Regardless of whether the statistics show it or not, our economy is in a recession. Major banks have failed, the government has unwisely bailed out large financial institutions to the tune of 700 billion dollars and may soon bail out the Big 3 automakers, housing prices have drastically fallen, foreclosures have skyrocketed and unemployment numbers are starting to creep up. We can all feel it, we all know it, we are in a recession.
So isn't nice of our leading energy companies to come along and offer us such charitable prices at the pump? Just a few months ago gas was hovering between $4.40 and $4.60 in Salem, Oregon where I live. Salem is a boring town unfortunately, so each weekend I wanted to leave for Portland or Eugene. But with those kind of gas prices, I weighed the pros and cons each time. Sitting alone in my apartment on a Saturday night isn't that bad compared to purging my wallet at the gas station.
Nationally, things were little better as the average price hit a record $3.24 a gallon in May of this year. But then Christmas came early. Apparently the oil executives felt guilty about their record setting profits and felt like they should give some of it back to us less fortunate. This massive outpouring of altruism has lead gas prices to plummet. In Salem it's $1.99 a gallon, the cheapest I've seen since I was in high school. Nationally gas prices have fallen to $1.89 a gallon. For those of us struggling to pay rent on time, the oil companies may be all that's keeping us afloat. And it doesn't end there. Oil, which was around $150 a barrel has plummeted well below $100. Apparently OPEC has gotten into the Holiday spirit too.
Now unless you are on a record setting pace for denseness, you realize I'm joking around. The oil companies are still as greedy as ever. It's simply they can't charge as much because of good old supply and demand. Honestly think about it, why did the oil executives all of a sudden start to raise prices around the turn of the century? Did they just up and become greedy? Of course not, they've been greedy the whole time, they were just restricted by the market. And now, our inflationary boom has collapsed (financial crisis, housing bubble) and the deflationary adjustment has come. This is bad, but can be good too. Sure investment and wages will go down, and unemployment will go up, but prices should go down as well (that is unless the government tries to keep prices from adjusting, like they did in the Great Depression, which will lead to yet another depression). Eventually (again under the delusional assumption that the government stays out) the economy will stabalize and everything will return to normal.
Now remember before the financial crisis and bailouts and change talk and all that. Remember back to this summer when all the talk was about the housing crisis and oil prices. The oil company's were gouging us! Hang the CEO's from the gallows! The hysteria was completely out of control. It should be no surprise that those leftists at the DailyKos jumped into the muck, but so did Bill O'Reilly and many faux right wingers. Congresswoman Maxine Waters even, to her eternal shame, threatened to nationalize the entire oil industry!
Well what now Maxine? What now Bill? What now left wing nuts at the DailyKos? Will you thank the oil companiess for their collective genoristy? Will you take a quick break from your current outrage over the supposed lack of regulation in our financial markets to apologize for all the bad things you said about them? You know what, save the the apologies and save the gratitude. Here's another idea, why don't you all just realize you don't know the first thing about economics and shut the hell up!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Worst Sports Year Ever (At Least for Washington)
With the election finally over and done with, I feel I should delve into some less important topics such as that alternate universe of escapism we call sports. Although, those suffering from the agony of athletic ineptitude and deprivation that those living just to the north of me are, may disagree about this topic’s level of importance.
What I'm obviously referring to is the epicly bad year Washington residents are experiencing when it comes to sports. Despite all the whining you've heard from Philadelphia or Chicago or Cleveland over the past 20 or 30 years, nothing even comes close to comparing with the absolute horror experienced by Washington sports fans in 2008.
We'll start with baseball. I figure I should get the boring sports out of the way quickly so I can end on a bang. And the only thing more consistently boring than baseball is bad baseball. The Seattle Mariners make for a brilliant example of both the former and the ladder. They went an AL worst 61-101. Ichiro is still doing his thing, but everyone else is just stuck in fail mode. The Mariners have now missed the playoffs seven straight years.
Moving on to football, things get more entertaining but certainly get no better for either Washington’s professional or collegiate teams. The Seattle Seahawks, playing in Mike Holmgren's final season, have been riddled by injuries and are now just 2-8, which will almost assuredly end their run of 5 straight division titles. Even worse is the fact that those two wins are twice as many as both the University of Washington and Washington State combined!
