So, as I was at home, I ran into Ross. We watched Rocky Balboa. He is definately not dead. He has a beard now.
I then got a Christmas card from the Cases, so they are also still among the living, unless they expired in the given time of the postal service delivering the aforementioned card.
Rodney could very easily by lying the the side of the road in New Mexico. Probably fell out of a balloon.
Jarrett...seems to be well, although the snow is a consistent danger. Soon, the entire state will be nothing but a vast white wasteland, and everyone will be worried but the actual Colorado residency.
I'm okay; I've recently arrived back to Pasadena, in time from a stakeout operation to reserve for the Rose Parade. For those watching nation-wide, I'll be in an area on Colorado Blvd, in between Madison and Oakland. Yet I doubt anyone would be watching that.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
More Hussein
AP: U.S. Tolerated, Then Villified Saddam
I find the timeline interesting:
In 1982, Saddam committed the atrocity for which he was recently executed.
In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in Baghdad and declared that our two countries had "more similarities than differences."
In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand on television and "the two men agreed it was too bad a generation of Americans and Iraqis had grown up without knowing each other."
From 1980 to 1988, the Reagan administration helped Iraq fight Iran. We helped secure international loans, and we provided military and intelligence support.
In 1991, Hussein invaded Kuwait and became the "devil incarnate."
-----
To put it another way:
Back in 1983, Rumsfeld wrote, "I made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights."
In 1983, Saddam's atrocities "hindered the U.S. from doing more for Iraq in its war with Iran." They inhibited us and they made it difficult for us, but they certainly didn't prevent us from providing Iraq with money, military equipment, and intelligence for the next 5 years.
But in 1991 when the same man invaded Kuwait, he became "Hitler revisited."
I find the timeline interesting:
In 1982, Saddam committed the atrocity for which he was recently executed.
In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in Baghdad and declared that our two countries had "more similarities than differences."
In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand on television and "the two men agreed it was too bad a generation of Americans and Iraqis had grown up without knowing each other."
From 1980 to 1988, the Reagan administration helped Iraq fight Iran. We helped secure international loans, and we provided military and intelligence support.
In 1991, Hussein invaded Kuwait and became the "devil incarnate."
-----
To put it another way:
Back in 1983, Rumsfeld wrote, "I made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights."
In 1983, Saddam's atrocities "hindered the U.S. from doing more for Iraq in its war with Iran." They inhibited us and they made it difficult for us, but they certainly didn't prevent us from providing Iraq with money, military equipment, and intelligence for the next 5 years.
But in 1991 when the same man invaded Kuwait, he became "Hitler revisited."
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Pat Robertson: Televangelist, Incredible Hulk
I swore I would never speak of Pat Robertson again. I resolved to ignore him forever. But this... this is too much. This must be known.
Earlier this year, televangelist Pat Robertson claimed he can leg press 2000 pounds thanks in part to an age-defying protein shake containing flaxseed oil and apple cider vinegar. I'm not making this up.
Several people suggest they witnessed the one-ton lift back in 2003, which would put Robertson at 73 years old.
Clay Travis of CBS sports is a skeptic. He points out that the leg press record for Florida State University football players is 1,335 pounds. He points out that Robertson claims he could break this record by 665 pounds. He points out that Robertson is an old, old, old man.
Also, Clay Travis notes that when Dan Kendra set that leg press record at FSU, he was straining so hard that the capillaries in his eyes burst.
Can a currently-76-year-old man lift a ton with his legs? I have no idea. I know that a leg press machine bears some of the burden of the weights, making it easier to put up impressive-sounding numbers. A leg press is nothing like a squat. Bodybuilders have been videotaped lifting 2000 pounds on a leg press machine. The all-time world record squat is 1220 pounds.
I know that it would be easy to "cheat" a little on a leg press machine, perhaps lifting the weights a few inches instead of the prescribed "full extension." I know you could easily use your arms and legs to lift the weights, which Robertson appears to be doing in the provided photographs. This is technically against the rules.
I know that "flaxseed oil," a key ingredient in Robertson's magic shake, is now a widely used euphamism for steroids. I don't think Pat is on 'roids, but I still think it's pretty funny.
So maybe a 73-year-old man loaded up on vinegar and flaxseed oil, cheated a little on proper technique, and lifted a ton of metal with some assistance from a machine. Or maybe he didn't. All I know is that I'd pay a substantial amount of money to see him try it in person.
My personal moratorium on discussion of Pat Robertson resumes..... now.
Earlier this year, televangelist Pat Robertson claimed he can leg press 2000 pounds thanks in part to an age-defying protein shake containing flaxseed oil and apple cider vinegar. I'm not making this up.
Several people suggest they witnessed the one-ton lift back in 2003, which would put Robertson at 73 years old.
Clay Travis of CBS sports is a skeptic. He points out that the leg press record for Florida State University football players is 1,335 pounds. He points out that Robertson claims he could break this record by 665 pounds. He points out that Robertson is an old, old, old man.
Also, Clay Travis notes that when Dan Kendra set that leg press record at FSU, he was straining so hard that the capillaries in his eyes burst.
Can a currently-76-year-old man lift a ton with his legs? I have no idea. I know that a leg press machine bears some of the burden of the weights, making it easier to put up impressive-sounding numbers. A leg press is nothing like a squat. Bodybuilders have been videotaped lifting 2000 pounds on a leg press machine. The all-time world record squat is 1220 pounds.
I know that it would be easy to "cheat" a little on a leg press machine, perhaps lifting the weights a few inches instead of the prescribed "full extension." I know you could easily use your arms and legs to lift the weights, which Robertson appears to be doing in the provided photographs. This is technically against the rules.
I know that "flaxseed oil," a key ingredient in Robertson's magic shake, is now a widely used euphamism for steroids. I don't think Pat is on 'roids, but I still think it's pretty funny.
So maybe a 73-year-old man loaded up on vinegar and flaxseed oil, cheated a little on proper technique, and lifted a ton of metal with some assistance from a machine. Or maybe he didn't. All I know is that I'd pay a substantial amount of money to see him try it in person.
My personal moratorium on discussion of Pat Robertson resumes..... now.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
Opinion Shift
Until recently, I was fairly charitable toward political hacks. Now don't get me wrong, I've always thought thought they were idiots. But until recently, I thought they were well-intentioned idiots. That period of my life is now over.
There are certain members of the media who show a tendency to "stir the pot." There are certain personalities, closely affiliated with either of the major political parties, who habitually vilify their opponents. They intentionally stir up an emotional frenzy. They choose to create unproductive, unnecessary arguments. They would rather win a fight than produce something useful. They purposefully generate hatred.
I have long thought that these people were simply misguided. They were doing what they thought was best. Then it occurred to me that all of these people are getting fantastically rich through their theatrics. I think this is an important point to remember.
The media pundits have the world to gain by keeping the electorate in a frothy-mouthed frenzy. They will sell more books if there are more zealots. Ratings for their television and radio shows will go up if more people are driven by anger. Rage makes them rich.
It is very difficult for me to trust someone who gets rich by keeping us all bitterly divided. Perhaps these people are simply misguided True Believers. Or perhaps these people have simply found a way to become extremely popular and make a fantastic amount of money. From now on, I will assume the latter until proven otherwise.
I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to such a destructive group of people.
There are certain members of the media who show a tendency to "stir the pot." There are certain personalities, closely affiliated with either of the major political parties, who habitually vilify their opponents. They intentionally stir up an emotional frenzy. They choose to create unproductive, unnecessary arguments. They would rather win a fight than produce something useful. They purposefully generate hatred.
I have long thought that these people were simply misguided. They were doing what they thought was best. Then it occurred to me that all of these people are getting fantastically rich through their theatrics. I think this is an important point to remember.
The media pundits have the world to gain by keeping the electorate in a frothy-mouthed frenzy. They will sell more books if there are more zealots. Ratings for their television and radio shows will go up if more people are driven by anger. Rage makes them rich.
It is very difficult for me to trust someone who gets rich by keeping us all bitterly divided. Perhaps these people are simply misguided True Believers. Or perhaps these people have simply found a way to become extremely popular and make a fantastic amount of money. From now on, I will assume the latter until proven otherwise.
I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to such a destructive group of people.
Friday Kickoff
It's 10:00 AM on the last workday before Christmas, and I've already run out of things to do. Watch out kids, it could be One of Those Days. You know, one of those days where I start rambling incoherently because it's more fun than sitting here staring out the window. Today definitely has that feel about it. But it's early yet.
Also, I have decided to completely revamp one of our major government institutions. I've already written the post and everything. But I've decided to withold it until after Christmas and possibly until after the New Year. It's pretty powerful. I'd hate to inspire a revolution right before the holidays. So look forward to that.
Finally, I'd like to kick off this Friday by linking to a couple of images that absolutely made my day:
This will blow your mind. Look closely.
And this is a pretty awesome photo (via The Weblog.) I'd pay quite a bit of money to have one of those hanging on my wall. But not quite this much.
Also, I have decided to completely revamp one of our major government institutions. I've already written the post and everything. But I've decided to withold it until after Christmas and possibly until after the New Year. It's pretty powerful. I'd hate to inspire a revolution right before the holidays. So look forward to that.
Finally, I'd like to kick off this Friday by linking to a couple of images that absolutely made my day:
This will blow your mind. Look closely.
And this is a pretty awesome photo (via The Weblog.) I'd pay quite a bit of money to have one of those hanging on my wall. But not quite this much.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Let's Play Pretend
In the area of civics, the public education system always did right by me. I know about checks and balances. I can reel off the three branches of government like nobody's business. I know about our bicameral legislature. I know about the colonies. In more than one class, I watched the "How a Bill Becomes a Law" song from Schoolhouse Rock. I know how that durn bill becomes a law.
You probably know all those things, too. We all know them. I'd say we all take them for granted.
What if we didn't? I know that, at least in my mind, the three branches of government are so ingrained, they're like the three meals in a day. That's just the way it is. It seems like it always has been. I'm not addressing this very well; let's come at it from a different angle.
Imagine you were from a different country. An isolated, far-away country with a completely different style of government. Let's say you were from a functional anarchy. The idea of government is completely alien to you. Or maybe you're from an absolute dictatorship. Your idea of government is "listen to the guys with the guns."
What would you think of an American-style, democratic republic? Try to imagine with me, just for awhile. It might be fun.
My imaginary self would probably think the judicial branch was pretty weird. Imagine trying to explain the higher courts to an alien. Imagine his response:
"Okay, so wait, let me get this straight. You Americans have one group of people which writes the laws, but then a separate group of people which decides what the laws mean?"
Kind of funny, when you think about it.
What about the Senate? Two Senators from every state? Regardless of population? How is that fair? It's not like the size and shape of the individual states make any sense in the first place. Imagine trying to explain a map of the U.S. to our friendly alien:
"Well see, sometimes we used rivers for borders. And occasionally we used things like mountain ranges and other natural boundaries. Mostly, though, we just made them up as we went. All the states out East are smaller because the population is more dense. All the Western states are bigger because fewer people live out there. Well, except for California. It's huge AND it has a ton of people in it. Anyway, California and Rhode Island and New York and Wyoming all get two seats in the Senate. That's just the way it is."
My alien alter ego would definitely be perplexed by the personnel required to staff the three branches of government. It takes 535 elected officials to make the laws, but only two guys to "execute" the laws? Sure, there are a ton of other people in the executive branch, but we don't get to vote on any of those. And they all answer to the top.
Maybe the whole idea of a vice president wouldn't make any sense. What do we need him for? What does he do all day anyway? Just sit around waiting for the President to die?
