics should be busted when looking at the past two decades.

Tying this back to tax cuts, much of the gains of the top 10% came as a result of the Bush tax cuts. So the tax cuts worked, but only for 10% of our population. So not only do tax cuts not balance the budget, but they don't benefit everyone equally.

I'm going to stop there, but there's more to talk about, about why this is a manufactured crisis. Our debt is a large number, but we've had worse before in proportion to GDP. Our economy is still flailing and the debt deal will not boost our economy, but rather slow it down. And of course, this is all a political ploy by Repubs to try and bring down Obama. And Obama seems game to go along with it, because he too thinks he can score points before reelection.

A proposal

2011-07-07T09:55:00.000-05:00

I was in the middle of a 6 hour drive when I thought of an interesting idea to incentivize bi-partisanship.

What if we paid legislators based on their percent of vote received?

House and Senate members make $174,000 per year. So what if we say the maximum members can get paid is $300,000, but they get paid a percent of that, based on their vote receipt. So, if they got 60% of the vote, they get paid $200,000, if they get 70%, $230,000, but if they only get 50% of the vote, they get $150,000. It becomes an incentive for them to create policies and rhetoric that gain the most votes, not just the majority of votes.

This would have to be coupled with redistricting reform, so Dem and Republican line-drawers aren't just drawing districts that give their friends the most salary, but otherwise, I can't think of an easier way to incentivize bipartisan and unity.

Thoughts?

What I dislike about politics

2011-06-16T10:58:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday evening, I went to the Saint Paul City Council Ward 3 DFL Convention. At this convention, the goal was to have a DFL endorsement for a candidate for the general. It became a heated battle, as two candidates, Morrillo and Tolbert, battled for the endorsement.

I personally don't have a strong feeling either way toward these candidates. To represent me, both had their positives and negatives, but ultimately neither of them inspired me. To be honest, I don't know if I've ever found a political candidate that truly inspired me, but that's a discussion for later.

But before even getting to the endorsement, rules for endorsing had to be agreed to. And here's where I get frustrated. The rules committee - a group of citizen volunteers - put forward a set of rules saying there would only be 3 ballots, and if there was no endorsement by the third ballot, then there would be no endorsement.

Members of Manillo's campaign wanted to amend the rules. They wanted to change it from 3 ballots to unlimited, arguing that an endorsement was crucial in the general election, and that 3 ballots ends the process unnecessarily early. What they didn't say was that their supporters (more likely to be older) were more likely to stick around for later ballots and help their candidate win.

Tolbert supporters wanted to keep the rules the same. It appeared they had a larger volunteer base that would help them should no endorsement occur, but further, they also seemed to have a lead in the number of delegates supporting them. With a set amount of ballots, the desire for an endorsement would help some people switch sides (or make up their minds if they weren't decided yet), and that gives the advantage to the frontrunner. Additionally, they feared their delegates leaving if things dragged on too long.

And there's the rub - the rules for the convention became partisan (so-to-speak, as this was within the DFL, but the two candidates sides clearly embraced one set of rules to their benefit). It just feels ridiculous to me that so much effort would go into winning that the rules would be amended to make winning more likely. Of course, if one wants to win, this strategy makes perfect sense. But my frustration is that the focus on a candidate winning undermines democracy - people's choice. By focusing on getting a person elected, we make politics about the individual and less about their vision and ideas. And to me, that's the wrong way to go about things.

Of course, I don't operate like most people (at least I often feel like I don't). As I mentioned before, I'm not inspired by candidates; I'm inspired by visions for the future, community power, and unity. Therefore, I strongly believe that we need to make our democracy more accountable to the electorate. (Caveat - I strongly believe in minority protection from majority rule.) But to me, I can't help by seeing this focus on changing the rules to one's benefit as, like I said, undermining the essence of democracy.

I've often been asked if I'm a democrat (especially by my more conservative family members) and I always say no. I'll likely always vote for a Democrat (though we'll see how things like Instant Runoff Voting change things), but I always struggle to actually identify as one. First of all, my views don't align with the party exactly. But second, I firmly question the role of political parties in keeping our democracy healthy. Parties encourage participation within them, but if one's not involved in the political parties, basically you are given two choices - D or R. And that's not good enough for me. Winner-take-all is how we've decided to run our democracy, but it's not the only way. And with that, I refer you to my suggestions at the end of this post.

Tolbert went on to win the endorsement for the evening on the third ballot. Like I said before, he'll have my support because I haven't yet heard a competing vision for Saint Paul that's better than his. But moments like Tuesday evening are why I dislike politics.

Tornados

2011-05-25T11:46:00.000-05:00

A freaking frightening video from Joplin.

And a wonderful editorial by Bill McKibben.

Redistricting and representative democracy

2011-05-25T11:39:00.000-05:00

Redistricting is an ugly process. Some might argue it doesn't have to be, but I'm not sure it's possible. Structurally, I think it will always be an ugly process. Why? Because when drawing lines, putting people into districts and precincts, things get messy. Each district has to have the same number of people, but geographically we don't self-organize that way. We cluster.

Compound this with natural geographic boundaries (rivers, mountains) and other political boundaries, such as counties, and the process becomes immensely complicated.

Let's talk about the Twin Cities for a moment. The metro area is home to over half of Minnesota's 5.3million people. Therefore, it will have half of the legislative districts. But, the districts in the area tend to be Democratic, as cities across the country tend to be more liberal. So, if Democrats make up 60% of the state's population and if the Twin cities has 50% of the state's districts but 70% of the State's Democratic vote, hypothetically, Republicans could win the legislature with every non-metro district and just one metro district, even though Republicans may not have the popular vote. I'm not arguing this is necessarily partisan benefiting Republicans, although this is what happened in 2010. In that election, Democratic candidates received more votes than Republican candidates, but Republicans took majority control of both the House and Senate.

In many ways, this is a similar discussion to the electoral college. Hypothetically, a candidate can win the Presidency with just 23% of the vote.

Yet, this is how a representative democracy is supposed to work. And it's why redistricting will always be ugly. Just drawing lines will end up distorting the public's vote in one way or another, even if their drawn by computers (as some desire) or by citizen's commissions. The only way I see it is to not draw any lines at all.

What would this look like? People would vote for a party, and then seats in government would be allocated proportionally. New problems arise, such as the 5% rule most countries use (A party must get at least 5% of the vote, or else they get no seats). I don't like the rule, but I understand why it's used. But think about what proportional representation would do for party politics. It would structurally encourage the creation of third parties and get us away from the toxicity of two-party politics.

I like it.

Media consolidation

2011-04-29T13:33:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I tweeted about the need for media to consolidate, using the example of all the different numbers of death counts following the storms in the U.S. South. Looking back, perhaps consolidate isn't quite the right term, but rather cooperate is. One could turn to any news website and see a different number of how many had died.

I'm even more sure of my argument today when looking at the royal wedding, where approximately 12,000 journalists descended. IT'S EXCESSIVE! But every outlet sends so many reporters because they want to appear exclusive. But they also want to cover events that have the highest possible audience. It's in that way that national events - or trans-national, as the royal wedding became - gain prominence over local stories.

Yet at the same time, it's the local papers are are some of the strongest. In the Twin Cities, local paper City Pages is thriving, with its focus nearly entirely on the local issues. Most people only read the StarTribune, Pioneer Press, MPR, or others for their local coverage, not for their national. Why? Because other media companies provide better national coverage but don't cover the local stories. Yet, StarTribune, Pioneer Press, MPR all focuses much of their morning news on the royal wedding, perhaps even sending reporters to attend.

Because of the way media operates, this also has a significant effect on politics. National elections are given more record than local elections, just as national issues are prioritized over local issues. Yet, if one thinks about the issues, so much more power is held at the State level over the national level. National issues, by money, are focused in Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and paying off our debt. Most people deal with the federal government through those departments, as well as State for Immigration. But at a State level, one has much larger interaction with government, through drivers licenses and car registration, state medical programs, schools, and most laws are made at the state level when the commerce clause isn't invoked. Yet, based on news coverage, one would expect more power to be held in state governments because of the news coverage; because the media tries to reach a bigger audience through national issues, as local has a defined limit.

Now, to be fair, the national government is where the money is, so certain locally administered projects receive most of their funding from the federal government, or things like the Twin Cities' Central Corridor Light Rail is half funded by the feds. So this does distort the power of the federal government somewhat. (The classic example is how congress tied interstate road funding to states raising their drinking age to 21.)

I believe that if media focuses more on local issues, this will also help revive citizen's interest in politics. My feeling is that people feel so small in comparison to national politics, that their vote doesn't count as much, and for this reason kids grow up thinking the Presidency is both something awe-inspiring, unachievable, and also something that they should want because it's been idealized so much. We forget that the presidency is just a man (hopefully sometime a woman) because we've ascribed so much power to them.

When we elevate local issues, we give people greater ability to participate and to truly have their voice hear. In a district of 35,000, one voice stands out more than in a senate district of 5 million.

Daydreams of Healthcare

2011-04-21T15:56:00.000-05:00

Recently, I find my thoughts drifting... to healthcare. I think its because I've seen a couple doctors recently and am getting the bills, but I'm thinking about what I liked and didn't about the process.

The first thought - why doesn't health care include dental care? Getting teeth cleaned, root canals, and more seems like medical procedures, not cosmetic. Yet overall, dental is separate from health care. It doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, "preventative" dental is not reimbursed 100% like with decent health care plans. What gives? Preventative care may actually be slightly more expensive than trying to fix a big problem later, but I believe we have to focus on providing the best quality of life, not the cheapest.

Second, why do insurance plans have deductibles? The answer is, insurance companies want healthcare to work like a free market. Therefore, there's a supply and demand of health services, and when a person's demand for a service reaches a price they are willing to pay, they'll get a service. But here's the thing - deductibles are a tight squeeze on a wallet. If there were no deductibles and co-pays, insurance companies would argue that people will use services they don't really need, because it's free. This rationale kind of makes sense. Except that, when you ask who benefits, deductibles keep insurance companies' expenses lower. And therefore it hurts people who might benefit from some procedure but either can't afford the deductible or choose not to pay it because of the cost. So again, deductibles make for the cheapest health care, but not necessarily the best.

But I think it's also worthwhile to discuss if free healthcare would actually lead to a run on services. I'm not convinced. First, I don't love going to the doctor. It's not uncomfortable, but it's time consuming and they're going to tell me how I should be leading my life. Yes, they're right that my portions are too big, but who likes hearing that. Yet, going there reminds me that I need to take care of myself, and I always do better immediately proceeding an appointment. But another reason I don't like going to the doctor is because I have to miss work. It's so frustrating getting behind on work, and I would rather spend my sick or vacation time on other things, like getting over a sickness or going on vacation. So I try to minimize my doctors visits so that I maximize my work time and leisure time. I think this is probably the best argument against why free services won't just lead to people using services they don't need - most people don't want to spend all their time around doctors.

Now, inevitably, there will be some people that will want this and will take advantage of free services. But, you know, I really don't think anyone or anything should stand between a person and their help and happiness. I've really come to believe that good health is something a person has to maintain, but access to services to maintain good health should not be dependent on ability to pay.

So what does this mean on a macro scale - private vs. public option vs. single payer. I don't know that I think it matters as long as it meets these principles. 1. Everyone is covered for everything. 2. No out-of-pocket expenses. Any payments should be a part of one payment mechanism - either deducted from payroll by employer or as part of income taxes (also, get rid of separating social security and medicare, just pay one tax amount). 3. Focus on outcomes and quality of life, not on cost. It is worse for some people to afford care than for everyone to be in the same boat.

When we're all in the same boat, we try harder to keep it afloat.

My own Libya Flip-Flopping

2011-04-07T13:52:00.000-05:00

I haven't commented on Libya because I'm not sure where I stand. First I was opposed to it, then I was for it, and now I'm opposed to it again. I think part of the flip-flopping is that I tend to be a fair-weather fan, and things aren't looking good again.

I've voiced my frustration that Obama hasn't looked to Congressional approval for the military action to friends, but I'll reiterate it here. I understand the argument that the President needs some leeway to start a war because congress isn't always immediately available, but I view Obama's current actions as to the extreme, perhaps moreso than Bush. I would not have expected this.

But returning to Libya itself, here's the problem. It's a civil war now. It's a divided country. Supporting one side in this war only means that we're fighting a proxy war. But no one is calling for a division of Libya because very few countries divide. Kosovo is the exception, not the rule. It's the same reason that Iraq, though with three culturally distinct regions continues to have one government, for better or worse.

If Obama grew a pair

2011-04-06T21:45:00.000-05:00

A fictional conversation between Obama and Boehner regarding the budget.

BO: How are you this evening, John?
JB: Doing well, Mr. President. The allergies are a little tough right now.
BO: Listen John, here's what we're going to do. We're not going to cut any more programs. We're not going to play political favors anymore. We're going to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top 10% that we passed in December. We're going to cut military spending. And when I say we, I mean you.
JB: Well, if that's what you called about, then we're going to see a government shutdown. That's just not doable.
BO: Fine. For every day the government is shut down, Democrats will win the next election by a bigger margin. Because, you see, for all your attacks on government, our country can't function without it. When you shut down government, Americans are going to realize what a vital role it plays in making everyone's lives better and stop with this Tea Party-no-government crap. Every day that it's shut down, business owners are going to be calling you asking you to fund it so that they can renew their passport to do international business. Every person over 65 is going to call you to have you restore their social security and medicare. Every person under 65 is going to call you to restore grandma and grandpa's social security. Every government worker is going to be calling you for a job back because you will unilaterally have cut 800,000 jobs and done the complete opposite of a stimulus. You yourself will be responsible for ending the government pumping money into this economy and send us spiraling into an even worse economic situation. You will be responsible. Do you get that? Because my solution prevents all that stuff. My solution allows us to grow our economy, to protect our needy citizens, and ask the people who have weathered the recession remarkably well to lift us all up. And at the same time, we're going to cut the deficit. I'm with you on that. You will save face by cutting the deficit and by permanently recinding the Bush tax cuts we'll be cutting the long term deficit in half. That's a great deal right?
JB: Uhh...
BO: So we're done talking until I see a news headline saying what we agreed to. That's all.
-click-

-------
Too good to be true, right?

More good customer service

2011-03-31T13:43:00.000-05:00

I just flew back last night on Frontier Airlines. Frustratingly, both of my flights were delayed 45-60minutes. But I do credit Frontier with providing free TV to customers because the flights were late. That was nice, and worth mentioning.

The new way of watching

2011-03-25T09:39:00.000-05:00

I'm a Netflix subscriber, and I pretty much love the company. When there's an outage, they offer a credit to my account. That's good customer service! They have just about every movie available on DVD and many on streaming. I'm able to average about fifteen cents per DVD (with streaming) as compared to Redbox or Blockbuster and other services. It's great.

Except more and more the movie industry is come to loathe Netflix for being so profitable. It's undercutting their profits because people aren't buying as many DVDs and renting/streaming more. People's demand is changing, and that's hurting the traditional business.

In a free market, demand changes, supply changes, new equilibriums are reached, and the market goes on. But the movie industry isn't letting the market run its course or trying to meet the new demands of consumers in more profitable ways. Instead, the industry is trying to maintain dominance by making the traditional way of consumption the only way of consumption.

