Re: Bush's Mistake

My mom sent me a link to this article:

President Bush did make a bad mistake - National Word

The only reason that Muslims around the world are sympathetic to the radicals is because this time around we, as a country, no longer have any idea what we stand for and we're instead willing to fall for anything. Because we ignored the Israel/Palestine situation for decades, or supported Israel against the people they took their land from, we made the situation worse. Because we caused an popular elected government in Iran to be replaced by a brutal dictatorship, we made the situation worse. Because we have, for the past 60+ years, provided the Saudi royal family with billions of dollars traded for oil, allowing them to create and support the Madrases around the world like the ones that trained 15 out of the 19 hijackers in 2001, we have made the global situation worse.

In 1941, we had a government in our country that had been focusing for 9 years to support the people of this country in our struggle for daily life. We had elected FDR by 57% in 1932, 60.8% in 1936 and 55% in 1940. Unlike Bush's administration, Roosevelt understood early on the threat posed by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. But instead of being allowed to do anything meaningful, the conservatives and isolationists pushed a neutrality bill through Congress, preventing him from openly supporting Britain, France or China. He had to wait for the fall of Paris, where 1.6 million people fled the city in May of 1940. How does that number compare to 3,000? The America First Committee, an isolationist group led by Charles Lindbergh, argued that our oceans would protect us, something that Roosevelt understood was false. Pat Buchanan says "By keeping America out of World War II until Hitler attacked Stalin in June of 1941, Soviet Russia, not America, bore the brunt of the fighting, bleeding and dying to defeat Nazi Germany." What a wonderful way to make friends in Russia, allowing their people to die while we watched and waited to pick up the pieces. The founders of this country, who all bled and died to create our land of opportunity, must be spinning in their graves.

As a contrast to the 1940's, the 2000 election has been proven stolen, the 2002 election had Senate seats that were stolen, the 2004 election was stolen, and Bush holds hands with the head of the Saudi royal family, his Vice President plans to divide up Iraq's oil before we were even planning attacks, and his Secretary of Defense proceeds to eliminate any true planners in the Pentagon who were focused on avoiding war by undermining the Secretary of State's office. Most of the "intelligence" that Colin Powell used in his speech to the United Nations Security Council was drummed up by intelligence agents within the Pentagon, not the CIA or other intelligence services. The President says that oceans will not protect us, something we learned 60 years earlier. But protect us from what?

Religious Fundamentalism, from any religion, is dangerous. Those who believe in the literal interpretation of Revelations are just as dangerous as those who believe in the Return of the Third Imam. The parallels are obvious.

Tenets of Islamist terrorism have been summarized by one counterterrorist as being:

* A belief that Muslims have deviated from true Islam and must return to “pure Islam” as originally practiced during the time of the Prophet.
* The path to “pure Islam” is only through a literal and strict interpretation of the Quran and Hadith, along with implementation of the Prophet’s commands.
* Muslims should interpret the original sources individually without being bound to follow the interpretations of Islamic scholars.
* That any interpretation of the Quran from a historical, contextual perspective is a corruption, and that the majority of Islamic history and the classical jurisprudential tradition is mere sophistry.

Compare that to what the Evangelical Churches here in the United States are saying.

The characteristics of Evangelicalism have been defined by David Bebbington in his study of British evangelicalism. Known as the Bebbington Quadrilateral the four characteristics of evangelicals are :

1. Conversionism - Emphasis on the conversion experience, also called being saved, or new birth or born again after John 3:3. Thus evangelicals often refer to themselves as born-again Christians. This experience is said to be received by "faith alone" and to be given by God as the result of "grace alone".
2. Biblicism - The Protestant canon of the Bible as the primary, or only, source of religious authority, as God's revelation to humanity. Thus, the doctrine of sola scriptura is often affirmed and emphasized. Bible prophecy, especially as interpreted according to dispensationalism, is often emphasized.
3. Activism - Encouragement of evangelism (the act of sharing one's beliefs) -- in organized missionary work or by personal encounters and relationships with others.
4. Crucicentrism - A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross as the only means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.

Fascinating parallels, don't you think? I like my secular humanism values much better.

Things were a lot different in the 1940's. We didn't have US Senators looking for sex in airport bathrooms. We didn't have Vice Presidents collecting money from corporations that got no-bid contracts from his own government. We had a 1.9% unemployment and we trusted our government to look out for our welfare first. We had CEO's making maybe 40 times what the average worker earned; now that ratio is 500:1, and the conservatives in government are trying to keep wages as low as possible, driving a third of our population onto the brink of poverty and nearly a quarter outside of the existing health care system.

There is a war going on in the world. It's a war of ideas, and it's a hot war. Hot tempers flare up and encourage violence within families and communities here in the US as often as suicide bombers kill people in the middle east. Nobody has a clear picture of what the United States stands for anymore, because the current administration leadership doesn't care about the people and the current congressional leadership is gaming their words to encourage electoral victory instead of moral victory.

We can win this war. It's easy. All we have to do is care. If we cared about our fellow citizens, and cared about the rest of the people around the world, we could show that by building a strong foundation at home and a foreign policy based on morality instead of money. It's really not that tough. Jesus showed us the way 2,000 years ago. Too bad we stopped listening.

Edwards on Cancer & Health Care

Mystery Mushroom

We attended a party on Saturday, and discovered a mushroom growing in
the garden that the owners didn't remember seeing the day before. It
was huge! We took some pictures, and I posted them on Flickr.

http://flickr.com/photos/chadlupkes/tags/mushroom/

Can anyone help identify this giant? I don't know a lot about
mushrooms, but this was just perfectly formed.

This guy mostly speaks for me.

I'm pissed as well. I want the Democrats to stand up and do their job. And I'm going to be the first to stand up and replace anyone who voted for this FISA bullshit. Thankfully, the representatives from Washington understood just how important this was and how pissed off their base was. Not one rep from Washington voted for this, at least on the Democrats side. Doc Hastings, McMorris Rogers, Reichert, your days are numbered. You have no idea what kind of crap you have bought into.

Another email answered

If we can't find common ground in the values that keep our country together, the war between the Democrats and Republicans, which is really about big money stealing from the people, will devolve into a second Civil War, one that I've been seeing on the horizon for a number of years now.

You're right, the government does not rule over the people. In our system of governance, the people are supposed to BE the government. But that takes an educated population and enough free time after work to devote to studying and debating the issues. Right now, as you demonstrate with your repeated statements of having to work instead of respond in an open political debate, at least one of those, time, is lacking in our society at the moment.

The way I see it, the economic spectrum runs from Communism, which is government ownership of the means of production and distribution, over to unregulated capitalism (Objectivism) where all of the means of production and distribution are privately owned. Communism is a failure. It never had a chance. It's been recorded over the last 7,000 years of history that unregulated capitalism becomes a cancer that eventually destroys the means of production and distribution entirely. The Sumerian empire collapsed because they clear-cut their forests. The Roman empire collapsed. The Holy Roman empire collapsed. The British empire collapsed beginning in 1776 when a bunch of radical intellectuals decided that they wanted to control their own destiny. We've been fighting against it ever since, and I'm afraid we're about to lose. We fought against the East India Company, and dumped their Tea Tax into Boston Harbor in order to protect our local industries. We fought against Fascism in Europe, and rebuilt the Continental nations with roads, public education and universal health care, something that the health care corporations in this country have been fighting against since Truman tried to bring it to the United States in 1948 after FDR proposed it in his second New Deal speech to Congress. Fascism originated in Italy as the merger between state interests and corporate interests. I don't want to be represented in Congress by Microsoft or Boeing, nor do I want the government to own the means of producing software or airplanes. The United States was designed to be on the balance point between private ownership and government oversight. Whenever I hear someone raising their voice against "Socialism", I wonder if they really know what the word means. If someone wants to protect me from socialism, it means that they want to take away my voice and vote.

I'm happy to share my values. I'm proud to have them. I believe that every child deserves an opportunity to reach their potential. I believe that humans are part of the biosphere, not separate from it. I believe the United States is a great country. I believe I should have both voice and vote in the decisions that affect my life.

I believe that nature is to be respected and celebrated, which I think you agree with because of your years in the Parks department. I believe that we live in a social setting where we have to care about our neighbors. I believe that taxes should be used to invest in our infrastructure, infrastructure that we all use in order to live comfortably.