Washington can at least say they've lost star quarterback Jake Locker to injury, but does that excuse being 0-10 and losing six straight by 20 points or more? How about Washington State, they did beat 1-AA Portland State, but have been simply atrocolicious (words don’t describe how bad they’ve played so I made one up that would) in league play. They rank last out of 114 College teams in scoring defense (giving up an other worldly bad 50.2 points per game) and are second to last in scoring offense (13.9 points per game). Yes they are being beat by an average of 36.3 points per game! In Pac-10 play they've given up 60 points four times, along with 58 and 59 and have been shut out three times! They are truly boys amongst men. Thank God for these two teams that they play each other next week in the annual Apple Cup - A game I almost want to make the six hour drive to just to see how awful a game of college football can actually be.
Basketball gets a bit better, than a whole lot worse. Their college teams were actually pretty decent last year, but have graduated some good players and are expected to be middle of the pack this year. The Pro Team, well they were bad, real bad, and then they were gone. In the 2007-08 season the Seattle Sonics went 20-62, the second worst record in the NBA. However, Sonic fans knew it would be a bad season; they traded away Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis for a bunch of picks and young players. Plus they had just drafted Rookie of the Year Kevin Durant who averaged over 2o points a game in his first season. The future looked bright.
Too bad that future now looks bright in Oklahoma City. In 2006, after failing to convince Seattle to help pay for a new stadium, Howard Shultz decided to sell the team to Clayton Bennett. Bennett subsequently held the city hostage by demanding they either build a new stadium or he'd move the team to Oklahoma City. First of all, cities shouldn't be helping private owners pay for new stadiums in the first place, but this case is particularly awful. Not only was there a Dog Day Afternoon like hostage situation, but it appears the plan from the beginning was to move the team, as the new Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon told an Oklahoma City newspaper "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle." Unfortunately, unlike the movie, Clayton Bennett will probably not be shot in the face at the end.
So yeah, Washington and Seattle got screwed by Bennett and his cronies. And unfortunately, for perhaps the millionth example that karma doesn't exist, Bennent is doing just fine and all the rest of Washington's sports teams have utterly collapsed into an unwatchable mess of athletically inept garbage. But hey, cheer up Washington sports fans, there's always next year (well for all your teams but the Sonics that is).
What I'm obviously referring to is the epicly bad year Washington residents are experiencing when it comes to sports. Despite all the whining you've heard from Philadelphia or Chicago or Cleveland over the past 20 or 30 years, nothing even comes close to comparing with the absolute horror experienced by Washington sports fans in 2008.
We'll start with baseball. I figure I should get the boring sports out of the way quickly so I can end on a bang. And the only thing more consistently boring than baseball is bad baseball. The Seattle Mariners make for a brilliant example of both the former and the ladder. They went an AL worst 61-101. Ichiro is still doing his thing, but everyone else is just stuck in fail mode. The Mariners have now missed the playoffs seven straight years.
Moving on to football, things get more entertaining but certainly get no better for either Washington’s professional or collegiate teams. The Seattle Seahawks, playing in Mike Holmgren's final season, have been riddled by injuries and are now just 2-8, which will almost assuredly end their run of 5 straight division titles. Even worse is the fact that those two wins are twice as many as both the University of Washington and Washington State combined!
Washington can at least say they've lost star quarterback Jake Locker to injury, but does that excuse being 0-10 and losing six straight by 20 points or more? How about Washington State, they did beat 1-AA Portland State, but have been simply atrocolicious (words don’t describe how bad they’ve played so I made one up that would) in league play. They rank last out of 114 College teams in scoring defense (giving up an other worldly bad 50.2 points per game) and are second to last in scoring offense (13.9 points per game). Yes they are being beat by an average of 36.3 points per game! In Pac-10 play they've given up 60 points four times, along with 58 and 59 and have been shut out three times! They are truly boys amongst men. Thank God for these two teams that they play each other next week in the annual Apple Cup - A game I almost want to make the six hour drive to just to see how awful a game of college football can actually be.
