Fix the System

6 Myths of the Free Market

2011-11-04T22:40:00.000-04:00

Myth: An unregulated free market will produce the best product at the best price. Reality: The specialty of free market systems is to produce maximum profits for those merchants selling there. It only maximizes value for the consumer if there is healthy competition. If a merchant (corporation) becomes big enough that they can control anything but their own prices and product, this model fails to protect the consumer.
Myth: Regulations inhibit the ability of a free market to provide the products people want at a price they want. Reality: Sure, regulations could theoretically be used in any number of ways to inhibit products and prices. However, regulations can be (and usually are) used in positive ways to encourage healthier competition, protect consumers' interests, and keep prices low, among other things.
Myth: Nothing good comes from regulations. Reality: Here are a few good things brought about by regulation: nutritional information on food, absence of price-gouging as the rule in a time of crisis, minimal safety standards for cars, near absence of many previously fatal/serious diseases such as polio, small pox, measles, etc.
Myth: Consumers know what they want. Reality: You can't make an informed decision without information. Most useful information a consumer is interested in when making a large/important purchase is only available because of regulations.
Myth: We have enough regulations. Reality: When there is profit to be made by finding a loophole in existing regulations, it will be found and exploited. Whenever new technology comes along it frequently opens new loopholes. As long as we have technological progress, we will need regulation to keep up with the technology.
Myth: The free market is democratic. Reality: The free market is capitalist. The difference between capitalism and democracy is that the worth of your "vote" is in direct proportion to your bankroll. Sure, anyone can vote with their wallet, but the market only listens to the people with the biggest ones.

In short, from a consumer's point of view, regulations are critical to maintaining the health of the free market. We will always need new regulations. We may need to remove some old regulations as well. It is absolutely possible to have very bad regulations. The debate can never be for or against regulations taken as a whole. Each regulation needs to be considered independently.

In today's world, most Fortune 500 companies are fully capable of manipulating their market to a great degree, with many of them having power over many different markets. Due to the state of politics in this country, regulations are far behind technology, and these corporations would like to keep it that way, and even expand the gap. If you're that big already, any softening of regulation (or advance in technology) allows you to take a few more pennies out of your customers' or employees' wallets and use them to pad the wallets of your executives and shareholders.

Anti-regulation is anti-democratic.

The Radicalization of the Electorate

2011-10-16T22:17:00.000-04:00

The Occupy Wall Street movement which has spread to cities around the world represents a dramatic shift in the state of the electorate. By definition, a radical is someone who does not believe the system works and that it will require significant changes to restore proper functional order. This is a spectrum, of course, ranging from those who think that voting out most incumbents will solve the problem to people who think government should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. The popularity of the OWS movement is a direct indicator of radical ideals becoming more popular and even mainstream.

Like it or not, OWS is a radical movement. I would argue that it is specifically a radical moderate movement. In that its issues are primarily with aspects of the system that affect both parties equally, and are agreeable to a large majority of the electorate.

Unfortunately, most of these folks are new to radicalism, and are not used to thinking outside of the box, hence the lack of focus of their message. I would suggest three main issues that they could take up that would be of most value to making progress in the direction they would want to see.

1. The most important issue they should be taking up is the overturning or legislating away of the Citizens United decision that recently changed the political landscape and is effectively taking small donors out of the political process. This decision is the most damaging development in our democracy to date. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong here.

2. Massive electoral reform. As long as there is so much to be gained by having a "controlling interest" in Washington politics, there will be corporations finding ways around whatever rules are in place. Even if we fix issue number 1, we are still fighting an uphill battle. I would personally love to see presidential elections REQUIRED to be funded by public funds, so that all candidates winning the nomination of a nationally recognized party would be allotted equal funds to run their campaigns. Maybe you could fund this by commandeering all of the funds currently in the possession of the wide variety of PACs out there. (Yes, I know commandeering these funds would never happen and would likely be judged illegal.)

3. Give some REAL power to the new Bureau of Consumer Protection. It has been eviscerated by all of the special interests - in this case, primarily Wall Street and other big businesses.