I believe that people should be able to pursue their dreams, without being caught in a rat race against time trying to get a high enough bank balance each month to keep a roof over their heads, trying to grow their savings to send their children to college, and then do it all over again for another 20 years so they can live in dignity towards the end of their life.

I strongly believe in the Bill of Rights. I keep a copy of the Constitution in my backpack so I can refer to it when I need to. Every activist should have a copy with them.

I believe that we should honor our sacrifices. I think everyone who has ever served in the Armed Forces should have free health care forever. I believe that we should be fair to everyone, because if anyone feels the yoke of discrimination it's only a matter of time before that yoke descends onto us. And I believe that the government should be responsible for building a solid physical, financial and social foundation so we can all reach for the stars and our potential as individuals and as a community.

I don't see things politically in terms of left or right. I see them in terms of right and wrong.

They can take away my Constitution when

This FISA vote does not mean that we should abandon the Democratic Party. This does not mean that we should quit the fight, give in to Fascism or voluntarily give up on our Constitution.

Our representatives in Congress who have the D's next to their names are not "The Democratic Party". That's the way the media is spinning "leadership" in our political world, but it's false. WE are the Democratic Party. The members of the grassroots of America who go to meetings, who organize for issue based campaigns and in support of candidates, who talk to our neighbors and cast the votes, these are the people who have the right to claim that WE are the party.

Howard Dean said it in 2003. We have the power. But it's more than that. We ARE the power. We have the power to replace anyone who doesn't vote in support of the Constitution or our values. We have the power to put people into office who will do their jobs.

Anyone who says that this is the time to abandon the party is doing exactly what the Conservatives want us to do. I'm not quitting because of this one vote. Because we can reverse it. We can force another law to be passed that reverses everything that Bush has done over the last 7 years. We just have to get organized and do it.

They can take my Constitution when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Stephanie reads my letter!

Stephanie,

Bush has declared war. He has declared a Civil War between the Republicans and Democrats. Bring it on. I'm too angry to think.

Chad

I'm talking about George Bush blaming the Democratic Congress for the collapse of the 35W bridge. Mr. "I'm a divider, not a uniter" has struck again. Disagree with me? Post a comment.

Economic Theory: The Terms of the Debate

What we need is a better understanding of the terms of the debate. My intention here is to define what those terms are, explain where we are now, and where we want to be. I'll also describe the directions that we could go that we don't want to, and why. In this essay, I'm going to talk about the economic spectrum. I'm going to define that spectrum based on what I've learned from many places, most especially Thom Hartmann's radio program and the books that he has written over the last few years.

On the far left end of the spectrum graph is Communism. On the far right is Objectivism. The foundation of both is Capitalism. Let's start with the foundation of the graph.

What is Capital?

"Capital as such is not evil; it is its wrong use that is evil. Capital in some form or other will always be needed." - Mahatma Gandhi

In economics, capital, capital goods or real capital refers to already-produced durable goods available for use as a factor of production. Steam shovels (equipment) and office buildings (structures) are examples. Physical Capital is an object or resource that through the labor of people can serve a human need.

Financial capital, measured in money, allows transactions to be valued and traded on the open market. Capital goods may be acquired with money or financial capital, which are really the same thing. In finance and accounting, capital generally refers to financial wealth, especially that used to start or maintain a business.

What is Capitalism?

"Capitalism is this wonderful thing that motivates people, it causes wonderful inventions to be done. But in this area of diseases of the world at large, it's really let us down." - Bill Gates

Let's dig down to basics. Capitalism is too often defined as referring to the ideas of private ownership. But even the Wikipedia article acknowledges the fact that most economies are mixed, somewhere between state ownership and private ownership. So ownership itself can't really be used to define what Capitalism IS. So what is it?

Capitalism is any economic system that uses capital, both physical or financial. The Market and Capitalism are two sides of the same coin, and you cannot have one without the other unless we go back to a Natural Capital economy, meaning everyone must produce either enough food or enough goods to trade directly for food. We need the market to balance the forces of supply and demand, and we need financial capital to make transactions and reserves of capital possible. The foundation of a successful civilization is two fold; We need production and distribution capable of meeting the needs of people now, and enough physical and financial capital must be held in reserve to be able to maintain supply of goods when production systems fail, and I'm talking about either food production or durable goods production. If we can agree that goods and services are worth money, then we can agree that we need both the physical goods, and the financial capital.

What is the Market?

"The market is not an invention of capitalism. It has existed for centuries. It is an invention of civilization." - Mikhail Gorbachev

The Market is where supply and demand meet to fulfill a human need. The word conjures up the vision of a place where people line up shopping for food across the table from the farmers who grow that food. Buyers and Sellers agree on a price, and transactions are made. If, over time, one seller consistently charges more than the others and this fact is communicated to the community of buyers, that seller's share of the transactions goes down. If, again over time, one seller consistently charges less than the others, their share of the transactions goes up. In order to find a balance and prevent one seller from getting all of the business, the other sellers lower their prices. Eventually, sellers cannot lower their prices further without putting themselves out of business, and the balance is reached. When demand goes up, buyers are willing to pay more, and prices go up. That's also part of the balance.

What is Money?

"Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver." - Ayn Rand

Money is a convenient fiction that is used to define an abstract numerical value for a good or service. That numerical value changes based on the influences of supply and demand. That's a basic truth taught in economics, and I don't dispute it. One of the problems is that people look in their wallets or on their bank statements, and believe that they are looking at money. We're not. Paper bills and coins represent value, but they are not value. Money doesn't exist as a physical object. Bank computers hold electronic and magnetic impulses that represent value. When you buy a gold coin for $100, that $100 goes to the dealer, which goes into a bank. When you pull money out of an account, you are borrowing some value that you will use to purchase a good or service elsewhere. You don't keep value, you keep physical objects representing value.

Money, frankly, is a value based on a promise, and that promise can be kept or broken. In the 1920's, Germany felt the result of a broken promise. In the 1870's, the money that was printed for the Confederate States of America became worthless because of a broken promise. The US Savings Bond and Treasury Bonds have their value because the promise of their return value has never been broken. Will it ever be broken? That's up to the people who make those decisions in the future. My hope is no. But we can't assume that it won't be. We have to do something to make sure that our promises are never broken.

Money is the only object that can be "owned" by more than one person at a time, but too many people don't understand that. Think about it. Money that you earn through employment goes into a checking or savings account. That money is loaned out by the bank to people who pay interest on the loans. If it's a savings account, you get part of the interest, and the bank gets part of it to pay their expenses. But who owns the money? Both you and the bank have claim to the same money, as does the person who took out the loan. So the more money you have in a bank, the better off you are, the better off the bank is, and the better off the community is because that money is available for loans. One statistic that I saw was that the American people have 11 Trillion dollars in deposit accounts, just in Federally regulated banks. I wonder what will happen when the National Debt exceeds that...

But first, let's explore the ends of the spectrum that I showed above in the graph.

From the far left: Communism

"Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society" - Karl Marx

Karl Marx saw the existence of capital as the source of social ills. Marxists, many of whom took his academic ideas far too literally, define capital as "a social, economic relation" between people (rather than between people and things). Purists actually seek to abolish capital altogether, believing that any private ownership of the means of production enriches capitalists (owners of capital) at the expense of workers ("the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer"). They're right in a sense, but the alternative is not necessarily to give that ownership to government, to a union, or to any other collection of individuals. The USSR finally proved that such a system doesn't work over the long term, mostly due to the inability of the economic system to meet the economic needs of the people. For instance, it was not unusual in this type of economy for there to be large surpluses of consumer goods in some areas and extreme scarcity in others, growing a large and thriving black market to relieve the inventory stress of excess goods and provide the missing needs that the production quota's couldn't meet. Additionally, this type of planned economy limited the choices for people in terms of their livelihood, forcing them to give up their individual pursuit of a professional goal (for example, being a dentist or artist) in favor of what the State said it needed in terms of workers (for instance, being an engineer or builder). It was this inability of the system to meet the economic, social and spiritual needs of the people that caused its ultimate collapse.