First, and biggest, the movie industry started delaying the time for which newly released DVDs could be rented on Netflix. They made Netflix wait a month to send the DVDs, in the aim of making more people buy the DVD. I don't know if it's overall working, but I know I don't buy DVDs without watching them once. Doesn't that make sense? I want to know my investment is worthwhile, so I rent first and buy later.

But before I go much further, I want to wrap up and say I see this as part of a bigger trend of companies, instead of learning to compete in a new era, trying to change the playing field of the new era so that they're always on top. Copyright laws have been changed so much so as to benefit content owners (note: not producers, but owners), music prices have remained high despite new devices allowing for ownership of tens of thousands of songs, and the movie industry is trying to throttle Netflix's success. We need lawmakers to stand up for the free market, but instead they are beholden to companies because they need campaign contributions every couple of years.

A thought

2011-03-22T22:34:00.000-05:00

Critics of government involvement often argue that government should do certain things because government isn't efficient.

And what if that's the point. Government isn't about efficiency, it's about equity. Equal opportunity for all right?

Just a thought.

Cell phone industry mergers

2011-03-22T16:23:00.002-05:00

I'm very concerned about the merging of communications companies and the decrease in competition. Much of this stems from me learning that News Corp. - the company behind Fox, Wall Street Journal, etc - had a huge permeation into America. If I remember correctly, 75% of the world received media from News Corp, and that was in 1998. It's competition was two other behemoths - Disney and Time Warner.

AT&T is struggling, that was clear. Disclaimer, they are my family's cell phone company. But now that they no longer have a lock on the iPhone, they're scrambling to stay relevant. So they buy T-Mobile, one of the main brands with the lowest prices. Now, the other piece of information that's relevant is that T-Mobile and AT&T use the same type of communication in their phones, so there's a technological overlap.

My fear is that the decreased competition will be bad for consumers. People will have to choose between AT&T and Verizon - let's face it, Sprint can't stay around much longer on its own. And though they will be competing with each other, I'm not convinced that's enough. In the 90s there was an anti-trust suit filed against telecoms because analysts found this pattern - one company would lower costs for a couple of months, get more customers, then raise prices, just as the other company would lower costs for a couple months. Repeat. Basically, the two won't really compete with each other but just sit content. That's my fear.

Matt Yglesias writes the best counter argument I've read:

Acquiring T-Mobile (“a company that has the broadband it needs”) isn’t so much about “cutting out a competitor” as it is about building a firm that’s capable of competing with Verizon.

Yet despite the fact that AT&T might now be able to compete, Yglesias later notes that Verizon's stock is up in all this, suggesting that investors believe this will be worse for competition. And I agree.

But I think, more than anything, that the bigger problem is that we've privatized infrastructure and access to the market. If one thinks of roads - a public good - as the connector between business, then can't one think of telecom infrastructure also as connecting individuals to the market? And if so, shouldn't access to the market be free and public? I don't believe a phone should be tied to a carrier. Rather, the phones should be private, but the network should be public. As long as it's privatized, we'll have concerns about net neutrality, about who has access, about what's good for consumers, and so forth.

Top TV shows

2011-03-14T11:27:00.003-05:00

A friend asked me for my favorite TV shows. I responded that it might be a bit easier for me to just do best seasons, but the list here is a mixture of both.

Top shows ever (no particular order):
The Wire
Mad Men
Breaking Bad
The West Wing
Friday Night Lights

The Wire is probably the best show I've ever seen. It starts off slow, but gosh if it isn't worth it. But more than anything, this is the best show because it's affected my life in ways no other show can. Conservatives might talk about 24-like scenarios, but the Wire shows our world as it is. And every now and then, a real-life event sparks a memory from the Wire, and I can't help but want to rewatch the whole show again.

Mad Men is brilliant. It's feminist-y, fun, funny, serious, and just about everything under the sun. I can't help but be fascinated with the characters. And the characters change. Both externally and internally, they change. Sometimes logically, sometimes frustratingly. But it's an amazing show, a beautiful show, and one that I hope sticks around for a while more.

While I haven't seen Breaking Bad Season 3, just seasons 1 and 2 are enough for me to know how good this show is, and I've heard S3 is even better. Gosh if it isn't emotional, funny, scary, takes one to new places, and more. It's creative genius, and sometimes I leave the show more amped than Tuco.

While The West Wing faltered in S5 and some of S6, the rest of the show is too good to forget. Seasons 1-4 are so enjoyable, and Season 6.5-7 is an amazing look at political processes. Sometimes I will use a random number generator to select a season and an episode to watch, just because I know I can't go wrong. Plus, every Christmas I watch all the Christmas episodes because they always put me in holiday cheer.

Friday Night Lights might seem like the biggest stretch for this top-tier list, but I don't think it is. Ignoring Season 2 (which while I didn't love, I didn't hate it as much as some people *cough* Alan Sepinwall), the rest of the show is brilliant. I haven't seen Season 5, but based on what I've heard, it's fantastic - and I expect nothing less. I knew I loved this show in the first season when suddenly I was rooting for the characters in a way I hadn't for another TV show. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention how fantastic a portrayal of married life Coach Taylor and Ms. Taylor give.

Second tier shows (no particular order):
Chuck is fun, funny, spoofy, and just enjoyable. Really love checking in with the characters every week.

Justified - After perhaps the best Pilot episode I've ever seen, the first season proved to be very good. Perhaps after another season or two, this could move up, and after a solid start to S2, it's possible. Very good show.

Community - I find Community to be hilarious, but I'm also not digging S2 as much as S1. S2 has overdone the meta humor, the spoofs, and insanity that S1 kept in balance. Yes, I enjoy the D&D episode, and moments of the Christmas claymation, but I feel like the fun is losing the characters, and I'm not sure how much longer I'll still think it's fun.

Parks and Recreation - This is probably my favorite comedy on the list. It's as good as any of the top-tier shows. My own personal sentiment that comedy is too escapist prevents me from listing it as a top-tier show, but Parks and Rec is just fantastic, funny, makes me giddy, and more. Amazing show, so glad to watch every week, and I want more people to watch.

Lost was always good, sometimes even great, but I don't think it holds up because of the finale. Yes, the finale brought the characters, but a show built on so many mysteries just cannot cop out like it did and not lose some standing with me. I will rewatch the show and enjoy its moments, but this show hurt itself in the end. But in the meantime, I will say that Lost had some of the best season finales of any show out there.

Speaking of season finales, how about Battlestar Galactica? If you want a good cliffhanger, watch the S1 finale, the S2.0 finale, the S2.5 finale (my favorite), the S3 finale, or the S4.0 finale (second favorite). Goodness that was an amazing show. But like Lost, BSG went for characters over answers in its Series finale, and that hurt the whole show's cohesion. As a viewer, I don't need clarity over everything, but BSG - like Lost - made the questions a central part of the show and didn't answer them.

The Shield - unlike the two previous shows in this list - Lost and BSG - The Shield had a fantastic series finale. Possibly the best I've ever seen (I haven't seen the Sopranos). What the Shield loses on is the primary storylines. While always good, they just weren't on the same level as top-tier shows. But I always enjoyed this show, even if it made me sick some times and aghast at others. And like I said, it had a finale that was just simply fantastic.

Arrested Development - I watched the pilot 3 times before I liked it. It was too quirky, not funny, and other things, and yet I always felt like I should like it. And then I did. And the whole series was funny. Very funny and goofy, and enjoyable.

Firefly was always great. What's not to like about the show? And then I thought it had a fantastic epilogue in the move Serenity. I will always be a browncoat.

In Treatment - When I saw the first season, I thought this show was great. It started perhaps a bit too slow, but climaxed great. But then there was the second season, which was just amazing. One of the best seasons of television ever made. I haven't seen S3 yet, but have plans to as soon as I get my hands on it.

Pushing Daisies is so lovable and gooey-heart-warming and beautifully done, I would be remiss not to include on this list. Though definitely not a top-tier show, this one was canceled far too early.

Honorable Mention:
Sons of Anarchy - Season 2 of this show was really great. Really really great. S3, not so much, except for a good finale. I'll keep checking in, but one good season isn't enough to make my list.

Veronica Mars - Oh Veronica Mars. You were good, with a great female lead that we don't get anymore. But you also got caught up in some petty things that made you lack depth. We'll always have Tijuana.

The Office - The last two seasons have left such a sour taste in my mouth, it's hard to remember why I loved this show. But then I remember the SuperBowl episode and the whole PB&J storyline and I remember. But the lack of consistency hurts the Office.

How I Met Your Mother - similar to The Office, HIMYM was great, funny, emotional, but feels stuck in a rut. Barney and Robin as a couple offered a new path, but the writers broke them up to return the status quo, except the status quo isn't good enough anymore.

Miniseries:
I just needed a quick shout out for Band of Brothers and The Pacific, two fantastic miniseries.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen Deadwood, The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Boardwalk Empire, Treme, and others.

Have at it with your comments.

The Follow-through

2011-03-03T15:04:00.000-06:00

I promise I will update this again soon. Any requests?

The Conviction of Ghailani

2010-11-17T22:50:00.000-06:00

The news is reporting that Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first Guantanamo Bay accused terrorist to be tried, has been acquitted of 276 charges, but convicted of 1 charge. And the story is of course becoming convoluted.

First, that one conviction will send him to prison for 20 years to life. That's no small amount of time.

Second, it's important to remember that not guilty is not the same as innocent.

And third, most importantly, one person who could have been a key witness for the prosecution was not able to be called because Ghailani was tortured, under which he provided prosecution with details about the witness. Ay, there's the rub. If we didn't torture, a convicted terrorist could have been sent away for more time.

I'm a civil libertarian. That's for sure. So I'm very glad Ghailani got an actual trial, civilian at that. But it does appear that he was guilty of more but because of our violations of due process. And it serves us right.

The problem was not a civilian trial. It was not a trial at all. It was our disgusting use of torture, and should serve as a warning for future action.

The key to future success is social capital

2010-11-10T23:20:00.001-06:00

For me, the most important thing for any campaign to succeed is social capital and relationships. In studying community organizing, one quickly learns that relationships are power. The advanced community organizers understand that maintaining a relationship can typically be more useful than a specific outcome. But beyond community organizing, relationships yield other benefits. In a job search, it's often who you know, not what your experience is. In purchasing a house, it's about the realtor as much as the house. Some claim the tour guide for a college plays a larger role than anything else. The way I see it, it's all about the relationship.

The decline in social capital has long been discussed. Robert Putnam is most famous for his work, Bowling Alone, which discusses the decline in social capital, and one piece of evidence he uses is the decline in bowling leagues. It's a powerful piece of work, if mostly because of its implications. Putnam has tried to springboard from that initial work to discuss different measures of social capital in the age of social media. So far, I've been far less convinced with his new work because I think social media is used differently by so many people, and no one has quite articulated an argument that resonates with me.

Now, social capital is not the same thing as relationships. But they're similar. Social capital, according to Putnam, is "'features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit' (Putnam 1995, p. 67)." I understand social capital to be the ability to trust the people in your community (whichever community) in order to look past simply individual self interest. Easy examples are the ability to borrow flour from a neighbor. Or to call the police if someone suspicious is loitering where they shouldn't be. More extreme examples are voting for referendums that aren't in your self interest but in the better interests of the entire community. One should be able to make a decision that's best for a community because a strong community, intangibly and tangibly, leads to benefits for you, even if at first glance the decision doesn't benefit you.

I believe that in America, we've always been - though it feels worse than ever - putting self-interest above community benefit. I believe that's why anything that smells (or is called) like socialism or communism is yelled out and slapped away. Anything that hurts any individual, even at the benefit of the community, is pooh-poohed. Take the individual mandate in healthcare, probably the least-popular component of the ACA. I don't like it, in my own interest. As a soon-to-graduate college student, I have student loans, low-paying jobs, and other expenses. As part of the age-group least likely to get sick, why should I pay thousands of dollars a year for services I probably (hopefully) won't need. But that's why I should. Because if I have the misfortune of getting sick, if I don't have health insurance, I am fortunate to live in a society that says it won't just leave me behind. Yet my decision to not purchase health care leads to extra expenses for society and thus I am causing financial harm to the same community that is saving me. (This is because insurance companies negotiate lower rates, whereas emergency services pick up by the public are not). I believe with stronger social capital, more people would be willing to go along with the individual mandate because they understand they are putting their community ahead of themselves.

James Fallows has a new article at the Atlantic entitled Dirty Coal, Clean Future. It isn't horrible. In fact, it's very good. Yet it stops short. It identifies why coal is important to our economy today, and cites several people that agree that we can't give it up tomorrow. I of course agree. My problem is that Fallows doesn't discuss the entrenched coal interests that intend to keep coal the primary energy source for as long as possible. I also think he downplays - by being upfront about it - the problems with coal. There's problems with worker safety, there's the toxic sludge left in dams, there's the sludge dams that break and spill a billion gallons of toxic sludge on people's homes, there's the watershed destruction caused by mountaintop removal, or the teaching of children in toxic schools because of their location near coal prep plants, and finally there's the economic depression consistently caused by communities reliant on one industry.

A recent NY Times article highlighted how framing issues differently can tap into people's community responses and encourage them to make change. The article examined Kansas, where people skeptical of climate change were embracing clean energy because it meant less oil was coming from other countries. It meant jobs were being created in America. It tapped into their ideas of American exceptionalism and caused them to make personal changes for the benefit of the broader community. It was a very encouraging piece, and as a lot for environmentalists to learn from. Another potential way of framing clean energy is looking at the U.S. trade deficit, half of which is caused by our oil imports.

Returning to social capital, I think the energy example shows there is latent social capital in our country today. It just needs to be tapped into. And if it is, I believe that discouraging extrapolations, like Fallows' suggestion that we need to invest in "clean" coal, aka carbon capture and sequestration plants, because we will be using coal for a long time, don't need to be true. There are three possible solutions: (1) frame things in a way that plays up the personal benefits of making a change - what is typically done today - (2) frame things in a way that puts community well-being ahead of personal stakes, or (3) when choice 2 doesn't work, instead of reverting to choice 1, build social capital, build community, so that choice 2 can work.

I want to be clear that enhancing social capital, enhancing community - this isn't socialism or communism. I'm not calling for the end of the free market or any of those things. In fact, I quite believe in the free market. With stronger communities and more social capital, more options are available to us, and more people will be able to prosper. This isn't altruism; it's a balance of the individual and the society. It starts with our relationships with each other.

I want to defend conservatives...

2010-11-07T12:45:00.000-06:00

...but I struggle to.

I made the comment to a friend the other day, "Damn. Every time I want to like conservatives they go and do something stupid." Now, the quote isn't fair because no conservative speaks for all other conservatives, and no action done by one person can be attributed to many. But I do feel like there are some conservative trends that tick me off, making it impossible for me to vote for conservatives. I honestly wish I felt like I had a choice to vote for someone not in the Democratic Party, but I look at the options and always return to the Democrats. This fits into my broader concerns about voting in elections.

So, what conservative values do I also value. First, fiscal responsibility. I've become very concerned with the direction of our national debt and our overall fiscal stability. The $600b the Fed is pumping in has some significant ramifications to the inflation and value of the dollar. I'm very concerned about this, because already savings interest rates are so low that anyone who simply gets a 1-2% interest rate effectively loses money with inflation around 3-4%.