Basketball gets a bit better, than a whole lot worse. Their college teams were actually pretty decent last year, but have graduated some good players and are expected to be middle of the pack this year. The Pro Team, well they were bad, real bad, and then they were gone. In the 2007-08 season the Seattle Sonics went 20-62, the second worst record in the NBA. However, Sonic fans knew it would be a bad season; they traded away Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis for a bunch of picks and young players. Plus they had just drafted Rookie of the Year Kevin Durant who averaged over 2o points a game in his first season. The future looked bright.
Too bad that future now looks bright in Oklahoma City. In 2006, after failing to convince Seattle to help pay for a new stadium, Howard Shultz decided to sell the team to Clayton Bennett. Bennett subsequently held the city hostage by demanding they either build a new stadium or he'd move the team to Oklahoma City. First of all, cities shouldn't be helping private owners pay for new stadiums in the first place, but this case is particularly awful. Not only was there a Dog Day Afternoon like hostage situation, but it appears the plan from the beginning was to move the team, as the new Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon told an Oklahoma City newspaper "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle." Unfortunately, unlike the movie, Clayton Bennett will probably not be shot in the face at the end.
So yeah, Washington and Seattle got screwed by Bennett and his cronies. And unfortunately, for perhaps the millionth example that karma doesn't exist, Bennent is doing just fine and all the rest of Washington's sports teams have utterly collapsed into an unwatchable mess of athletically inept garbage. But hey, cheer up Washington sports fans, there's always next year (well for all your teams but the Sonics that is).
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
So What Shouldn't be up for Vote?
In my last entry I discussed the limitations and problems with democracy, at least the unbridled version of it. However, I realized I wasn't very specific on what should be up for vote and what should not be. This is actually a very tricky question, unless of course you're an ideologue, i.e. everything should be up for vote or nothing.
Let's start with the obvious. The politicians that represent us should be elected by popular vote. Having problems with unbridled democracy is by no means supporting dictatorship. Even with a strong constitution and a rigidly defined version of federalism, the likes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Benito Mussolini are going to find a way around them unless they are voted out (or preferably not voted in).
So what else? Well if I was an Ayn Rand obsessed objectivist I would say not much. Pure laizze faire capitalism should rule the day. However, while I lean libertarian, I do think there are places the government can intervene to help a little bit with out screwing up the economy or become totalitarian. I don't believe in massive wealth redistribution, a business-government compact, the military industrial complex or an over bloated affirmative action program for every minority there is, but some mild protections and maybe even a little welfare for the truly downtrodden is by no means out of the question.
Here's how I would break it down. The government's primary goal is to protect natural rights or negative liberty. By that I mean it should protect its citizens from threats to their well being either foreign (invasion, terrorism) or domestic (crime, persecution and the government itself). This epitomizes the classical liberal maxim espoused by the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. On the other hand, positive liberty, like the right to a home or healthcare, is really a misnomer because you can't give positive liberty to someone with out taking it from someone else.
Therefore, the federal government should deal almost solely with negative liberty. It should be there to provide a national defense and intrastate police force (like the US Marshalls) to chase down criminals that flee from one state to another and probably the major infrastructure such as the freeways. It should also override state decisions, but only in the negative. So for example, the Jim Crow laws should, and eventually were, be overturned by the federal government. I would probably be OK if the feds also overturned Proposition 8, which I discussed in the last entry. However, the federal government should not be handing out welfare to citizens in Alabama or telling how a small business in Deleware should be ran.
I would give the states more leeway though. Here I think citizens should be able to vote for more positive rights. Some welfare here and there, a couple regulations as well as on the tricky issues like abortion, for which it's debatable whether or not another person is involved. I would still leave things like outright socialism, discriminatory laws, denying gay rights and probably even denying the right to ingest whatever drugs you want off the table.
Why more power to the states? For several reasons. First, this creates a separation of powers where the federal government can prevent the states from denying people's rights while not having the power to do so itself. Secondly, the majority is more likely to actually represent people's opinions in a state because of the smaller and more homogenous populations involved. It always amazed how angry liberals got that major policies in California and Massachusetts are decided by people in Texas and Georgia, yet liberals still oppose state rights. Finally, even if a state enacts an atrocious law that the federal government fails to overturn it, it's much easier to move out of a state than out of the country. And if the United States goes wrong, a country founded on the thirst for freedom, where else do we have to go?