Would our anarchist alien grasp the complexities of the electoral college? Would he think it's weird that we always elect people from the same two political parties? Would he laugh when you told him that only Democrats and Republicans have any shot at getting elected? 300 million people and every single one of us is represented by a Democrat or Republican? Seriously?
It's easy to forget that our government is an entirely human-created institution. It seems so permanent. There are three branches, there always have been three branches, and there always will be three branches. The Senate seems like a concrete part of the American landscape, like the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes.
But the fact is, we can change it all if we want. We could call a Constitutional Convention and throw the whole thing out the window tomorrow. If enough states got onboard, we could pass an amendment and disband the Senate. We could replace the Presidency with a 3-member committee. We could replace the House of Representatives with a lottery-number machine. One of those deals with all the numbered ping-pong balls.
All it would take to re-write the civics textbooks is a critical number of votes.
You probably know all those things, too. We all know them. I'd say we all take them for granted.
What if we didn't? I know that, at least in my mind, the three branches of government are so ingrained, they're like the three meals in a day. That's just the way it is. It seems like it always has been. I'm not addressing this very well; let's come at it from a different angle.
Imagine you were from a different country. An isolated, far-away country with a completely different style of government. Let's say you were from a functional anarchy. The idea of government is completely alien to you. Or maybe you're from an absolute dictatorship. Your idea of government is "listen to the guys with the guns."
What would you think of an American-style, democratic republic? Try to imagine with me, just for awhile. It might be fun.
My imaginary self would probably think the judicial branch was pretty weird. Imagine trying to explain the higher courts to an alien. Imagine his response:
"Okay, so wait, let me get this straight. You Americans have one group of people which writes the laws, but then a separate group of people which decides what the laws mean?"
Kind of funny, when you think about it.
What about the Senate? Two Senators from every state? Regardless of population? How is that fair? It's not like the size and shape of the individual states make any sense in the first place. Imagine trying to explain a map of the U.S. to our friendly alien:
"Well see, sometimes we used rivers for borders. And occasionally we used things like mountain ranges and other natural boundaries. Mostly, though, we just made them up as we went. All the states out East are smaller because the population is more dense. All the Western states are bigger because fewer people live out there. Well, except for California. It's huge AND it has a ton of people in it. Anyway, California and Rhode Island and New York and Wyoming all get two seats in the Senate. That's just the way it is."
My alien alter ego would definitely be perplexed by the personnel required to staff the three branches of government. It takes 535 elected officials to make the laws, but only two guys to "execute" the laws? Sure, there are a ton of other people in the executive branch, but we don't get to vote on any of those. And they all answer to the top.
Maybe the whole idea of a vice president wouldn't make any sense. What do we need him for? What does he do all day anyway? Just sit around waiting for the President to die?
Would our anarchist alien grasp the complexities of the electoral college? Would he think it's weird that we always elect people from the same two political parties? Would he laugh when you told him that only Democrats and Republicans have any shot at getting elected? 300 million people and every single one of us is represented by a Democrat or Republican? Seriously?
It's easy to forget that our government is an entirely human-created institution. It seems so permanent. There are three branches, there always have been three branches, and there always will be three branches. The Senate seems like a concrete part of the American landscape, like the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes.
But the fact is, we can change it all if we want. We could call a Constitutional Convention and throw the whole thing out the window tomorrow. If enough states got onboard, we could pass an amendment and disband the Senate. We could replace the Presidency with a 3-member committee. We could replace the House of Representatives with a lottery-number machine. One of those deals with all the numbered ping-pong balls.
All it would take to re-write the civics textbooks is a critical number of votes.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Someone Else's Idea
Kurt Vonnegut (the author) has this theory that most modern people are unhappy becuase they're lonely. He says everyone is lonely because humans are supposed to be highly social animals, somewhere between a pack of dogs and an ant colony.
We used to live in pack/colonies, only we called them extended families. Not too many years ago, most people had a whole boatload of kids. Then those kids had exponential boatloads of grandkids. Everybody had nine dozen uncles and cousins and such. We didn't move around very much, so we were stuck with our huge extended families.
Now everyone has 2.1 kids and as soon as they turn 18, they catch the next train out of town. We still have families, but now they're nuclear families. Ma, Pa, and 2.1 kids. Vonnegut says that's why so many families are failing. We're asking our spouses to replace a score of cousins. Kids are asking one set of parents to replace several dozen aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Instead of a hundred people who have to like us because we're family, we've got 3.1 people who are getting pretty annoyed with us.
Kurt Vonnegut says the closest things we've got to extended families these days are college campuses and churches. He thinks that's why they're so popular. People aren't so lonely there.
To me, it makes just as much sense as anything else. What do you think?
We used to live in pack/colonies, only we called them extended families. Not too many years ago, most people had a whole boatload of kids. Then those kids had exponential boatloads of grandkids. Everybody had nine dozen uncles and cousins and such. We didn't move around very much, so we were stuck with our huge extended families.
Now everyone has 2.1 kids and as soon as they turn 18, they catch the next train out of town. We still have families, but now they're nuclear families. Ma, Pa, and 2.1 kids. Vonnegut says that's why so many families are failing. We're asking our spouses to replace a score of cousins. Kids are asking one set of parents to replace several dozen aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Instead of a hundred people who have to like us because we're family, we've got 3.1 people who are getting pretty annoyed with us.
Kurt Vonnegut says the closest things we've got to extended families these days are college campuses and churches. He thinks that's why they're so popular. People aren't so lonely there.
To me, it makes just as much sense as anything else. What do you think?
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Water for Everyone?
It seems as though, according to Time’s Best Inventions of 2006, there’s now a machine that can produce 500 gallons of fresh, clean water per day out of thin air. All it needs is a power supply or diesel to run the generator. All it costs is $300,000. It’s small enough to pull around with a truck, or at least a tractor-trailer. (Um, I can't remember how to work the hyperlinks. Here's the site: http://www.time.com/time/2006/techguide/bestinventions/inventions/medicine5.html.)
It seems to me that this should solve a lot of problems. Or at least severely help a lot of people. Aren’t there a bunch of Christian organizations going crazy trying to get fresh water to people who need it in Africa and around the world? The site of the company that created this machine, Aquascience.com, has articles talking about how one in three people in the world suffer from a shortage of water and how delivering bottled water to people is expensive and energy in-efficient and produces a whole lot of trash (plastic, I would assume).
I looked a little at the specs for the machine, and it said that it could only operate in at least 14% humidity, which meant it couldn’t operate everywhere but “almost everywhere”. Apparently it’s enough that the Department of Defense is really eager to get these to the troops in Iraq. And FEMA has apparently purchased two so they can be parked wherever they think the next big hurricane is going to hit. (They’re in Florida right now.)
But 500 gallons of water per day! Out of thin (slightly moist) air. For $300,000. That seems like something to be excited about to me. That’s well within reach of plenty of mega-churches and certainly not less than a few compassionate ministries-type organizations. Why aren’t we loading up on these things and driving them around sub-Saharan Africa on the backs of trucks? Doesn’t the Red Cross want to get their hands on a few of these?
Another thing the company’s website mentioned is that the technology that makes it work is a secret. Why? It talks about the Army wanting them, fine, and FEMA, sure, but it seems like the market for these things would be quite larger. If they’re not going to start cranking them out, why not put the plans to build them online so someone else can? Heck, we could have moisture farms going up all over the world, just like Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.
Postscript: I just, out of curiousity, looked at CNN Weather.com to see what the humidity was in some places around the world right now. I don't know how "dry" 14% humidity really is. According to CNN Weather though, there's currently 56% humidity in Khartoum, Sudan; 88% humidity in Baghdad, Iraq; and 33% in Carson City, Nevada. So . . . that maybe gives some idea.
It seems to me that this should solve a lot of problems. Or at least severely help a lot of people. Aren’t there a bunch of Christian organizations going crazy trying to get fresh water to people who need it in Africa and around the world? The site of the company that created this machine, Aquascience.com, has articles talking about how one in three people in the world suffer from a shortage of water and how delivering bottled water to people is expensive and energy in-efficient and produces a whole lot of trash (plastic, I would assume).
I looked a little at the specs for the machine, and it said that it could only operate in at least 14% humidity, which meant it couldn’t operate everywhere but “almost everywhere”. Apparently it’s enough that the Department of Defense is really eager to get these to the troops in Iraq. And FEMA has apparently purchased two so they can be parked wherever they think the next big hurricane is going to hit. (They’re in Florida right now.)
But 500 gallons of water per day! Out of thin (slightly moist) air. For $300,000. That seems like something to be excited about to me. That’s well within reach of plenty of mega-churches and certainly not less than a few compassionate ministries-type organizations. Why aren’t we loading up on these things and driving them around sub-Saharan Africa on the backs of trucks? Doesn’t the Red Cross want to get their hands on a few of these?
Another thing the company’s website mentioned is that the technology that makes it work is a secret. Why? It talks about the Army wanting them, fine, and FEMA, sure, but it seems like the market for these things would be quite larger. If they’re not going to start cranking them out, why not put the plans to build them online so someone else can? Heck, we could have moisture farms going up all over the world, just like Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.
Postscript: I just, out of curiousity, looked at CNN Weather.com to see what the humidity was in some places around the world right now. I don't know how "dry" 14% humidity really is. According to CNN Weather though, there's currently 56% humidity in Khartoum, Sudan; 88% humidity in Baghdad, Iraq; and 33% in Carson City, Nevada. So . . . that maybe gives some idea.
Pagosa Springs Weather Report
I watch as my house is slowly inundated with snow.
Beans the Dog does the same. Friday, December 15, 2006
On Israeli Nukes
Ummm....How did Israel get nuclear weapons? And how long have they had them?
I don't know if I've just been under a rock for a while, but this is all news to me. And I found this out by reading the Onion, of all places...
I don't know if I've just been under a rock for a while, but this is all news to me. And I found this out by reading the Onion, of all places...
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Iraq
I have generally avoided discussion of Iraq. I fear the discussion of Iraq as an "issue" has descended to the same level as abortion; the minds of the people are closed, their positions are taken, the battle lines are drawn. There is nothing left but to see who can scream the loudest. I'm not interested in that sort of thing.
Nevertheless, I have one point to make before I give up entirely. This is my one point: I'm too dumb to know what to do in Iraq. I think you probably are too.
Allow me to explain how I've arrived at this conclusion. When we removed the existing government in Iraq, I feel that America took responsibility for that country. I think that when we decided to invade Iraq, we agreed to protect and defend Iraq until they were able to do so for themselves. I think we agreed to be the government and the police in Iraq until the Iraqis have their own government and police. I believe that when President Bush and the Congress authorized the invasion, they signed the name of every American to this contract:
"We, the people of the United States, agree to act in the best interest of the Iraqi people from now until they once again become autonomous. We agree to do whatever is best for Iraq, to whatever degree is necessary, up to and including the destruction of the United States of America."
When we go nation-building, I think that this should always be the agreement. I'm kind of extreme like that.
So, the question for me is simply this: What is best for Iraq? I don't think "what is best for America" should have any bearing on our decisions there. I believe we gave up the right to that question long ago. I don't believe that this decision was a good idea, but I believe that the deal has been done.
What is best for Iraq?
I don't see how I could possibly answer that question. I'm a 23-year-old Communication major from Colorado. I've never been to Iraq. I've never met anyone from Iraq. I've never been in the military. I don't know anything about building democracies. I get all my information from the news, just like everybody else.
Should we stay the course? Should we pull out tomorrow? Do we need a timetable? Should we send more troops? Should we send fewer troops? What will be best for Iraq? I don't see how I am possibly qualified to answer a question like that. I don't see how the majority of the American public can believe they are qualified to answer a question like that.