Getting back to the theory of communism, Marx argued that the owners of capital do not work and therefore steal from or exploit the workers. I think we can agree that exploitation is a bad thing. Gradually, according to Marx, the capitalists would accumulate more and more capital and make the workers continually poorer, in the end causing a revolution. The private ownership of the means of production was therefore seen as a restriction on freedom. I want to amend that by saying that the uncontrolled and unregulated private ownership can indeed reach these levels, but when the people have the will and the means to adjust the rules, things come back into balance. The will and the means refers to voice and vote. Which brings us to Socialism.

What is Socialism?

Socialism refers to a broad array of movements which aim to improve society through collective action and sometimes to a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either directly exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or indirectly exercised on behalf of the people by a government. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or worker ownership of the means of production.

But socialism is not an economic system. It's also not a system of governance. Socialism is a frame. It's a way of looking at systems. Fundamentally, it's any system where the people have a voice, and in democratic systems where people have a vote. The United States has always been, is now, and always will be a socialist experiment, as long as the people have voice and vote.

Socialism is a bogyman. Whenever someone claims that you are pushing a "socialist" view or a "socialist" economic system or a "Socialist" agenda, what they are really saying is that they want to take away your voice and vote from the decision making process.

From the far Right: Objectivism

Strong supporters of capitalism believe that private ownership is essential to preserving personal freedom as well as enriching society. They also argue that the owners of capital indeed do work, since they have to make often complex decisions regarding how to allocate their capital - poor allocation of capital will mean wasted work and resources. (People who have to take a shower after work often listen to these arguments and roll their eyes.)

However, capitalist theory from people like Ayn Rand even goes farther than this. According to the Ayn Rand Institute:

The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

This may sound good on paper, but it ignores the fundamental roles of government as defined by the Constitution of the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, from Rand's perspective, the ideal United States would abolish the Constitution and institute a new set of roles, eliminating the desire to form a community of mankind, ignoring the need for domestic tranquility, ignoring the general welfare, etc. Capitalism in these terms is of course an economic system, but not a social system, and certainly not a system of governance worthy of discussion.

Ayn Rand's philosophy goes poetic when talking about the individual, because that's the basis for the entire structure of the world in their view. The Individual is King. Every man for himself. Capital is best under individual control, and individual rights trump all other considerations. What this ignores, conveniently, is that in an unregulated system capital accumulates in the hands of corporations, not individuals.

What are Corporations?

Corporations are legally organized collections of capital, and by law their only duty is to their shareholders. They are literally and legally not allowed to consider other factors when making business decisions, because the shareholders have the right to sue the board of directors if they make decisions that prevent maximizing profits going into their pockets. Remember why Communism failed as an economic system, because it was unable to meet the economic and spiritual needs of the people? Radical, unregulated capitalism contains similar seeds to its own destruction, as corporations pursue the goals of lowering wages, raising prices and decreasing benefits in order to maximize profit for their shareholders. Unregulated, this formula will eventually not be able to meet the economic and spiritual needs of the people, as witnessed in innumerable popular uprisings throughout history (including the American Revolution). Just as there is no path to peace through a field of war, there is no way to help the people when the objective is maximizing capital. It's just not the priority.

Regulated Capitalism

The middle of the graph is where I put Regulated Capitalism. Regulations exist to make sure that the needs of people trump the needs of capital. They prevent the discharge of poisons into our air and water, or at least they are supposed to. They prevent a single corporation from owning too much of a market, or at least they are supposed to. They ensure the protection of copyrights and trademarks, usually better than they really need to within the US (see Mickey Mouse), and certainly not enough outside of the US (see Disney DVD's). It protects private property, but prevents the accumulation of too much property in the hands of too few people, or at least it's supposed to. And it encourages the government to be fair in dealings with private companies and not own and directly control too much of the infrastructure without feedback mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of power from elected officials.

Remember the graph? Our choices go down at either end of the spectrum, because whether you are a government focused on meeting production quotas, or a corporation focused on meeting profit margins, it makes the most sense to standardize, modernize and reduce complications of multiple production lines until for whatever market you are trying to fill you are pumping out the same thing for everyone. The same food, because it's easier just to feed everyone the same thing, or the same type of jeans because it means you only need one pattern. Think about the airline industry. Boeing is focused on maybe three lines of airplanes at a time at any given plant. Now think about the motorcycle industry in China, which is growing like gangbusters because the standards come out of innovation in hundreds of shops that work together to solve problems without worrying so much about intellectual property, while recognizing that the end product will be exported all over the world.

The United States was set up with a socially responsible government, giving the people voice and vote every two, four or six years to elect our most important leaders in the House of Representatives, the Oval Office and the United States Senate. These people write and enforce the rules of the game of economics in our country, and arguably for much of the world due to the influence of the US economy. These rules are the laws that control what the fiscal policies are in our country, and what the priorities are for those policies. The laws define what corporations can or cannot do, and although many of the laws that regulate corporations are on a state level, more and more of them are being written at the Federal level, trumping state law and the citizens in local communities. And thanks to the power of international treaties like the WTO and NAFTA, even some of our national laws aren't enough to protect what is left of local jurisdiction.

So what do we do now?

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power" - Franklin D. Roosevelt

"You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold" - William Jennings Bryan

We have fought this battle before. We have been at the crossroads where we are wondering what the status of our foundation is, and searching for someone, anyone, to shore it up. But the choice of who that is must go through a nightmare electoral process with each state following different rules and helping to limit our choices. The media helps to limit our choices by following the dictates of their own capitalist and corporate heritage and only covering in depth those candidates who don't threaten their own power. The candidates are tempted by Sirens who reach out with claims of riches and winning if they would only soften their stance on this or that issue. Even our political parties are not immune from this temptation, and one of them has already sold its soul to unregulated and uncontrolled capital. The Democratic Party has been tempted, but is beginning to shake off the influence of this reckless and unaccountable yoke of Iron Pyrite.

We must solidify the position of the Democratic Party as being against the influence of uncontrolled capital, while making sure that our positions are clearly different from accusations of being Communist. We don't want the government to own too much and control too much any more than we want unelected and unaccountable members of corporate boards of directors to make Billion dollar or Trillion dollar decisions that let them continue their relentless drive towards dominance of all financial capital at the expense and to the destruction of the foundation that we have under our feet, both physical and financial.

We must understand history, and restore our own history as a political party, focusing our attention and resources on engaging, educating and empowering the people to be the change that they wish to see in the world. We must be proud of being progressive, and define our values in terms that people can understand and in terms that cannot be redefined by the far right. We must keep our promises and stand by our friends.

We must win the 2008 election, and use that victory as a stepping stone to local victories in 2009, 2010 and beyond. We must never let down our guard, and we must restore the United States to its rightful place on the balance point between the far left and far right, becoming again the moral leader of the world who puts the needs of people before anything else, and the future of our children and grandchildren on the forefront of our plans.

Corel fails a basic customer service test

From my wife to Corel:

Two weeks ago I ordered a decoder from you. 10 days ago you took the payment from my bank account. About the same time, I emailed you requesting an update about my order and got no reply. One week ago I called and canceled my order because the email I got from you had none of the information or links I needed to download and I was getting no customer support at all. 4 days ago I got the email with the link, but no serial number, and so I emailed you yet again and got no response. Again.

I tried calling yesterday, Fri. 7/27/07, and was on hold for over fifteen minutes. Since your office hours coincide with my work hours, I cannot sit on hold for personal issues for that long, so now it seems I can't even call you and talk to a real person. Instead I have to write these emails which get no response whatsoever.

As of today, it's been 2 weeks since I placed my order. I have no way of downloading my product but you have taken my money and, over a week after I canceled, you still have not returned my payment.

I will be contacting my bank on Monday 7/30/07 to dispute the withdrawal on my debit card and if I don't receive my money back by Wednesday, 8/1/07, I will be contacting the Better Business Bureau and filing a complaint.

I do not want any of your products anywhere near my computer system. I have canceled my order and not gotten my money back, which constitutes theft on your part. It would be easiest for everybody if you would reverse the charge and end this facade.