So there you have it. Under these guidelines the federal government could probably be funded by a small non-protective tariff and perhaps some corporate taxes. I'd probably let the state's citizen’s vote on how each state government should be funded even though this opens the possibility for those high taxes I dislike so much. I can always move to New Hampshire right? Anyways, I know it probably needs to be more refined, but it's a good start.
Let's start with the obvious. The politicians that represent us should be elected by popular vote. Having problems with unbridled democracy is by no means supporting dictatorship. Even with a strong constitution and a rigidly defined version of federalism, the likes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Benito Mussolini are going to find a way around them unless they are voted out (or preferably not voted in).
So what else? Well if I was an Ayn Rand obsessed objectivist I would say not much. Pure laizze faire capitalism should rule the day. However, while I lean libertarian, I do think there are places the government can intervene to help a little bit with out screwing up the economy or become totalitarian. I don't believe in massive wealth redistribution, a business-government compact, the military industrial complex or an over bloated affirmative action program for every minority there is, but some mild protections and maybe even a little welfare for the truly downtrodden is by no means out of the question.
Here's how I would break it down. The government's primary goal is to protect natural rights or negative liberty. By that I mean it should protect its citizens from threats to their well being either foreign (invasion, terrorism) or domestic (crime, persecution and the government itself). This epitomizes the classical liberal maxim espoused by the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. On the other hand, positive liberty, like the right to a home or healthcare, is really a misnomer because you can't give positive liberty to someone with out taking it from someone else.
Therefore, the federal government should deal almost solely with negative liberty. It should be there to provide a national defense and intrastate police force (like the US Marshalls) to chase down criminals that flee from one state to another and probably the major infrastructure such as the freeways. It should also override state decisions, but only in the negative. So for example, the Jim Crow laws should, and eventually were, be overturned by the federal government. I would probably be OK if the feds also overturned Proposition 8, which I discussed in the last entry. However, the federal government should not be handing out welfare to citizens in Alabama or telling how a small business in Deleware should be ran.
I would give the states more leeway though. Here I think citizens should be able to vote for more positive rights. Some welfare here and there, a couple regulations as well as on the tricky issues like abortion, for which it's debatable whether or not another person is involved. I would still leave things like outright socialism, discriminatory laws, denying gay rights and probably even denying the right to ingest whatever drugs you want off the table.
Why more power to the states? For several reasons. First, this creates a separation of powers where the federal government can prevent the states from denying people's rights while not having the power to do so itself. Secondly, the majority is more likely to actually represent people's opinions in a state because of the smaller and more homogenous populations involved. It always amazed how angry liberals got that major policies in California and Massachusetts are decided by people in Texas and Georgia, yet liberals still oppose state rights. Finally, even if a state enacts an atrocious law that the federal government fails to overturn it, it's much easier to move out of a state than out of the country. And if the United States goes wrong, a country founded on the thirst for freedom, where else do we have to go?
So there you have it. Under these guidelines the federal government could probably be funded by a small non-protective tariff and perhaps some corporate taxes. I'd probably let the state's citizen’s vote on how each state government should be funded even though this opens the possibility for those high taxes I dislike so much. I can always move to New Hampshire right? Anyways, I know it probably needs to be more refined, but it's a good start.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My Thoughts on Prop 8
In the euphoria liberals having been feeling over the past week after Obama won the election and Democrats picked up several more seats in the House and Senate, there has been one sour note for them. That is the passing of proposition 8 in California. Prop 8 basically bans same-sex marriage and it does so in the biggest and one of the most liberal states in the union.
Now I don't live in California and I am neither gay nor have any interest in getting married anytime soon. I do however agree with my liberal friends that Prop 8 is a ridiculous and unfair law. Of equal importance though, I feel I should weigh in on this issue because it elucidates a paradox within the standard liberal orthodoxy: namely that democracy is an infallible good.