I think that we should round up about a dozen Iraqi culture experts, Muslim scholars, historians, foreign policy experts, and military experts. I think we should give them about a million dollars, unlimited subpoena powers, and ask them the question, "What is best for Iraq?" Then I think we should do whatever they say, and then we hope for the best.
We sort of tried this concept with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Only we decided to use a bunch of Senators and ex-Cabinet members instead of Arab culture experts and historians. I think this was a poor decision. Also, I think we asked them, "What is best for America?" I think this was an un-ethical decision.
Despite knowing nothing about the Iraqi people, most Americans are more than wiling to give you their opinion on what we should do in Iraq. I think these people are making their decisions based on emotion and politics. I don't blame them. Iraq is a very emotional, political issue. However, I think that emotion and politics lead to poor decision making. And this is a very important decision, especially if you live in Iraq.
Until further notice, I am an agnostic on the Iraq question. I don't know what we should do. I don't see how the majority of Americans can possibly know what we should do.
Let the screaming begin.
Nevertheless, I have one point to make before I give up entirely. This is my one point: I'm too dumb to know what to do in Iraq. I think you probably are too.
Allow me to explain how I've arrived at this conclusion. When we removed the existing government in Iraq, I feel that America took responsibility for that country. I think that when we decided to invade Iraq, we agreed to protect and defend Iraq until they were able to do so for themselves. I think we agreed to be the government and the police in Iraq until the Iraqis have their own government and police. I believe that when President Bush and the Congress authorized the invasion, they signed the name of every American to this contract:
"We, the people of the United States, agree to act in the best interest of the Iraqi people from now until they once again become autonomous. We agree to do whatever is best for Iraq, to whatever degree is necessary, up to and including the destruction of the United States of America."
When we go nation-building, I think that this should always be the agreement. I'm kind of extreme like that.
So, the question for me is simply this: What is best for Iraq? I don't think "what is best for America" should have any bearing on our decisions there. I believe we gave up the right to that question long ago. I don't believe that this decision was a good idea, but I believe that the deal has been done.
What is best for Iraq?
I don't see how I could possibly answer that question. I'm a 23-year-old Communication major from Colorado. I've never been to Iraq. I've never met anyone from Iraq. I've never been in the military. I don't know anything about building democracies. I get all my information from the news, just like everybody else.
Should we stay the course? Should we pull out tomorrow? Do we need a timetable? Should we send more troops? Should we send fewer troops? What will be best for Iraq? I don't see how I am possibly qualified to answer a question like that. I don't see how the majority of the American public can believe they are qualified to answer a question like that.
I think that we should round up about a dozen Iraqi culture experts, Muslim scholars, historians, foreign policy experts, and military experts. I think we should give them about a million dollars, unlimited subpoena powers, and ask them the question, "What is best for Iraq?" Then I think we should do whatever they say, and then we hope for the best.
We sort of tried this concept with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Only we decided to use a bunch of Senators and ex-Cabinet members instead of Arab culture experts and historians. I think this was a poor decision. Also, I think we asked them, "What is best for America?" I think this was an un-ethical decision.
Despite knowing nothing about the Iraqi people, most Americans are more than wiling to give you their opinion on what we should do in Iraq. I think these people are making their decisions based on emotion and politics. I don't blame them. Iraq is a very emotional, political issue. However, I think that emotion and politics lead to poor decision making. And this is a very important decision, especially if you live in Iraq.
Until further notice, I am an agnostic on the Iraq question. I don't know what we should do. I don't see how the majority of Americans can possibly know what we should do.
Let the screaming begin.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Economics in One Lesson
If you are remotely interested in economics on a national level, I highly recommend the book Economics in One Lesson, written by Henry Hazlitt way back in 1946.
The best thing about this book is that it was written for people with no training in economics. Even a dolt like me can understand it.
Hazlitt works through a variety of public policy issues in economics including taxes, tariffs, unions, minimum wage, deficit financing, rent control, and inflation. Though the book is now 50 years old, it holds up extremely well. I think it can easily be applied today.
Throughout the book, Hazlitt brings every issue back to the basic premise, "There is no free lunch." If an economic policy looks like you're getting "something for nothing," you need to look again. (Is this the "one lesson" alluded to in the title? You'll have to read it to find out. You're curious, aren't you? I can tell.)
The book is short. I think I read the whole thing casually in a day or two. There are 25 chapters, but many are 5 pages or less in length. Some chapters require a single page. Hazlitt is fantastically concise.
Hazlitt endorses what we now call "conservative" economic policy. (Some have described Hazlitt's approach as "libertarian." I strongly disagree.) He makes his case beautifully. Everything he says makes sense to me.
I realize that I am not nearly qualified to judge economic theory. Maybe Hazlitt is full of crap. But it makes sense to me. Can anyone direct me to a rebuttal or reply to classical, conservative economic policy?
Finally, Economics in One Lesson is available online in its entirety, for free. If you're willing to give it a try, I recommend you click the link and read all three sections of "Chapter One: The Lesson." You'll probably finish in less than 10 minutes.
If 10 minutes sounds too long, read "Chapter Two: The Broken Window," which is Hazlitt's first and simplest example. It's three paragraphs long.
Here is the link:
http://jim.com/econ/contents.html
Economics in One Lesson is one of the few books that has actually changed the way I think. It's an easy read. It's short. I think it's enteretaining. It's available used on Amazon for $4.43, it's likely in your local library, and it's available free online.
Seriously, why not read it?
The best thing about this book is that it was written for people with no training in economics. Even a dolt like me can understand it.
Hazlitt works through a variety of public policy issues in economics including taxes, tariffs, unions, minimum wage, deficit financing, rent control, and inflation. Though the book is now 50 years old, it holds up extremely well. I think it can easily be applied today.
Throughout the book, Hazlitt brings every issue back to the basic premise, "There is no free lunch." If an economic policy looks like you're getting "something for nothing," you need to look again. (Is this the "one lesson" alluded to in the title? You'll have to read it to find out. You're curious, aren't you? I can tell.)
The book is short. I think I read the whole thing casually in a day or two. There are 25 chapters, but many are 5 pages or less in length. Some chapters require a single page. Hazlitt is fantastically concise.
Hazlitt endorses what we now call "conservative" economic policy. (Some have described Hazlitt's approach as "libertarian." I strongly disagree.) He makes his case beautifully. Everything he says makes sense to me.
I realize that I am not nearly qualified to judge economic theory. Maybe Hazlitt is full of crap. But it makes sense to me. Can anyone direct me to a rebuttal or reply to classical, conservative economic policy?
Finally, Economics in One Lesson is available online in its entirety, for free. If you're willing to give it a try, I recommend you click the link and read all three sections of "Chapter One: The Lesson." You'll probably finish in less than 10 minutes.
If 10 minutes sounds too long, read "Chapter Two: The Broken Window," which is Hazlitt's first and simplest example. It's three paragraphs long.
Here is the link:
http://jim.com/econ/contents.html
Economics in One Lesson is one of the few books that has actually changed the way I think. It's an easy read. It's short. I think it's enteretaining. It's available used on Amazon for $4.43, it's likely in your local library, and it's available free online.
Seriously, why not read it?
Monday, December 11, 2006
On LA Driving
I am no professional driver. I doubt I may even be able to say I'm a good driver. I've been in one accident, and it was completely and undeniably my fault. That is the usual outcome when you disregard a stop sign.
I also have very paltry experience with driving. Let's face it, the roads and drivers of the Midwest are not very intimidating, NASCAR and Chicago notwithstanding. Still, I can't help but be a little comparative with other individuals on the road and I often find I talk and sing to myself; spouting judgmental phrases littered between Christmas songs during this holiday season.
My father grew up in Chicago, and in so doing, developed a nasty habit of irritating people on the road. So I, in normal adolescent, rebellious fashion, swore never to do anything so juvenile and to be a good driver. For the most part, I did just that. Indiana also made it very easy to do so; you let the random person in, they wave with infinite gratitude. Someone cuts you off; you take a deep sigh and figure, "They're off to the corn fields in a hurry."
Mostly, residents of the Midwest drive the same, usually about 5-10 mph over the speed limit, maybe pushing 15 on the highways. You could also count on people being moderately generous. The left lane is reserved for those who like to drive a little faster. If someone sees you in a merging bind, they will gladly accommodate politely. These things were consistent, and it helped develop the driving ethic I subscribe to today.
Yet I've learned something by moving to the Los Angeles area. Rules don't apply.
The abhorrent traffic and gridlocks aside, there is enough diversity in driving philosophies around here that it makes the entire practice nearly impossible. I've had to relearn everything about driving.
For starters, there is a carpool lane. Tame enough, I know, but it does take some getting used to.
Secondly, the left lane is NOT the fast lane. To describe it more accurately, it is the ignorant lane. It is reserved for those who think it is the fast lane and who don't know any better. On the usual three lane highway, the middle lane is more realistically the fastest, unless someone is riding with you, then you can risk driving in the ignorant lane to merge into the carpool lane, which is quite an astounding feat in itself.
Thirdly, the city assumes that if you are a carpooler, you have a developed knowledge of the transit system and interstates. On a regular highway, they conveniently place the names of the next three exits with distance about every mile or so. This works wonderfully under normal circumstances. But if you are carpooling, the lane normally split into a separate expressway that is devoid of such markers. Clearly, they claim that anyone who is nice enough to drive someone else around should be punished by forcing the courteous ones to become lost, thus mitigating the speed and environmental advantages of carpooling.
Finally, the kicker. LA is an extremely culturally diverse area. In most aspects of life, this is a phenomenal advantage. The art, the food, the ideas...all are key benefits for a heterogeneous society. Notice that driving is not on that list. Because people come from all over the country and the world, they bring with them their specific driving ethics. In normal dialog, a discussion with differing ethical concepts would sharpen and hone each other. When driving, it simply increases the risk of dying at 80 mph. Take me, for example: I'm used to driving 5-10 mph over the limit. Someone who grew up in Virginia may be used to 5 under, someone from Montana may be used to no limits at all, find the idea of speed limits absolutely absurd, and then decide to drive 50 mph over. There could also be some kind-hearted individuals absolutely terrified at the idea of breaking any law, so their moral code dictates they drive 20 mph under the specified limit.
You take these people, the winding Californian roads, and a lucrative local economy where people can invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in creating miniscule or elephantine vehicle, and you get some pretty impressive fireworks. And a very anxious me.
All that said, I think I’m getting the hang of things around here. I was able to drive to LAX in the rush hour this morning, all while keeping a cool head and horning the nose of my Ford ZX2 into the miles of Los Angeles traffic like the best of ‘em. Now all I need is this little baby, and I would be a local.
For the record, there were 310 fatalities in Los Angeles in 2003. That’s the largest number in Los Angeles county, with the city of Long Beach a distant second at 38.
I also have very paltry experience with driving. Let's face it, the roads and drivers of the Midwest are not very intimidating, NASCAR and Chicago notwithstanding. Still, I can't help but be a little comparative with other individuals on the road and I often find I talk and sing to myself; spouting judgmental phrases littered between Christmas songs during this holiday season.
My father grew up in Chicago, and in so doing, developed a nasty habit of irritating people on the road. So I, in normal adolescent, rebellious fashion, swore never to do anything so juvenile and to be a good driver. For the most part, I did just that. Indiana also made it very easy to do so; you let the random person in, they wave with infinite gratitude. Someone cuts you off; you take a deep sigh and figure, "They're off to the corn fields in a hurry."