However, I don't believe current conservative elected officials actually care about this. The Pledge to America would in no way balance our deficit. Continuing the Bush tax cuts would also add significantly to the national debt. And so would repealing the Affordable Care Act (Healthcare reform). Additionally, here in Minnesota, the Republican governor nominee, Tom Emmer, claimed throughout the campaign he was the only candidate with an "honest" budget proposal. At one point, I literally verbally scoffed at the statement. Analyst after analyst showed that he did not balance the budget, for the short term (required by state constitution) or long term (good fiscal responsibility). In fact, the Democrat and Independent candidates did far better on those counts. Thankfully, it appears that that Emmer will win, as Minnesota is having another recount. But the Republicans did take over the State House and Senate. The new House Speaker has already played down balancing the budget.

Where I struggle with conservatives - social issues. Yesterday I was reading in the NY Times about the culture war going on over teaching about acceptance of gay and lesbian children in schools. I don't understand how anyone can be against the recently reported suicides of gay teenagers due to bullying - I'll assume that all people are against these unnecessary deaths - while also being opposed to teachings of acceptance in schools. Now, I'm sympathetic to the idea that perhaps schools aren't the place to teach these things, except I'm not really sympathetic to that idea. Where else do kids interact with one another except at school? Where does most bullying occur? And so on. I suppose I'm ok with parents having the option to remove their children from these lessons if they object to the teachings, because I don't like government mandates (I'm definitely ambiguous at best on individual health care mandate), but I am also conflicted with these parent's actions. I want to scream at them - don't you get it! Don't you understand that it might be your child (either the bully or gay kid)! - but I know that won't work either.

I think what bothers me even more about social conservatives is that while they preach no government in the markets, they want a lot of government intervention in private lives. It's hypocrisy, in my opinion, and I hate hypocrisy.

What I take away from today's conservatives is that they claim to be a lot of things, particularly fiscally responsible, but I don't think they are, yet attempts to expose them have also not worked. Fiscal conservatism, my bridge to conservatism as a whole, is not a banner carried with intent by conservatives, and thus I struggle to identify with any conservative. Ironically, the Democrats are much better on fiscal conservatism. They got my vote last Tuesday, and while I'll never fully identify as a Democrat, the political field needs to change significantly before another party gets my vote.

The Office jumps ship

2010-11-05T17:59:00.000-05:00

I've always dreamed of somehow doing something with the absurd amount of TV I watch. Perhaps writing a column. So don't be surprised if I don't throw in occasional TV episode reviews here.

"The Office:" Christening

The big story this summer was that Steve Carrell would be leaving The Office at the end of this season, season 7. I was completely ok with it. The problem for me, is that after 7 years, Michael Scott is completely the same. This isn't the fault of Steve Carrell, it's the fault of the writers. Six years, and no character development? He still doesn't know how to be a boss, he still wants his employees to be his family, is overall lonely, and doesn't think things through.

Despite the failings of the writers, this show has managed to be incredibly funny. Until last season. I stopped enjoying it. The wedding was an amazing episode because Pam and Jim made the show so worthwhile. But after that, it went downhill so quickly. It wasn't necessarily Sabre, although I don't think Sabre helped. I blame putting Pam and Jim in the background, increasing Andy Bernard and Dwight Schrute, and of course Michael. So all that being said, I'm fine with Carrell leaving.

Knowing how Michael operates, I knew, from the moment the first parishioner shook hands with him what would happen. It was too obvious. Thus, I cringed nearly half an hour before I was supposed to. And unlike other cringe episodes, like Money, this didn't do it for me.

Angela was also a huge letdown. She wasn't funny when she interacted with the baby and Jim and Pam, though it did set up the idea that Jim would accuse her of stealing the baby. However, we already knew another woman had her, ruining the joke. And then her stealing the scones? Super unfunny, because it didn't go anywhere.

Finally, I want to address Andy Bernard and his love interest in Erin. When did they both become cartoons? Bernard has had funny but real moments. But the characters and their relationship feel like PB&J on a kids network. Just not funny or interesting anymore.

I'm debating with myself how long I'll keep watching before I jump ship too. But episodes like last weeks which was such an improvement will likely keep me coming back. Costume Party wasn't perfect, but was a least an afterimage of what a great show it used to be. Christening was downright horrible.

What yesterday's election means

2010-11-03T11:32:00.001-05:00

I hate pundits who think they know what some event involving 82.5 million people means. It's not possible, and downright dishonest. Yet everyone - especially cable news - does it. So here are a couple trends, and then the points I'm taking away from this election, without trying to lump it into one big statement. Because the election, like the country and people, are complicated.

Republicans showed up at the polls. Many independents still voted for Democrats, but Republicans showed in such large numbers that it overwhelmed the independent vote. Overall voting was up 1.5million from the 2006 election (not too different than normal, when accounting for population growth).
Democrats lost all over the place. Well, duh. But progressive democrats and conservative democrats equally lost. Feingold, the progressive champion, lost in WI. Alan Grayson in FL lost. But moderates equally lost, if not more so.
A lot of people split the ticket. In Minnesota, it looks like we'll have a DFL governor, but a Republican legislature (both House and Senate). In CO, they will have a Democrat governor by a wide margin, but an incredibly close race for Senate, with the Democrat winning by only 9k votes, at the moment. Same with Nevada.
The house takeover by the GOP was far more decisive than the Senate. It feels very surprising to me not that we have divided government, but how it's divided. Sure, Democrats lost PA senate and IL senate, but keeping CO, NV and probably WA is surprising. I'm not sure quite what this means, although I'm sure I can find 10 people on TV that think they do.
Palin and the Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate. Delaware, Colorado, Alaska, Nevada - all would have been fairly easy wins for Republicans had they run a non-extremist candidate. Instead, Republicans only get the House. Will this diminish her power and exposure? Probably not. But let's see how many people call her on it.
The country doesn't like either party. I read this election not as an affirmation of Republicans, but as a refutation of Democrats and democrat policies from the last 2 years, primarily the economy. According to some exit polls, the economy was the number one factor in the election by 2x the amount as all the other issues combined. Democrats needed a couple strong quarters before the election to stay in charge, and they weren't able to do that.

The way forward - suggestions for Democrats.

Balance the budget. Release a plan before Christmas with cuts and taxes. Make the Republicans actually cut things. We'll see how people like it when Republicans fail to do that, as they have the last, oh, ever.
Communicate better. It's not about amount of exposure, but quality of exposure. And Obama needs to lead this. I firmly believe he has not communicated the way he was needed, and as such it hurt the Democrats.
Question time - implement this, and do it publicly, and weekly.
Move on issues with popular support. Get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Work on the popular components of energy and climate legislation. Get immigration on the table.
Start teasing cutting defense spending. Of all the portions of our debt, that has to be the most unsustainable. It's nearly 1/2 of our current deficit, and rising faster that China's GDP (just kidding on that last part, but it's pretty close). I'm not convinced defense spending will ever get cut, or if it does it's political suicide, but if all options are on the table, make sure defense is too.
Learn to reconnect with Seniors. Seniors' vote increased significantly between 2008 and 2010. With more people older and living longer, Democrats need to win them back.
Redistrict fairly. No more gerrymandering. If Democrats are going to try to be the party of honesty (look at their communications strategy and their unwillingness to lie), make districts fair.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm exhausted. Every election I forget how much of a junkie am, and am then reminded by staying up 'til 3am watching returns. But it's a tradition, and with good friends, one of the best.

Election Honesty

2010-10-25T21:02:00.000-05:00

I'll be honest: I'm struggling to care about this election in 8 days. I've never considered myself a huge fan of either party. True, I usually vote Democrat, but usually because I see it as the less bad choice, not the good choice. After 4 years of Democrat congressional control and 2 years of full Democrat government control, I'm not impressed with Democrats, nor did I expect to be. As such, it's once again difficult for me to be energized for this election.

Here in Minnesota, the only contentious race I'll be voting on is for governor. I'm not impressed with any of the candidates. Perhaps I too strongly believe that anyone who wants to run for office shouldn't be elected, but I really am not passionate about the candidates. The issues, on the other hand, I'm hugely passionate about. But that's why I don't care about the candidates. I feel too burned by previous politicians and their vague commitments that they meet with integrity, or the election pledges made just to get my vote. And whats scary is, I've only voted a handful of times.

I've had a number of thoughts and discussions with people about how we can structurally change our electoral system to energize myself and others. I always come back to a conservative idea - make more power local. I think that if people feel they have more say over things, and that their vote matters proportionately more, they will want to be involved. But when I'm one of 5 million in Minnesota, perhaps only one of 3 million voting for governor, it's hard to feel like my vote counts.

Of course, my vote does count, as was evidenced with the Franken-Coleman recount. But that isn't enough to energize me. Unfortunately, the only thing that energizes me in this election is fear. While I don't love the Democrats, I am very concerned with most Republican candidates. It's natural for an out-of-power party to do some soul searching and rebound with its base, in this case more conservative. But that's what scares me. Tom Emmer, in Minnesota, thought waiters and waitresses made $100,000. Talk about out of touch. At the same time, he would continue to oppose same-sex marriage, an issue of equity or human rights or however you look at it, and one important to me and my friends.

One issue I think exemplifies the power of local elections, and that is that of school boards. As the son of a school board member (my parent did not enjoy the experience), I learned about the emotions that go into something that so affects people's children. Rightfully so. But what if we got that passion about more issues? Wouldn't that be amazing. Community development planning, tax reform, campaign reform, immigration, healthcare, environment, pollution, debt, racial and cultural equity, jobs, local economy, small business, etc. - all issues in need of addressing. The number one issue I see in terms of making these work is our capitalist system, and I mean that tangibly, not vaguely. National media is more popular because it can appeal to a broader audience (the nation contains more people and potential consumers than each state). As long as national stories dominate the media, we ascribe more agency to federal government, ignoring the fact that state government has significant amounts of power. (Of course, I am ignoring the fact that the national government has the purse strings and through the money controls local policy.) But until more media is comfortable with a smaller-size audience, it won't focus as much on local issues and energize local participation. But due to investors and stockholders, are current capitalist system requires constant growth to be considered successful, while in reality we're becoming more and more segmented.

One hope remains. The Twin Cities have adopted Instant Runoff Voting, which will allow me to vote for other individuals first without throwing away my vote. Some of them are equally kooky, but perhaps I'll find one I care about enough to get my first vote, and then Dayton will get my second.

The Real Wikileaks Effects

2010-10-25T13:35:00.000-05:00

A good reminder of why what Wikileaks is releasing is important. Ignore things like the NY Times profile that belongs on a grocery store checkout stand, not your front door.

The Daily Show

2010-10-13T22:19:00.000-05:00

I know there is some absurd statistic out there that says for people 18-25, a majority of them get their news from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It's a little sad, and I'm proud to say I'm not one of them that gets his news from the The Daily Show, but I do watch the show very regularly. And then I was watching this last night and this is what I saw Eric Cantor say about Reagan:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Eric Cantor Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Rally to Restore Sanity

Cantor basically doesn't own up to the fact that Reagan, most conservative's wet dream, did the opposite of what conservatives today stand for. He helped the national debt balloon, he raised taxes 8 times over 8 years, and was against nukes. Someone like that should be called a traitorous commie, given the rhetoric and issues employed by Republicans today. Cantor tries to explain it away by saying 1980 was a different time, as evidenced by the fact that most of my generation was born in the 80s though hardly lived through it.

I just want to say how baloney I think that is and call Cantor on that bull. Republicans have idealized away so much history, whether it's Texas rewriting history books, the Tea Party misremembering the Revolution, or Cantor ignoring aspects of Regan's legacy. The point isn't that the 80s were a couple decades ago, but that Republicans can in one hand hold up Reagan as the ideological leader of the party and in the other brush off some of his policies by saying it was a different time and his actions were necessary then. So I'm calling Cantor on it.

How Capitalism Rations Health Care

2010-10-13T19:18:00.000-05:00

Remember all the fears about government rationing of health care? Remember the left saying we already had it. Here's some proof.

Ideal jobs

2010-10-11T22:28:00.000-05:00

Here's a question I was just pondering: what if everyone was able to get their ideal job?

I'm currently undergoing my first real job search. I'll be honest and admit that most of the jobs and internships I've had in my life I've gotten without much effort. I either walked into them, or I was in the right place at the right time. So it's a completely different experience to have to search for jobs and experience frequent rejection. It's hard not to take rejection personally, and I have to say that the job search is one of the worst emotional roller coasters I've ever experienced.

Every now and then I come across a job opening for my ideal job. Of course, I wouldn't ever get it given my current status in the world of employment. But I know that my ideal job exists, and I can't wait wait to get there. I have to imagine that every person has their ideal job or jobs; for me, there's probably three different perfect jobs for me that I would be happy doing for most of my life, and there's probably 100 jobs out there that I would love but I just don't know exist yet. So tonight I was thinking, what would the world look like if everyone had their perfect, ideal job.

Now, obviously, most people don't have their ideal job, or they're not able to do their ideal job all of the time. That's because we're in a capitalist country. Jobs are only available due to supply and demand. An environmental lawyer, dedicated to protecting the environment, might only be able to practice environmental law 40% of the time and spend the rest of his/her time doing other work that brings in the $ to support environmental law. Another person might have to labor for years at an entry level position to have a shot at the preferred higher level position. Basically, so much of our economy runs on people doing jobs they don't like, but have a need for money and so they're willing to trade their time for a paycheck.

As a sidenote, I want to speak briefly about how uncomfortable I am with how jobs work. When hired, you're entering into a contract that says you will provide services for money. I realized that I almost think of myself as being used. And then I start to wonder what part of me has value. I bring this up only because I know how uncomfortable many people are with prostitution. I'm not arguing in support of prostitution, nor against it, but more thinking about this idea of services. We as a society have said that paying for sexual services is not allowed, but paying for financial services, etc, is ok. This idea of selling oneself and one's experience/education just feels really strange to me. I'm not ready to pass judgment, but I'm not comfortable with it yet.

Anyway, back to my question. What would the world look like? My first question is efficiency. Employees are more efficient at their jobs when they enjoy them. So one might presume that employers benefit more from employees extremely happy with their position. However, the flip side is that people might be working their perfect job, but aren't necessarily qualified for it or as efficient at it as they might be at another task that they didn't like. I'm not quite clear where I land on this, but I think that likely people would be net more efficient, but with caveats.

A thought just occurred - I need to distinguish that perfect job means ideal pay, although not everyone doing the same job is paid the same. That might be a way of accounting for differing efficiencies, although I'm not very pleased with that thinking. But efficiency is the first question for me because in order for this economy to work, it needs to be financially sustainable.

Second question - what happens to jobs no one wants? For example, I have a hard time imagining that any person wants to be a garbage worker. I suspect that most people only choose that profession because it's a fairly well-paid job with minimal experience required; also, one full of work-related injuries. So, assuming there are certain jobs no one wants, does that mean we have to design our economy to not need those jobs, or will we always need some underclass of workers doing the jobs no one wants? I'd prefer the former, but the latter is probably easier, though in my opinion less ethical.