Democracy is good you say, well I agree, but only to a limited extent. There are certain rights we shouldn't be able to vote away from each other. We should remember that Hitler came to power in a democracy (Weimar Republic), the Jim Crow laws were kept in place for 100 years with out being overturned by vote, George Bush was reelected in 2004 and Saddam Hussein got 100% of the popular vote (OK that one's not really fair). Detractors we'll surely say that democracy isn't perfect but it is still good, as Winston Churchill said "democracy is the absolute worst type of government, aside by every other one."
So I guess we just have to live with democracy's imperfections, right? Well not really, because the United States is not a democracy! Yes you read that right and I am not inferring it's a fascist dictatorship (my apologies to any Noam Chomsky fans out there). The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional part obviously implies the Constitution, or namely a strict set of rules our government must be held to. Separation of powers is explicit in that to prevent a consolidation of the monopoly (government), which interprets said document. The Republic part insinuates federalism, or state rights. Now obviously this isn't perfect either as Jim Crow was justified with state rights. But we need not go to any extreme; the federal government can (under the 14th Ammendment) and should prevent the states from blatantly taking people's rights away.
So we need all four (democracy, federalism, a constitution and separation of powers) to have a just government. Unbridled democracy alone is simply mob rule, the power of the 51% to take away the rights of the 49%. It’s what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner" while liberty was "a well armed lamb protesting the vote." James Madison was more explicit:
The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
Neo-socialists like Howard Zinn claim Madison was trying to make sure the rich minority could exploit the poor masses, but that had nothing to do with it. Although slavery was allowed (against the wishes of most founding fathers), the idea was that no party, political orthodoxy, religion or anything else could come to dominate the country and that people who held opposing views would be free from the tyranny of the majority. This is why our 1st amendment isn't up for vote. We can't vote away free speech (although politicians through out our history have tried to do it in an underhanded way).
So in essence what Prop 8 did was allowed the majority of Californians to vote away the rights of the minority. This is what the Federal Constitution and every State Constitution is meant to prevent. What angers me here is not so much that Prop 8 passed, but that we would even be allowed to vote on such a thing. Hell, marriage wasn't even a state regulated institution until about 100 years ago when the government got into it (and makes us pay them to get married).
Well, there's the legal, constitutional argument, how about the moral argument. Well first off, it shouldn't matter. Why does someone else getting married, probably a stranger, matter to you at all? Is it to maintain the institutions traditions? Well, just 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states, so that can't be it. OK, so the Bible says "13If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Well be careful, the Bible also says "18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Are you really going to feel good about enforcing that one? All Christians need to either accept that the Old Testament is a bit anachronistic and there's a lot of allegory in there or you are not even close to living a Christian life and should certainly not be casting the first stone! Keith Olbermann, who usually bugs me like he’s the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, actually puts it very well.
Oh wait, my bad, I found this great top 10 list that explains why gay marriage should be outlawed. I'll try not to write so much next time before changing my mind at the last second:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Again, my bad...
Now I don't live in California and I am neither gay nor have any interest in getting married anytime soon. I do however agree with my liberal friends that Prop 8 is a ridiculous and unfair law. Of equal importance though, I feel I should weigh in on this issue because it elucidates a paradox within the standard liberal orthodoxy: namely that democracy is an infallible good.
Democracy is good you say, well I agree, but only to a limited extent. There are certain rights we shouldn't be able to vote away from each other. We should remember that Hitler came to power in a democracy (Weimar Republic), the Jim Crow laws were kept in place for 100 years with out being overturned by vote, George Bush was reelected in 2004 and Saddam Hussein got 100% of the popular vote (OK that one's not really fair). Detractors we'll surely say that democracy isn't perfect but it is still good, as Winston Churchill said "democracy is the absolute worst type of government, aside by every other one."
So I guess we just have to live with democracy's imperfections, right? Well not really, because the United States is not a democracy! Yes you read that right and I am not inferring it's a fascist dictatorship (my apologies to any Noam Chomsky fans out there). The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional part obviously implies the Constitution, or namely a strict set of rules our government must be held to. Separation of powers is explicit in that to prevent a consolidation of the monopoly (government), which interprets said document. The Republic part insinuates federalism, or state rights. Now obviously this isn't perfect either as Jim Crow was justified with state rights. But we need not go to any extreme; the federal government can (under the 14th Ammendment) and should prevent the states from blatantly taking people's rights away.