More lies about John Edwards

This caught my attention today:

Club for Growth: John Edwards Changes Campaign Theme from “Two Americas” to “War on Prosperity”
7/26/2007

Nachama Soloveichik • 202.887.7039 • 646.528.1029

Washington – If there is any lingering doubt about John Edwards’ bristling hostility towards economic growth in this country, all doubts should be laid to rest with John Edwards’ announcement of yet another tax hike today. In a desperate attempt to drive home his lefty bona-fides and revive his faltering campaign, John Edwards is promising to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28% if elected president.

As John Edwards continues to wage a political war against prosperity, his campaign platform is looking more and more like Karl Marx’s wish list:

· Terminate the Bush tax cuts

· Raise taxes at least to Clinton-era levels

· Impose socialized medicine in America, to the tune of $120 billion

· Punish the private equity industry with new taxes

· Support anti-trade protectionist policies, including opposition to the pending trade treaty with South Korea

· Choke off entry-level job growth by raising the federal minimum wage

· Diminish the prospect for worker productivity gains by raising capital gains taxes to 28%

“Perhaps John Edwards was too busy learning how hedge funds work to recognize the economic prosperity caused by the 2003 tax cuts over the past four years,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Since 2003, unemployment in this country has tumbled from a high of 6.1% to a low of 4.5%, while the economy has gained 8 million jobs since its low point in August 2003. At the same time, revenue from capital gains taxes has shot up over the past three years and continues to flow into the federal coffers at an astonishing rate, bringing us to the threshold of a balanced budget today. One would think Edwards would be interested in keeping the economy strong, unemployment down, and balancing the budget, but maybe he cares more about pandering to his far-left base.”

This press release, along with most of the unthinking and history denying conservative lies about the economic situation in our country, deserves an answer, point by point. Here it is.

Karl Marx would get about as much attention in this country now as Eugene Debbs did in the 1912 election. Give me a break. Let's go through this "wishlist".

Terminate the Bush tax cuts

These tax cuts drove up the stock market, and helped the rich get richer. But I'm convinced, as is a strong majority of the country, that these tax cuts didn't do anything to help build our infrastructure or provide services to people who need them.

Raise taxes at least to Clinton-era levels

This causes the reader to believe that high tax rates cause low economic growth numbers. That's a flat out lie. Let's look at the history of our tax rates:

In 1913 the tax rate was 1% on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7% on incomes above $500,000. During World War I the top rate rose to 77%; after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 25%. During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the top rate was 75%. The top rate reached 94% during the war and remained at 91% until 1964. In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA). The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets). During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade. The top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). - Soure: Wikipedia

Impose socialized medicine in America, to the tune of $120 billion

Providing health coverage to everyone in the United States wouldn't cost any more than we are paying now, but the difference is that the money would go to doctors and hospitals instead of insurance companies and drug companies who spend several billion dollars a year on lobbying when they should be paying out claims.

Punish the private equity industry with new taxes

Any private equity firm that puts their profits ahead of the needs of the country deserves to be punished. I don't object to collections of capital, I object to the abuse of that power. Private equity firms are draining the capital out of our communities, and draining the lifeblood of our country. They can stop this abuse and damage without losing any money, they just don't want to.

Support anti-trade protectionist policies, including opposition to the pending trade treaty with South Korea

Oh, you mean the US - Korea Free Trade Agreement that would put workers in the United States making $20 per hour on even footing with workers in South Korea making $2 per day? Oh, and thanks for using the word protectionist. We all know that conservatives have no interest in anything that would protect American Jobs or the American infrastructure.

Choke off entry-level job growth by raising the federal minimum wage

So people who are just entering the workforce don't deserve to make a wage that allows them to live and seek the American Dream? $5.15 per hour won't even pay rent on studio apartments in most of this country. Neither will $5.85, but at least it's a start. Our minimum wage had its highest purchasing value ever in 1968, when it was $1.60/hour ($9.12 in 2005 dollars). This doesn't even come close to that. Why don't you want people to be able to live in this country?

Diminish the prospect for worker productivity gains by raising capital gains taxes to 28%

When did "worker productivity" depend on the money raised by people who do nothing but wait for their dividend checks to arrive? Why does Warren Buffett pay 3 percent, while his office secretary pays a tax rate of about 30 percent? It's because under conservatives, workers get no respect.

The Club for Growth is insane. If the Dow reaches record territory on the backs of the people building our infrastructure, they like it.

America hates it. It's time for a change.

Facinating change in attitudes

Saw this article in the Financial Times thanks to Thom Hartmann mentioning it on his program. The conclusions are consistent with the rise of a global progressive movement that I've been seeing and feeling for several years. I honestly believe that only by electing a progressive president in 2008 will the US be able to capitalize on these changes and work together with the international community in order to make the changes necessary to save our world.

Let's hope.

What the founders missed

I think there are two things that were missed during the founding of this country that we now have the experience and opportunity to fix.

Thomas Jefferson:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Not quite right. Governments derive their just powers from the participation of the governed.

Initiative 24, King County, Washington

Alexander Hamilton:

A secure fiscal and financial capital foundation comes from having money in local banks available to help build the community, not through budget deficits. Balanced Budgets are not enough. Continuous budget surpluses are required at every level of government in order to secure our future.

The 11th Hour

The 11th Hour

It's time for this generation to TAKE CONTROL AND FIX THIS. It's now or never, people. Stand up and do what you have to do.

911 Truth: Please give us the facts

http://911truth.org/

Ed Schultz doesn't believe that there are firefighters from New York who are afraid to speak up and speak out. I agree.

I don't think there are firefighters who are too scared of threats from the Men in Black or something, and are unwilling to sacrifice themselves in order to SAVE THE COUNTRY!

So, give us the names. Give us the name of someone who wanted to testify, but wasn't allowed to. Give us the name of someone who DID testify and is willing to tell the American People what they told the 911 Commission.

I've watched the movies. I know the questions. But I'm just as tired of speculation as everyone else is. Give us sworn testimony, from someone who is there, who saw "the bombs" or whatever. Either that or help us win in 2008 so a Democratic President can do a real investigation and get to the bottom of what happened and throw the guilty into jail.

Hans Rosling is just amazing

2006



2007



http://roslingsblogger.blogspot.com/

Battery for the entire power grid

I found this article to be a wonderful vision of the future.

And here's another one.

What do we really know about AIDS?

Internet Radio Grassroots Action needed!!

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=438691

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Radio_Equality_Act

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2060/show

You know what to do.

John Kennedy's Inaugural Address

Part 1

Part 2

Eisenhower's Farewell

I found these on Youtube, and had to share.

Part 1

Part 2

Transcript

Information Clearinghouse

I'm in favor of Impeachment

Impeach Dick Cheney .org

Impeach, Indict, Imprison. The United States does not tolerate lawbreakers.

Information about Depleated Uranium

Democrats stand for the Red, White and Blue

Howard Dean came to Seattle on Tuesday night, and gave a great speech about what the Democrats have done, are doing, and what we're going to do in 2007, 2008 and beyond.

Gov. Dean gave the core values that he is recommending the Democrats run on in 2008. Those values are Strength and Toughness, Fairness and .. oh, yeah, Fiscal Discipline. Strength and Toughness because we need to fix the impression that Democrats are weak on security. Fairness because it's an good way to frame the cultural issues that drive our country apart. And Fiscal Discipline because, well, the Republican's haven't shown any.

It was a good speech, but it was the speech of a party chair, not a Presidential Candidate. So, I'm going to do my duty as a citizen of this country and a member of this party who wants something more to vote on than STFFD. I'm going to reframe and articulate these values my way.

The Democratic Party is the oldest political party on the planet. We've been fighting for progressive values since 1792. We've slipped a few times, but in 2008 we're going to return to our roots as the party of Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic Party defines our values in terms of the colors on the American Flag. Red, White and Blue.