If OWS could get any of these three issues addressed, even in part, it would be a huge victory. If they can get more politicians to pay attention to these issues, it would be highly beneficial. If they can get the word out, it's a step in the right direction.

Radicalism, in general is difficult to focus. I almost want to laugh at Obama's attempt to align himself with OWS. (He might be able to do so by doing something significant on one of the above three issues, but I don't see that happening.) However, if the right ideas or leaders can emerge to bring a focus to a movement like this, there's no telling how powerful the movement might become.

Citizens United: Holding Republicans Hostage

2011-03-20T20:33:00.001-04:00

While I believe one of the main problems facing our democracy in this country is the lack of viable 3^rd parties, apparently there are many out there who believe that 2 viable parties are too many. Ever since the decision for granting corporations First Amendment rights in the “Citizens United” case, the Republicans have been economically forced to pursue radical capitalist agendas which are designed specifically to create a political monopoly. Lest you suggest that I am overreacting, let me offer some evidence.

The cohesiveness of the mainstream Republican platform is at an all-time high. When was the last time anyone heard a non-Tea-Party Republican say anything that other Republicans were not already saying or which picked up almost immediately afterwards? The party is nearly unanimous (with notable exceptions for Tea Partyers and Republicans representing Blue regions) on almost every significant piece of legislation.

This much, you could easily attribute to “politics as usual” – with coordination and strategy. However, the recent attacks on the few powerful left-leaning organizations reveals the true goals of the Republican party – they aim not just to win, but to crush the competition. They will not be content until the Democratic party is lumped in with the other 3^rd parties as “the opposition.”

By attacking public broadcasting, they are literally attacking the most trusted news source in this country. Fortunately, I don’t think they can take those organizations down due to the strong public financial support they gets on a regular basis. However, having the conversation about whether or not it should be funded is an attempt to corrode public trust and slander the work of the organizations. NPR and PBS will survive, but they will be weakened and wounded. Ironically, reducing the ability of the populace to express its First Amendment rights, as you would expect Republicans to be more protective of them based on their protection of the First Amendment rights of corporations.

Furthermore, their attacks on collective bargaining that recently started in Wisconsin are a direct assault on the ability of unions to be an effective counter balance to corporations under the Citizens United decision. In the 2010 elections, the only organizations that came close to being able to spend as much as corporations were the unions. Thanks to the attack in Wisconsin, they have spent a large amount of their reserves fighting unjust legislation as opposed to political advertising. With the 2012 election campaigns getting started, this was timed very carefully by the Republican leadership.

The Republican party, as nearly as I can tell, is run by corporations, not the politicians. (Democrats are also heavily influenced by them, but still seem to think for themselves more often than not.) Corporations have only one driving motivator – profit. When corporations get involved in politics, their motivation does not change. Their goal is profit. However, in order to maximize their profit, they must maximize their power. They do not care about morals or the potential consequences for their grand-children, unless, of course, having “morals” serves the purpose of helping them get more power or profit. This is why it is extremely dangerous to confuse corporations with people.

The current level of influence corporations have in politics threatens our democracy in very real ways. Until we have the ability to regulate and restrict their influences legally and effectively, we are going to see a lot more radical capitalist agendas being pushed.

Jesus was a Radical

2011-01-18T23:22:00.000-05:00

Being a little radical can be a good thing. Look at Jesus. He was about as radical as they come, relative to the society in which he lived. He rebuilt religion completely, integrating only the most basic tenets, and almost none of the received interpretations. To me, this is one of His most important teachings: always do what you believe is right, regardless of what those around you are doing. This is the essence of radical moderatism - not pushing a radical agenda just to try something different, but rather to do away with something that is broken in order to rebuild it properly.

"No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse." (Mark 2:21 - KJV)

However, it's also very difficult to be truly radical in this way. Jesus did not have any money, he did not live in a home during most of his ministry. He had to do this to be able to be completely free of the social obligations that come from owning property and earning a living. I have met few people that dedicated to anything.