Mostly, residents of the Midwest drive the same, usually about 5-10 mph over the speed limit, maybe pushing 15 on the highways. You could also count on people being moderately generous. The left lane is reserved for those who like to drive a little faster. If someone sees you in a merging bind, they will gladly accommodate politely. These things were consistent, and it helped develop the driving ethic I subscribe to today.
Yet I've learned something by moving to the Los Angeles area. Rules don't apply.
The abhorrent traffic and gridlocks aside, there is enough diversity in driving philosophies around here that it makes the entire practice nearly impossible. I've had to relearn everything about driving.
For starters, there is a carpool lane. Tame enough, I know, but it does take some getting used to.
Secondly, the left lane is NOT the fast lane. To describe it more accurately, it is the ignorant lane. It is reserved for those who think it is the fast lane and who don't know any better. On the usual three lane highway, the middle lane is more realistically the fastest, unless someone is riding with you, then you can risk driving in the ignorant lane to merge into the carpool lane, which is quite an astounding feat in itself.
Thirdly, the city assumes that if you are a carpooler, you have a developed knowledge of the transit system and interstates. On a regular highway, they conveniently place the names of the next three exits with distance about every mile or so. This works wonderfully under normal circumstances. But if you are carpooling, the lane normally split into a separate expressway that is devoid of such markers. Clearly, they claim that anyone who is nice enough to drive someone else around should be punished by forcing the courteous ones to become lost, thus mitigating the speed and environmental advantages of carpooling.
Finally, the kicker. LA is an extremely culturally diverse area. In most aspects of life, this is a phenomenal advantage. The art, the food, the ideas...all are key benefits for a heterogeneous society. Notice that driving is not on that list. Because people come from all over the country and the world, they bring with them their specific driving ethics. In normal dialog, a discussion with differing ethical concepts would sharpen and hone each other. When driving, it simply increases the risk of dying at 80 mph. Take me, for example: I'm used to driving 5-10 mph over the limit. Someone who grew up in Virginia may be used to 5 under, someone from Montana may be used to no limits at all, find the idea of speed limits absolutely absurd, and then decide to drive 50 mph over. There could also be some kind-hearted individuals absolutely terrified at the idea of breaking any law, so their moral code dictates they drive 20 mph under the specified limit.
You take these people, the winding Californian roads, and a lucrative local economy where people can invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in creating miniscule or elephantine vehicle, and you get some pretty impressive fireworks. And a very anxious me.
All that said, I think I’m getting the hang of things around here. I was able to drive to LAX in the rush hour this morning, all while keeping a cool head and horning the nose of my Ford ZX2 into the miles of Los Angeles traffic like the best of ‘em. Now all I need is this little baby, and I would be a local.
For the record, there were 310 fatalities in Los Angeles in 2003. That’s the largest number in Los Angeles county, with the city of Long Beach a distant second at 38.
Pork-Barrel Spending
(SNOOZE-FEST ALERT: This was intended to be a quick overview, and then it mutated into 1000 words. If you can't stay awake, skip to the list at the very end.)
In this post, I want to breeze (ha!) through something called "Pork-Barrel Spending." I have a feeling I'm going to be talking about it a lot in the near-future, and I just want to make sure everyone catches my drift. I'm 90% sure you already know what I mean.
"Pork-Barrel Spending" refers to a special type of Congressional spending. It's a derogatory term. Pork projects are those which are funded by the general population, yet they only benefit a narrow slice of the population. These projects are inserted into other funding bills which are deemed likely to pass. (For this reason they are sometimes called "riders.")
Here's an infamous example. In Alaska, there is a town called Ketchikan, home to 8,000 people. The citizens of Ketchikan had the good sense to build their airport on an island away from the town. Now they have to ride a 7-minute ferry to the airport, and it costs them $6 a pop. That would be annoying, I admit.
Enter Senator Ted Stevens, of Alaska. Ted Stevens was fortunate enough to find himself on the Senate Appropriations Committee. (In plain English, the committee that hands out the money.) As the committee was drafting the 2005 Transportation Equity Act, which will fund the U.S. Interstate Highway System through 2010 among other things, Ted Stevens inserted a special project into the Act. He inserted a provision designating $320 million to build a bridge between Ketchikan, AK, and the island where its airport is located.
This put the Senate in a bind. The Transporation Equity Act had to pass. The Interstate System must be maintained. Once the bill left committee, there was no way to remove Ted Stevens' bridge from the rest of the Act. The Senate passed the bill, so did the House, and it was signed by the President. The President, like Congress, has no way to alter the bill once it leaves committee. He must pass it all or veto it all. Thus, $320 million federal tax dollars are now specifically earmarked to build a bridge in Alaska between a town of 8,000 people and an island of 50 people and one airport.
The problem with pork spending is that even though it outrages 99% of the country, it makes a certain politician's home constituents very, very happy. Ted Stevens is going to receive approximately 8,000 votes from Ketchikan, AK, in the next election. And think of all the jobs it created for Alaskan construction companies and such. They all like Ted Stevens. A lot. So Ted will get re-elected, he will once again spend your taxes for special projects in Alaska, and the whole thing will cycle through once again.
I have explained just one famous example. Now for some statistics. The Citizens Against Government Waste watchdog group reports that there were only eleven appropriations (paying for stuff) bills passed in 2006. Eleven doesn't sound so bad. However, in those eleven bills, there were 9,963 pork-barrel projects for a total cost of $29 billion. That's bad.
Pork is a big problem in Washington. It wastes billions of your tax dollars every year. Though the "Bridge to Nowhere" received much attention in the media, most pork projects are never noticed, even by the Senators and Representatives who vote for them. Pork projects are often added to bills at the very last minute in closed-door committee meetings. Committees then release a 700-page appropriation bill, and congressmen often have a matter of minutes to review it before a vote is held.
Pork spenders are nearly impossible to irradicate. They take billions of dollars from the general population and give it to a select few, but then those select few get to vote on whether to re-instate the offender. Why would you vote out your Senator when he just gave you $100 million of other people's money?
To help identify pork spending, the Citizens Against Government Waste use the following seven criteria. In 2006, they found $29 billion in projects that meet all seven of these points.
Pork is:
1. Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
2. Not specifically authorized;
3. Not competitively awarded;
4. Not requested by the President;
5. Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
6. Not the subject of congressional hearings;
7. Serves only a local or special interest.
And now, just for fun, here's a list of some of the most ridiculous pork projects of the last few years. I put my favorites in italics.
$3.3 million for shrimp-farming studies in Arizona
$1.8 million for exotic pet disease research in California
$1 million for the Gulf Oyster Industry Education Program
$1 million for the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association
$1 million for a new city swimming pool in Banning, California
$700,000 for a fitness center in Allentown, PA
$550,000 for the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, WA
$500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum
$400,000 for the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum
$286,000 for research to enhance the flavor of roasted peanuts
$270,000 for an effort to combat "goth culture" in Blue Springs, MO
$250,000 for pickle research
$200,000 for the National Peanut Festival Fairgrounds in Alabama
$200,000 for the construction of a shopping center in Guadalupe, AZ
$100,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont
$50,000 for a tattoo removal program in San Luis Obispo, CA
$50,000 for the Capitol Hill Baseball and Softball League
$25,000 for a county school district in Nevada to study mariachi music
Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.
In this post, I want to breeze (ha!) through something called "Pork-Barrel Spending." I have a feeling I'm going to be talking about it a lot in the near-future, and I just want to make sure everyone catches my drift. I'm 90% sure you already know what I mean.
"Pork-Barrel Spending" refers to a special type of Congressional spending. It's a derogatory term. Pork projects are those which are funded by the general population, yet they only benefit a narrow slice of the population. These projects are inserted into other funding bills which are deemed likely to pass. (For this reason they are sometimes called "riders.")
Here's an infamous example. In Alaska, there is a town called Ketchikan, home to 8,000 people. The citizens of Ketchikan had the good sense to build their airport on an island away from the town. Now they have to ride a 7-minute ferry to the airport, and it costs them $6 a pop. That would be annoying, I admit.
Enter Senator Ted Stevens, of Alaska. Ted Stevens was fortunate enough to find himself on the Senate Appropriations Committee. (In plain English, the committee that hands out the money.) As the committee was drafting the 2005 Transportation Equity Act, which will fund the U.S. Interstate Highway System through 2010 among other things, Ted Stevens inserted a special project into the Act. He inserted a provision designating $320 million to build a bridge between Ketchikan, AK, and the island where its airport is located.
This put the Senate in a bind. The Transporation Equity Act had to pass. The Interstate System must be maintained. Once the bill left committee, there was no way to remove Ted Stevens' bridge from the rest of the Act. The Senate passed the bill, so did the House, and it was signed by the President. The President, like Congress, has no way to alter the bill once it leaves committee. He must pass it all or veto it all. Thus, $320 million federal tax dollars are now specifically earmarked to build a bridge in Alaska between a town of 8,000 people and an island of 50 people and one airport.
The problem with pork spending is that even though it outrages 99% of the country, it makes a certain politician's home constituents very, very happy. Ted Stevens is going to receive approximately 8,000 votes from Ketchikan, AK, in the next election. And think of all the jobs it created for Alaskan construction companies and such. They all like Ted Stevens. A lot. So Ted will get re-elected, he will once again spend your taxes for special projects in Alaska, and the whole thing will cycle through once again.
I have explained just one famous example. Now for some statistics. The Citizens Against Government Waste watchdog group reports that there were only eleven appropriations (paying for stuff) bills passed in 2006. Eleven doesn't sound so bad. However, in those eleven bills, there were 9,963 pork-barrel projects for a total cost of $29 billion. That's bad.
Pork is a big problem in Washington. It wastes billions of your tax dollars every year. Though the "Bridge to Nowhere" received much attention in the media, most pork projects are never noticed, even by the Senators and Representatives who vote for them. Pork projects are often added to bills at the very last minute in closed-door committee meetings. Committees then release a 700-page appropriation bill, and congressmen often have a matter of minutes to review it before a vote is held.
Pork spenders are nearly impossible to irradicate. They take billions of dollars from the general population and give it to a select few, but then those select few get to vote on whether to re-instate the offender. Why would you vote out your Senator when he just gave you $100 million of other people's money?
To help identify pork spending, the Citizens Against Government Waste use the following seven criteria. In 2006, they found $29 billion in projects that meet all seven of these points.
Pork is:
1. Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
2. Not specifically authorized;
3. Not competitively awarded;
4. Not requested by the President;
5. Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
6. Not the subject of congressional hearings;
7. Serves only a local or special interest.
And now, just for fun, here's a list of some of the most ridiculous pork projects of the last few years. I put my favorites in italics.
$3.3 million for shrimp-farming studies in Arizona
$1.8 million for exotic pet disease research in California
$1 million for the Gulf Oyster Industry Education Program
$1 million for the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association
$1 million for a new city swimming pool in Banning, California
$700,000 for a fitness center in Allentown, PA
$550,000 for the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, WA
$500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum
$400,000 for the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum
$286,000 for research to enhance the flavor of roasted peanuts
$270,000 for an effort to combat "goth culture" in Blue Springs, MO
$250,000 for pickle research
$200,000 for the National Peanut Festival Fairgrounds in Alabama
$200,000 for the construction of a shopping center in Guadalupe, AZ
$100,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont
$50,000 for a tattoo removal program in San Luis Obispo, CA
$50,000 for the Capitol Hill Baseball and Softball League
$25,000 for a county school district in Nevada to study mariachi music
Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.
I'm still out here
Just to let everyone know, I'm still alive. I am writing this post on the request of our bald-headed, reformed California hippie leader Brennan, aka Jeff. Now that I remember how to get into the blogger, expect an update on the last 6 months of my life. In other words, be prepared to tune out.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Get My Vote Out
In the 2004 and 2006 elections, I had this theory that I would only vote for a good candidate who had some good ideas. Well, that didn't work out very well for me. I didn't find any, so I didn't vote for anybody.