Red is the color of SACRIFICE. Shared sacrifice is how our country came to be. "We must all hang together or we will certainly hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin. We are all in this together, and we must never lose sight of that. Red is the color of blood on the battlefield, and it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from. Red is the color our eyes get when we honor our losses. We recognize that there will be sacrifices made to uphold our principles, and we are willing to share those sacrifices as a united country. Our fighting men and women come from every state, every race, every creed, every kind of background, and they deserve the best from us whether we are talking about the training that they go through, the equipment they have or the treatment and support they get when they come home. We support our military by giving them missions that they can be proud of, and by giving them all of the resources necessary to accomplish those missions. We also need the sacrifice of time, money, and energy offered by patriotic citizens every day of the year, whether we're at war or not. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

White is the color of FAIRNESS. It is the color of the white paper ballots that we vote on. It is the color of the paper that our laws are written on. With the rainbow of diversity in ideas, races, religions, and other things that define our country, it is critically important to write our laws in black and white to be fair to everyone. This is where Civil Rights comes from. This is where our position on the LGBT community comes from. We understand that if laws are written or enforced to discriminate against any part of our society, the rest of that society is just as vulnerable. We pledge to be fair, and to push that idea of fairness to every aspect of our country, from fair treatment for mental health to fair trade deals in a fair market environment that lifts everyone up instead of giving anyone an advatage over anyone else.

Blue is the color of OPPORTUNITY. It is the color of the blue sky on the horizon that we all strive for, whether by wagon train in the 1800's to today's airline flights towards a new city of adventure. The blue field on the flag has 50 stars, and we recognize that in order to be able to reach for the stars, we need to be standing on a solid foundation. We need a fiscal policy that helps to build that foundation. We need our physical infrastructure of roads, power lines, water and sewer pipes and communications networks to be able to stand up to the challenges of our needs now and into the future. We are focused on building that foundation and making it strong underneath all of our feet so that everyone in our country has what they need to reach for the stars and reach for their potential. We are the enemy of anything that would damage that foundation. As Rev. Ian Paisley of Ireland said, "If the Foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

This is my framing for the 2008 election. Throw out any issue, and it fits into this frame. If you want to improve the health care situation, the Democratic Party will work with you because it is part of a solid foundation. Without Health Care, people lose hope, and can't reach their potential. If you want to protect Net Neutrality, the Democratic Party will work with you because it is a question of fairness. The Bill of Rights is sacred, especially the right of free speech and a free press. Education is a critical part of our foundation, because if we don't help our children, they will not be able to continue to build and maintain our infrastructure, nor will they be able to reach for their own potential.

We are the Democratic Party. We stand for the Red, White and Blue. Help us return America to our moral foundation by letting us write the laws of our land in Congress and at all levels of government to be fair to everyone, and help us with shared sacrifice to make sure that everyone has a solid foundation under our feet so we can reach for the stars together.

Some charities deserve it.

Back in January I did some research on charities, and got really frustrated by the way charities were focused on getting donations, but such a low percentage of those donations actually went to their programs. So I set some standards.

If a charity calls me and the Programs to Donations ratio from the Secretary of State's website is higher than 50% for an out of state charity, I'll donate. If the charity is from within the state, I'll lower that to 25%, because I know that the people making the phone call are also within Washington State and need to earn a paycheck.

I had Operation Lookout National Center for Missing Youth call me today, and their ratio is 28%. Bravo!

So I thought I'd share.

Spiritual Fitness

The ego is always full of excuses. But in the end, they all boil down to a big “No.” So the reason we have to give up all these excuses is because they will always give us a reason not to be ready to fight on the front lines of the evolution of consciousness and culture. We have to be ready and able to fight the good fight, to create the future together now, men and women, standing side by side at the leading edge, without excuses. So this is why we have to transcend the ego, in order to achieve a high level of spiritual fitness. Only fit spiritual warriors can create a truly enlightened future.

Andrew Cohen
Washington, DC, May 2007

There is no box

http://isbn.nu/0896087662

This is a book that I'm in the process of reading that is a real eye opener for the paradigm that we are working within. It's specifically talking about the "Non Profit Industrial Complex", but many of the same co-opting of change movements by structured and limited thinking can be applied to political organizing as well. It's confirming what I've discovered over the last few years, that we are living and working within boxes that are nearly invisible until we try to move beyond them. From Campaign Finance laws to the very construct of bylaws, endorsement rules, etc., the political parties have created tiny little wheels and then spend all their time running as fast as they can while the world collapses around them. It's time for a major change. As I am fond of saying, it's not enough to "think outside of the box". There is no damn box.

Kentridge High School, 20 year reunion

I just tossed into the recycle bin the invitation to my 20 year Kentridge High School Reunion. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I haven't heard from more than a handful of people in my graduating class of nearly 500 people since June of 1987. I guess I never made really good friends. I wasn't involved in any sports, I didn't join any serious clubs or clics, and kept to myself other than Choir, most of whom probably didn't give me much attention anyway. After High School, I tried a year at Washington State University, then joined the Navy for 6 years. When I came out of the Navy, I was a completely different person, and never looked back. So, I have low motivation to attend it in the first place.

My 10 year reunion, in 1997, was skipped because I was busy trying to keep my business afloat and starting a new family. My wife at the time thought it would be good to attend, but I wasn't really excited. See above. So we didn't go.

This 20 year invitation was from "Reunions with Class", and will be held at the Muckleshoot Casino. No thanks. If anyone should profit from something like this, it should be the Kentridge Alumni Association, which doesn't exist to my knowledge, and be held at the High School itself. And I still don't have motivation to revisit with people I didn't know 20 years ago.

If someone can give me some good motivating reasons to attend this thing, I'll reconsider.

Update on my cancer

The CAT Scans on Monday were so clean, they didn't even ask for a blood test on Wednesday when I went to my followup. I'm now 4 years out from diagnosis, with one year to go before they can officially say that the cancer will not return.

Toast: To life and struggle!

A poem about space

We all should be able to explore our dreams,

before we as a race run out of steam.

For those who disagree with space,

I ask how we will keep up our growth pace.

Rutan and SpaceShipOne want to fly,

Should we tell them no or ask them why?

I think our government has a purpose in this enterprise,

To build the infrastructure, open the gate and reveal the prize.

And speaking of Enterprise and our generation’s goal,

Tell William Shatner that he must not forget his role.

For nobody over the last 30 years of public relations work,

Has shown us our future better than Captain Kirk.

Response to Luke Esser

The article in the PI about Obama's visit last night was great. Wish I could have made it, but I can't be everywhere. One particular set of paragraphs caught my attention, and it opens a door of opportunity.

Obama's health care reform plan, which he announced earlier this week and which would largely be financed by tax increases on the wealthy, drew a jab before his speech from state Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser.

"Barack Obama used his first big policy speech to call for a massive tax increase and a brand new tax on small businesses," Esser said. "It's nothing but the same old tax-and-spend politics we've seen from liberal presidential candidates for decades."

Taxes. What an evil word. How terrible that Democrats are calling on people
to pay their dues to society. How awful that we are calling for a foundation
under everyone's feet, one that supports people as much as they have a need,
paid for by those whose needs are taken care of.

Tell me, Luke. How would you pay for a Health Care system that provides coverage
and treatment for everyone, putting the needs of the sick over the desires of
the wealthy? Oh, that's right! "We oppose a universal government-run health
care system. We support a free-market solution to keep costs down through increasing
consumer choice and information. Health care is a personal issue and informed
individuals can make better decisions about their own health care than government
bureaucracies." "Health care is a personal issue, and informed individuals can
make better decisions about their own care than government. Republicans believe
in free market solutions that reduce health care costs by offering more information
for additional and better choices for consumers." In other words, the Washington
State Republican Party believes that Adam Smith will keep costs under control
for them, while letting the pharmaceutical companies, private and for-profit
hospitals and insurance companies, and our "well-educated population" take care
of our own problems, which will work itself out over time. And while it works
itself out, people will get sick, will lose time on the job forcing them to
choose between feeding their family or paying medical bills that just keep coming.
And at the same time we're all supposed to keep up with the Billions of (tax)
dollars of research and development that is happening at the National Institutes
of Health and around the world, so we can help our doctor (who probably has
at least 10 years of high-level medical education) make the decisions about
whether we will live comfortably or die miserably. Nice, Luke. This really shows
the values of the Republican Party well. Primary value: We don't really care
about people, it's just politically expedient to say that we do.

Let's put into perspective the actual position of the Democratic Platform on Health Care. "Healthcare is a basic right, and our government must assure accessible and affordable health care for all." Health care is NOT a personal issue. It's an economics issue. It's an issue for our entire society. When someone is sick, they can't work, which puts extra burden on everyone else who has to do what the sick person cannot. When someone is sick, they can't take care of their children, which puts an extra burden on family members, teachers and our neighborhoods who must give the love and attention that those children deserve.