In the end Jesus was killed precisely because he was a radical. That was, of course, part of the Plan. However, it shows how difficult it is to be truly radical. If you ever start to become remotely successful, you become a threat. Sometimes only an act of God can truly fix a broken system.

Fortunately, I believe in miracles.

Barack Obama vs. John Stewart

2010-10-29T13:11:00.001-04:00

The interview of Barack Obama by John Stewart on The Daily Show was the best political interview I have ever seen.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-october-27-2010-barack-obama

Here are a few reasons why:

Both men are very intelligent and well spoken
Stewart asked difficult questions, even though they are on the same political side
Both men listened to what the other was saying (rather than using the time to think of what they wanted to say next)
Neither was trying to manipulate the conversation to their best advantage or against the other

Overall, an interesting, informative and civil political conversation. Why aren't there more of these in the media?

Thoughts on Improving Public Education

2010-10-19T22:51:00.001-04:00

We as Americans tend to look only at capitalist solutions to problems. Standardized testing is the equivalent of looking at a company's bottom line. School choice is obviously capitalist. My school district has apparently started selling advertising space targeting parents. The problem with these approaches is that universal education, by its very nature is a socialist institution. Unfortunately, the word "socialism" might as well be banned by the FCC, the way people use it. However, a well educated populace is VITAL to a healthy democracy, so, despite it's socialist nature, I would argue that public education is more important to democracy than is the free market.

If we can get over thinking of all things socialist as being of the devil, and embrace the socialist nature of public education, it might lead to improvements which are more harmonious with what our democracy needs from public education.

Always thinking...

2009-05-15T08:11:00.001-04:00

I can't help it, I'm always thinking. Often, I come up with ideas and think, "someone (or I) should do that." Usually, they are ideas far too big for me to realistically accomplish.

This time, despite my lack of time to work on something like this, the idea just won't leave me alone. So, I'm tentatively investigating the possibilities.

For this project, I am interested in networking with bloggers, photographers, videographers, and other such people, amateur or professional in Peabody, MA. I might extend the search out to the immediate surrounding communities, but for now, I'm focusing only on Peabody. Even if it is just a blog about your cat or kid.

If you are or know anyone or any sites like the above, please add a comment below with the information.

Thanks!

Approval Voting

2008-10-19T22:06:00.002-04:00

I learned about approval voting from a Nobel Prize winner on a panel about the media and democracy at Salem State College. He presented it as a solution to several problems with our single-vote (plurality) system. First off, plurality systems have a bias toward polarized candidates. (Any evidence of that? ;-) Approval voting is much more likely to elect better consensus candidates. Secondly, approval voting allows fully integrated participation of third parties without penalty to the two major parties. Thirdly, it is less susceptible to vote strategizing - the best vote is a sincere vote. And, finally, it would be a very small change to implement for most of America, including the fact that if someone continued to vote as if it were a single-vote system, that is still a valid, sincere vote.

I think approval voting is a great answer to these problems, and that everyone should contact their politicians and push for approval voting in all levels of government.

Wikipedia has a great article on approval voting.

The stock market is not a bank

2008-10-05T16:40:00.001-04:00

It seems that many Americans see their 401k accounts as a retirement bank account, and depend on it almost exclusively for their retirement funds. Sure, there's Social Security, but who knows how long that will last... The problem with 401k accounts and anything that puts all of your money into the stock market, is that the stock market is not a bank.

Some people might suggest that this is a good thing, but I think recent events illustrate that it is not always a good thing. Making money on the stock market requires one of two things. Either, 1) you are very intelligent and make it your full time job, or 2) make sure everything continues with 'business as usual'. You can also delegate your money to someone else, to meet the first option. However, when there are hiccups in the process, it can be dangerous for any investor.

It is important to also set up a regular savings account for retirement, and most importantly, to avoid debt as much as possible. These two things will stabilize your personal economy more than anything you can do with a stock market based account.