In 2008, I think I'll try a different route. I'm giving up on good candidates. Apparently they don't exist. I'm going to vote issues. If I can find a candidate who I believe will take the following actions regarding certain issues, I will vote for that candidate no matter what. I don't care if they are a communist, an ex-con, a flip-flopper or whatever. Just promise to do one useful thing on one of these issues, and you have my vote.
I pledge my vote to any candidate who will balance the federal budget. Deficits are bad. Deficits must always be paid off. If the deficit is not paid in future taxes, it will be paid in future inflation. Every time. Always. Every dollar spent by the government comes out of someone's pocket. Deficits merely take that dollar away from future generations through inflation. I consider that "taxation without representation." I consider it un-ethical.
Therefore, I will vote for any criminal, hobo, or mental patient who promises to veto any budget that isn't balanced, for any reason. I'm not talking about lip service here. I don't want someone who will "work towards balancing the budget." I want that sucker balanced. Now.
I pledge my vote to any candidate who will make a serious effort to develop alternative energy. The world is running out of oil, coal, and natural gas. There is some debate about how fast we're running out or how much is left, but the fact remains that there is only so much fossil fuel on the earth. The supply if finite, so if we're using any at all, we're running out. Without alternative fuel, the earth will one day run out of oil, gas, and coal. There is no way around this fact. We may as well start developing replacements now rather than wait until it's a crisis.
The federal energy research budget is $3.4 billion per year. That's a pittance, and it includes research for things like "building better coal-fired power plants" that will eventually be useless anyway. The war in Iraq costs $67 billion a year. We spent $23 billion to put the first man on the moon. $3.4 billion is a trifle.
Why not abandon the Permanent Moon Base project and put that $500 billion towards alternative fuel research? Why not abolish Sen. Ted Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere and put that $320 million towards scholarships for students studying renewable energy?
A permanent moon base would be pretty awesome. A bridge in Alaska that doesn't go anywhere would be, well, somewhat less awesome. But if you were an Alaskan bridge-builder, I guess it would be alright. The point is, government demands sacrifice. And I'm more than willing to sacrifice my moon base and and my Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere in order to develop renewable, alternative energy sources. I'll vote for any candidate who agrees with me.
And again, I won't vote just because of lip service. I don't want to hear, "I promise to help develop alternative fuels." I want to hear, "I promise not to cash my paycheck until we find $50 billion to fund alternative fuel research and development."
I'm making this as easy as I possibly can. You just need one good idea to get my vote, and you don't even have to think of your own anymore. I'm giving them away for free! Here's one more:
I pledge my vote to any candidate who promises to fight tooth and nail for a "None of the Above" option on the ballot. I have already expanded on this view here.
I'm thinking of making this a running series. "How to Win One Vote" or something along those lines. By the time 2008 rolls around, I should have a whole host of ways for any lunatic off the street to earn my complete confidence.
Or maybe I'll forget all about it. I guess we'll see.
In 2008, I think I'll try a different route. I'm giving up on good candidates. Apparently they don't exist. I'm going to vote issues. If I can find a candidate who I believe will take the following actions regarding certain issues, I will vote for that candidate no matter what. I don't care if they are a communist, an ex-con, a flip-flopper or whatever. Just promise to do one useful thing on one of these issues, and you have my vote.
I pledge my vote to any candidate who will balance the federal budget. Deficits are bad. Deficits must always be paid off. If the deficit is not paid in future taxes, it will be paid in future inflation. Every time. Always. Every dollar spent by the government comes out of someone's pocket. Deficits merely take that dollar away from future generations through inflation. I consider that "taxation without representation." I consider it un-ethical.
Therefore, I will vote for any criminal, hobo, or mental patient who promises to veto any budget that isn't balanced, for any reason. I'm not talking about lip service here. I don't want someone who will "work towards balancing the budget." I want that sucker balanced. Now.
I pledge my vote to any candidate who will make a serious effort to develop alternative energy. The world is running out of oil, coal, and natural gas. There is some debate about how fast we're running out or how much is left, but the fact remains that there is only so much fossil fuel on the earth. The supply if finite, so if we're using any at all, we're running out. Without alternative fuel, the earth will one day run out of oil, gas, and coal. There is no way around this fact. We may as well start developing replacements now rather than wait until it's a crisis.
The federal energy research budget is $3.4 billion per year. That's a pittance, and it includes research for things like "building better coal-fired power plants" that will eventually be useless anyway. The war in Iraq costs $67 billion a year. We spent $23 billion to put the first man on the moon. $3.4 billion is a trifle.
Why not abandon the Permanent Moon Base project and put that $500 billion towards alternative fuel research? Why not abolish Sen. Ted Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere and put that $320 million towards scholarships for students studying renewable energy?
A permanent moon base would be pretty awesome. A bridge in Alaska that doesn't go anywhere would be, well, somewhat less awesome. But if you were an Alaskan bridge-builder, I guess it would be alright. The point is, government demands sacrifice. And I'm more than willing to sacrifice my moon base and and my Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere in order to develop renewable, alternative energy sources. I'll vote for any candidate who agrees with me.
And again, I won't vote just because of lip service. I don't want to hear, "I promise to help develop alternative fuels." I want to hear, "I promise not to cash my paycheck until we find $50 billion to fund alternative fuel research and development."
I'm making this as easy as I possibly can. You just need one good idea to get my vote, and you don't even have to think of your own anymore. I'm giving them away for free! Here's one more:
I pledge my vote to any candidate who promises to fight tooth and nail for a "None of the Above" option on the ballot. I have already expanded on this view here.
I'm thinking of making this a running series. "How to Win One Vote" or something along those lines. By the time 2008 rolls around, I should have a whole host of ways for any lunatic off the street to earn my complete confidence.
Or maybe I'll forget all about it. I guess we'll see.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Who Can You Trust?
(Note: This post is simply me, thinking on paper.)
My esteemed co-blogger Wasko, as usual, has me thinking in ways I haven't thought before. A comment he left on my "Lobbyist" post has me thinking about the nature of decision-making and persusasion. More specifically, my question is this: "Who can you trust?"
When someone has to make a decision, they gather as much information as possible and then do the best they can. Where does that information come from? Generally, there are two or more sides in the debate, and each side has its own proponents. Every point of view in every debate has its own salesman.
Whether it is abortion or global warming or what kind of tie to wear, every side of the debate has a few people who tell you they have all the answers. Being the suspicious type, I always ask, "What is motivating these people? Why do they care what I do or think?"
Sometimes it's easy, or at least it seems easy. This salesman wants me to buy this tie because he gets a commission if I buy it. I buy, he gets paid. Of course he's making a good case for the tie; his paycheck depends on it. Money is a fantastic motivator.
Trouble is, he might actually think the tie looks good on me. He may think it really is a great price. How can I tell? How do I know whether it's the Man or the Money talking? Once money enters the picture, I feel like I can never trust people.
But money is not the only motivator. It's not even the best motivator. Emotions like pride, love, and sympathy can motivate people that don't care about money at all. Can I trust a mother to tell the truth about her son's singing ability? Can we trust a jury to give a carefully considered verdict when a baby has been killed?
The problem is compounded because people often don't realize where their motivation is coming from. The human brain is an amazing machine. I'm sure that many lobbyists and salesmen actually feel that they are doing the right thing. They really believe that the old lady needs a second toaster. They really feel, in their hearts, that the Oil Industry Tax Break Act (I made that up) should pass. Their brains have been scrambled, they just don't realize it. The money is the real motivator.
That mom really believes that her son can sing. I can't explain it, but somehow she actually hears something different than the banshee screaching that the rest of us hear. She's not a liar; she's blinded by her own love. It's physically impossible for her to see (or hear) the truth. Love has trumped her reason and senses.
Simply being emotionally and intellectually comitted to an idea is enough to sway nearly anyone's judgment. A scientist who deeply believes in global warming will always see "supporting evidence" in his observations. A Bible-believing Creationist will view every scientific discovery as "further proving" his position.
I believe that many people join churches (and even believe in God) because it gives them a safe place and a built-in social circle. I believe that many tobacco lobbyists really feel that cigarettes aren't that bad. I believe that most people cannot possibly see the flaws and shortcomings in their most passionate beliefs and agendas. I believe that there is nothing "bad" about these people. Their brains have betrayed them.
I realize that I am one of these people. How many of my own decisions were secretly hijacked by my emotions or desires? How many of my supposedly "rational, well thought-out" decisions would have been different if there wasn't money involved? If I wasn't scared? If I wasn't lonely? If I wasn't bored? I can never know. I'm blind to my faulty logic just like everyone else is blind to theirs.
So who can you trust? More accurately, where can you get information you can trust? How can you make a good decision when all your information comes from irrational, untrustworthy people just like you? How do you gather cold, hard facts when everyone's brain has betrayed them?
If you were hoping to find all the answers at the end of this post, I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed. I'm going to stop typing now.
My esteemed co-blogger Wasko, as usual, has me thinking in ways I haven't thought before. A comment he left on my "Lobbyist" post has me thinking about the nature of decision-making and persusasion. More specifically, my question is this: "Who can you trust?"
When someone has to make a decision, they gather as much information as possible and then do the best they can. Where does that information come from? Generally, there are two or more sides in the debate, and each side has its own proponents. Every point of view in every debate has its own salesman.
Whether it is abortion or global warming or what kind of tie to wear, every side of the debate has a few people who tell you they have all the answers. Being the suspicious type, I always ask, "What is motivating these people? Why do they care what I do or think?"
Sometimes it's easy, or at least it seems easy. This salesman wants me to buy this tie because he gets a commission if I buy it. I buy, he gets paid. Of course he's making a good case for the tie; his paycheck depends on it. Money is a fantastic motivator.
Trouble is, he might actually think the tie looks good on me. He may think it really is a great price. How can I tell? How do I know whether it's the Man or the Money talking? Once money enters the picture, I feel like I can never trust people.
But money is not the only motivator. It's not even the best motivator. Emotions like pride, love, and sympathy can motivate people that don't care about money at all. Can I trust a mother to tell the truth about her son's singing ability? Can we trust a jury to give a carefully considered verdict when a baby has been killed?
The problem is compounded because people often don't realize where their motivation is coming from. The human brain is an amazing machine. I'm sure that many lobbyists and salesmen actually feel that they are doing the right thing. They really believe that the old lady needs a second toaster. They really feel, in their hearts, that the Oil Industry Tax Break Act (I made that up) should pass. Their brains have been scrambled, they just don't realize it. The money is the real motivator.
That mom really believes that her son can sing. I can't explain it, but somehow she actually hears something different than the banshee screaching that the rest of us hear. She's not a liar; she's blinded by her own love. It's physically impossible for her to see (or hear) the truth. Love has trumped her reason and senses.
Simply being emotionally and intellectually comitted to an idea is enough to sway nearly anyone's judgment. A scientist who deeply believes in global warming will always see "supporting evidence" in his observations. A Bible-believing Creationist will view every scientific discovery as "further proving" his position.
I believe that many people join churches (and even believe in God) because it gives them a safe place and a built-in social circle. I believe that many tobacco lobbyists really feel that cigarettes aren't that bad. I believe that most people cannot possibly see the flaws and shortcomings in their most passionate beliefs and agendas. I believe that there is nothing "bad" about these people. Their brains have betrayed them.