Third question - what is the net effect of ideal jobs on the overall equity of our system? First, if anyone can get their ideal job, is education even necessary? Ultimately, it probably is, but in a different way than we think of today. If people have their ideal job, I believe they will want to do their job well. Therefore, they will see education as a means to performing their best. Education becomes something that is desired, rather than thrust upon us. Imagine a kid, from the beginning wanting to be an astronaut, being told he/she needs to do this, this, and this to become one. Wouldn't they try harder then? When the future is clear and stable, doesn't that make achievement that much easier? Plus, imagine a teacher knowing exactly what to teach that's relevant and able to assist along the way, instead of the generic gen-ed requirements we use today. But, what if someone's ideal job is to be a teacher, and they're just not good at it. What do we as a society and community do then? Perhaps there are some methods, such as doubling up teachers to prevent any unequal outcomes. But I think that's still complicated, and requires some difficult things, such as a poor teacher acknowledging that they're not as good at their job as they should be. On the other hand, if someone isn't performing at their job, the persistent lack of achievement may make the job less ideal and help the person choose a new ideal job. Maybe.

I mentioned pay before in relation to efficiency. Staggering pay in relation to efficiency may be one way to reward efficiency, but it would continue to stratify our society into classes. I don't believe in pure socialism where everyone is exactly equal and receives everything the same, but at the same time, I don't believe our current system with its huge class differences is ok. Differences in pay yield inequity. Are there certain inequities we might be able to handle and others that we won't? That's a question we should probably be asking for the next centuries, perhaps ever as a society.

Some might be asking, if anyone can have their ideal job, why not, in this utopian society, just not work at all. Perhaps I function differently than most people; perhaps not. I see my work as my life. My work and results are the number one thing I take pride in. It affects my relationships with people, it helps me build new relationships. It is one of the more tangible things I will leave behind when I pass on, and is, to me, one of the things I want to be remembered by. As the saying goes, it's not the two dates on your tombstone that matters, its the dash in between and what it symbolizes. So if people take pride in good work, what are we constantly telling certain people in society if we are simply using them for their humanpower? We accept that people will work with garbage as long as the pay isn't rotten (har har), or will work retail as long as the worker has a high enough need for minimal amounts of money. And in the meantime, those people working the thankless, depression-inducing jobs continue to apply and hope and wish for a better job, probably not even their ideal one, but one that is less bad. And I don't think that's ok. It's structurally preventing people from achieving happiness, which, afterall, aren't we all supposed to be in the pursuit of?

Where I am today

2010-10-11T18:07:00.005-05:00

The Daily Dish, managed/written by Andrew Sullivan, is celebrating its 10th anniversary at the moment. I discovered the blog probably about 2 years ago. I actually discovered Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic first, and through him discovered Andrew Sullivan's blog. I still read the Dish, though I don't read Ambinder anymore (except his printed articles in The Atlantic magazine).

I've always considered myself to have a complicated political beliefs. The term I use today came from the Dish: liberaltarian. I don't like big federal government, but I want active local governance (I'll elaborate on that sometime later). Sullivan became a conservative voice that really influenced and facilitated my understanding of my own beliefs. Here was, in my opinion, a sane conservative. But, his views were so much more complicated than the simple views propagated in the media, and it helped me find myself.

I have, countless times, articulated Sullivan's argument to others regarding the conservative case for gay marriage, and I firmly believe its actually a conservative viewpoint. These days, I read about half of Sullivan's posts. I really don't care about his posts about religion because I don't care about religion. Right or wrong, I take the attitude about religion that it should exist in its own corner, and only when it starts to affect me do I care about it. Everyone has the right to belong to religion, just like I have the right not to. Sullivan's investigations into the Pope are full of conviction and scary ramifications, but I'm content to skip through them. I think it's important for me not to be a critical voice of religion as I am not a part of that community. On the other hand, Sullivan's series about torture was gripping. That was one of the things that strongly tipped me from being a typical big-government loving liberal (that and, actually, working in government). His persistence in publishing the horrible pictures was incredibly important, and works as a great, serious, counterpart to people like John Stewart's takedown of popular media.

Then there was the great series about the Cannabis Closet - supposedly being published in a book soon. I took the series in a broader sense. The best way for any agenda considered taboo to advance is for the people who subscribe to publicly talk about it. This is true of GLBT issues (I use "subscribe" very loosely...), marijuana reform, or even things like other sexual taboos, being a different political thinker in a homogeneous environment, and environmental issues. The best way to advertise public transit, for example, is to take it and tell people you do it. It isn't about convincing people to change, but its about making the behavior acceptable. At least, that's how I see it. And I thought Cannabis Closet was an amazing way of demonstrating that for one issue.

Maintaining this blog, I've long wrestled with how I'd like to see the blog become and what I'm capable of doing. My passion isn't in writing, but in relationships and issue advocacy (and watching good TV shows). Whatever my blog becomes, though, will be heavily influenced by the few regular blogs I read, the Daily Dish being the preeminent among them. That isn't to say the Dish is perfect. I'm often appalled by some of its environment coverage, despite Sullivan being a believer in climate change. But what I love about it is that me, a college student, can write to the Dish and get some things posted occasionally. It's an honor to have been able to share Andrew's audience.

That leads me to my last point. I really feel Andrew cares. I've even started calling a man I've never met by his first name because his approach is so personal it only seems natural to calling him Andrew. To evidence his caring, look at how, whenever he vacations, he lines up several prominent writers to bring their opinions to his blog. They're never as good as Andrew himself, but at least they're something. I can't imagine blogging 24/7, but somehow Andrew does it. That's why I wanted to take 10 minutes and say thanks.

Fall TV season begins

2010-09-26T22:15:00.003-05:00

This year, I think I've figured out the shows I'm going to watch. A brief list:

Chuck

Community

Dexter

How I Met your Mother

Lone Star

Mad Men

Modern Family

The Office

Parenthood

I may check in on a few others throughout the year.

The one show I want to comment on this week is Community. The season premiere was fantastic. Seriously. I'm not one to often watch something and then rewatch soon after. But I did that with Community. It was funny, had great character moments, a little plot development, and of course all the usual meta-references Community is good for. There are some shows that make me want more immediately. Community on Thursday was one of those (others being Breaking Bad, the West Wing, and some other occasional episodes). It crossed my mind that I don't know of a pure-comedy that has ever done full hour episodes - I only know of those that are half hour shows. So, enough gushing, bring on more.

Two shows I'm sticking with this year despite concerns: How I Met your Mother and the Office. Both have been strong in the past, but both had poor seasons last year. Both had strong openings, but I'm not convinced they've returned to their glory years. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Many laughs,

Christopher Nolan

2010-08-01T22:57:00.003-05:00

In the last 2 weeks, I've seen or rewatched 5 recent Christoper Nolan films: Insomnia, Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Inception. Generally, I'm wowed by his films. But I'd thought I'd offer a couple critiques of them.

The two I find to be best are Batman Begins and Inception. Both flow so well and are perfectly constructed. Batman Begins successfully reboots a series and introduces characters that are easy to understand with ideas that challenge all of us. It is important for us to question how broken something has to be before you scrap it and start over versus trying to fix it. My only critique of Nolan is that he keeps this point fairly subtle without fiery language that I believe should be afixed to such a debate. In fact, I'm not sure he ever completely makes the case for Bruce Wayne's perspective, but we're to believe since Batman prevails that his way is the right way. I do think the method of trying to fix the system is better, but I wanted a stronger debate between Wayne and Ra's Al Ghul.

Inception is a truly wonderful film with so many possible interpretations. I've already seen it twice in theaters and enjoyed it as much the second time. I expect Inception, like Batman Begins, will stand the test of time. Having read about the theories that all of Inception is a dream, or that parts of the movie are a dream, or the movie is simply a metaphor for making a film are all enticing, but the film itself it just incredible. In fact, I just accepted the premise of the movie until I heard other people's ideas about it. Really great movie, and in many ways a reunion for Batman Begins' actors.

The Dark Knight was the most recent movie I wanted, and I was surprised to not enjoy it as much. I realized that the film is a perpetual setup of choices and of tests to examine humanity. BUT, its too many. The first time seeing the film, I remember feeling it got a little long, and now I understand it better. I can't say what I would have forgone for the sake of brevity, but I think the payoff could have come sooner. The payoff is that humans are more averse to anarchy than the Joker believed. Again, like Batman Begins, I agree with the point the movie makes, but I think as a climax it falls short. I can't tell if this is a technique/style of Nolan to keep themes subtle or whether it is a failing of his, and perhaps its too normative a debate to ever have a correct answer. But, in the end I found the film to be less satisfactory. One other thing I noticed was all the plot holes. The Joker's plan has too much planning and is contingent upon too many things to go so well. The phone in the prisoner's stomach had to be called - the Joker had to somehow gain access to a phone. How did the goons know the helicopter would come down those streets? How did no police and the helicopter not see the burning firetruck and have an alternate route planned that didn't involve the underground street. Basically, I think the Joker got far too lucky to be as successful as he was. I look forward to the third installment of the Nolan Batman series, but hope that it's improved on the Dark Knight.

Memento was a movie I stopped watching halfway through. My attention wasn't caught by it. I know that it's a cool way to make a film, but I didn't care about the characters or the mystery. But, as a theme of Nolan's, it's another interesting example of him taking a scenario and exploring humanity.

Insomnia was good, but not a film I loved. I thought it started off strong and then wandered for a bit to the end. My attention wasn't constantly held. But I loved the scene in which Pacino shoots his partner. It was so eerie and hectic that I was gripped. Again, it's a situation that Nolan explores humanity, with a nice tie between the Alaska summer, the guilt, and humanity.

One thing I'd like Nolan to improve in all his films is the female characters. None of them include a strong female character. Ariadne and Mal in Inception come closest, but it would be good to have some more.

I have some more thoughts that I might come back and add, but I'll just wrap it up by commenting on the fact that his films have a similar premise and theme, but are all so different and ask fundamentally different questions. I look forward to future films by Nolan and believe Inception puts him on an upward trajectory to making great films.

Recession Equity

2010-07-09T13:27:00.004-05:00

I've been reading a couple things about how the Great Recession is leading to gross inequities. Who's been hurt by the recession and who's benefiting fall within distinct racial and economic categories.

First, the Economic Policy Institute released a report detailing the racial inequities of current unemployment numbers. Minneapolis had the highest disparity between white and black job seekers, with blacks 3.1 times more likely to be unemployed than whites. That's something that isn't normally seen in the states overall unemployment rate of 7%, so well done EPI.

Second, I found this NY Times article examining unfair business practices in Memphis leading to the decimation of black wealth gains in the area since the 90s. The black-white wealth divide is staggering, with blacks and latinos owning only about 8 cents of wealth for every dollar held by a white person. And that number is higher than before.

Ironically, one of the points the NYT article looks at is the prevalence of subprime loans in communities of color. This is quite a change from previous red-lining policies, but discriminatory none-the-less leading the the absurd differences in foreclosures between white and black communities.

How will the recession finish out? I don't know (or if we're even fully on track for its end), but statistics can hide truths, and I've begun to wonder if the recession won't end for some and continue for others given the stratification of our society.

Incremental vs Radical change

2010-04-18T14:34:00.004-05:00

Cross-posted from a class reflection (which is why this may not make perfect sense).

I just read a post about the problems of incrementalism in the queer rights movement that strikes a cord. I want to respond that I think that it isn't fair to say that all incrementalism is bad; I do think, from the point of view and goals, it is fair to say incrementalism was/is bad for the queer rights movement. The problem for me with radical change is that I don't see how it is possible for everyone, one day, to wake up and start living their lives in a different way. I believe humans are creatures of habit, and only through incremental change can lasting sustainability be achieved. For example, researchers asked the public which of these options they supported for reducing global warming pollution: an 80% decrease by 2050 or a 2% decrease every year until 2050. Overwhelmingly, respondents preferred the latter, even though the options reach the same goal - an 80% reduction by 2050. While this is an issue of framing, I believe it also speaks about the preferences of people. "Yeah, of course I can make a couple cuts here and there over time, instead of one big cut at once." Now, the flip-side is that once you make a radical change, you have the advantage of being in the status quo. And as we have seen with politics, it is a lot harder to prevent change than it is to enact it.

But, there is also the problem of the interractions between our laws and our culture. Hypothetically, our laws should reflect our culture. If our culture is to drive 65mph, the law should reflect that. Or, if the law says 65mph and the culture is to drive 70-75, enforcement of the law will occur at speeds higher than that. Same with jaywalking - few people are fined for jaywalking because the law and the culture may be in conflict, and enforcement would only show that the law would be unpopular. There are of course many policies that are unpopular, but through movements, elections, campaigns, etc, the policies are changed to reflect our values. (This gets difficult with campaign election finance and distortions of power, but in a hypotheical general sense...).

How does this connect to radical change? If you have radical change without culture change, though you may have the power of being the status quo, you may face huge opposition which fights back. Therefore, your radical change may only be temporary, galvanizing the opposition, which may undue your change or roll back aspects of it, ultimately making it only incremental change.

What's my solution? I mentioned this before, and I should clarify that it doesn't work for every example, but just start living the life you want to live. ExCo (the Experimental College) wants education to be accessible to all (teaching and learning), so they created it. I've taught a class for 3 semesters, though I've learned a ton from my students. Anyone can take the class, anyone can teach a class. The founders created the world they wanted. And it works. There's 40+ classes offered across the cities, a huge growth from 3 years ago. Or, there's the example of energy efficiency and leveraging capitalism for public service. The subversive argument groups like Cooperative Energy Futures (CEF) argues is that capitalism itself isn't bad, its how people use it. If we have a culture of using capitalism for exploitation and profit, that's what will happen. But if we change the culture so that capitalism can be used to good, then we can do that. (Of course, there are people who would argue against this, and there are merits to their argument. If any of you are of this opinion, I'd love to have this conversation with you, because it's a subject of much interested to me and I can say I haven't been fully converted one way or the other.). If you believe in sustainability, start living the life. Show that the lifestyle is not only possible, but preferable to the status quo. Living by example is, in my opinion, the most important way to create culture change. You say, "I can do it better" by putting your money where your mouth is. Why do you think Al Gore routinely gets criticized for having an energy hog of a house?

Ultimately, I see culture change as incremental, and therefore I believe social and political change can also only be incremental. If you look at public opinion toward gay marriage, slowly but surely more and more people support it. According to Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com, in 2012, the US will be at the tipping point in which a majority of people support it. That doesn't mean the law will change right then, but around then, if these theories are correct. If the move comes to soon, though, your galvanize the opposition, as happened in CA with Prop 8, or the pro-life movement after Roe v. Wade. In the latter case, public opinion was close to support abortion, but the court case came too soon and was a focusing event to enable the opposition.

So, as frustrating as incremental change may be, I've resigned myself to believing it's the only way that's possible, and as long as that is the case, I plan on thinking and working that way.

I'd like to leave you with my favorite quote in the whole world. It speaks to the importance of being yourself and the power within that. It's by Maryanne Williamson (Nelson Mandela adapted it for one of his speeches). "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us most. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and famous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in all of us. And when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

2010-01-24T15:53:00.001-06:00

Campaign Finance

2010-01-24T15:31:00.004-06:00

I had been mulling over campaign finance regulations for a while before the Supreme Court decision was announced on Thursday. My gut instinct was that this was a bad decision. Basically, the way I see it, money = power. Therefore, campaign finance regulations, which limited the amount of money that could be donated, disrupted that relationship. In this simple explanation, people/groups with money benefit most from SCOTUS's decision, namely corporations but also unions. But Justice Anthony Kennedy makes an interesting point:

"Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech."

Not only is this the first time the word "blog" has appeared in a SCOTUS ruling, but rings true to my interests. If I were to endorse a candidate on this blog, what does that require of my relationship with corporations? I'm not sure, and I don't think justices were sure.

