Politcal Discord

by

A few days ago I had a great evening talking with Brian and Dave.  Somewhere between the first beer and the third it became clear that we disagreed on a number of opinions, sometimes fervently so.  Even with this difference of opinion we actually talked about our ideas and listened to each other, something lost in politics today.  I doubt we truly affected each other’s point of view.  But I am confident if we were trying to build a successful policy on the issues we discussed, health care and education; it would be far better for the discussion.

It’s just the way ideas work and are improved.  You figure out a goal, use real data, create an idea to solve it and then you find people that disagree.  By using differing points of view you can actually improve the original idea.  This means embracing disagreement, not fighting it.

But our political system has become a strange competition between two organizations vying for popularity.  Worse yet, the competition usually comes down to making the other “side” look bad.  How utterly stupid this is!  First it has somehow made it appear that all the issues that face us have only two sides.  How can one look at issues like defeating terrorism, raising the quality of life and decreasing crime and only come up with two potential approaches?  It is just a strange insanity that is sold to us.  Then these two sides face off and try to look good by not “giving in” to the “other side’s” approach, delaying any real attempt to solve problems.

Finally most discouraging to me is the shameful way that each “side” treats people that don’t agree with them.  The “liberal” side people portray those with “conservative” opinions as a bad people, a simpletons, or just plain corrupt.  And on the “conservative” side people portray those with “liberal” opinions as elitists, “un-American”, or just plain wimpy.  These are all just ways of avoiding having to think about a different point of view.  It may be somewhat entertaining for a while, but it won’t solve a single problem.

Our political system can be better, if we stand behind politicians who work to include contrary views.  You can spot them, they’re the ones that vote in ways that cause their party consternation, the ones labeled “independent thinkers” or “mavericks”.  These are the leaders we need to support.  We need to be skeptical of those that always “vote the party line” and dismiss contradictory viewpoints.  We should avoid voting for those that don’t impress us with their ability to understand opposing views and use them to improve their own ideas.  And most importantly we should reward those in other “parties” that do impress us.  Because we all face the same problems, regardless of party affiliation.  We need to strive to elect leaders that understand solutions quite often cross party boundaries too!  Well, guess I’ll have to see Brian and Dave again soon, the next beer is on me.

A Madman has spoken…

Practical Campaign Finance Reform

by

We are now in the heart campaign fund raising season.  The score so far, Bush in the lead with $203 Million and Kerry with $110 Million…  This is true even though campaign finance reform has attempted to reduce the role that fund raising has in elections.  But, as a society we need to come to the sobering reality that it will not and cannot.  It is a pretty basic fact that communicating to the entire US takes a lot of money, so any candidate has to raise large sums of money to be competitive.  There is a travesty in this process, for all the money raised there is also a lack of real communication from the candidates.

Think about all the ads you see or hear.  Do the candidates tell you what they would really do in office?  Talk about difficult issues in depth?  Not really.  They tend to explain how the other candidate is untrustworthy, a big spender, or some other vague attack.  And worse yet, do they engage any other ideas from “3rd parties”, or do they avoid them?  It is very sad when we are asked to hire a person for what is probably the most powerful job in the world, and we don’t even get an in depth interview…

Perhaps we should focus campaign finance reform in a different direction.  Rather than trying to limit the amount of funds that come into campaigns, we should ensure they are put to the best use.  To do this I propose a campaign contribution tax for any federal candidate that raises over $5 Million.   We set it at 40%.  This would mean that 40% of every campaign dollar raised would go into a general fund, which would be split equally amongst candidates meeting specific requirements, such as:

  • Polling at 5% or better with eligible voters on July 4th (a fitting date)
  • Agrees to 3 public debates
  • Agrees to 2 public one-on-one interviews
    • One by an interviewer selected by the candidate
    • The second by an interviewer selected by the opponents
  • Publishes answer to questions on issues, that are posted on a public website
  • Contributes 5 questions to the above mentioned list
  • Provide a complete accounting of the source of all their funds on the same public website

This would motivate candidates to provide real information, and provide a platform for all of us to hear more ideas vetted in a public forum.  Fund raising would still play a big role in selecting our candidates; we just have to be vigilant in making sure these funds lead to better information to counteract any potential undue influence.  And is certainly not too much to ask for someone we put the trust of our nation in.