I realize that I am one of these people. How many of my own decisions were secretly hijacked by my emotions or desires? How many of my supposedly "rational, well thought-out" decisions would have been different if there wasn't money involved? If I wasn't scared? If I wasn't lonely? If I wasn't bored? I can never know. I'm blind to my faulty logic just like everyone else is blind to theirs.
So who can you trust? More accurately, where can you get information you can trust? How can you make a good decision when all your information comes from irrational, untrustworthy people just like you? How do you gather cold, hard facts when everyone's brain has betrayed them?
If you were hoping to find all the answers at the end of this post, I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed. I'm going to stop typing now.
Lobbyists
Lobbyists are the parasites of the representative government system. Tapeworms in the gut of of the Capitol.
I understand that lobbyists have a right to exist. Most of them operate within the law. They're not illegal. I'm conceding that point. What I don't understand is why we, as a people, do not recoil en masse at the sight of them. If Discovery Channel showed a picture of a tapeworm on your television, you'd snarl up your face and say, "Ew, gross!" When CNN shows a picture of a lobbyist on your television, your reaction should be just the same. Snarled up face; "Ew, gross!"
Instead, lobbyists are widely tolerated. People think it's an acceptable occupation. Former Senators and Representatives become lobbyists all the time. Many retiring and voted-out politicians of all stripes soon realize that they don't actually know how to have a real job, and thus they become lobbyists. And everyone is largely okay with that.
A lobbyist is literally "a person who promotes or secures the passage of legislation by influencing public officials." I'm going to go ahead and add "for a salary" to the end of that definition, because I'm fairly sure that the big-shot lobbyists in Washington aren't working pro bono. So a lobbyist is someone who tries to influence public officials for money.
In theory, a public official acts in the interest of the public at all times, no matter who is paying for their lunch, flying them to Cancun, or whispering sweet nothings in their ear. In theory, public officials would gather as much un-biased information as possible, and then make the best decision possible in the interest of the public as a whole. In this perfect world, a person on the payroll of one of the interested parties (a lobbyist) would be viewed as useless. Information from a paid lobbyist is almost certainly slanted, biased, and incomplete. In theory, politicians should pay absolutely no attention to them. If elected officials were competent and ethical, lobbyists would be absolutely useless.
Apparently this is not the case. If lobbyists were useless, there wouldn't be 35,000 of them. And they wouldn't be making a combined 3 billion dollars.
Obviously, lobbyists are having some effect. Either lobbyists are swaying Congress with faulty information, or they are simply bribing Congress outright. It's probably some of both.
The point of all this boring reasoning is this: At best, lobbyists are decreasing the effectiveness of Congress. At worst, they are slimy criminals.
When a former Senator becomes a professional lobbyist, the news report should look something like this:
"Senator X sold his soul today for the sum of $300,000 per year, plus dental and health insurance. Senator X signed a joint contract with the pharmaceutical industry and the devil, agreeing to undermine the effectiveness of the United States Congress. Senator X lost his last shred of dignity when he promised to encourage Congress to favor his employer over the welfare of the general public. "
It should be a big scandal when a famous person turns to the Dark Side. We should have talking heads on cable news arguing about what prompts people "to go down that dark road." We should have local news anchors questioning the parents about "what went wrong" and whether the lobbyist "had an abnormal childhood." There should be self-help books published by recovering lobbyists. High-profile religious leaders should implore us to "hate the lobbying, but not the lobbyist."
What we need is some good, old-fashioned ostracism. Let's put the media machine to good use for a change. I don't care about John Mark Carr or Ted Haggard. I want to see the wrath of the nation turned loose upon someone who really deserves it.
Mama, don't let your babies grow up to be lobbyists.
I understand that lobbyists have a right to exist. Most of them operate within the law. They're not illegal. I'm conceding that point. What I don't understand is why we, as a people, do not recoil en masse at the sight of them. If Discovery Channel showed a picture of a tapeworm on your television, you'd snarl up your face and say, "Ew, gross!" When CNN shows a picture of a lobbyist on your television, your reaction should be just the same. Snarled up face; "Ew, gross!"
Instead, lobbyists are widely tolerated. People think it's an acceptable occupation. Former Senators and Representatives become lobbyists all the time. Many retiring and voted-out politicians of all stripes soon realize that they don't actually know how to have a real job, and thus they become lobbyists. And everyone is largely okay with that.
A lobbyist is literally "a person who promotes or secures the passage of legislation by influencing public officials." I'm going to go ahead and add "for a salary" to the end of that definition, because I'm fairly sure that the big-shot lobbyists in Washington aren't working pro bono. So a lobbyist is someone who tries to influence public officials for money.
In theory, a public official acts in the interest of the public at all times, no matter who is paying for their lunch, flying them to Cancun, or whispering sweet nothings in their ear. In theory, public officials would gather as much un-biased information as possible, and then make the best decision possible in the interest of the public as a whole. In this perfect world, a person on the payroll of one of the interested parties (a lobbyist) would be viewed as useless. Information from a paid lobbyist is almost certainly slanted, biased, and incomplete. In theory, politicians should pay absolutely no attention to them. If elected officials were competent and ethical, lobbyists would be absolutely useless.
Apparently this is not the case. If lobbyists were useless, there wouldn't be 35,000 of them. And they wouldn't be making a combined 3 billion dollars.
Obviously, lobbyists are having some effect. Either lobbyists are swaying Congress with faulty information, or they are simply bribing Congress outright. It's probably some of both.
The point of all this boring reasoning is this: At best, lobbyists are decreasing the effectiveness of Congress. At worst, they are slimy criminals.
When a former Senator becomes a professional lobbyist, the news report should look something like this:
"Senator X sold his soul today for the sum of $300,000 per year, plus dental and health insurance. Senator X signed a joint contract with the pharmaceutical industry and the devil, agreeing to undermine the effectiveness of the United States Congress. Senator X lost his last shred of dignity when he promised to encourage Congress to favor his employer over the welfare of the general public. "
It should be a big scandal when a famous person turns to the Dark Side. We should have talking heads on cable news arguing about what prompts people "to go down that dark road." We should have local news anchors questioning the parents about "what went wrong" and whether the lobbyist "had an abnormal childhood." There should be self-help books published by recovering lobbyists. High-profile religious leaders should implore us to "hate the lobbying, but not the lobbyist."
What we need is some good, old-fashioned ostracism. Let's put the media machine to good use for a change. I don't care about John Mark Carr or Ted Haggard. I want to see the wrath of the nation turned loose upon someone who really deserves it.
Mama, don't let your babies grow up to be lobbyists.
Your Test Results
I apologize for the tardiness of this response. The tests are in and have been graded, and for the most part you all did very well. My expectations of what I should be able to fairly expect from educated non-scientists has been ratified. Here are the correct answers and my reasons for asking:
1. True or false: There is no gravity on the Moon.
False (as you all correctly pointed out). The Moon (just like every other object) exerts a force of gravity dependent upon its mass. The mass of the Moon is a good deal less than that of Earth, so the Moon has a good deal less gravity (about one-sixth, I think). In one of our lab reports there was a question the students had to answer about whether a triple-beam balance would work on the Moon. (It would.) Several of the students in my friend’s lab (pre-med) answered that it would not because there was no gravity on the Moon. One girl in my engineering lab said the same thing. Apparently they’ve never seen videos of the astronauts walking on it (or else they think those are sound stages in NASA’s basement).
2. What is the period of the Earth’s motion around the Sun?
One year (again, all correct answers). My friend asked his astronomy lab this question and was greeted with a room full of empty stares. He was less than enthusiastic about this response. My only thought is that the use of technical scientific jargon like “period” confused them.
3. Is it true you can balance an egg on its small end on the vernal equinox?
This one is slightly tricky because of the way I worded it (unintentionally). The answer that I was looking for was this: if you can balance an egg on its small end on the vernal equinox, then you also can on the autumnal equinox . . . and the winter solstice, and the summer solstice, and my birthday, and every other day of the year. I’m not sure where this urban legend came from, but it’s one of those pesky things that everyone likes and no one really thinks about. (Like the one about daddy-long-legs being the most venomous spider in the world, which I invite you to refute.) There’s no physical reason for it to be easier to balance an egg on the equinox than any other day. The quote Jarrett got about the news reporter saying the gravitational field of the Sun and the Earth lining up makes astronomers everywhere chuckle (or groan). What’s extra pesky about this one is that everyone who likes to talk about it has seen someone balance an egg on the equinox, and so to disprove it you have to balance one yourself. And even then, they have the lingering suspicion that it was somehow “easier” to balance on the equinox. This came up during Thanksgiving dinner this year, and I spent a good fifteen minutes after dinner trying to get eggs balanced on the kitchen floor. (Which I eventually managed.)
4. True or false: Heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. (Neglect air resistance.)
False. This was Galileo’s big breakthrough. The story is that he dropped similarly shaped weights of different masses off the Tower of Pisa. Whether or not it’s true, he was the guy who realized that all object accelerate toward the Earth at the same rate. The astronauts illustrated this nicely by dropping a hammer and feather on the Moon. Because there was no air resistance, they both experienced the same acceleration toward the Moon’s surface.
What’s tricky about this one is that I don’t know of any simple way to explain it in nonscientific terms. That the acceleration due to gravity does not depend on mass is just true. You just have to prove it, because everyone “knows” that if you drop a rock and a leaf they don’t hit the ground at the same time. We went into a second grade class this year to do a lesson on gravity, and the teacher said she had just shown the students that heavy object fall faster than lighter objects by dropping a piece of paper and a notebook. After we recovered our composure, we went back to the classroom with a vacuum tube filled with plastic balls and bits of paper to show her (and hopefully her kids) that this was incorrect.
Again, thanks for humoring me. You have (for now) restored my faith.
1. True or false: There is no gravity on the Moon.
False (as you all correctly pointed out). The Moon (just like every other object) exerts a force of gravity dependent upon its mass. The mass of the Moon is a good deal less than that of Earth, so the Moon has a good deal less gravity (about one-sixth, I think). In one of our lab reports there was a question the students had to answer about whether a triple-beam balance would work on the Moon. (It would.) Several of the students in my friend’s lab (pre-med) answered that it would not because there was no gravity on the Moon. One girl in my engineering lab said the same thing. Apparently they’ve never seen videos of the astronauts walking on it (or else they think those are sound stages in NASA’s basement).
2. What is the period of the Earth’s motion around the Sun?
One year (again, all correct answers). My friend asked his astronomy lab this question and was greeted with a room full of empty stares. He was less than enthusiastic about this response. My only thought is that the use of technical scientific jargon like “period” confused them.
3. Is it true you can balance an egg on its small end on the vernal equinox?
This one is slightly tricky because of the way I worded it (unintentionally). The answer that I was looking for was this: if you can balance an egg on its small end on the vernal equinox, then you also can on the autumnal equinox . . . and the winter solstice, and the summer solstice, and my birthday, and every other day of the year. I’m not sure where this urban legend came from, but it’s one of those pesky things that everyone likes and no one really thinks about. (Like the one about daddy-long-legs being the most venomous spider in the world, which I invite you to refute.) There’s no physical reason for it to be easier to balance an egg on the equinox than any other day. The quote Jarrett got about the news reporter saying the gravitational field of the Sun and the Earth lining up makes astronomers everywhere chuckle (or groan). What’s extra pesky about this one is that everyone who likes to talk about it has seen someone balance an egg on the equinox, and so to disprove it you have to balance one yourself. And even then, they have the lingering suspicion that it was somehow “easier” to balance on the equinox. This came up during Thanksgiving dinner this year, and I spent a good fifteen minutes after dinner trying to get eggs balanced on the kitchen floor. (Which I eventually managed.)