So I'm conflicted. I firmly do not believe corporations should be able to donate to political campaigns, but given the complexity of endorsements, social media campaigning, and the blogosphere, where is the line between a campaign donation and commentary, blogs and tv spots?

Based upon SCOTUS's decision (which overturned a lot of stare decisis), it looks like campaign finance regulations won't be overhauled without a constitutional amendment or a more liberal court (given the 5-4 conservative-liberal split).

I should be...

2009-12-14T20:19:00.002-06:00

I should be working but I'm too mad to focus.

I shouldn't be surprised that Lieberman flipped. A public option or no, I'm sick of the drama. Pass something already, and then let's judge it. Too many hypothetical situations.

I should be surprised at Lieberman as a person. The guy will write a climate change bill (Lieberman Warner) and then balk at the Kerry-Boxer bill. He will fight to end DADT, but he can't support any health care reform? What an enigma.

I shouldn't be surprised at Obama's ability to stay out of the mud. Seriously, somehow he never gets dirty in a town full of people I can't stand. And yet in many ways I'm so frustrated at him, but he presents himself hard to be frustrated at... he's good at what he does (which, I sometimes wonder, is what.).

I should be upset at the 9hundred-some arrests made in Copenhagen yesterday, but the police-state of our world isn't new.

I should be happy about Dallas electing its first lesbian mayor, but why should that be news. 10% of the cities in this country should have gay mayors, statistically. While I'm happy a glass ceiling is broken, I look forward to the day when there are no more glass ceilings and sexuality doesn't matter.

I should be mad about the Stupak amendment, but when men legislate women's issues, what else would I expect?

I should be surprised Hollywood made $10b this year, but when I go to the theater and pay $10 for a ticket, I'm not. Unfortunately, as long as demand for movies keeps up, the prices won't go down. Which is sad, because movies aren't worth $10.

I shouldn't comment on Tiger Woods, but it's such a "big" story it's hard not to. Seriously, the guy doesn't need to go to the golf course to get in 18 holes.

I should get back to work.

Election Rehash

2009-11-04T13:29:00.002-06:00

The argument talking heads are making is that yesterday's off-off-year elections were a referendum on Obama. I disagree.

First, the people who voted yesterday were not the same people who voted for Obama. Turnout was much lower than 2009, as expected. These were local elections: places where constituents tend to have more faith in their elected officials and less concern in voting for them.

Second, with the exception of NJ, Obama didn't do much campaigning in the races. He wasn't the issue.

Third, the economy sucks. Most incumbents had a tough time, whether it was party or person. People are flailing because our economy is.

But, I am personally extremely disappointed in Maine Question 1, which was attempting to repeal the same-sex marriage law that was passed in the last year. This was a referendum, and it passed - meaning it takes away the equal rights that GLBTQ people had only recently been afforded. Unlike California, this was simply repealing a law, not a constitutional amendment. There may be a strong legal argument to be made that even a referendum does not allow minority rights to be taken away. We shall see.

Democrats scored well in Washington state, where civil unions passed, and the NY-23. NY's race was the one Dems are focusing on, since, as they like to claim, a democrat hasn't held that seat since before the Civil War. This argument, though, ignores the changing platforms of parties, so it really doesn't mean anything. But the election of a solid democrat in a historically conservative district does show something and is promising for liberals.

NJ and Virginia were Republican victories, although I would suggest that voters didn't care for either candidates all that much, especially in NJ. Corzine and Christie lobbed bombs at each other, and as John Stewart showed, focused on non-issues like Christie's weight. Before 2008, I didn't even know that Virginia was a state Dems played in, so it's loss doesn't mean anything personally, and represents a problem with the incumbents more than Obama.

More than anything, this election gives the news a couple stories to fill its time with, and some fodder before 2010. Expect those races to begin heating up soon. 2010 will be much more of a referendum on Obama, but even that is suspect as the President's party tends to lose in the off-year election. As I said before, we shall see.

One last thing: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) seems to be picking up steam across the nation. Minneapolis had its first election using it yesterday, and St. Paul adopted the format for its future elections. Probably doesn't represent the end of the party system, but may be the start of more 3rd party candidates, something I'm hoping for.

New post

2009-10-11T13:54:00.001-05:00

The reason why it's so hard to change our energy systems.

Real Journalism

2009-08-30T20:27:00.001-05:00

This is a week old, but an amazing read. Old-fashioned journalism is not dead.

Tick, Tick, Tick.

2009-08-30T13:53:00.000-05:00

Time - consistently on top of its game.

Why?

2009-08-25T11:34:00.000-05:00

A good question.

What happened to civic discourse?

2009-08-10T20:13:00.002-05:00

Intro

I have a job that frequently subjects me to people political opinions. Hearing both sides, I can't help but feeling that we aren't simply talking past each other, but the two sides aren't talking at all.

Let's take two big issues and break them down: healthcare and healthcare insurance reform and climate change legislation.

Healthcare - Background and Proposals

Democrats have a big umbrella when it comes to views on healthcare. Sometimes I wonder whether that umbrella is too big, but that is a question for another time. Democrat views on healthcare range from single-payer, also known as universal, to weak reform. The majority of democrats support a public-option for healthcare.

Politically, Republicans appear to oppose any changes to the status quo. However, I wonder often if privately all of them sincerely oppose changing the status quo. The political posturing of Republicans is one of the reasons I fear civic discourse died.

Before I go too far, let's talk about what is actually on the table in the deliberations, focusing on the public option and reform measures. A public option is exactly what it sounds like - another health insurance plan, this time offered by the government. It could cover any number of people who otherwise would not have health insurance, therefore one of the points of deliberation.

In addition, there are additional reform measures for the insurance industry. I'm less knowledgeable on these, but I know the reforms seek to limit insurance companies dropping clients because of preexisting conditions or after clients receive necessary expensive medical procedures. Ultimately, the insurance companies will likely still skirt covering the people they are supposed to, and so Americans would have the public option to fall back on.

To be clear, none of the proposals prevent one from keeping their private insurance. There was a provision in the House version that would call for more government regulation of certain insurance companies, but these companies would be allowed to continue their business as long as they met certain standards. If they didn't meet these standards that every other company could meet, why should they be allowed to continue to exist anyway?

Messaging

Democrats have had difficulty with their messaging of the issues. In stark contrast to the 2008 campaign, when candidates brought up horrific story after horrific story about the evil insurance companies, Democrats are on the defensive and apparently losing the fight. They are countering rumors and lies while not explaining while their solution will be better for everyone.

Republicans are winning. They are playing to people's fears. Fears of government, fears of socialism, fears of rationing. The message is distinctly anti-European and Canadian. Yet very, very little of what they are bringing up are actually relevant to the debate.

There was a true single-payer bill introduced into Congress; clearly this bill was purely a token. It was never going to go anywhere and was never going to get much more support than those who sponsored it. In the current public-option debates, socialistic health care is not being considered. Unless you consider a plan that covers every American through private companies and a public plan operating at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive under a public-option.

Then the Republicans use horror stories of people in Canada and Europe who were denied a procedure under their government plans. I don't deny these things happen. I only question the frequency of these problems as compared to the problems Americans experience with their insurance companies today. In addition, many of the people denied by their government were getting some health care. Before a public plan, they wouldn't have received any health care. I realize this isn't ideal, but it's an improvement over the status quo.

Then, there are the Republican rumors. Let's start with euthanasia of seniors. First of all, nearly every single senior is enrolled in Medicare, a government-run health care program. And, they like it. Currently, Medicare does not cover counseling for hospice and living wills. Given that a significant amount of health expenses tend to occur right before death, living wills are an important item to have. Barack Obama eloquently discussed this at his town hall. It is my view that it is responsible and efficient for a health provider to both work to limit expenses and have people prepared for the unthinkable yet inevitable situation. To be clear, this is not euthanizing seniors.

Yet, this rumor is effective. Seniors show up at the polls. If they think the Democrats are out to kill them, politically this is a great move. Morally, it is reprehensible.

Other rumors: mandated sex changes - the Rachel Maddow show debunked this. Others? I'm sure there are more out there.

All of these rumors, with perhaps the example of euthanasia, which gained rampant support, pale in comparison to the simple belief that all of health care is socialism. One of the great -isms. Hated nearly as much as communism.

There are some socialistic values in a public option, but as I've said before, private insurance companies will still exist! If you don't want socialism, you don't have to have it.

Civic Discourse

The two sides aren't talking about the same thing. They aren't talking at all. I believe that if we can have a discussion about an issue, and then a discussion about possible solutions, we can make the best solution.

A great example of this was the sulfur dioxide being emitted by coal plants that resulted in the clean air act and the first example of a cap-and-trade system. It was an ingenious proposal that combined environmental regulations with the free market. And it worked, better than anyone could have imagined. Cost estimates were 10 times higher than actuality and emissions were reduced significantly and well ahead of the requirements.

Right now, as I see it, Democrats are the only ones debating different options for health care. And that is a problem. I do not believe Democrats are the only ones with solutions. I believe that a discussion involving many viewpoints, many people, and many experiences can yield a better solution.

Yet, I don't believe Republicans are voting no on every healthcare reform tactic in committee. I know that they are working on the bills. For example, one amendment that passed in the Senate was fantastic: it required all members of congress and their staffs to be enrolled in the public option. Granted, it is a public option and so anyone should be able to keep their private insurance, but it is a great way of symbolically saying, "Congressperson, if you are going to give people a public option, you have to be willing to use it as well." And it's a part of the bill.

One wouldn't know that Republicans are offering some substantive measures to the health bill by their appearance. Republicans are claiming things like the bill will kill seniors, there will be death panels (closely related to Death Stars, but the Green Lasers shoot from the eyes instead), and other rumors. They are claiming they are opposed to the bill before the final version is released. And then they offer other amendments that weaken the bills and some of them pass. The Republican rhetoric is not reflective of their actions.

But because of the media, citizens of the country get the appearance that Republicans believe this bill will do all the horrible things they claim. And it incites them. If the health bill did have euthanasia for seniors in it, I would be mad too. But it doesn't.

That said, despite Democratic tactics to assure voters that the bill won't do these things, the messaging fails and people aren't convinced. Due to ad hominen attacks, disillusioned voters refuse to trust anything their elected official says. No one ever changes their position.

I might suggest America has a humilty/ego problem, but again, that is an issue for another time. Instead, I simply say that if no one is willing to question what they've heard and what they're hearing, we'll become even more factious. And that scares me.

The discourse leads to violence. At a Representative Russ Carnahan town hall, a fight broke out between Tea Party people and SEIU members. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w And the violence never changes people's mindframe.

How to Reclaim Civic Discourse

I believe first we need to be talking about the same thing. I had a conversation with two conservatives about health care and decided to start with the statistic that 48 million people in America don't have health care.

Person A said yeah, but if you give them health care it will overload the doctors and we'll have to ration health care and that's socialism.

Person B then called me naive and implied that I was stupid and needed to learn more.

That was civic discourse. In my defense, I believe I approach the situation with a reasonable tone and open mind, but that didn't change the effect.

The second problem is that I partially agree with them, and that is why I believe a health care solution must address additional concerns. I agree that adding 48 million people will put strain on our current health system. That is why I want to provide financial incentives to people studying pre-med and going to medical school and then doing their residency. We need to encourage people/students to become doctors.

I have several friends on essentially a pre-med track right now. Yet most of them don't want to become doctors but want to do medical research because medical research companies will pay to put them through medical school and doctors have to do it on their own. This is a fundamental problem.

Therefore, I believe health care reform must include this education reform. We pay citizens to go to school after fighting in our wars, but we don't pay citizens to go to medical school and then give back to our country?

Secondly, I don't believe any strain on the system isn't worth it. I don't believe we can morally argue that we can't change the status quo because it will hurt people who favor the status quo. Health insurance shouldn't be something only the rich elites can pay for, it is an inalienable right, an extension of the right to Life. Our entire country benefits those with money, and that is why things never improve for our poor. It's time to change that.

So, we talk about the same thing. We don't have to agree, but we find our commonalities. I don't want euthanasia for seniors. They don't. We're agreed. Next point. We discuss. We remember that we are all Americans and we want not only what's best for ourselves but what's best for our country.

Conclusion

The current civic discourse can not last. I worry we are on the precipice of something - something terrible. And as long as the civic discourse is nonexistent or not civil, we lose sight of our commonalities and trouble comes. I know our country is terribly divided - there was a reason Obama was compared to Lincoln.

We can bridge that divide, through questions, listening, and hermeneutics.

I have more to say, but I've said enough for tonight.

Sanford (who cares?)

2009-06-25T15:38:00.002-05:00

In the midst of an Iranian Revolution, the whole US instead focuses on the first disappearance and then infidelity of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.

History:
-a week ago Sanford was last seen.
-4 days ago the press started asking questions
-his staff at first didn't know where he was, then later said he was hiking somewhere on the Appalachian Trail
-his car was spotted at the Atlanta Airport, suggesting he wasn't hiking
-he returned on Wednesday from Argentina
-he gave a press conference, in which he announced he had been having an affair with an Argentine woman

I honestly don't care about this story. It doesn't change how he was functioning as a governor (poorly); the only thing it does is give us more information into his personality.

What we learn -
-he doesn't take the executive office seriously. I say that because he up and left without making clear who was in charge. If there was a natural disaster or something, the Lt. Governor wouldn't have control and the Governor couldn't be reached
-he fell in love. Ok, so he's normal. I dislike that he cheated on his wife, but I can understand falling in love with different people during different periods in one's life
-he's still a bad governor.

This last point doesn't have anything to do with the affair, but rather how much he screwed his constituents. South Carolina is the state with the highest unemployment rate, and Sanford was refusing to accept stimulus money (something the courts ruled was unconstitutional).

In the end, another Republican bites the dust and and it leaves 4 front runners for the GOP 2012 election: Huckabee, Palin, Romney, and Pawlenty. Romney is the only I even have the smallest bit of respect for, but wow, with the other 3 basically with their hats in the ring, this election will be crazy. I'm salivating and it's still 3 years out.

Think vs. Hope in Iran

2009-06-19T18:13:00.002-05:00

As you may have noticed, I'm reviving this blog after a couple months wandering in the wilderness (figuratively). I had been thinking about the post I made yesterday for quite some time (as you might be able to judge by the length) but what really got me to return is what is happening in Iran.

If you haven't heard, the protests occurring their now are the biggest even of my life. I can't remember the last popular uprising on this magnitude, likely because I haven't lived through one.

The Basics:

The elections were a week-ago today. The main competition was between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hoysein Mousavi. Mousavi, framed as a moderate, was seen to be better for US-Iranian relations despite his continued (from Ahmadinejad) rhetoric against the Israeli state and his plan to continue the nuclear program.
Mousavi's campaign claims to have been contacted by the Interior Ministry (who ran the election) late Friday night or Saturday morning with the promise that they won the election.
Hours later, the state-sponsored TV announced that Ahmadinejad had won in a landslide with 63% of the vote.
Mousavi supporters were understandable distressed at the result. Polling in Iran before the election showed Mousavi with a lead similar to the one Ahmadinejad claims to have won with.
Since then, Mousavi supporters have protested the results. The government shut down the cell phone service, SMS service, most social-networking internet sites, and began confiscating satellite dishes shortly after declaring Ahmadinejad the winner.
Police and Basij took to the streets, at times getting into violence with protestors, at other times somewhat keeping the peace. Basij are lower-to-middle class people paid by the government that act like police but independent - allowing for plausible deniability of the government for the actions of the Basij.
Some of the violence resulted in deaths. Many were arrested, particularly at universities.
Most of the information that the West is getting is through Twitter, email, but it is increasingly difficult to get reliable information. Foreign press credentials were rescinded within days of the election.
Supreme Leader Khameini (who has ultimate power in Iran) today announced that the election stands despite the claims of inproprieties. He also said that from here on out protests will be met with force.
The protest the last few days have been noticeably peaceful, which spells trouble for the government in the claim that the protests will now be prevented and protesters arrested.