A Madman has spoken…

Election Promises

by

Given we are quickly moving into an election year, I have no doubt we will hear one of two messages coming from the lips of candidates everywhere.  We will either hear about cutting taxes, and how the government should not be wasting our money.  Or, we will hear about new programs that will make our country better.  Or, possibly even both at the same time.  It’s a “no brainer “ if you’re running for office.  People love hearing that they will have more money, or that they will receive more freebies.  What could be simpler?

Of course a future office holder is going to reduce taxes he must spend less too.  Though it is often stated this can be done by “eliminating waste”, which is a good thing, that only will account for up to about a 5% reduction in overall budget.  And, that’s on a good day.  Usually “waste” needs to mean programs that candidates do not see as needed.  But of course saying you will reduce services is not quite as popular.

So let’s hypothetically say services will be increased; that will please everyone.  Coming up with programs that everyone can agree on are a good idea.  This isn’t hard as there are many very worthy causes.  Of course the money has to come from somewhere, but where?  But saying one’s going to raise taxes… hmmm, most would think it would be best to leave that part out.
A Madman has spoken

Who defines our time?

by

Recent ads run for the Bush re-election campaign are controversial because of their use of images from 9/11. Not having seen the ads, I’m expecting the “controversy” to be mostly election-time hype. But statements from Mark McKinnon, media adviser for Bush, are far more troubling to me.

In response to the controversy he said, “Obviously 9/11 was the defining moment of these times.” 9/11 was certainly a traumatic event at a magnitude that shook our nation and the world. And, it served as a wakeup call that the U.S. is not immune to terrorists that have struck in so many other countries. However, if the U.S. is the leader of the free world, we must strive to make sure the times are defined by what we do, not by what is done to us. For example, the 1940s were not defined by Pearl Harbor, though clearly an important event. Instead, it was defined by sacrifice and pulling together to create huge productivity and growth. This effort culminated in the victory of World War II and established the U.S. as the “leader of the free world.”

Yes the U.S. was attacked on 9/11; but do we want to show the world our nation is only a victim? Do we want to be defined by our fear? Maybe I have seen too many movies where the hero has been knocked down, yet able to get up and succeed. This is how I want to see our nation. The U.S. should be determined, strong, and work in unifying the world to overcome the many problems that face us all. It would be terribly wrong to act like a victim and allow the terrorists to define our times. I for one think the U.S. is stronger than this.

A Madman has spoken…

Living up to Our Responsibility

by

Living up to ones responsibility is often a difficult task, even more difficult when the responsibility is shared.  That’s because each person can point to another and say they should take care of it.  Let’s look at some responsibilities each and every American shares.  First let’s look at what we owe Iraqis.  I know just the phrasing of that last sentence has put some hackles up, but we invaded Iraq as a preemptive move for our own protection.  You may or may not agree with the assessment, but as a country that is what we did.  As citizens we are responsible for this action, whether we supported it, protested against it, or didn’t even know about it.  The reason is simple: it was done for you.

So, what exactly was done on our behalf?  We dropped bombs, blew up structures, and injured and killed people.  Infrastructure was damaged, both physical and organizational, which resulted in looting.  So like it or not it we now have an obligation to fix this.  This is not an action movie where at the end we can ignore the consequences of the damage incurred.  We simply cannot shirk this responsibility.  The damages are ones that we have to pay, just like any other debt.  We need to make sure that it is worth it, and do this right.  There may be options less expensive in the short run.  But not building a prosperous Iraq will cost our children and grand children far more.  This is not to say there could not have been a more effective way of dealing with Iraq, just that given what we have done the rebuilding is our responsibility.

I want to take a moment to point out that our own troops were killed and injured. We owe them our gratitude.  And, we must be responsible to them and their families as well.

Another responsibility we all share is the national debt.  The debt was borrowed on our behalf, as well as our parents’ and grandparents’.  But it is now our debt.  Each year we pay interest on this debt. Currently about 20% of our tax dollars goes to pay this interest.  This means that the money we borrowed in the past effectively raised our current taxes by 20%.  Any money we borrow today goes to raise our future taxes, and of course the taxes of our children.  This debt is ours as much as the tax dollars are ours.