So we need all four (democracy, federalism, a constitution and separation of powers) to have a just government. Unbridled democracy alone is simply mob rule, the power of the 51% to take away the rights of the 49%. It’s what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner" while liberty was "a well armed lamb protesting the vote." James Madison was more explicit:
The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
Neo-socialists like Howard Zinn claim Madison was trying to make sure the rich minority could exploit the poor masses, but that had nothing to do with it. Although slavery was allowed (against the wishes of most founding fathers), the idea was that no party, political orthodoxy, religion or anything else could come to dominate the country and that people who held opposing views would be free from the tyranny of the majority. This is why our 1st amendment isn't up for vote. We can't vote away free speech (although politicians through out our history have tried to do it in an underhanded way).
So in essence what Prop 8 did was allowed the majority of Californians to vote away the rights of the minority. This is what the Federal Constitution and every State Constitution is meant to prevent. What angers me here is not so much that Prop 8 passed, but that we would even be allowed to vote on such a thing. Hell, marriage wasn't even a state regulated institution until about 100 years ago when the government got into it (and makes us pay them to get married).
Well, there's the legal, constitutional argument, how about the moral argument. Well first off, it shouldn't matter. Why does someone else getting married, probably a stranger, matter to you at all? Is it to maintain the institutions traditions? Well, just 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states, so that can't be it. OK, so the Bible says "13If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Well be careful, the Bible also says "18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Are you really going to feel good about enforcing that one? All Christians need to either accept that the Old Testament is a bit anachronistic and there's a lot of allegory in there or you are not even close to living a Christian life and should certainly not be casting the first stone! Keith Olbermann, who usually bugs me like he’s the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, actually puts it very well.
Oh wait, my bad, I found this great top 10 list that explains why gay marriage should be outlawed. I'll try not to write so much next time before changing my mind at the last second:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Again, my bad...
Congrats Obama
OK, so I guess I'm about a week late, but then again, no one really reads my blog anyways so I have a pretty flexible schedule. Regardless, congratulations President Elect Barack Obama. I didn't vote for you, I think many of your policies are wrong, but I think you're a good, honorable person and will be a major improvement over our current president (of course, my last bowel movement would have probably been an improvement).
Given that the election really came down to Obama and McCain, I'm glad Obama won. His vicotry is basically a rejection of the the Iraq War. And while I doubt Obama will start withdrawing our troops from all over the world, I do think he'll at least slowly bring that awful war to a close.
As I stated earlier, his economic policies do make me a bit nervous. Then again, McCain wasn't an improvement. I could barely stand the irony of McCain calling Obama the "redistributionist and chief" a week or so after he voted to pass the $700 billion dollar bailout (the biggest wealth redistribution in American history). Obama is not a socialist by any means, still a new New Deal is definitely not what we need right now. Hopefully he'll keep it within reason. Although with all the problems this country is facing and pressure he's facing, I kinda doubt it. Oh well. Good luck President Obama.
Given that the election really came down to Obama and McCain, I'm glad Obama won. His vicotry is basically a rejection of the the Iraq War. And while I doubt Obama will start withdrawing our troops from all over the world, I do think he'll at least slowly bring that awful war to a close.
As I stated earlier, his economic policies do make me a bit nervous. Then again, McCain wasn't an improvement. I could barely stand the irony of McCain calling Obama the "redistributionist and chief" a week or so after he voted to pass the $700 billion dollar bailout (the biggest wealth redistribution in American history). Obama is not a socialist by any means, still a new New Deal is definitely not what we need right now. Hopefully he'll keep it within reason. Although with all the problems this country is facing and pressure he's facing, I kinda doubt it. Oh well. Good luck President Obama.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Getting My Vote On
Who to vote for, who to vote for? That was my dilemma last weekend as I went through and filled out my mail-in ballot. It was probably the most mind-numbingly boring experience of my entire life... so I'd like to share it with you. Don't worry, I'll skip the boring ballot measures and annexation requests and State Treasurer runoff and jump right to the real meat of the matter: Who should I vote for President.