True Costs

2008-09-11T23:10:00.000-04:00

Part of the problem with our culture of elaborate wastefulness is that people generally are truly unaware of the damage they do to the environment just by being an average American. They see what they do directly, but they don't understand all of the hidden costs. We really need better education and information to show people what our lifestyles cost.

I have been contemplating an idea for a web site for quite some time (don't have the time to build it myself, unfortunately) that would take our every-day, mundane activities, and look into ALL of the costs as deeply as possible. For instance, take watching an hour of TV. An average person might consider the cost of the television in the store, their cable bill and their electric bill. If you start digging deeper into each of these, there is a lot of interesting information that people generally do not think about: How much carbon is produced by the power station to generate the electricity to power my television? How much land is mined to produce the fuel to burn to generate that power? How much fuel is used in the transportation of those natural resources? What kind of other byproducts are there to this production of energy? How many people are involved in getting that electricity to me? What about the power infrastructure? What about the resources and byproducts of building the television? How long will it last? How long will it take to decompose if it is put in a landfill? What about the production of the TV shows? The questions are almost endless.

The trick is to do this accurately, and communicate it clearly to the web site visitors. Ideally, I would want to let them change some of the variables to personalize it for themselves to help drive it even closer to home. If you could really get this kind of information to people and give them tools to reduce their impact, it could make a big difference.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge in the hands of the masses is power for revolution.

Hot, Flat, and Crowded

2008-09-11T20:18:00.002-04:00

I just finished watching an interview with Tom Friedman on Meet the Press. He was discussing the issues he discusses in his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - And How it Can Renew America.

It sounds like a perfect example to me of a Radical Moderate approach to the current environmental issues. I have not read the book yet, and, unfortunately, will probably not get to it anytime soon, but I have put it on my short list of books I need to read.

Anyway, his basic thesis seems to be that as the state of the world will continue on its current path of global warming, a growing middle class and increasingly densely populated, the way for the US to continue as a world leader will be to focus on "Energy Technology" or "ET" (versus IT, Information Technology). If we are able to effectively harness the potential development power of the US economy for green energy, that technology will provide the basis for a more solid economic foundation.

Sounds good to me. :-)

Improving K-12 Education: It's a culture thing

2007-02-26T21:22:00.000-05:00

The following is my post in a forum discussing ways to improve K-12 education and is in response to two posts, one which claimed the lack of qualified teachers was the most important area to improve while another was focusing on the funding of schools.

I disagree with both recent posts. I think both the lack of money and lack of qualified teachers are symptoms of a larger issue: our culture itself. The culture of the US does not value education. American culture values money. Americans used to judge each other by what their parents did for a living (not ideal...), now they judge one another by the kind of car they drive, or bags they carry, or size of their birthday parties.

There are two major problems with this. The first is that there are many ways to make money - many of them dis-honest or worse, and education is playing a smaller and smaller role in making money. The second major issue is that government refuses to do anything remotely close to teaching morals in school that would help combat the self-destructive, money-centered culture of the US.

We need to take a hard look at the purpose of public education. Some people seem to think it's about force feeding a specific set of facts and skills to the young. Others seem to think it's primarily about keeping kids off the streets while the parents are working. I believe the aim of education should be to help cultivate young people who will contribute positively to society.

Why is it that so many kids graduate from high school with little idea of what they want to do with their lives? Why is it so common for people to spend years 'finding themselves'? Where did they get lost? Could it be a lack of leadership?

Parents are spending more time working and less time parenting. Children need more guidance to make up for that. Instead we are giving them less. Teachers are restricted from any kind of disciplinary activities. They are not allowed to talk about God. They cannot suggest any kind of moral judgement. We might as well tell teachers to teach the alphabet with only half the letters. How can we possibly give our children complete educations under such conditions?

Do our schools need more money? Absolutely. If we valued education more, schools would have the resources they required, and those resources would be used more effecively.