Establishment of a comprehensive national healthcare plan, (as in HR 676: universal single payer healthcare) similar to Medicare and available to all, regardless of age or employment;

The key words are "available to all". Just like "Leave No Child Behind", we must never leave behind anyone when it comes to health care coverage. Nobody has the right to point at another person and say "you don't deserve coverage".

Development of a state health plan, assuring access to affordable, equitable healthcare for everyone, beginning with children, until a national plan is realized;

The Republican Congress between 1994 and 2006 has done more to deny our basic
rights than any other congress in history. Even given the problems that would
have come out of the plan that was brought forward in 1993 by the Clinton Administration,
it would have started to fix the fundamental problem. The way that Democrats
define the problem is that people don't have health care coverage, and thus
are limited in how close they can get to their potential. The way that Republicans
seem to define the problem is that people want health care coverage in the first
place. So by sitting on their hands over the last 12 years, one sixth of our
population now has no coverage at all. One in six people. That's not good enough
for the Republicans. They want even more people to be denied a healthy body,
mind and spirit.

Coverage including affordable prescription drugs, dental care, physical therapy and medical technology, available according to healthcare needs;

Medical doctors are only part of the picture. Every aspect of what keeps our bodies working right needs to be part of the coverage plan. If not, you tell me which aspect of health can be ignored. How about our eyes? Do we need to be able to see well when we drive, or should only those people who can afford glasses without any help be allowed to get back and forth to work? The Republican Platform has this statement: "All prescription drug purchases and health insurance premiums being fully tax-deductible." What about the crazy idea that purchases and premiums like this shouldn't have to come out of pocket at all?

Patient freedom of choice, including the right to obtain legally prescribed medications from any licensed pharmacy;

My grandmother is 94 years old, and she is suffering from congestive heart problems. As I type, she is in the hospital. Not just any hospital will do, however. It must be a Group Health hospital, which gives her two choices; Redmond or Tacoma. She lives in Kent. It's a half-hour or more travel distance from her home to either of these locations, every minute of which is uncomfortable for her. I'd rather she have the local hospital available, but because we have such a limited system that's not a choice we have. If I'm sick, or I change jobs and move to a different part of town or a different city altogether, I don't want to have to hunt through lists and make a bunch of phone calls to find out how far I have to travel to see a doctor, dentist or vision specialist. I just want to get healthy. The insurance companies spend a lot of money on advertising trying to get doctors and care providers to take their plans. The goal of course is to have every doctor available to every patient, so that the patient has the choice based on word of mouth and reputation which doctor they should go to. With universal coverage, that's not a goal on the horizon, it's a starting assumption. And we wouldn't be paying 30% of our health care dollars paying for that advertising and for paper pushers whose job it is currently to limit the opportunities and choices we have instead of making sure that we have healthy bodies, minds and spirits.

Inclusion of long-term care, home care and hospice, and support for caregivers as benefits;

Our elders have spent their lives in service to their families and their community.
The least we can do near the end of their lives is to make them as comfortable
as possible, without draining every last penny from their hard earned savings.
Right now we all have to plan for the eventuality that we will be laid up in
a nursing home watching our families suffer financially while we suffer physically.
What a terrible future to look forward to. We need to change that future into
one where our family members are shown the respect they deserve for the work
that they have done, and one that supports families by not destroying their
foundation to pay for that kind of care.

Parity for mental and physical healthcare, including treatment and education for drug, alcohol and tobacco problems;

The most healthy mind, with brilliant ideas and dreams, is limited only by
the opportunities that they are given to express and explore those ideas. And
it goes the other way as well. Sickness of mind and heart due to mental illness
is just as debilitating to a person's potential as being in a wheelchair. We
all recognize the need for everyone to have a healthy body, mind and spirit.
We should provide the resources to provide for all of those needs.

Full funding of current veterans and military hospitals and clinics, with expansion of services as needed by our returning troops;

Support our Troops has become a phrase thrown around like a gauntlet in a political
debate. Whenever it is said by a politician, it comes with lots of extra meaning.
I can almost hear the extra words under their breath. "I 'Support
our Troops', while you don't." Supporting our troops means giving
them a mission that they can understand from beginning to end, top to bottom,
and empowering them to do their best to fulfill that mission with the best planning
and resource support available in the 21st century. Supporting our troops means
taking care of their families while they are away on those missions, making
sure that they are able to return to a healthy and loving home. Supporting our
troops means making sure they have the best training possible to let them avoid
injury while completing those missions. Supporting our troops means that if
they do get injured, they will be able to feel the secure foundation under their
feet. Our country needs to welcome them back with open arms, open hearts, and
open doors for whatever treatment, help and ongoing support they need in order
to feel proud of their service and the job they did serving our nation. Anything
that limits or denies that foundation under their feet should be examined, discussed
and eliminated from our cultural institutions. Full medical coverage for life
should be the least worrisome of that foundation.

Public health policy based on sound scientific guidelines, following the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control, and organized plans for an effective response to major epidemics;

We don't employ witch-doctors in the 21st century. Every minute of training
that doctors receive is based in centuries of scientific study of what makes
us sick and what can make us healthy again. Diseases can spread through water
systems, air systems and through our social networks faster than we think they
can, and we need to be ready for whatever comes. This isn't a call to give up
our personal lives and freedom. It's a call to arms against a microscopic enemy
that can kill millions of people unless we respond rapidly and intelligently.
Remember the Black Death, or the 1918 Spanish Flu. This is not Hollywood. It's
life and death.

Restoration of funding and support for medical research, including stem cell research, to be based on scientific merit;

Sitting outside of the House and Senate chambers while the debate rages about
when life begins, in offices, homes and doctors offices, are millions of people
who suffer every day from disease and injury who could be helped. Sanctity of
life either extends from birth to death, or from conception to death. The Republican
Party would want us to believe that the "real debate" is about those first nine
months rather than the entirety of the 90+ years that we are actually alive
on this earth. This is not the abortion issue. This is about
people who are already here who need our help.

Restoration of funding and support of international family planning agencies within the United Nations.

One of the first things that President Bush did, on his first day in office, was to block federal aid to any foreign group that offered counseling or any other assistance to women in obtaining abortions. This wasn't about saving lives, it was about taking control away from the women who live in poverty and want to control how many children they have. It was about taking choices away from societies and cultures whose leaders know that only by giving those choices to their people can those people raise their standard of living and reach their potential. If a family cannot afford more children, they must be free to choose not to have more children. And it wasn't just about abortion. It was about any form of birth control at all. Even talking about family planning became a "sin" in the eyes of our Federal Government. We need to restore the power that women have over their own lives all over the world. We need to eliminate the necessity for abortions, not just forbid women from seeking options and choices.

Health Care is not my primary issue. But it is what got me involved in trying to rout the Conservative Movement and shove them into the history books as the primary example of how not to run a country. In 2003, I was diagnosed with Cancer. It affected my job, it affected my family, and it changed my life.

Thank you, Cindy

Heroes get tired. That's the lesson I'm getting from Cindy Sheehan's withdrawal from the spotlight this weekend. After the last few years, she deserves to step back and let someone else be the lightning rod. Any volunteers? I didn't think so. Things like this don't happen because people volunteer. They happen because people don't see a choice.

I've been in a few rounds myself, especially after my New York Times quote. I even went a round with Cindy herself about my statement.

I don't think anyone understands things from Cindy's perspective. I know I don't want to lose a child, or a parent, or anyone I know to gain that perspective. But I don't need it to be able to say thank you to a hero. Cindy put her name forward, sacrificed nearly everything in her life, and got a Congress that voted to continue the war that killed her son. So she's stepping back. G-d bless, Cindy. Healing takes time, and time is something that I hope we will give you.

Tears in the House

I had to show this. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) gave this speech on May 24th, and he's speaking with distinction from his point of view. I respect him for that. And I would like to thank his office for posting the entire speech that he gave, instead of the clips that are being used against him in the blogosphere. I wish they were as good at posting the text of his speeches on his official website.

However, I don't respect his point of view.

Surrender. What a wonderful political term. It's a term designed to get the hair to stand up on the backs of our necks, and it's a term designed to stop us from thinking.

He asks a very important question during this speech. "When are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?!"