Responsibility is not easy, and often deferring it seems appealing.  However shirking responsibility is only a temporary fix. In the end it just makes those future problems more difficult.
A Madman has spoken…

The Road to Iraq

by

We have gone through a strange path to liberate Iraq, and here I sit feeling as torn as ever. I think the liberation of Iraq may very well go down as one of the best things the US has done, and the Bush administration should be commended for accomplishing this. To make this true requires that we focus our energies on making Iraq prosperous, peaceful and run by Iraqi’s. But the road to getting there has been paved with US arrogance that I still have trouble comprehending.
We have vilified the French and castigated the UN for the lack of action in Iraq. All the time we did this claiming this was about disarming Iraq. Looking back at what happened in the UN, of 15 countries in the Security Council we were able to convince 2 that we should take immediate action against Iraq, of the permanent members we convinced 1. Russia, Germany and France were vocal about their opposition to the US stance. Out of this we somehow decide to attack the French as being the problem. I thought our goal was to lead, that implies convincing others to follow, not blaming those that don’t. Growing up when someone started insulting people for not agreeing with them I remember them being called spoiled brats not leaders…

To make matters worse we were arguing that we needed to take immediate action to disarm Iraq, since they might use their weapons of mass destruction on other countries or give them to terrorists. The counter argument to this was that Iraq was unlikely to use these weapons as long as their government was in power. And therefore we should have let the weapons inspectors finish their work and make a decision at that point (which would have been in the spring / summer). It was also pointed out that Iraq was most likely to use weapons of mass destruction if they were attacked. So after the dust has settled, we see Iraq did not use any chemical or biological weapons. Since they did not use the weapons in this extreme situation it is powerful evidence in support of the Security Council position.

I am frustrated that we did not have the will to present the real reason to attack Iraq. The citizens of Iraq deserve to be liberated. Ironically once we invaded Iraq all the sudden this is what we were talking about. However presenting this argument at the UN would have required more work on our part and a concerted effort to build consensus. You see it comes down to the realization that the world’s safety depends on shutting down rogue governments. Doing this would force the UN to define when a government has stepped over a threshold and should be considered illegitimate. Not doing so will allow unrest and terrorism to foment from many parts of the globe. Effectively we cannot ignore those situations that breed this kind of violence. However, putting this agenda forward takes a certain amount of humility in our foreign policy. Realizing that our security depends on working with other countries, including once that we consider “3rd world” in humbling. Knowing that the decisions and implementation of the changes we need made is daunting. But failing to make these realizations will be expensive and dangerous.

Now is the time to lead, the time for idealism and most importantly the time for humility.

A Madman has spoken…

What is under Attack?

by

As we continue to strategize on the war against terrorism we need the best understanding of what our enemies are striking at. For this reason we must reflect on their choice of targets on 9/11, both in terms of physical and symbolic importance. What they attacked were not symbols of our freedom but of our preeminence in the world.

As I see it we know of 3 targets that were attacked, the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and the Airlines. The Pentagon represents our military might so striking it had at least two objectives: One to show the world they were willing to attack out strength. The second a statement of “If we can strike here we can strike anywhere.”

The World Trade Center clearly had the psychological impact of killing so many people. It would also have economic repercussions. Add to this its place as a symbol of economic might and it becomes clear target for those wishing to challenge our financial dominance. Of course the buildings themselves were an accomplishment of our technological progress. In the end this was an attack of them showing what havoc can be wrought by their distorted ideals of commitment in spite of US power.

Airlines were both a weapon and a target. A way of showing we can be used against ourselves. Attacking travel is also an insidious way to make many American’s feel vulnerable. This target also provided an additional economic attack.

So what do we learn from these targets? They are not striking at out freedom. Their attacks will strike fear and may make it tempting for us to attack or own freedoms, but their goal is to hurt our economic and military power. So as we decide how best to protect ourselves, we all should do what it takes to keep our economy healthy. We cannot let fear dissuade us from living or from using the power we do enjoy well.

A Madman has spoken…

Today’s Media

by

There has always been much discussion about the Media. Typically rants about bias to the left or right, over coverage of scandals and longing for better news coverage. Well here I sit as part of the media (albeit a very small one) and it has given me some insight into today’s media.

As always we must keep in mind that media outlets are all businesses. As such they attempt to take account of the desires of their market. And looking at the popularity of shows I believe that most hit the mark. An unfortunate side affect (in my ‘opinion’) is that outlets tend to mix and even emphasize opinion over information. You see opinion is far more interesting since it is where conflict exist. Of course the more acrimonious the conflict the better! And information tends to be boring, just sets of facts. But we desperately need facts to make intelligent decisions about those interesting conflicting opinions…

Of course as I point this out, note that Shake’s Place by design contains largely opinion. Though it does include differing opinions, hopefully in constructive dialogue. As much as possible I have included factual information. Be warned that even though I will include all information that I know is important, it will be the information that led me to a given opinion in the first place. Just a note to realize that even when an opinion based article conscientiously includes facts it is wise to seek out information that would support a contrary viewpoint.