Do we need more qualified teachers? Absolutely. If teachers were given the respect (and perhaps even the salary) they deserved, and were given the opportunity to really make a difference instead of being treated like a factory worker turning out an 'educated' product, perhaps we might have enough qualified teachers.

We also need to start teaching the things that our children most need: Ethics, Media Literacy, Civics, Philosophy/Religion (to help them 'find themselves'), Finances, etc.

What we need is for our teachers to be unshackled from regulations, protected from over-litigous parents, given the respect they deserve, and lead by principals and superintendants who truly understand what it means to educate a child.

And we need to start respecting education.

Movies, Books, etc. to Make You Think

2007-01-11T07:25:00.000-05:00

I often run across media that illustrates serious defects in the way our society works. I am going to start keeping track of many of them here. Please add comments with your own suggestions or reviews.

Books

The Problem of the Media by Robert McChesney

Movies

Response to a campaign worker

2007-01-09T08:55:00.001-05:00

I received an email from a friend of mine in the LDS church who was trying to help drum up support for a (potential?) new Presidential candidate. After responding to his request, I offered my 'two cents' as follows:

From everyone I have talked to in the church who identifies as Republican, and from what I know about the Republican party, the two do not seem to match very well. Mormon Republicans tend to be ethically and fiscally conservative in ways that the Republican party seems to be using as hooks only, and is primarily focusing on growing big business income as the main party diving force.

This focus on the money of Big Business is particularly incongruous with Church doctrine, and is damaging to our spirituality. "But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish." (2 Ne 26:31) I worry that many people do not recognize the scope and depth of the relationship between Big Business and the Republican party, and do not spend enough time examining the issues to recognize whether or not they agree with it. I think that most people would find that they DID NOT agree, if they truly understood.

I also believe that this deception on the part of Big Business and lack of understanding by the Republican base extends to much of the country and represents a fault line in the Republican party that is nearing the point of shearing. I do not believe that it would take much to cause this division in the Republican party. Additionally, I believe that most of the party is on one side of the divide, and that it is only the figurative head that would find itself without a body.

I, myself, am a problem solver. I see the incongruity of the direction of the Republican party with the morals of the Republican base, and see a problem to be solved. The solution, as I see it, is for a charismatic, moralled leader to force the schism by publicly returning to the cause of the Republican base, and rejecting the party platform drafted by Big Business.

There are several things that this leader would need to do:

* Educate the public on the influence of Big Business in politics
* Re-examine issues to find a stance more appropriate to the Republican base
* Educate the public on why the stance has changed and why the new stance helps them
* Ignore attempts by Big Business to interfere

This is, obviously, a vague and incomplete list, but gives the basic idea.

One issue in particular, that needs to be re-examined is environmental policy. There is no longer any room for a party that does not believe that we need to find better, more efficient ways to reduce, reuse and recycle. We are simply running out of resources. Failure to reverse our national course on these issues will be catastrophic.

Anyway, as you can see, I have a lot to say on these issues. I hope you can pass this on, not as advice, because the course outlined would be very unlikely to help a presidential candidate win an election, but as input. It is what I believe the Republican base needs. The people would be served, but perhaps not the politician - not in the short term, anyway.

Possible Solution to Net Neutrality

2006-10-19T14:01:00.000-04:00

On the same blog where I posted yesterday, there was a comment from someone with a link to this article, interviewing David Reed:

The myth of interference

He is the type of person we need working on these issues. It is outside-the-box, radical thinking in addition to deep understanding of technology that will resolve this issue. The article doesn't really discuss the final solution, but it does describe the existing technology that could be the means whereby a solution is implemented.

My Post on PBS's Net Neutrality page

2006-10-18T14:55:00.000-04:00

PBS Blog:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/citizensclass/2006/09/the_net_risk_net_neutrality_1.html

My entire post:

Net Neutrality is a hard problem to solve. Really hard. Really, really hard. Politicians have little hope of even understanding the solution, let alone coming up with it. So, if it is such a hard problem, who can find a solution?