I'll start with the Republicans. Wow, have they proven they don't deserve my vote over the past eight years. I'll say that no matter what happens, this election can't be all bad given that George Bush will be out of office in two months. And while I like John McCain as a person and definitely respect him for what he had to go through in Vietnam, I simply can't vote for him. I won't even consider it. The reason being is his steadfast support for the war in Iraq and his almost romantic disposition toward US militarism. Every prediction made by the war's supporters - that it would be a cake walk, that there wouldn't be an insurgency, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that oil would pay for the war, that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence - has been proven wrong. The surge seems to have helped stabilize the situation, but I think it has more to do with the Iraqi people segregating themselves along sectarian lines. Basically McCain was wrong about Iraq in the beginning and he is still unwilling to budge. To me, this is unacceptable.
Unfortunately it's not just Iraq with him. McCain is a super hawk, through and through. He even said in one of the Republican debates that "we lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the will to finish the job." Really John, really? Were 13 years not enough (1960-1973)? Were 55,000 dead Americans not enough? I'm just afraid that he is such a hawk that not only will we stay in Iraq for a 100 years but that Iran may be next. To fill out his resume he has admitted he's doesn't know much about the economy and Sarah Palin is inexperienced and looks kind of lost on the campaign trail. At least she's helped Saturday Night Live produce a much needed revival.
So let's turn to the Democrats, Barack Obama is tempting. All that talk of change, well it makes me think of this. He did oppose the Iraq War and comes of as uniting figure. However, if you read his anti-war speech closely, it's really not very anti-war, it's just anti-this-war. While obviously very few people would oppose all wars regardless of circumstance, Obama felt it necessary to reiterate that four times in a 921 word speech. And since when does one short speech make you passionately anti-war prior to the conflict. So Barack may just bring us back to the ineffective, scattered, naive interventions a la Bill Clinton. Oh and he hasn't pushed any legislation to end the war of even voted against funding it. Some change there buddy.
What worries me more about Obama is his economic ideas. As I mentioned in the previous post, the government is the root of our financial crisis, but the junior senator from Illinois simply blames Wall Street and only Wall Street. Overall he wants to raise taxes during a recession. Come on Barack, economics 101! Sometimes his economic policies are just plain ridiculous, such as when he was asked why he wants to raise the capital gains tax even though the last two times that was done it brought in less revenue. His answer: it's more fair. Really Barack, really? He also wants to increase spending, which will mean more borrowing, even with the tax increases he has proposed. Thereby increasing our ever growing and unsustainable national debt, which I will have to write a blog about sometime later.
So I'm saying no to the two major candidates. Aren't I throwing my vote away then? Well, I live in Oregon, which is easily in Obama's camp. So no matter who I vote for I'm throwing my vote away. I'm not against democracy by any means (although it needs to be restrained by a strong constitution, separation of powers and federalism). And I do know that if many people vote for a third party candidate en masse it could swing the election, such as with Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. However I also know that it is simply a fact that no election has ever been decided by one vote and Oregon will go blue no matter how I fill out my ballot. So screw the major parties and call it a protest vote if you want, but I'm voting for who I want regardless of their odds.
So then who? Well I liked Ron Paul a lot during the primaries, so maybe I could write him in. He's not on the ballot, but did gain quite a following during the primaries. Paul's libertarian conservatism may be a bit simplistic, but he's one of the few politicians that Washington hasn't corrupted. I supported him until those ugly, racist newsletters saw the light of day. Paul says he didn't write them and I believe him, but it's hard to believe he had no idea what was going on. I mean the newsletter was called the Ron Paul Newsletter for crying out loud. So I guess I still respect him (and by the way his book, The Revolution: a Manifesto, is quite good), but I'm not going to write him in.
So, given my moderate libertarian beliefs I guess I'll just go with Bob Barr and the libertarian ticket. I have some beefs with the former congressman too - such as his support of the Defense of Marriage Act, a very unlibertarian piece of legislation if there ever was one - but overall he's a more restrained version of Ron Paul with out the racist charade circling him. Hey, he's as good as anyone to throw my vote away on.