With that, my analysis. First, I feel like I can identify with the protesters. They come from a country I know little about, that has been villified by the leadership of my country for most of my formative years, but consist of youth and an election full of energy. I ask myself, if Obama hadn't won, would I be in a same place as them - unable to quietly deal with the path my country would be heading toward. Not only that, but all signs are that Ahmadinejad did not actually win the election, but rather that it was stolen by him and the Supreme Leader; reasons enough to take to the streets.

At the same time, I want the safety of the Iranian protesters ensured. I believe that their government is suppressing their opinion and legitimate assembly. It is, in some ways, reminiscient of the GOP National Convention in St. Paul. I remember hearing back from people who when that the riot police, the physical entrapment of protestors, and the shady arrests portrayed authority as suppressing American's voices. Granted their were the few who caused irreparable damage through violence and I reckon there are similar people in Iran. The violence caused by the protesters only legitimizes the police's actions and makes spectators disassociate with the cause.

So I ask myself, three questions: what would I do, what do I hope to happen, and what do I think will happen.

Were I an Iranian, I would no doubt be a hesitant protestor. I might be more likely a communications geek looking for news and disseminating it. Given the danger the twitterers and communicators are in, I'm not sure I would follow through. After all, I tend to put my well-being first.

At the same time, being in a peaceful crowd of hundreds of thousands of people... possibly I cuold see myself doing that. Getting lost in the mob-mentality, becoming just a face in the crowd - in a crowd in which ever face makes a bigger difference. Maybe I could be there. But maybe not. Maybe I would just leave my door open for the person avoiding the police to hide. Or maybe I'd continue as if nothing had change, through silencing granting Ahmadinejad the authority to continue his destructive policies. Likely I'll never know, and I hope the time never comes in this country where I'm forced to make a decision like the ones the Iranians have had to make every day for the past week. They have more cajones than I likely will ever have, and I've accepted that. We all have a part to play.

At first thought, what I hope will happen is that Iran will have a new election. Do the whole thing over again and rectify this situation. A government without minority support has great difficulty functioning, if it can even function at all. (Granted, I'm assuming Ahmadinejad won. If he lost, I doubt he can retain power against the majority will). At the new election, the ballots would be monitored by people of every campaign, as well as foreign media, state media - a truly transparent process.

As I think about this hopeful situation, one which avoids violence, I remember that Khamenei is the one still in charge in this situation. Given his current calls for Ahmadinejad to reclaim the Presidency, he has lost his legitimacy with many Iranians. A new election wouldn't be enough.

What I then hope is that Khamenei resigns and a new government is elected or structured. It is time for transparency and openness in Iran. It is not enough that the two rivals, Mousavi and Ahmadinejad have similar views on many issues. (Many Iranians will likely disagree with this, and I think that Mousavi represents a strong shift from Ahmadinejad, but I would not be illusioned into thinking all our problems with Iran will cease. Particularly in engaging with the US, I think Mousavi is a huge change.) But Khamenei won't resign. He will only go with his overthrow.

Which leads me to what I think will happen: I think that this is the beginning of the second Iranian revolution. The Supreme Leader must be replaced, the Guardian Council appears too conservative and many have let the charade of Ahmadinejad continue, and Ahmadinejad is done for. All these governmental institutions have lost their legitimacy. Two days ago, maybe the first two could have continued to exist - Ahmadinejad was done for not matter what. But with Khamenei continuing to support Ahmadinejad and claiming that protestors will be greeted with violence, he cannot stay and the Guardian Council is too tied with him to continue as well.

I think we will see many deaths starting tomorrow. But I think the people will rise up. I worry, then, that if Mousavi ultimately takes charge he will have walked into a government in which he can stay in power until his death, but I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we get their.

My thoughts are with those that are putting it all on the line for their country that hasn't given a damn about them in return.

Is terrorism any different than a hate crime?

2009-06-18T13:38:00.002-05:00

Is terrorism any different than a hate crime?

A hate crime is when a perpetrator attacks a victim in order to hurt the victim and the social group that victim belongs in. Social groups protect have typically included minority groups and religious groups, now possibly being expanded for gay/queer groups.

Hate crimes have occurred throughout American history, but our eyes were turned to them with the lynching of African Americans following (and some before) the Emancipation Proclamation. The recent discussion has been whether to include gay persons as part of a social group to be protected by law. The discussion is induced by statistics showing increased violence toward LGBTQ persons.

Now, let's consider terrorism. Al Qaeda dislikes American values, no doubt. Its goal is to see our cities burn and our way of life eliminated. Clearly it can never happen (and thankfully we are stronger), but its goal is to make us scared. When we are scared, we retaliate, and do things like maintain Guantanamo as a gulag-type facility. We torture. Al Qaeda gains new recruits because of our response. Al Qaeda tries to attack again and we live in a state of fear.

The fear is not overwhelming. The younger generations know no different, the older generations are fearful enough to limit civil protections with the Patriot Act, limit civil liberties of captured enemies, and fearful enough to racially discriminate and fear people of Arab identity. I know it's wrong but I feel my heart beat a little stronger in situations where I perceive an increase in danger due to the skin color of the people in my surroundings. Rationally, I know that I shouldn't be afraid, but we live in a state of fear that all Arabs hate us because 20 of them attacked us once.

We live in a state of fear because someone of another social group attacked members of our social group. Is this not what terrorism is? Is this not what a hate crime is?

Perhaps the difference is that hate crime refers to someone who is of the same national identity whereas terrorism involves two competing nationals. I don't know, and that is my question.

But following that perhaps hate crimes and terrorism are the same thing, how far to we take these classifications?

I ask because of the murder recently of Dr. Tiller, an abortion doctor from Nebraska. He was killed in his church during a Sunday service. The alleged killer was trying to save babies, but he was also trying to strike fear into other abortion providers that they should stop their practices in order to stay safe.

Liberals have argued that the killing was a form of domestic terrorism. I buy this argument, but does it not also classify as a hate crime? There was a social group - abortion providers - who now are fearful (if they weren't already) because of violence done against other members of their social group. It was effective enough to shut down one abortion clinic (Dr. Tiller's) and force other providers to resort to things like television interviews with their faces disguised. Clearly this one social group has fear.

The question I pose is not only what is the difference between terrorism and hate crimes, but how far can one go to claim it is part of a social group that was wronged due to action directed against that social group? If a Wall Street Executive is killed because the executive ruined a company and shareholders and employees, would that not be a hate crime against all Wall Street Executive's to make sure they don't do the same thing? Where is the line for what counts as a "social group" that would be protected by a hate crime? It is simply what the congress decides or is there a universally agreed upon limit?

If we limit social groups to groups that one is born into, which would include most groups now protected, including LGBTQ groups, race, how does religion fit into that? And then it gets trickier with Judaism which is both a religion and a race. How about professions? Would it not be fair to say that some people are born with skills suited for one profession? And even though they aren't born into that profession or social group, they are destined to end up there.

Clearly this is complicated and something I've been thinking about. But to any readers, I'm curious for your comments.

How long will Pelosi be around?

2009-04-22T14:37:00.002-05:00

Pelosi has some supporters and a lot of haters. Liberals tend to like her, conservatives hate her. But her position seemed safe, until this week.

Congress, already facing significant negative public opinion polls, was a bit teetering.

Yesterday, it became clear that Pelosi knew about the torture the Bush administration was doing.

Today it becomes clear the Pelosi knew about the NSA's wiretap of Representative Jane Harman.

Not a good week for Pelosi. I personally don't care for her politics but enthusiastically support her policy positions. Curious as to where this will go.

OLC memos

2009-04-21T16:00:00.002-05:00

Last week Obama's administration released five memos from Bush's Legal Council. The memos spell out how the US can and did torture, resulting in the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in a month. It's a disturbing read.

Liberal groups are outraged that this happened. Conservatives are split, some claiming it's abhorrent and others defending Bush and talking up how much safer we are because of torture. I don't buy the latter argument and given how recent foreign policy excursions have gone (with Chavez smiling upon meeting Obama), I think we are regaining our respect in the world.

That said, what do we do with this information. Simply put, we as a country are obligated under the Geneva convention to prosecute these participants. Until today, it appeared as if the Obama administration was not going to do that. However, it appears as if Obama has opened that as a possibility. I wanted to bring up one quick history note.

When Nixon resigned, he was possibly facing criminal charges for his conduct. Ford, upon taking office, pardoned Nixon to make this issue go away. Ford's approval ratings suffered greatly from it, but at the same time it forced the country to move past this dark period.

I'm not saying Obama should pardon these individuals, but there is precedent for moving our country forward and ignoring dark moments. This is certainly a different situation, but I see great value in uniting our country, whatever that means.

More on the Waxman-Markey bill

2009-04-05T17:31:00.002-05:00

I'm on the phone with the Energy Action Coalition right now.

One thing is clear - this bill needs a lot of effort to pass. Every state, every district has to get mobilized. Even if this isn't the perfect bill, we need something. Bills can be reformed, but we need a foundation and this bill does that.

How do we put the fossil fuel industry in their proportional place? Break out the masses. We have the numbers. We are a(n) (inter)national movement and we represent hundreds of thousands of people. Perhaps millions. Now is the time to save our planet and revive our economy.

You need to email your legislators. You need to talk to every person you know. We all have our spheres, and together we can cover this sphere we live on.

Waxman - Markey climate bill

2009-04-02T19:09:00.002-05:00

Just a quick post on the massive 648 page cap-and-trade bill. I'm going to try and post more often. Hold me to it.

The bill covers a lot, but what is notable is both its extent but also its few holes. The holes being:

1. does not decide between auction or issue of permits
2. does not handle industrial agriculture

Both of those holes deal with massive industries. In (1), every industry wants "issue"; they get a potential source of capital for free. In (2), nobody like deriding farmers today, especially the industrial farms that disproportionately represent the farming community. Farmers already have too much power in contrast to their population, but industrial farms have an even more disproportionate representation.

At the same time, what is disappointing is that the only proposed spending in the bill is for CCS. I don't know if I'm mentioned it here, but CCS doesn't work or if it ever did work isn't sure that it wouldn't prevent leakage, and finally isn't cost effective. If we invest in wind (the cheapest source of energy after hydro power), it is much more cost effect. Solar will get cheaper as R & D picks up. Ultimately, fossil fuels aren't cheap, regardless of whether the externalities are included.

There's a lot of good in the bill, but it's not there yet. I'm not confident at all in its passage, even in this industry-friendly state. In fact, I bet it will be weakened much further before it ultimately fails.

Power Shift debrieft

2009-03-03T16:04:00.003-06:00

Wow. I just got back from Power Shift 09 in DC, where 12,500 youth from around the country came together in a conference that spans many issues, primarily surrounding climate change. It culminated in, yesterday (Monday), 6,000 youths lobbying 370 representatives to take action on climate change.

Now is the time for this movement. Just last Tuesday, President Obama announced in his budget that by 2012 the US would start receiving revenues from some sort of cap-and-trade bill and that congress needed to pass this legislation. Already, Senator Barbara Boxer, Representative Ed Markey, and many more are taking up this issue at a national level.

This conference represents the biggest youth convention ever. The lobby day was the biggest lobby day ever. We made history. What needs to happen now is that we be the ones to truly write history and positively affect our future for the better.

I visited 5 panels, discussing a range of issues. My favorite was the cap-and-trade one, featuring various figures such as the head of CCAN, executive director of IEN, and others. While Obama already has in mind what his cap-and-trade bill will be, the movement is not as sure. With options ranging from cap-and-trade, cap-and-invest, cap-and-dividend, carbon tax, carbon tax and invest and others, there's a lot of options on the table. Likely we will end up with a hybrid, but it is not clear what that will be. I tend to like the cap-and-dividend, but find it overall lacking. The cap-and-invest would at face level seem good, but it doesn't encourage the renewable investment the way the invest system would.

I believe we will need a hybrid between invest and dividend. The current invest proposal does have some energy-prices easements, but they are through tax breaks. Whatever happens, I hope we have a vigorous public debate about the solutions, and move past the problems.

I also visited a great workshop about putting solar panels on college campuses across the nation. What a great place to have an immediate and noticable affect on decentralized renewable energy.

I'll have more thoughts here throughout, but I think we made a difference this weekend, and I hope that the movement walked away more empowered than ever. Change needs to happen now.

Liberalism is NOT Socialism

2009-02-23T20:49:00.002-06:00

I was visiting with some friends this weekend, and one of their uncles started talking to me. He directed conversation to the stimulus, and started talking about his own personal beliefs. Evidently he was a lifelong conservative and staunch limited-government supporter. He was both cordial and stubborn, which made for an interesting conversation.

Anyway, we're politely debating the stimulus and he's talking about the problems with it (in general terms) like the massive debt it will cause on my generation. I agree. It continues and he can't figure out why I like it. I tell him that I believe it will create jobs in the short term through the spending, and then the tax cuts will create long term jobs.

He then claims that there are no tax cuts. NO TAX CUTS. This is simply not true. See here. At least $70 billion, one of the biggest tax cuts ever signed, and it was signed by a Democrat.

So I'm trying to defend the stimulus and its accompanying tax cuts and he's telling me where I should get my news and how I'm completely wrong.

To top it all off, he proceeds to call me a socialist. I'm like, what? No, I'm a mostly democrat. He then claims that there isn't a difference between democrats and socialists.

No. Wrong.

Democrats, especially recently, believe in government solutions and equity as long as it is efficient. Socialists believe in complete state ownership. I agree with the free-market principles, but I don't believe it can solve the biggest problems and so for this we need government involvement. Like Global Weirding - the free market won't do anything to stop this.

I decided to stop arguing after being called a socialist, and he chuckled as I walked away, as if he'd won. He sounds evil, but I believe him to be a nice guy. Just incredibly misinformed.

My question, is how does one handle a situation like this. And why don't the propagators of such misinformation feel ashamed for what they are doing. There is no way we can be one united country working the the betterment when lies like this are spread. It's a shame that we are so partisan. Just think, in the 1960s, political scientists thought we weren't partisan enough and that it could make our system better. I hope that the situation we're in can correct itself.

Market Efficiency and Climate Change

2009-02-15T18:50:00.003-06:00

I'm taking a Principles of Economics class; the professor is very environmentally-minded and generally a good teacher.

We were discussing market efficiency - the idea that there is a benefit in anything up until a certain point. Then the costs outweigh the benefits.

Her example was toxic waste - there is a cost benefit to extract spilled toxic waste until an equilibrium point. Any unit of toxic waste cleaned after the equilibrium point is inefficient.

This makes sense from a logical standpoint - you do the stuff that is easiest, and then the harder requires more effort despite a finite amount of resources.