Well, it depends on what kind of solution you are looking for. Any solution by a company is going to be a solution to making as much money on the internet as possible. Talk of "free market pressures" and the like are just ways of making capatalism sound democratic.

We need a solution to the problem of how to provide an important (if not the MOST important) medium of communication to both providers and consumers of all sizes and incomes in an efficient and economically sound fashion. The only organizations in a position to be able to do this are non-profit organiztions with significant expertise in Internet technology. Organizations like W3C and IETF should form the core of a working group. A select few representatives from the business side and from orgs like FreePress.net and EFF should also be included to advocate for their interests.

The document such a group produces should be accepted by congress and the president without alteration of any kind. Because, frankly, they think the Internet is made of pipes.

RMPP - Issue 4: Election Day Holiday

2006-09-07T07:26:00.000-04:00

Election Day is the most important day of the year for a democracy. Independence Day celebrates our country's birth, but it is Election Day that keeps our country's heart beating. Without it, our democracy dies immediately.

With such great importance, why is it not already a national holiday? It should be declared so. In addition to declaring it a holiday, all employed people should be given at least 4 consecutive hours off during polling hours. There should be very few exceptions to this rule, even for emergency personnel. During an actual emergency they may be required to work, but should then be able to vote via absentee ballot.

Giving people this time off will at least allow the them the opportunity to vote. Many working class people are inhibited from voting by long work hours, commutes and other responsibilities. Four hours should allow enough time for anyone to vote if they wish.

However, most people go to the polls poorly informed. It can be extremely difficult to find thorough information on all the candidates in one's district. The Internet has helped this problem greatly, but it is still not used effectively, especially in local elections. In any case, having the entire day off should allow people time to educate themselves about the issues before going to the polls, should they choose to do so.

One of the nice things about this proposal, is that individuals can act upon it. Business owners can give people time off to vote without being required to do so. Employees can ask for this time off, too. Everyone should make a point of going to the polls informed. Real political dialogue needs to be revived - educating ourselves about the issues are the first step in this revival.

Let us not be a democracy in word only, where we say anyone can vote, but rather, let us show our democratic spirit by encouraging all citizens to vote through accommodating policies.

Radical Moderate Political Platform - Issue 3

2006-09-04T07:11:00.000-04:00

This will be the most radical proposal yet. However, I have not worked it out entirely, so am very open to suggestions on how it could be done more effectively.

Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is not enough to support a person in today's society. This is especially true if there are dependants. Conservatives tend to be of the opinion that only kids really work for minimum wage, and adults somehow gain the value to employers that makes them worth more. Liberals tend to push for increases to minimum wage on a fairly regular basis, but are usually defeated by big business and their politicians. As a result, minimum wage actually decreases in value, counting inflation into account, and only rarely compensates for some of its lost ground.

Congress, on the other hand, give themselves a raise pretty consistantly. I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure that the rate of increase of congress's salary beats inflation.

Ideally, I think congress's wages should be linked to minimum wage, so that they cannot give themselves a raise except by increasing minimum wage. Unfortunately, I don't think this would even be considered constitutional, let alone practical. It would never pass congress.

So, the question is, how do we fix minimum wage? Economic and big business pressures are intense against anything that would cost them more money, yet, the lack of a livable minimum wage contributes to the level of poverty and, therefore, crime.

One solution would be to have a different minimum wage depending upon whether a person has dependants or has reached a certain age, say 18. Unfortunately, this would likely just lead to the hiring of more minors and fewer adults. One modification you could make to this plan would be to avoid taxing minimum wage earners with dependants. You could even give a tax break to the businesses for hiring such workers. This, I think, could be done easily, but would only be a temporary fix.

Another solution would be to write in an automatic percentage increase in the minimum wage. However, this, again, would be hotly opposed by big business.

I don't know what the best possible course of action is. I would appreciate input on the issue. I do know that unless those directly affected by minimum wage take more interest in politics, change is unlikely to happen soon. In a future post, I will make a proposal on how to help them get involved.