I'll start with the Republicans. Wow, have they proven they don't deserve my vote over the past eight years. I'll say that no matter what happens, this election can't be all bad given that George Bush will be out of office in two months. And while I like John McCain as a person and definitely respect him for what he had to go through in Vietnam, I simply can't vote for him. I won't even consider it. The reason being is his steadfast support for the war in Iraq and his almost romantic disposition toward US militarism. Every prediction made by the war's supporters - that it would be a cake walk, that there wouldn't be an insurgency, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that oil would pay for the war, that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence - has been proven wrong. The surge seems to have helped stabilize the situation, but I think it has more to do with the Iraqi people segregating themselves along sectarian lines. Basically McCain was wrong about Iraq in the beginning and he is still unwilling to budge. To me, this is unacceptable.
Unfortunately it's not just Iraq with him. McCain is a super hawk, through and through. He even said in one of the Republican debates that "we lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the will to finish the job." Really John, really? Were 13 years not enough (1960-1973)? Were 55,000 dead Americans not enough? I'm just afraid that he is such a hawk that not only will we stay in Iraq for a 100 years but that Iran may be next. To fill out his resume he has admitted he's doesn't know much about the economy and Sarah Palin is inexperienced and looks kind of lost on the campaign trail. At least she's helped Saturday Night Live produce a much needed revival.
So let's turn to the Democrats, Barack Obama is tempting. All that talk of change, well it makes me think of this. He did oppose the Iraq War and comes of as uniting figure. However, if you read his anti-war speech closely, it's really not very anti-war, it's just anti-this-war. While obviously very few people would oppose all wars regardless of circumstance, Obama felt it necessary to reiterate that four times in a 921 word speech. And since when does one short speech make you passionately anti-war prior to the conflict. So Barack may just bring us back to the ineffective, scattered, naive interventions a la Bill Clinton. Oh and he hasn't pushed any legislation to end the war of even voted against funding it. Some change there buddy.
What worries me more about Obama is his economic ideas. As I mentioned in the previous post, the government is the root of our financial crisis, but the junior senator from Illinois simply blames Wall Street and only Wall Street. Overall he wants to raise taxes during a recession. Come on Barack, economics 101! Sometimes his economic policies are just plain ridiculous, such as when he was asked why he wants to raise the capital gains tax even though the last two times that was done it brought in less revenue. His answer: it's more fair. Really Barack, really? He also wants to increase spending, which will mean more borrowing, even with the tax increases he has proposed. Thereby increasing our ever growing and unsustainable national debt, which I will have to write a blog about sometime later.
So I'm saying no to the two major candidates. Aren't I throwing my vote away then? Well, I live in Oregon, which is easily in Obama's camp. So no matter who I vote for I'm throwing my vote away. I'm not against democracy by any means (although it needs to be restrained by a strong constitution, separation of powers and federalism). And I do know that if many people vote for a third party candidate en masse it could swing the election, such as with Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. However I also know that it is simply a fact that no election has ever been decided by one vote and Oregon will go blue no matter how I fill out my ballot. So screw the major parties and call it a protest vote if you want, but I'm voting for who I want regardless of their odds.
So then who? Well I liked Ron Paul a lot during the primaries, so maybe I could write him in. He's not on the ballot, but did gain quite a following during the primaries. Paul's libertarian conservatism may be a bit simplistic, but he's one of the few politicians that Washington hasn't corrupted. I supported him until those ugly, racist newsletters saw the light of day. Paul says he didn't write them and I believe him, but it's hard to believe he had no idea what was going on. I mean the newsletter was called the Ron Paul Newsletter for crying out loud. So I guess I still respect him (and by the way his book, The Revolution: a Manifesto, is quite good), but I'm not going to write him in.
So, given my moderate libertarian beliefs I guess I'll just go with Bob Barr and the libertarian ticket. I have some beefs with the former congressman too - such as his support of the Defense of Marriage Act, a very unlibertarian piece of legislation if there ever was one - but overall he's a more restrained version of Ron Paul with out the racist charade circling him. Hey, he's as good as anyone to throw my vote away on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