So what is the solution? First we can all pay attention and understand when we are hearing opinion. Then go out and find the information we need to really test those opinions, testing both ones we agree and disagree with. If enough people are looking for information new outlets will come into existence to fill this need. In the end it doesn’t matter how much “garbage” is out there if it easy to find the good stuff.

A Madman has spoken…

Winning This War

by

Here we are in a war on terrorism and we need to take a serious look at our tactics if we intend to win it. As in any conflict it is essential to determine what resources your enemy relies on. In conflicts with another country this typically means destroying their military, blocking their supply lines and taking territory. But, when fighting terrorists, they may not have territory to take, their “military” are individuals in the populace so destroying them will be difficult, and denying them funds may slow them down, however the tactics they can use aren’t necessarily expensive. . So how do we adjust our tactics to win this war? Well the terrorists do have an important resource, the zealots that are willing to give their lives to hurt the US. This supply of zealots requires a group of people that are desperate and hate the US. In the end this combination of hatred and desperation is a resource we need to control.

Now hatred has always existed and it is not realistic to end it but we can certainly mitigate how much is directed at the US and to help lower the amount of desperation. Basically we need to be a good neighbor to the people of the world. Given our standing as the worlds only superpower and the incarnation of wealth in the world, it is easy for people that feel repressed, hungry or hopeless to blame the US. This is an unfortunate reality, and a dangerous one. The first step to deal with is to aggressively try to eliminate hunger in the world. This is something well within our grasp if we put the same amount of energy that we put into eradicating small pox, or a similar amount of money as our war in Afghanistan. As we do so we need to make certain the infrastructure (i.e. the free market) for food production is also built. This is more challenging but a necessary second step (this will likely include wean our farming industry off of subsidies).

As we fight hunger we will need to look at some of the more difficult challenges, promoting personal freedom, sustainable development and education. But as the people of the world see the US as striving for them it will be a lot harder for them to hate us. And as they have more to lose even of they do hate us, they aren’t going to strike in such a self-destructive fashion. Now I know there will be people out there that will say this is impractical and expensive, but we knew this war would be costly and difficult. We cannot afford to wimp out and fail to use the most effective tactics. Here we are one year into this war, we must adjust our tactics to recognize the uniqueness of this enemy, that is if we want to have a victory in our lifetime.

A Madman has spoken…

To Clone or not to Clone

by

Well here I sit concerned about human cloning… You see there is a movement to illegalize human cloning. It is no wonder that we have angst and fear about cloning, given all that has fictionally been shown to us. However I have not heard anything that justifies banning human cloning. Basically there are two aspects of cloning, I will address, first for the purpose of creating human embryos and second for reproduction (note there are actually several categories but these two shall do for this article). Now cloning is of course not the only way that these can happen; we have artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogate mothers, not to mention the natural way. Each technology of course met with resistance and healthy questions about how it should be used, in the end none were ever illegalized. In the end most concerns about cloning go away as long as you recognize that a clone is simply another human. And a human with all the rights and protection given a non cloned human.

In the first case we have human cloning with the intent to create human embryos. Questions have been raised about cloned embryos being used as organ factories, research, or being genetically manipulated. A clone embryo is still a human embryo; we simply need to answer if these activities should be allowed on embryos at all. Any of these things could happen to a non-cloned embryo, so illegalizing cloning will not address these question anyhow.

On to cloning for reproduction… Going back to the clone is just a person principle, this does not really differ much from in vitro fertilization (IVF) with one major exception. Currently cloning does not have nearly the success of IVF. I believe the FDA should regulate cloning as a treatment for infertility and should not allow it to get to human trials until it is expected to have the success rate of IVF. In the end I do not expect many people to want to create clones of themselves. I know I have heard the argument that allowing human cloning opens the door to “designer babies”. Well if it is possible to manipulate the DNA of a clone it will be possible to do the same with IVF, and assuming other advancements. We do need to decide whether genetic manipulation should be allowed and that is something for a very carefully thought out discussion. But, it is a separate question from cloning.

So we need to look at the concerns that have been brought up when talking about human cloning; and see if there are new protections that need to be put in place for the various stages of human life. There is no need to illegalize cloning outright. Reasonable regulation and monitoring does need to occur before it is allowed for reproduction. However we do need to make certain that it is clear that a human clone is as human as someone from natural fertilization. I would hope this is obvious, but often seems lost in the arguments over this very emotional issue.

A Madman has spoken…