I pointed out that if you remove 3/4 of the toxic waste, which at that points is the equilibrium, there is still 1/4 of the waste in the ground. This example does not take into account an ethical or moral reason to remove 100% of the waste.

Her response was that she agreed, but that spending money past the equilibrium is an inefficient use of money, money that could otherwise be spent on schools.

This makes sense and all; that for every decision you give something up.

After class I asked her how this works with climate change. This is where my mind was opened, although not necessarily in a positive way.

Her point was the same; that we should take advantage of the benefit portion of stopping climate change, but that it will be inefficient to do something beyond that. I countered that the science says that we need to reduce our carbon concentration to 350ppm. She said that would be too expensive. I also said that the cost-benefit analysis is inaccurate; every time the IPCC comes out with a report, it says that the situation is more dire than last predicted. Therefore the costs aren't accurate.

This is what really got me: she said it doesn't matter because the estimate is decent, and that there would be no situation in which the market is most efficient in working toward reducing the concentration to 350ppm. What would be a better option is to put elements in the sea to encourage carbon sequestration or put particles in the atmosphere to cloud over. These are typically called doomsday scenarios by greens.

I was pretty astounded. While I know this research exists, I've always thought it was a last minute scenario if we worked our hardest and couldn't achieve 350ppm through our strongest efforts. Her point was that we shouldn't try to achieve 350ppm because it is the least market-efficient option.

I'm totally open to comments. I can't imagine playing god and transforming the oceans or atmosphere in these ways, especially considering this research is even more unknown than climate research. I think there are a lot of minor problems I have with the professor's information, but she genuinely believes this bigger picture idea. And I'm flabbergasted. How does one counter this?

Stimulus

2009-02-13T19:57:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the long break. I've been pretty busy.

So the House has already passed the $787 billion Obama TARP II stimulus. No GOP votes.

Paul Krugman thinks that it isn't big enough. I want to agree, but I don't understand economics that well. However, Krugman presents his argument so divisively that I have a tough time wanting to believe him. Nonetheless, I think that even if it isn't big enough, it will stave off the worst.

Other economists appear divided on this issue. Nearly all believe something has to be done. Politico has a good report saying that probably this will do some good, but also may not be enough.

As a whole, I'm glad something is getting passed (and the Senate should pass it in the next hour), and I'm glad to be back blogging.

A cloud of sunshine does NOT hang over your head

2008-12-09T17:43:00.002-06:00

If you haven't seen it, then be prepared. Rod Blagojevich is possibly the most corrupt Illinois politician in a long time.

Yet somehow, I'm not surprised. The 2006 election was a pitiful one in Illinois. Blagojevich and the Republican Judy Baar Topinka weren't liked well by anyone. Whitney, a Green candidate, got 10.4% of the vote! In Illinois. This doesn't happen.

Back when Blagojevich tried, scratch that, did take the teachers' pensions to fund ethanol, I was ticked. I'd never seen my teachers so mad. So these charges, while shocking and "a new low" don't surprise me all that much.

The impact of this on Obama is going to be interesting. Initially, it looks like he is clean, but it's Illinois politics and everyone's connected.

Automaker bailout

2008-11-30T12:33:00.002-06:00

I am against the automaker bailout. I wasn't, until yesterday. I was reading the Economist and getting a better understanding of what is going on with our current financial recession. And then I watched Who Killed the Electric Car?, a surprisingly good documentary (although I always love Martin Sheen).

What changed my mind? The automakers aren't failing now because of the current financial problems. They have been in decline for many, many years, basically ever since Bush came into office. They did not read the writing on the wall, that oil prices were going to climb, and they fought every single regulation, instead of opting for innovation. I am sure that, if the government tried to bail them out, they would fight every single point of oversight and regulation, and would come out without having to change their ways of business. And that is ultimately what needs to happen.

I spoke to a cousin of mine over Thanksgiving who works for Valvoline. I asked her how an electric car economy was going to effect her business. She said that there will not be an electric car economy for at least 25 years, so they were not concerned. Business as usual.

I truly cannot understand this lack of strategic planning. While Valvoline is necessary for what we have now, the writing on the wall says that this is not how it will be for long. We are looking at some sort of carbon pricing, going into effect in the next two years. We are looking for high oil prices. And if ever there was a way to include all externalities into the cost, our oil infrastructure would collapse.

Ans so, back to Detroit - they put themselves in this position. They have fought change, and they will continue to fight change. They do not deserve $25 billion. They do not deserve one single dollar. While I do not like being so "you're either with us or against us," I sincerely feel like bailing out the automakers will only be worse for the long term of building our new energy society. They will never allow the type of oversight that is necessary for green manufacturing. I believe this is what Obama wants - a bailout that forces the companies to build much more sustainable cars. But I don't believe Detroit is ready for it. It needs to hit rock bottom first.

I know this appears careless to the hundreds of thousands of works employed by these companies, and so I also propose that we work to do more green job training, and that we help companies who are using sustainable practices quickly take over the remnants of Detroit so that we can get as many jobs back.

Quantum of Solace

2008-11-14T13:48:00.005-06:00

I went and saw the new Bond at midnight opening night. Quite good. I'm going to split this up in two parts: a) a review, and b) an analysis of its portrayal of environmentalism and eco-terrorists. The latter will be a bit more spoilery, so be warned.

Review

Coming back just an hour after where Casino Royal finished, Bond is engaged in an epic car chase, driving his gorgeous Aston Martin (I'm not one for cars, but man, that one is sweet). This car chase, while quite intense, represents one of the bigger problems in the film - the action sequences were too focused on close-ups and viewers don't have a good perspective of what is actually happening. It is a problem, but not too detracting.

The plot of the film takes a backburner to the raw emotion and motivation for Bond. He mourns the loss and perceived betrayal of his love, Vesper. He pursues Mr. White, the man he captured at the end of Casino Royal, for his role in Vesper's death, and in so becomes entangled in Quantum, a group previously unknown to MI6. That helps to introduce the villian, Mr. Greene.

Mr. Greene is a renaissance figure, masking himself as a 3rd world environmentalist, specifically in South America. At the same time, he is working to help overthrow the Bolivian government. Lastly, he is personally motivated, and in trying to overthrow the government, hold the new government hostage by buying up water. In doing all this, he plays the American government, misleadingly gaining their support for the revolution in Bolivia.

This plot is introduced subtly, and is there to accentuate Bond's despair. The plot is not shoved down viewers throats and provides the backdrop for the gorgeous scenery and action scenes which one feels Bond must go through to reach his catharsis.

Bond does come to terms with his loss and lives to return for another day. Daniel Craig is currently signed on for 2 more films.

--
Spoilers below:
Geopolitics of oil, eco-terrorism, and energy issues are all prevalent in this film. Mr. Greene presents himself as a wealthy, philanthropic environmentalist while using his connections to hoard water. This may perhaps be one of the simplest Bond plots, but it is rooted in a reality. Bolivians and other people of South America have articulated a fear that Americans are going to steal their water. India has had problems with CocaCola and other bottling companies using Indian water for production, but shipping to the developed world. South America may be next for such industrial water supplying.

Greene represents the new kind of wealthy philanthropic environmentalist. He holds a party to raise money for his organization and invites other well-to-dos, but at the same time the party is an excuse to lavishly consume.

Similarly, General Medrana - the revolutionary general - builds a lavish compound in the Atacama desert. It is incredibly remote, high in altitude, and low in water (2nd driest in the world). Ironically, the compound the General builds is designed to run on hydrogen, as are the cars. It makes absolutley no environmental sense to design a compound designed to (in general terms) run on water in the middle of a desert.

James Bond does drive a hydrogen powered Ford Edge (speaking of which, I didn't even know Ford made a hydrogen powered fuel cell car).

Ultimately, the film elevates renewable sources, with both the compound and the car, while talking about problems with worldwide water availability. That said, the bad guy is an eco guy. The hydrogen powered hotel blows up completely. These only serve to add to the subconscious that ecos are evil and that hydrogen is unsafe. This sort of subconscious advertising is something environmentalists are constantly fighting. While hydrogen is very combustabile, so is gasoline, and so if done properly, is safe.

On another note, I'm not sure a hydrogen economy is what is best. I'll talk about that later. It may be part of the solution.

Election roundup

2008-11-09T12:34:00.003-06:00

I know I haven't posted since Monday night. I was busy election day and then spent the rest of the week catching up.

Well, Barack won. Pretty historic.

I had a conversation with some people yesterday wondering if the news, by noting that he's the first black president, is bad because it's focusing on race. I tend to want to make a persons race a non-issue, but instead focus on inequalities to a group. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I feel the news is doing a disservice to Obama by saying he's the first African American president. Yes, that is true, and noteworthy, but regardless of him being white or black, he is the 44th president of the US, and that is what is important. I want to look past his individual identity. On the other hand, if the news was talking about socio-economic problems and how they disproportionately hurt one racial group, I wouldn't feel this way. I'm not sure if it's hypocritical, or what.

Anyway, current electoral vote is 365. That includes the 1 EV from Nebraska. It does not include Missouri, because there are a number of absentee ballots that haven't been counted, and Obama is only losing by 6,000 currently.

Turnout was bigger than 4 years ago, but not hugely so. This is interesting, and I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. Democratic turnout was up huge, but Republican was down. Is this because Republicans felt helpless in the face of such great Democratic prospects, or were they disillusioned with McCain, or disillusioned with the GOP as a whole? Speaking of, the GOP has some major rebuiling, reframing, and maneuvering to do before 2012. These next couple years are going to be crucial, and I'm very intrigued as to where they go. One thing that seems sure, is that big government Republicanism is over.

In environment news, the WaPo suggests that Obama is preparing to immediately overturn over 200 of Bush's Executive orders, mostly dealing with the environment. I couldn't be happier. There was also a quote from Obama that surfaced Wednesday that instilled great confidence. It went something like this: "I can't f**king stop climate change by changing my lightbulbs." Too true. While changing lightbulbs are good and necessary, it does nothing unless a whole neighborhood, community, city, state, and nation do it as well. Your changing lightbulbs is only good if it become a catalyst for others to do the same. Such direction is something that I hope this new administration will provide. That said, I'm frustrated with Obama's emphasis on clean coal. I do not understand it, and I'll probably talk about it later in this blog. Al Gore today, in a NY Times editorial mocked it pretty good.

I find it interesting that Obama is pulling a lot of his advisers from IL. As my homestate, I'm glad to see some name-recognition, but it's intriguing nonetheless. A conservative friend of mine sees this as the ultimate vindication of the Chicago political machine. I see it as Obama choosing advisers from people he's already familiar with and agrees with.

A couple other election tidbits:
- Alaska senate is less than 4,000 vote difference, with an estimated 50,000 absentee votes. While I can't understand how Alaskans can vote for a convicted felon, this race isn't over yet.

- Al Franken trails Norm Coleman by 221 votes, out of 3 million. This is ridiculous. Talk about every vote counting. Norm Coleman has asked Franken to concede and save the taxpayers about $70,000 that it would cost to do a recount. He doesn't seem to get it that MN election law requires a recount if it is less than .5% difference in candidates. This election is less than .01%. Nice try, Coleman, but there appears to be a good chance that you won't win this one. If 1 in 10,000 votes gets changed, Franken wins. And think about whose votes are likely to be mistakes: new voters and non-English speakers, also known as Franken supporters.

- Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin are doing a run-off. Georgia law requires a candidate to get over 50% of the vote. Chambliss is narrowly under that margin, but only leads by 3% over Martin. There will be a runoff in December. McCain already has plans to campaign in Georgia, but it is not clear what Obama will do. Martin was heavily backed by environmental groups, and I'm a fan, but it's going to be tough. If he wins (and Begich wins in Alaska), that puts Dems at 59 seats, without Lieberman.

- LA Times is still rebuking the claims by conservative radio pundits, who appear to keep fabricating policies that Obama supports. I know I'm on the winning side, but seriously, the election is over.

- Speculation ensues that if Stevens wins Alaska, but is evicted from the Senate, Palin will run for his seat, garnering 4 years of experience to help her win in 2012. Not sure how the revelation from Newsweek that she didn't know Africa was a continent (as opposed to a country) will have an effect.

Lastly, this election has consumed my life for the last...while, so I've actually felt my productivity increase, but also my emptiness, as it ends. It was a ride, and I'm excited for the next 4 (8?) years, but this blog will become a bit more scattered in posts, more issue related than just news related.

I know I said I wouldn't but...

2008-11-03T19:33:00.002-06:00

Quick updates from today.

1. Barack Obama's grandmother (the woman who raised him) passed away today. What timing...

2. Palin was cleared by an "independent" counsel of any ethics violations. Seriously, what timing...

This has been stated before, but I find the similarities between this election and Season 7 of the West Wing to be startling. The young candidate vs the old candidate. The minority candidate. The Republican candidate who strongly supports nuclear (although I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the downfall in the real election). The message of hope and change. And knock on wood, the Democrat's victory!

Final thoughts before Tuesday

2008-11-02T23:29:00.002-06:00

About 2 years. That's how long this campaign has been. Somehow, I find it amazing that the public has generally kept its interest up for that long. I only hope that interest can be sustained for the future, because our abysmal voting rates aren't anything to be proud of. Parents, take your kids to vote with you, because it helps instill the civic duty in your children.

PEW came out with its final poll today: Obama nationwide +6. RCP and 538 all have the race tightening slightly. Indiana and Missouri are true toss-ups, with Penn leaning strongly Obama, as is Virginia.

If I had to make a prediction, I say Obama wins 391 votes. This is far out there. I'm giving him ND, MT, and AZ, as well as IN, VA, PN, FL, NC. I don't have much basis for this, other than the fact that with so many new voters - and the majority voting for Obama - he has a decent chance of this because we don't actually know how accurate the polling has been.

I'm not sure about McCain's closing argument. It hasn't been coherent. The Obama aunt thing was more of a distraction than a victory. And pretty suspicious too, as no one knows who the source was. I know I have a tendency to trust Obama, but what does this change? Why should we elect McCain? Because he doesn't give up even when the polls suggest he should? I think he still has a chance (which worries me), but it's hard for me to see it, unless all this polling data is phooey (like I suggested in my prediction, but in the opposite direction).

Obama-mercial was a success. 26 million people watched it. There's been some positive movement in the polls because of it. I was disappointed in the energy section, but I think any mainstream energy policy I'm going to take issue with. (Which only means I/we need to work harder to make our views mainstream.)

Sarah Palin is hurting McCain. That doesn't surprise me. I'm just surprised it took this long for CNN to cover that. She doesn't play well with women, and all men want to do is play with her.

So here's to the 2008 election. It's been a long ride, and I'm way too emotionally invested in this one.

I'll probably do some blogging on election night, but it probably won't be my finest hour ;)

Nuclear Waste/Power and Wind

2008-10-30T23:18:00.004-05:00

In the textbook, "Environment" by Raven, Berg, and Hassenzahl:
"Results [from the DOE] indicate that [Yucca Mountain] is safe, at least from volcanic eruptions and earthquakes."
One paragraph later:
"The Yucca Mountain site...is controversial in part because it is near a volcano and active earthquake fault lines."

And this is the site proposed to house our nuclear waste for the next million years?!?!

Nuclear waste needs a proper safe place to rest, but of course, NIMBY is invoked everywhere. We understand implicitly that it is dangerous. If nothing else, this should be a good enough reason to not use nuclear power.