4. True or false: Heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. (Neglect air resistance.)
False. This was Galileo’s big breakthrough. The story is that he dropped similarly shaped weights of different masses off the Tower of Pisa. Whether or not it’s true, he was the guy who realized that all object accelerate toward the Earth at the same rate. The astronauts illustrated this nicely by dropping a hammer and feather on the Moon. Because there was no air resistance, they both experienced the same acceleration toward the Moon’s surface.
What’s tricky about this one is that I don’t know of any simple way to explain it in nonscientific terms. That the acceleration due to gravity does not depend on mass is just true. You just have to prove it, because everyone “knows” that if you drop a rock and a leaf they don’t hit the ground at the same time. We went into a second grade class this year to do a lesson on gravity, and the teacher said she had just shown the students that heavy object fall faster than lighter objects by dropping a piece of paper and a notebook. After we recovered our composure, we went back to the classroom with a vacuum tube filled with plastic balls and bits of paper to show her (and hopefully her kids) that this was incorrect.
Again, thanks for humoring me. You have (for now) restored my faith.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Pagosa Springs on the Colbert Report
Ok, so maybe Stephen didn't mention Pagosa directly, but as Jarrett told us earlier this week, the nation is trembling with anger at the little Colorado town. Luckily, in last night's segment of "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger," Steve sided with the homeowners.
Video provided by Comedy Central
Video provided by Comedy Central
Monday, December 04, 2006
How To Win
(SNOOZE-FEST ALERT: 1200 WORDS)
In case you hadn't noticed, the 2008 presidential campaign is well under way. It's got me thinking about campaign strategies. I think there's a way to win this thing that nobody has tried yet. I think this election could be won by either party if they're willing to take a risk. America is ready for this. It's time for somebody to pull back the curtain on the political campaign wizard.
That's the strategy. Expose the political machinery. Acknowledge that everything you say is written by speech writers. Reveal your PR advisor's advice. Tell America how often you look at poll numbers. Talk about your advertising firm. I think this is going to work.
It'll work because the curtain has already been pulled back. Everybody knows how the system works. Everybody knows it's a big, fake, smoke-and-mirror show put on for the voters. It's a big joke, and everyone is in on it. But the politicians still act like it's all real. We are at a unique point in history where everyone knows it's all fake, but nobody (of any importance) has yet called it out.
This is a campaign for the Daily Show/Colbert generation. The non-campaign campaign. I know you may have trouble visualizing what this would look like, so I've written up a few examples of the Non-Campaign at work.
-----
(Scene: Some sort of important political speech before a neutral audience.)
Candidate: Good morning, thank you for having me. I want to start off with a confession. See all these notes I've got for my speech? I didn't write them. I didn't write this speech. A speechwriter did. His name is Jimmy. He's a real good guy, graduated from Northwestern with honors. It's a great speech, I bet you'd love it. I want to apologize to Jimmy, but I'm not going to read it. Jimmy, you did a great job, but this just isn't me. Instead, I'm going to read something I wrote this morning on the plane. All you out there in the audience are going to have to stick with me on this. I'm not as good a speechwriter as Jimmy is. But these are my own words. Here we go...
-----
(Scene: Televised debate.)
Moderator: Mr. Candidate, how can we solve the difficult situation in Tazmakistan?
Candidate: (pause) You know, we've been preparing for this debate for a week. My PR guys told me you were going to ask this question. We had a real snappy answer all worked out. It had all kinds of great words like "tolerance" and "diversity" in it. But you know what? It was all just a bunch of PR fluff. It was designed to sound good on TV. And it did! Those PR guys do good work. But you want my honest answer? How do we solve the crisis in Tazmakistan? I don't know. Those people have been fighting each other for 2000 years. It'd be pretty bold of me to say I knew how to solve it all by myself. And if I did have some fool-proof plan, you sure wouldn't be able to explain it all in a 2-minute debate answer. It would be a lot more complicated than that. I've been talking to a Tazmakistan expert from Yale, and together we came up with a few ideas for things we can do to maybe help a little bit over there. If you want to hear them, I'd be glad to stick around afterward and we can talk about it.
-----
(Scene: Press conference.)
Candidate: ....So that's why I think we should sell North Dakota to the Canadiens. Hey, by the way, do you like my suit? Edith picked it out for me. She says it will make me look "strong, yet empathetic." Is it working? This solid red tie is supposed to convey "decisiveness." Do I look decisive? Edith is my wardrobe coordinator. She travels all around the country with me picking out my clothes. I'm a 60-year-old man, and I don't even pick out my own clothes. Isn't that wild? Today is Edith's birthday, by the way. Happy birthday, Edith. I like the suit. Next question.
-----
(Scene: Television ad.)
Candidate: Hi, it' s me. Recently, my advertising firm came to me with this new campaign ad. It said something like, "My opponent is a dirty, rotten, scum-sucking vulture." I decided not to run that ad. Honestly, my opponent is a good guy. I believe he would always do what he thought was best for the country. I really believe that. (laughs) I know my advertising guys are having a fit right now watching this. Looks like we just wasted 30 million dollars, huh boys? But seriously, if I have to run attack ads to win this campaign, then I'd rather just lose. It's not worth it. Have a nice night.
-----
I think you get the idea of where I'm going with this. The weird part is that you'd have to actually hire all those advisors and PR people, have them give you advice, and then not follow it. If you didn't actually have all those people, you wouldn't have anything to talk about.
As I said before, the American political atmosphere is absolutely ripe for this type of campaign. No one would be shocked that you considered using a speechwriter because everybody already knows that. There would be no scandal. You would never tell people about anything they hadn't already assumed. But because you were candid and open, people would view you as "refreshing" and "above the political machinery."
It would be extremely important never to compare yourself to your opponent. Never accuse your opponent of doing the things you've supposedly "given up." To do so would make you appear "Holier Than Thou" and America won't vote for that. In fact, the ideal response would be something like this:
-----
Reporter: Mr. Candidate, do you feel it's wrong for your opponent to use a speechwriter while you write your own speeches?
Candidate: No, not at all. It's a smart decision, and politicians have been doing it for decades. There's nothing wrong with it. I completely respect his decision. And it seems to be working out for him; you've probably noticed that his speeches are a lot better than mine.
-----
See? The candidate comes off humble and self-deprecating. The candidate seems completely likable, while the fact remains that he is writing his own speeches while his opponent is a fraud. The audience will make this conclusion on their own; there's no need for the candidate to get his hands dirty.
The irony would be that the whole thing is a careful, calculated strategy. Your honesty would not be for its own sake, but for the sake of winning. Truth for the sake of image. Humility to get ahead. It would be fantastically, paradoxically effective. I think that with the Non-Campaign campaign strategy, nearly any candidate could win. At this point in history, this campaign would produce the perfect image. And in any election, image is everything.
In case you hadn't noticed, the 2008 presidential campaign is well under way. It's got me thinking about campaign strategies. I think there's a way to win this thing that nobody has tried yet. I think this election could be won by either party if they're willing to take a risk. America is ready for this. It's time for somebody to pull back the curtain on the political campaign wizard.
That's the strategy. Expose the political machinery. Acknowledge that everything you say is written by speech writers. Reveal your PR advisor's advice. Tell America how often you look at poll numbers. Talk about your advertising firm. I think this is going to work.
It'll work because the curtain has already been pulled back. Everybody knows how the system works. Everybody knows it's a big, fake, smoke-and-mirror show put on for the voters. It's a big joke, and everyone is in on it. But the politicians still act like it's all real. We are at a unique point in history where everyone knows it's all fake, but nobody (of any importance) has yet called it out.
This is a campaign for the Daily Show/Colbert generation. The non-campaign campaign. I know you may have trouble visualizing what this would look like, so I've written up a few examples of the Non-Campaign at work.
-----
(Scene: Some sort of important political speech before a neutral audience.)
Candidate: Good morning, thank you for having me. I want to start off with a confession. See all these notes I've got for my speech? I didn't write them. I didn't write this speech. A speechwriter did. His name is Jimmy. He's a real good guy, graduated from Northwestern with honors. It's a great speech, I bet you'd love it. I want to apologize to Jimmy, but I'm not going to read it. Jimmy, you did a great job, but this just isn't me. Instead, I'm going to read something I wrote this morning on the plane. All you out there in the audience are going to have to stick with me on this. I'm not as good a speechwriter as Jimmy is. But these are my own words. Here we go...
-----
(Scene: Televised debate.)
Moderator: Mr. Candidate, how can we solve the difficult situation in Tazmakistan?
Candidate: (pause) You know, we've been preparing for this debate for a week. My PR guys told me you were going to ask this question. We had a real snappy answer all worked out. It had all kinds of great words like "tolerance" and "diversity" in it. But you know what? It was all just a bunch of PR fluff. It was designed to sound good on TV. And it did! Those PR guys do good work. But you want my honest answer? How do we solve the crisis in Tazmakistan? I don't know. Those people have been fighting each other for 2000 years. It'd be pretty bold of me to say I knew how to solve it all by myself. And if I did have some fool-proof plan, you sure wouldn't be able to explain it all in a 2-minute debate answer. It would be a lot more complicated than that. I've been talking to a Tazmakistan expert from Yale, and together we came up with a few ideas for things we can do to maybe help a little bit over there. If you want to hear them, I'd be glad to stick around afterward and we can talk about it.
-----
(Scene: Press conference.)
Candidate: ....So that's why I think we should sell North Dakota to the Canadiens. Hey, by the way, do you like my suit? Edith picked it out for me. She says it will make me look "strong, yet empathetic." Is it working? This solid red tie is supposed to convey "decisiveness." Do I look decisive? Edith is my wardrobe coordinator. She travels all around the country with me picking out my clothes. I'm a 60-year-old man, and I don't even pick out my own clothes. Isn't that wild? Today is Edith's birthday, by the way. Happy birthday, Edith. I like the suit. Next question.
-----
(Scene: Television ad.)
Candidate: Hi, it' s me. Recently, my advertising firm came to me with this new campaign ad. It said something like, "My opponent is a dirty, rotten, scum-sucking vulture." I decided not to run that ad. Honestly, my opponent is a good guy. I believe he would always do what he thought was best for the country. I really believe that. (laughs) I know my advertising guys are having a fit right now watching this. Looks like we just wasted 30 million dollars, huh boys? But seriously, if I have to run attack ads to win this campaign, then I'd rather just lose. It's not worth it. Have a nice night.
-----
I think you get the idea of where I'm going with this. The weird part is that you'd have to actually hire all those advisors and PR people, have them give you advice, and then not follow it. If you didn't actually have all those people, you wouldn't have anything to talk about.
As I said before, the American political atmosphere is absolutely ripe for this type of campaign. No one would be shocked that you considered using a speechwriter because everybody already knows that. There would be no scandal. You would never tell people about anything they hadn't already assumed. But because you were candid and open, people would view you as "refreshing" and "above the political machinery."
It would be extremely important never to compare yourself to your opponent. Never accuse your opponent of doing the things you've supposedly "given up." To do so would make you appear "Holier Than Thou" and America won't vote for that. In fact, the ideal response would be something like this:
-----
Reporter: Mr. Candidate, do you feel it's wrong for your opponent to use a speechwriter while you write your own speeches?
Candidate: No, not at all. It's a smart decision, and politicians have been doing it for decades. There's nothing wrong with it. I completely respect his decision. And it seems to be working out for him; you've probably noticed that his speeches are a lot better than mine.
-----
See? The candidate comes off humble and self-deprecating. The candidate seems completely likable, while the fact remains that he is writing his own speeches while his opponent is a fraud. The audience will make this conclusion on their own; there's no need for the candidate to get his hands dirty.