The answer is simple. When George Bush leaves office, and a Democrat takes over. I don't have a timetable. I'm not a prophet. But I will say that I want to see Osama bin Laden on trial at the Hague, with the entire trial and ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TRAIL available to the public for inspection and consideration.

George Bush wouldn't do that. A Democratic President probably wouldn't do that. But it's the only thing that will solve the issue. Let OBL have his day in court. Then lock him away from the rest of the world forever, and dismantle his organization from the schools to the training camps once and for all. Bush wouldn't do that either. He didn't even try.

Why I don't have Clearwire

My wife and I are still using Earthlink.net as our Internet Service Provider, in spite of some ongoing customer service issues, which haven't really gone away, and it's upwards of $50 dollars a month for 99% service. Not the best deal in the world.

We keep getting offers from Clearwire, and for something like $35 per month we could have something I could take with me around the city, with no hassles. So the question is why haven't we switched yet?

Because they're amazingly dumb. I'll get it eventually, just for the convenience, but the only person they ever send their offers to is Debi's first husband, Jason, who has been dead since 1998. Like I said; dumb.

I'm posting this on the off chance that a top of the line Internet company has someone keeping an eye on the blogs for posts about their name, so maybe they can take Jason's name off their mailing list and prove that they are not, well, dumb.

Nuff said.

Worse than War

By David Krieger



Worse than the war, the endless, senseless war

Worse than the lies leading to the war



Worse than the countless deaths and injuries

Worse than hiding the coffins and not attending funerals



Worse than the flouting of international law

Worse than the torture at Abu Ghraib prison



Worse than the corruption of young soldiers

Worse than undermining our collective sense of decency



Worse than the arrogance, smugness, and swagger

Worse than our loss of credibility in the world

Worse than the loss of our liberties



Worse than learning nothing from the past

Worse than destroying the future

Worse than the incredible stupidity of it all



Worse than all of these,

As if they were not enough for one war or country or lifetime,

Is the silence, the resounding silence, of good Americans.

The Edwards Energy Plan

John Edwards is my top choice for President in 2008, at least at the moment. And no, I don't care how much he is willing to pay for a haircut.

DFA has been doing a great job engaging with the entire Democratic lineup on various issues, and their latest was about Energy, Climate Change, and what the plan is. John Edwards was the first to respond, as usual.

I was at first disappointed. It didn't sound like he was setting himself apart. So I went to his website to see more details.

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/

I want to go over this in detail, because there are some great things in here. But they don't go far enough, and they don't capitalize on the most powerful force for change that exists. Federal investment into our economy is critical to make this work, but I'm not talking about Pork Barrel Projects where we would encourage states and local municipalities to brag about how much Federal money they have been able to get from their Congresscritters for local projects. I don't think that's the right approach. Anyway, before I get too high on this soapbox:

Create a new energy economy and 1 million new jobs by investing in clean, renewable energy, sparking innovation, a new era in American industry, and life in family farms. - "1 million jobs" harkens back to a speech that Bush gave in the 2000 campaign, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't want the Government to create jobs, except as a last resort. I want the demand for products to be high enough to create those jobs in Industry and Commerce. What the government needs to do is increase that demand.

Halt global warming by capping and reducing greenhouse gas pollution and leading the world to a new global climate change treaty. - We're not going to be able to "halt" climate change. It took hundreds of years after the last ice age to stabilize the climate when humans began the Age of Agriculture, and we're not going to be able to halt the coming changes within a single generation. We do need to get the carbon out of the atmosphere, and we need to stop putting more in. But the coming sea level changes and climate shifts are going to hit us no matter how much money we spend. We have to hope for the best AND prepare for the worst.

Meet the demand for new electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more power. - Efficiency can reduce our demand, but we still have a growing national population and a growing global population that is pushing that demand up, not down. Maybe we can reduce the rate of demand growth by some of these measures, but we can't delude ourselves into believing that we can invest some money and have all the electrical power that 8.9 Billion people will need by 2050. Sure, I'd love to try, but we have to be honest about it from day one. Underpromise, overperform. Not the other way around.

Cap and Reduce Global Warming Pollution - The description mentions the "most aggressive plans under consideration in Washington" without saying who those plans are coming from. He's talking about the Safe Climate Act of 2007 (H.R. 1590), introduced in June of last year, and reintroduced this year. You can find more information about the bill at OpenCongress.org and Thomas.loc.gov.

There he goes again, promoting his 1 million new jobs thing. Here's the reality. Every year, around 100,000 of our kids graduate from high school. Currently the number of unemployed persons in the US is 6.8 million or 4.5%. That sounds like a healthy percentage from my economics class, but do we really only want to help one seventh of the people who are currently unemployed? Either use real numbers, or drop real numbers. One of the two.

Lead the World toward a New Global Climate Change Treaty - The best example of such a treaty was the Montreal Protocol, which limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in order to try and stop the destruction of the Ozone layer. Getting something that big on an international level again will take a lot more work than the Kyoto Protocol, which is only scratching the surface of what we will need to do over the next few hundred years. It's a good start, and the cap and trade system described within Kyoto is something that Edwards already has in his plan elsewhere.

Creating the New Energy Economy and 1 Million Jobs

Invest in Renewable Sources of Electricity - Invest how? Here's the crux of the problem that I have, and the biggest thing that is missing from this plan. The first thing that Reagan did in 1981 was to remove the solar panels from the roof of the White House. They were reinstalled in 2003, with little fanfare. If Edwards wants to make an investment in renewable energy, it's really simple to get started. All he has to do is require that all of the Federal Administration Buildings, from the Pentagon to shacks in the middle of the Federal Forest lands, have solar panels installed, not just to help reduce the power consumption, but to BECOME the power generation core of 21st century America. Same with Wind, Geothermal, etc. If the Federal Government takes this on, demand will skyrocket, economies of scale will bring the prices for the equipment down, and more and more businesses and individuals will follow suit with their own investments. I don't think it will be enough, but it should be the biggest part of his "energy plan".

I'll post more later in part 2, because I need to get to work.

Chad

Liberty or Security?

It's really difficult for me to read things like this, because I see the language used as effective for no purpose other than driving the United States into a second civil war, with "Liberals" on one side and "Conservatives" on the other. It's insulting, and I don't deal well with it. The substance of the proposal is something I originally missed because my eyes started glazing over. I'll try to put that aside and read it again. (These types of commentaries REALLY piss me off.)

"These people", referring in the first paragraph to liberals, means exactly who? Give me names or drop the reference. He's complaining about people who point fingers by pointing fingers. How stupid is that?

What the hell is this 'political correctness' crap? Who doesn't deserve to be treated with respect? Name them. It sounds like this guy is saying that Violent inclinations should be dealt with by putting people in jail, or denying them lives because we are terrified that someday they may do something. Is he suggesting that we should have sent this kid back to South Korea, and kicked his parents and sister out of the country because he was dealing with stress? I know you advocate closing the border, but that's not going to happen as long as the United States remains part of the earth.

Treating people with respect and continuing to give people a chance to reach their potential through education does not mean that we are all hostages. That could be taken as a call to reenact what the Soviet Union created in Eastern Europe, where the police ask to see our papers every time we get on a bus to go somewhere, and they have gulags where people who are "politically incorrect" labor without hope forever. Is that what we want?

Terror, terror, terror, be afraid, be afraid be afraid. I don't have the time. Am I willing to lose some towers in order to protect the constitution and the future of my chidren? Yes. Sorry, but yes. I believe in the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means I'm willing to sacrifice to maintain my ideals. If people die, it's because we didn't do a good enough job in prevention. I don't believe that closing the borders or throwing out people who have weird thoughts running through their heads is a positive solution. I do believe that Seung-Hui Cho should have been put into counseling and watched. I don't believe he should have been able to walk across the street from the school and purchase the weapons. But I also don't believe that the solution is to point fingers at people who are different from myself and deny them any rights whatsoever.