Another reason not to use nuclear power is the un-economic viability. Nuclear power runs at about 14 cents/kilowatt hour. Wind (in Minnesota) is closer to 3 cents/kwh. The 45 nuclear power plants that John McCain proposes to build will cost $315 billion, or $7 billion each! A wind turbine costs about $1 million per mega watt. Most nuclear plants are about 500 MW. Say we installed 2 MW turbines. We would need 250 turbines to equal the capacity of the turbine. But that's assuming they're operating at efficiency. Let's assume they operate at efficiency 1/3 of the time (which is slightly lower than expected). We would then need 3x as many turbines, or 750. At $2 million each, we're still talking only $1.5 billion total for all those turbines, versus $7 billion for a single nuclear plant. Given that for either you're going to have to build a new transmission line, there's that added cost (which would probably add a bit more to wind, since it is typically found futher from cities), but you're still looking at substantial economical savings. Plus, those wind turbines will pay back in about 10 years. Nuclear pays back in 20-30, but you pay a much higher electric rate. And then, that already includes the operating subsidies, and gov't help to process the waste (from higher taxes). Basically, if you've followed this far, nuclear is not cheap, it's expensive.

I would consider this easy logic, but I know it's hard for logic to always win...

Big Stone II

2008-10-27T22:06:00.004-05:00

Big Stone II is a proposed coal power plant in South Dakota, but half of its power will go to Minnesota. Environmentalists naturally dislike it. Utilities claim that the transmission line built, out of necessity to the plant, will help stoke wind growth.

Anyway, a report was released last week with some exciting news.

-The plant is going to cost more than expected

-It is going to have big environmental impact

-The report assumed a carbon tax of some sort, ranging from $3 to $60. This is, as far as I'm aware, the first report to assume such.

Read the report here.

Star Tribune article here.

Obama's Closing Argument

2008-10-27T22:03:00.003-05:00

See the campaign's closing argument:

McCain's to follow, when it happens.

Framing an Argument

2008-10-27T21:45:00.002-05:00

Just wondering how effective political arguments are. I just got back from a presentation in which Kathleen Jamieson said that for the first time people were challenging the preconditions in which they internalized information. In a broader sense, she claimed that previously, we viewed and interpreted ads based on how we already believed. This is based in the idea that meaning is mediated, not created; mediated, meaning that the ad is created to be congruent with our experiences and values. How this applies to this race is that for the first time, instead of simply settling for finding candidates congruent with our values, voters are looking at deeper information and trying to get a broader perspective and make a more informed choice.

I'm anxious to believe this, but I question how true this is. The advertisements in this election are playing on preconceived notions loosely affiliated - for example, that McCain is going to privatize social security or that Obama is going to redistribute the wealth (which, on a tangent, is exactly the same thing Palin did in Alaska with oil money).

My question is, how much of this race are people still going in based on their assumptions, stereotypes, archetypes, and preconceived beliefs, versus changing their viewpoints. Obama, in his main argument, isn't challenging viewpoints, but playing to the preconceived belief that Bush is bad, and if McCain is Bush, then McCain is bad.

Personally, something I pride myself on is being able to see both sides, and making an informed decision (which tends to be liberal). But how much is that liberalness based on my preconceived notions and my unwillingness to change my opinion. Likewise, in the general population, how many really are searching for further information. With the blogosphere, it's so easy to just read a few blogs and not look at the bigger picture and news groups of substance. At the same time, those groups are working to make it easier to think, and tell the viewer how to think.

Let's look at the debates. CNN ran the debates (as did most networks). At the bottom of CNN's screen, it had a real-time graph of how people were reacting to what was being said. The first debate was Dems, Repubs, and Indeps. The latter two were men and women. It touted this as a feature, but at the same time it played to labels, and encouraged people to conform as opposed to internalize for themselves. Like I said, I wonder how much Kathleen Jamieson is right.

At the same time, to counter my suspicion and affirm her argument, look at how much this race has permeated our society. Rove is claiming the instability in the stock market is due to hesitancy over Obama. Obama is attracting 100,000 people at rallies. Signs are everywhere. My brother, who is 15 years old, has changed his Facebook name to John Hussein Doe. So if nothing else, this election is getting more people involved in politics, and maybe some of Jamieson's conclusion is based on the idea that all these new voters have fewer preconceptions to go on and need to create their own opinion.

Ad buys

2008-10-22T15:04:00.003-05:00

McCain is hedging his bet on Pennsylvania. It's an odd choice, but what other options does he have? Now that he has given up on Michigan (bad choice, he was still playing there), he's gotta win a big state. That said, McCain is looking down and out. He's pulling out of MN, CO, and IO. But will that be enough. Penn. governor is concerned, and is asking Obama to come back and campaign more in Pennsylvania, but I think he's more concerned than he needs to be.

In other news, Obama's visiting his ill grandmother. I loved how when he announced that he was canceling appearances, he clearly stated he was not suspending his campaign. We all know how that went last time.

Palin woes

2008-10-22T14:57:00.002-05:00

Lots of Palin news the last couple of days. Turns out she charged Alaska for trips her children took, going out of the way to get them invited so that she could charge the state. Seems like the government is supporting her (ie socialism) more than she'll admit. See next comment too.

Palin's wardrobe, worth $150,000 has been paid for by the McCain and RNC monies. This is potentially in violation of election law, depending on more information. McCain campaign has said it's all going to be donated, but still. In McCain's case, wouldn't that money be better spent on TV ads, or something that's going to help him more than making his inexperienced running mate look good. Kinda reminds me of Sarkozy and his model wife...

Fund-raising the roof

2008-10-19T17:36:00.003-05:00

The Obama camp announced its fund raising for September. $150 million. Wow. Truly remarkable. He beat the previous record of $67 million by more than double!

The previous record for fund raising in a month was $44 million, by John Kerry.

With October still to come, who knows how much will happen. You can bet the Republicans are going to fund raise based on the money the Dems have announced.

Endorsement Season

2008-10-19T17:20:00.002-05:00

Yesterday several prominent newspapers announced their endorsements. The Chicago Tribune crossed party lines and endorsed a Democrat for the first time ever. Not sure if this makes a difference because Illinois is already leaning heavy Obama.

Florida had two prominent newspapers split, one for Obama, one for McCain. Denver Post went for Obama. Same with a Pennsylvania newpaper.

But the biggest news of the weekend is Colin Powell, and his endorsement of Obama. Powell has managed to keep his reputation high despite his transmission of false information to the UN regarding WMDs in Iraq. Regardless, he's got massive ethos across the country, and while his endorsement is purely symbiotic, it will hold a lot of weight with the public. Worse yet for the McCain campaign was Powell's scathing comments which reflect and reinforse a sentiment of the left.

Expect more endorsements in the coming weeks, but remember, make up a decision for yourself. Choose the candidate who's values best fit your own.

Debate Thoughts

2008-10-16T21:31:00.002-05:00

This was the debate, the make or break it. Something big had to happen for John McCain, and it didn't.

For the first half an hour, McCain looked to be winning the debate - not hugely, but he was definitely doing better than Obama. And then he fell behind. Obama handled the questions better, held his poise, and the education question Obama knocked out of the park. Every single poll says that Obama won, including Fox News. This seems to spell defeat for John McCain. Obama today reminded his supporters not to get cocky, but that shows the he's even feeling the home stretch and his victory upon him.

What's telling about the debate is the reactions viewers had to McCain's reactions while Obama was speaking. He scoffed, laughed, and was generally not repectful. Right or wrong, surveys showed that people were incredibly turned off by McCain's demeanor.

Couple quick thoughts about content:

--Obama recognized that environmentalists hate clean coal. I'm relieved to know he thinks that, but why does he still support it? It is not an economically feasible option.

--A report came out yesterday (as seen on Grist) detailing the facts about McCain's nuclear power policy. The 45 plants would cost at least $315 billion and create less than 200,000 jobs.

--McCain wants to have military people go straight into teaching without taking tests to show that they are qualified? So many military people never graduated high school, and now McCain wants them to teach high school?

--Obama wanting community service in return for college tuition money? Interesting idea. I think a lot of students would be up for it, but what sort of committment would it be? A lot of serious college students (at schools where it's more expensive already) are already overstretched. But it does fit into this idea of changing values, increasing social capital, and having the general public be more involved in everything that his campaign suggests and benefits from. Also, how would the government choose which places would receive the help of the government mandated volunteers?

--Negative ads. There's some misconception over which ads were used. A UofWisconsin study found that in the last week all of McCain's ads have been negative, but overall, less than half have. Obama has had less ads that were strictly negative, but an equal amount to McCain of comined negative and negative/positive ads.

--"I'm proud of all my supporters?" Really? I hope not. Because that comment sort of endorses what those "fringe" supporters are saying. Congressman Lewis may have overstated current events, but there was an air of correctness that resonated with me. And look what history has to say about charismatic leaders like Obama (Lincoln, JFK, Reagan - shot at/assassinated).

--Obama leaving Palin's qualifications up to the American people? Politically, probably the best move. He doesn't specifically say how he feels, and thereby doesn't answer the question, but does prompt the American people to question her qualifications, which may be stronger. That said, wouldn't it have been nice if he just said, "Well, frankly Bob, I would have picked someone more qualified and... wait, that's right... I did."

The Citizen's blog has an interesting talk about a campaign without policy. To me, McCain kept on making broad promises instead of talking about specific policy he's going to implement. When you compare the policy sections on the candidate's websites, Obama's is more complete. I can't help but wonder if McCain really doesn't have a policy for all these issues. McCain looked desparate last night, and polls are saying that viewers were turned off by him. Obama has done a great job of taking criticism against him and just doing it better. Hillary claimed he didn't have issues. Now he has complete and well thought out policies. He's been told he speaks with such rhetoric, so now he talks about the issues. So by doing it better, the mud attacks just don't stick.

Divisive Politics

2008-10-12T22:39:00.002-05:00

This is something I've been concerned about for most of this election, but there is some serious media coverage now: divisive politics. If you haven't hear, at various McCain/Palin rallies, people have been calling Obama a terrorist, Arab, and other terms that have no truth. Recently, McCain has been calling the people out, and saying that it's not true. Just yesterday, a pastor opened up a McCain event with a prayer that God help McCain out, because foreign religions wanted Obama to win. McCain distanced himself from such comments.

Several months ago I was talking with fellow students about the tension in this race, that I couldn't imagine our world without Obama winning. I have several European friends who, after the primary season was over thought Obama was President, were like, "Woah, that old guy is still running?!" Both sides are experiencing energy towards their campaign like never seen. Obama has mobilized the country, and McCain has hung in there, clearly staying neck and neck. As election day comes near, the number of undecideds are in single digits, and people are choosing their sides. Almost like a war.

Can we still be one country after this is over?

Both sides are spending huge amounts of cash on negative TV ads (about $9 million on each side). The difference is, Obama is spending another $11 million on positive ads, whereas all of McCain's money is on negative. Perhaps there is some truth to the McCain camp's statement that if the race is about the issues, they are going to lose.

I know I can be quoted saying a year ago that I did not think McCain would be a bad president. That said, I was referring to the old McCain. The new one, should he win, is going to have a lot of disheartened and disillusioned citizens. I don't know how he is going to be able to reconcile the country. I don't pretend to say that Obama is going to have it easy, perhaps it will be just as hard. What I credit Obama with is having some amount of honor in his campaign. He is keeping this about issues (with the exception of the Keating documentary), and about making America better. I have confidence in a country under his rule. If you look at CNN's fact check, nearly all of the fact checks regarding a statement by the McCain campaign are false or misleading; if you look at Obama statements, most are misleading or true.

So it comes to this. Will there be another era of "you're either with us or against us" or will we come back to acting as one country? We will all still live hear for 4 years, so why are we burning so many bridges.

Lastly, there have been comments by Republicans that they cannot believe they are going to lose this, as if they are entitled to run the government. They cannot believe that American people are choosing Democrats. Whatever happens, can we just accept that it was fate, and it was a choice by the American people. Is it too much to say that right or wrong, the American people have the FREEDOM to make a choice in the voting booth, and the freedom to CHOOSE what they think is best. Members in government need to remember that they are REPRESENTATIVES of their constituents, not untouchable champions of battle.

Zero Waste

2008-10-11T20:13:00.004-05:00

Are Zero Waste events any good? First off, they aren't really zero waste, we're just using items that can biodegrade. It's a form of greenwashing, in that we can waste because it will return to the earth. Not only that, but zero waste events occur for special occasions, not in everyday habits. By not becoming a part of everyday life, it lessens the issue at hand, and does not encourage the changes that are necessary to reduce our excessive waste. We should be looking to make every day zero waste, not just when high profiles are around.

Troopergate

2008-10-11T20:02:00.002-05:00

If you missed it, the Alaska legislature produced its findings regarding Gov. Palin's administration's actions around the firing of police commissioner Wooden. They found that Palin abused her power, but that her actions were not illegal.

Palin responded by saying that this report says that she did nothing wrong, while others are saying she clearly violated the public trust (which the document also claims) and that she is misrepresenting the truth.

Time.com ran an interesting article today claiming that what this shows is that Palin's administration acted very childishly and acted as if they were entitled.

I see this as Palin stretching her powers, similar to what the current Bush administration did. Repeatedly, we have seen that Palin is very self-interested, whether it be her Per Diem charges, or this troopergate issue. There have been numerous reports of people she has crossed paths with, and while I'm sure we've all had enemies, how Gov. Palin has run over her enemies does not bode well for the future. She has threatened to fire a librarian for not banning certain books, she fired a state commissioner for not firing her brother-in-law, and she has called Barack Obama a pal of terrorists. I wouldn't want to cross her path, and I don't want her in office.

Empowerment

2008-10-10T18:00:00.000-05:00

Welcome to perSpEctivE, my attempt at blogging. This blog is not intended to be personal, rather analysis of various issues of a wide range. I hope to encourage community comments, and view this more as a whitepaper as opposed to an informal blog. Naturally, much of this will be political, but my analysis will attempt to be unbiased, but instead be critical based on my beliefs and visions, which I will admit are mostly liberal.

What is empowerment?

Empowerment is when one feels a mass of energy, feeling as though one has a duty to go and make a difference. Empowerment differs from motivation, I believe, in that motivation occurs when one pushes through the difficult barriers to achieve something that they have a lesser interest in empowerment. Empowerment physically is feeling as though one has to immediately do something because they want to. To empower someone is to be able to provide them with the tools and said energy, but to be able to let that person go and do it themselves, as opposed to being a stooge.

Empowerment is great in that it is a way of harnessing people power - the idea the our innovations can persistence can make a difference. In addition, it is easily perpetuated in a social setting where individuality is encouraged. It does not mean that one goes alone. Rather, it means that one has the energy to go and do something, but can still use others as networks and support. Indeed, we work best when we work together, but that by empowering someone they believe and know that they are capable of catalyzing change.

I was empowered to start this blog. I was returning from Minnesota Powershift, a magnificent event run by several friends of mine. After the event, I was sitting on the bus with my leg tingling. I wanted to be able to talk about the experience, to talk about the ideas, the awesome people with whom I share a common vision. Ultimately, I wanted to do something, anything. It took me a week, but I finally created the blog. I want this to be a way for me to practice articulating my beliefs, but also challenge myself to think deeper, and look at both sides of an issue. And I hope that my thoughts will be both persuasive and interesting that
I keep an audience.