The irony would be that the whole thing is a careful, calculated strategy. Your honesty would not be for its own sake, but for the sake of winning. Truth for the sake of image. Humility to get ahead. It would be fantastically, paradoxically effective. I think that with the Non-Campaign campaign strategy, nearly any candidate could win. At this point in history, this campaign would produce the perfect image. And in any election, image is everything.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Pagosa in the News
(SNOOZE-FEST ALERT: 1200 WORDS on a local issue you don't care about)
If you follow the news, you may have noticed a recent story about a lady who put a wreath on her house in the shape of a peace symbol. Her Home-Owners Association told her she had to take it down, or they were going to fine her $25 a day. The HOA decided her peace wreath violated a neighborhood covenant against "signs, billboards, and advertising." They said it was a divisive protest against the Iraq war, and "some residents believed the wreath was a symbol of Satan." (Seriously.) The lady in question said it was just a stupid Christmas wreath, it only meant "peace," and she wasn't taking it down. Well guess what kids! It all went down right here in Pagosa Springs:
Peace on Earth? Not in Our Subdivision! (CNN)
Pro-Peace Symbol Forces Win Battle in Colorado Town (New York Times)
Peace Wreath OK to Stay (MSNBC)
Cool, huh?
Freedom of speech, First Amendment rights - Oh, what a drama has played out in this sleepy mountain hamlet. It's the talk of the town; Pagosa in the New York Times! Honey, look, we're on the tube! The Chamber of Commerce has spent days fielding angry calls from across the country from irate people threatening to boycott the town. Town Hall is getting calls from lawyers in Atlanta and Boston threatening legal action. Donations are pouring in from all corners of the nation to help the Wreath Lady pay her fines.
And fortunately for you, dear reader, you have a local to guide you through the rocky waters of national media coverage.
First you need to know that Ground Zero, the Loma Linda subdivision, is not in the Pagosa Springs city limits. So the town has no say in the whole matter. All those calls to City Hall and the Chamber of Commerce are sadly misdirected. The only governing body at work here is the Loma Linda Subdivision Home-Owners Association. In fact, the Wreath Lady herself is a past president of the HOA.
Second, and more importantly, you need to know that this is not a First Amendment Issue. It's a Bickering Neighbors Issue. Allow me to give you the inside scoop. (Are you titillated? Are you set on edge with anticipation? You should be.)
The major players in this drama are Wreath Lady, HOA President-Man, and (unreported in the mainstream media) President-Man's Neighbor.
Now some time ago, President-Man and his Neighbor found themselves engaged in a kerfuffle. A feud, if you will. There were some issues regarding the placement of a new driveway. There may or may not have been a dispute over a dog. Normal neighbor stuff.
President-Man's Neighbor decided one day that he wanted to put up a sign in his yard. A peace sign, as luck would have it. Now I don't claim to know Neighbor-Man's state of mind at the time, but I suspect his decision had something to do with either Iraq or the general direction of American foreign policy. In any case, he put up one or more small peace signs in his yard. Not "Christmas peace signs," mind you, just the regular variety.
Well, President-Man didn't like it. He was upset over the driveway. He was upset over the dog. And now his neighbor was putting up Hippie Peace Signs on the lawn. Fortunately for him, he was HOA President-Man and was in the position to do something about it. He brought up his neighbor's infraction of the "signs, billboards, and advertising" rule with the HOA Board of Directors. The Board agreed, threats of fines ensued, and the peace signs came down.
And now an aside: Technically, Neighbor-Man was in violation of the "signs, billboards, and advertising" rule. But I, as your local inside-man, have the advantage of being able to drive down to Loma Linda and look around. There are signs and advertising everywhere. Everyone working on their house has a construction company sign out front, and everyone selling their house has a real estate ad on the lawn. There are signs everywhere. Dozens of them. I suspect the selective enforcement of the signs-and-advertising rule had more to do with misplaced driveways and barking dogs than with HOA rules and Iraq. Now on with the story.
The signs came down, Neighbor-Man stewed, and another chalk mark went up in the column, "Stupid Neighborhood Disputes."
But then along came Wreath Lady. And Wreath Lady insists on putting up not just any old Christmas wreath but a Peace Sign Christmas wreath. Approximately two people contacted the HOA with complaints that it was some kind of political message. Some delusional resident may or may not have claimed it was a Satan symbol, depending on who you talk to. HOA President-Man found himself in a difficult situation. He didn't really care about Christmas wreaths, but he'd already gotten Neighbor-Man's peace sign banned because his dog and driveway made him mad. What to do with Wreath Lady? Fine her and look like a jerk, or ignore her and look like a petty, neighbor-fighting, power-crazed jerk.
Better to be a regular jerk, he decided. President-Man said "Fine her," the Board agreed, and the fine-threatening letter was sent.
But Wreath Lady, being wise in the ways of the world, decided to fight the issue in the court of public opinion. She sent a press release to the nearest daily newspaper (60 miles away in Durango,) which ran the story. The AP wire picked it up from Durango, and then the media frenzy was upon us. Denver Post, Network News, CNN, NBC, New York Times! Everybody come and get some of this action! Those backwater hicks in Colorado have banned peace!
Facing condemnation from basically the entire planet, the three-member HOA Board quietly rescinded the fine and then resigned en masse. At least two of the three have had their phones disconnected to avoid the constant calls. No word on the status of the HOA President-Man, but I wouldn't want to be him right now. He's rather unpopular in this little town... and nation.
So the moral of the story is, as always, "If you don't want to look like an idiot in the national media, shoot your neighbor's dog and be done with it."
The other moral of the story is, "If you want to make a ton of money, move to Pagosa Springs and start selling Peace Wreaths."
And that's the inside scoop.
(Note: I am not a reporter. I didn't interview any of these people. I don't even know any of these people. I just repeated what I've picked up from the local paper and from gossip around town. And maybe I just made some of it up, what's it to you? If you are one of the people discussed in this story, and you are upset about the manner in which I have portrayed you, well maybe you should have thought about that before you made us all look like asses in the national media. Besides, the New York Times hates you. You have bigger problems than a blog with three regular readers.)
If you follow the news, you may have noticed a recent story about a lady who put a wreath on her house in the shape of a peace symbol. Her Home-Owners Association told her she had to take it down, or they were going to fine her $25 a day. The HOA decided her peace wreath violated a neighborhood covenant against "signs, billboards, and advertising." They said it was a divisive protest against the Iraq war, and "some residents believed the wreath was a symbol of Satan." (Seriously.) The lady in question said it was just a stupid Christmas wreath, it only meant "peace," and she wasn't taking it down. Well guess what kids! It all went down right here in Pagosa Springs:
Peace on Earth? Not in Our Subdivision! (CNN)
Pro-Peace Symbol Forces Win Battle in Colorado Town (New York Times)
Peace Wreath OK to Stay (MSNBC)
Cool, huh?
Freedom of speech, First Amendment rights - Oh, what a drama has played out in this sleepy mountain hamlet. It's the talk of the town; Pagosa in the New York Times! Honey, look, we're on the tube! The Chamber of Commerce has spent days fielding angry calls from across the country from irate people threatening to boycott the town. Town Hall is getting calls from lawyers in Atlanta and Boston threatening legal action. Donations are pouring in from all corners of the nation to help the Wreath Lady pay her fines.
And fortunately for you, dear reader, you have a local to guide you through the rocky waters of national media coverage.
First you need to know that Ground Zero, the Loma Linda subdivision, is not in the Pagosa Springs city limits. So the town has no say in the whole matter. All those calls to City Hall and the Chamber of Commerce are sadly misdirected. The only governing body at work here is the Loma Linda Subdivision Home-Owners Association. In fact, the Wreath Lady herself is a past president of the HOA.
Second, and more importantly, you need to know that this is not a First Amendment Issue. It's a Bickering Neighbors Issue. Allow me to give you the inside scoop. (Are you titillated? Are you set on edge with anticipation? You should be.)
The major players in this drama are Wreath Lady, HOA President-Man, and (unreported in the mainstream media) President-Man's Neighbor.
Now some time ago, President-Man and his Neighbor found themselves engaged in a kerfuffle. A feud, if you will. There were some issues regarding the placement of a new driveway. There may or may not have been a dispute over a dog. Normal neighbor stuff.
President-Man's Neighbor decided one day that he wanted to put up a sign in his yard. A peace sign, as luck would have it. Now I don't claim to know Neighbor-Man's state of mind at the time, but I suspect his decision had something to do with either Iraq or the general direction of American foreign policy. In any case, he put up one or more small peace signs in his yard. Not "Christmas peace signs," mind you, just the regular variety.
Well, President-Man didn't like it. He was upset over the driveway. He was upset over the dog. And now his neighbor was putting up Hippie Peace Signs on the lawn. Fortunately for him, he was HOA President-Man and was in the position to do something about it. He brought up his neighbor's infraction of the "signs, billboards, and advertising" rule with the HOA Board of Directors. The Board agreed, threats of fines ensued, and the peace signs came down.
And now an aside: Technically, Neighbor-Man was in violation of the "signs, billboards, and advertising" rule. But I, as your local inside-man, have the advantage of being able to drive down to Loma Linda and look around. There are signs and advertising everywhere. Everyone working on their house has a construction company sign out front, and everyone selling their house has a real estate ad on the lawn. There are signs everywhere. Dozens of them. I suspect the selective enforcement of the signs-and-advertising rule had more to do with misplaced driveways and barking dogs than with HOA rules and Iraq. Now on with the story.
The signs came down, Neighbor-Man stewed, and another chalk mark went up in the column, "Stupid Neighborhood Disputes."
But then along came Wreath Lady. And Wreath Lady insists on putting up not just any old Christmas wreath but a Peace Sign Christmas wreath. Approximately two people contacted the HOA with complaints that it was some kind of political message. Some delusional resident may or may not have claimed it was a Satan symbol, depending on who you talk to. HOA President-Man found himself in a difficult situation. He didn't really care about Christmas wreaths, but he'd already gotten Neighbor-Man's peace sign banned because his dog and driveway made him mad. What to do with Wreath Lady? Fine her and look like a jerk, or ignore her and look like a petty, neighbor-fighting, power-crazed jerk.
Better to be a regular jerk, he decided. President-Man said "Fine her," the Board agreed, and the fine-threatening letter was sent.
But Wreath Lady, being wise in the ways of the world, decided to fight the issue in the court of public opinion. She sent a press release to the nearest daily newspaper (60 miles away in Durango,) which ran the story. The AP wire picked it up from Durango, and then the media frenzy was upon us. Denver Post, Network News, CNN, NBC, New York Times! Everybody come and get some of this action! Those backwater hicks in Colorado have banned peace!
Facing condemnation from basically the entire planet, the three-member HOA Board quietly rescinded the fine and then resigned en masse. At least two of the three have had their phones disconnected to avoid the constant calls. No word on the status of the HOA President-Man, but I wouldn't want to be him right now. He's rather unpopular in this little town... and nation.
So the moral of the story is, as always, "If you don't want to look like an idiot in the national media, shoot your neighbor's dog and be done with it."
The other moral of the story is, "If you want to make a ton of money, move to Pagosa Springs and start selling Peace Wreaths."
And that's the inside scoop.
(Note: I am not a reporter. I didn't interview any of these people. I don't even know any of these people. I just repeated what I've picked up from the local paper and from gossip around town. And maybe I just made some of it up, what's it to you? If you are one of the people discussed in this story, and you are upset about the manner in which I have portrayed you, well maybe you should have thought about that before you made us all look like asses in the national media. Besides, the New York Times hates you. You have bigger problems than a blog with three regular readers.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)