We can bitch, moan and complain about what should have happened forever, and I'm sure people like this author will. I'd rather repair the damage, and then look to the future changes that we should actually do to prevent something like this from happening again. First, we need to view violent tendencies as a mental illness, and completely fund mental illness treatment through a national health care system. A system like this would have known what to do with Cho, and would have given him the help he needed to get out of his downward spiral. Second, we need to all understand that people with mental illness might be dangerous to society, and have the communications infrastructure and legal framework in place to prevent people like this from being able to purchase weapons. That means that when Cho produced his ID for the gun dealer, the dealer's computer would have instantly told him that it was not safe to let him purchase guns, and would have alerted Cho's councilors that he tried to purchase them. Or is that too much "Big Brother", because it would have to be applied to US Citizens as well as foreign nationals and their children. Or do you think people like Timothy McVey should be ignored by such a system while Seung-Hui Cho should be singled out?

The Virginia Tech massacre was a tragedy, just like 9/11 was a tragedy. And the reaction of our country to being hit was immediately to hit back, and then get distracted by someone else. Instead of blaming Osama Bin Laden and going after him until he was put on trail in an International Court, we got distracted by someone that we used to supply weapons for. And now 3,000+ soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. The reaction of this author to Virginia Tech sees to be "Blame the Teachers!", "Blame Rosie O'Donnell!", "Blame the lberal politicians!", "Blame those people over there, and anyone who lets those people come over here!"

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin

Give me liberty or give me death - Patrick Henry

To secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity - Preamble to the US Constitution

What are you willing to do to our liberty in order to gain a little security? I'm not interested in pointing fingers, or putting mentally ill people in jail. I am interested in preventing something like this by prosecuting the gun dealer for not doing a complete background check, and fix the government systems so that such a background check would have come up with a "do not sell" flag. But I'm not interested in closing our borders, and I'm not interested in denying our kids or anyone's kid an education and the opportunity to reach their potential.

Now do you understand why I find this article to be pure crap?

Chad

Nationalism

I heard something interesting today. French Presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen was asking on a talk show how many French grandparents someone should have to be considered "truly French".

I wonder. How many German grandparents were required to be considered truly German in 1930?

I also heard that part of the "debate" in the Washington State Senate about Senator Oemig's Investigation & Impeachment bill was which political party was more patriotic. How many people have been killed in Iraq, and how many of our civil liberties have been torn to shreds, seems to have taken a back seat to the importance of which party would outdo the other by having American Flags on their desks, and the Democrats won by having theirs lowered to half-mast. Isn't that special...

Nationalism has it's place. It should be something that enhances pride in a nation's accomplishments, and it should help create an identity that helps enhance the positive view that people from other countries have of us. But it should not be a contest on who has the most Gravitas or who's flagpole is bigger. All of those kinds of contests are a way to avoid the real issues that are taking the lives of our young people and destroying our country.

So my message to politicans all over the world is this: Get over yourselves, and start paying attention to the real issues. Or you will be replaced. I don't care which party you hail from, or what country. The people are sovereign on this planet.

Framing gun control

I've heard a lot on the news today about the shooting at Virginia Tech. Here are some of my thoughts.

I've heard that John McCain is saying that Americans have the right to own guns, but that we should make sure that the bad people don't get them. What kind of drivel is this?! The Bad People is a reference to anyone different from us, or more importantly in the view of this frame different from ME. If I'm white, I should be aware and skittish around Black, Hisanic, Asian, etc. Reminds me of the movie Bowling for Columbine, which examined the gun culture in America. If I'm Christian, I should be afraid of non-Christians. If I'm not Christian, I should be afraid of Christian Fundamentalists.

This is called deterrence through fear. We are pushed away from our sense of security by igniting the fight or flight instinct. It's easy, cheap and quick. It gets ratings, and it ignites passions beyond logic. It's up to us as individuals to learn how to live with those passions and fears, and let them burn themselves out without causing any harm.

One news program had guests that were either pro- or anti- gun control, and one guest had the perspective that in a situation such as that faced by the students and teachers in that school who were cowering behind doors, desks and book cases, that some of them were likely thinking "I wish I had a gun". I really wonder about the effectivness of that kind of wish, because it seems to be somewhat of a death wish. Wouldn't it be better to be thinking "I wish that the person losing control of their passions did not have a gun?"

It's in the US Constitution that we have the right to keep and bear arms. The context of the 2nd Amendment has been up for debate since it passed Congress, and each person has their own interpretation of what it means. To me, just because I have the right to own something that can kill others, I'd rather not exercise that right. I don't own a gun because I don't feel like I need one.

I don't think the issue is whether we have the right to own firearms. That's not up for questioning, unless we want to take it out of the Constitution. And that would open a major can of worms. I think a better way is focusing our attention on the manufacturing of firearms. Why do we have so many companies making weapons of war? And it's not just in the United States, but all over the world.

The American Way needs to change.

What it's going to take for someone to win the Oval Office is popularity. Fundamentally, that's what the election is, a popularity contest. Candidates can earn that popular vote within each state by having the best ideas, having a worthy history in government service, or being able to pay for the best advertising. Whatever works, the campaigns will do. We can try to put all the higher ideals on it that we wish, but in the end, whoever gets the most votes wins, both at a caucus, a primary or the general election.

Bill Richardson would be fantastic as President. I really appreciate his foreign policy experience, and I like what he's done in New Mexico with Energy policy. He would certainly be a good person to go to the Middle East to talk and listen to the leaders and the people over there. But I'm thinking that it might take a lot of work to broker those deals, and we need someone dedicated to making it work who won't have to also work on other issues. I believe that Gov. Richardson needs to be the person to focus on the issues that we have with our neighbors in the global community.

My top three candidates right now are Edwards, Obama and Richardson. But I'm looking beyond the Oval Office and into the Cabinet room. I want to know who is going to be picked for Secretary of Health and Human Services. I want to know who will be picked to fill the Secretary of Labor position. I want the best minds and the best hearts around the table listening to each other and gathering ideas on how to fix the problems that we are facing. I don't want one person saddled with the responsibility of coming up with all the ideas.

At the Denver convention, we need to know without a doubt who will be looking at and solving the problems that we face as a nation and how we will help our neighbors solve the problems that we face around the world. I want to know who will sit around the round table in collaboration and cooperation with each other, with the American People and with the world community.

We need to stop crushing the American Dream with the American Way. The way we live needs to change at a deep fundamental level.

Quotes for the week

From Nicole Brodeur:

Because it's the American Way -- which can sometimes crush the American Dream.

And one that came to my mind the other day as I was riding my bike home from work:

This bike is powered by sweat and ingenuity, not blood and brain injuries.

From KUOW on Weekday: Dark Matter & Energy

Listening to a scientist on KUOW is great. Today they had a String Theory guy on. They talked a little bit about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Made me come up with these thoughts. Don't know if they're accurate, and I don't know if they constitute a theory, but I thought I would record them.

Dark Matter - this is matter that has been accellerated above the speed of light, causing the mass of that matter to increase. I heard him say that 95% of the matter in the universe is this type of Dark Matter, and if they were going fast enough, it wouldn't take much.

We can't percieve Dark Matter because we are dependent on light to percieve things.

Dark Energy - When matter crosses the threashold of the speed of light, gravity reverses and repels instead of attracts. We can see the effects of Dark Energy because this is the force that is pushing the galaxies apart faster and faster.

So there we go. Crazy ideas, but they take in what I know and they're pushing the envelope.

When to cry at a concert

Let them in, Peter
For they are very tired
Give them couches where the angels sleep
And light those fires
Let them wake whole again
To brand new dawns
Fired by the sun
Not war-times bloody guns
May their peace be deep
Remember where the broken bodies lie
God knows how young they were
To have to die

You know God knows how young they were
To have to die

Give them things they like
Let them make some noise
Give roadhouse bands not golden harps
To these our boys
Let them love Peter
For they've had no time
They should have bird songs and trees
And hills to climb
The taste of summer
And a ripened pear
And girls as sweet as meadow wind
And flowing hair
And tell them how they are missed
But say not to fear
It's gonna be all right
With us down here

Let them in, Peter
For they are very tired
Give them couches where the angels sleep
And light those fires
Let them wake whole again
To brand new dawns
Fired by the sun
Not war-times bloody guns
May their peace be deep
Remember where the broken bodies lie
God knows how young they were
To have to die

You know God knows how young they were
To have to die

And tell them how they are missed
But say not to fear
It's gonna be all right
With us down here

It's gonna be all right
With us down here

Poem converted to a song by John Gorka.