Radical Moderate Political Platform - Part 2

2006-09-01T06:44:00.000-04:00

Ok, I admit it, the previous post was not particularly radical, in the sense that Liberals have been working for it for a long time. Let's see if I can't come up with something a little more Radical today.

Election Process Reforms - Two Changes

-- Get rid of the electoral college, elect by popular vote
-- Have all presidential primaries the same day

Now, I understand that the electoral college makes managing elections easier and even in some ways gives more power to an individual vote. However, I believe that it ultimately discurages voters from voting. Our voter turnout is extremely low, and I believe the low volume of issue-educated voters is one of the chief problems our democracy faces today.

Say you are a republican in New York. New York is Democratic. Why bother going to the polls at all, when your vote is totally overwhelmed by the democratic majority that will carry the state? However, if the popular vote mattered and your vote was added to the rest of the republicans in the country, surely that would be more motivating.

Additionally, using the popular vote would make it more difficult for election fraud to affect the outcome of elections. It would no longer be enough to buy enough votes to win a 'battleground state' like Florida or Ohio. It would have to affect a larger number of voters, and would (hopefully) be easier to identify and punish because of its scale.

By having the presidential primaries all on the same day, just like the final election day, you give more motivation to voters to go out and vote for their candidates. The primary reason for different dates for the primaries is to facilitate campaigning. While this would have been extremely important when we did not have the Mass Media, today the Media makes this obsolete. Besides, if it is important to have the final elections on the same date for each state, why would it be unimportant for primaries?

Unfortunately, because the Media would love to be able to tell you what is going to happen in the future, they are very eager to make predictions about anything. If they can look at past events and say that all candidates who have won in state A will win in state B, they will do that. Unfortunately, hearing this discourages voters from voting for an underdog in state B.

If a voter feels that there is no hope for their candidate to win, they will be much less likely to go to the polls. Media companies have a tremendous amount of influence over the public's minds. We need to minimize the influences that they exert that would keep voters away from polls. Specifically, their ability to make predictions about who will win before many people have a chance to cast their vote. We need the Media to tell us about the issues and the candidates, not about who is going to win.

Radical Moderate Political Platform - Part 1

2006-08-30T07:07:00.000-04:00

I consider myself to be a radical moderate when it comes to my political views. I have not been able to find a particular party that I feel properly embodies those views, so am considering an attempt to establish one. I haven't come up with a name yet, so if you have any suggestions let me know.

I am going to start working on expressing what I think should be the platform of a radical moderate party. Due to the length, I will have to do this in pieces. The sections are in no particular order. Just what I feel about writing at the time...

Abolish Death Sentence

My understanding is that most people who support capital punishment fall into two categories: those who view it as a deterrent to other would-be criminals, and those who view it as the fulfillment of justice upon the criminal. People can easily fall into either or both of these two categories and can choose their viewpoint for a number of reasons, including religious ones. I do not believe that it serves either of these purposes very effectively in modern society.

Swift and public executions might be an effective deterrent to crime, but because of the legal procedures that drag on for years and the fact that it is all done behind closed doors out of public sight, capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent. Additionally, it is not used frequently enough to act as a deterrent. Convicts are much more likely to get a life sentence.

Additionally, our legal system is such that this 'justice' is dispensed un-evenly. Often times the legal question of guilt or innocence comes down to whether you have enough money to hire a good lawyer (OJ Simpson) or are fortunate enough to get a judge and jury who sympathize with you or not. A predominance of white male judges is speculated to contribute to why white people are not nearly as likely to get the death sentence as are black people.

For those who use the Old Testament as support for the death sentence, it is important to note that those guidelines are not repeated in the New Testament. Perhaps it was due to the 40 year trek in the wilderness where incarceration would have been impossible that such harsh measures were required in the first place. In fact, Jesus pardoned the woman who was taken in adultery, which should have been a death sentence for her. I have to imagine that he would be on the side of rehabilitation whenever possible.

And finally, Ralph Nader provided one of the most convincing, if cynical, arguments. He argues that with all of the inefficiencies, blunders and corruption in government, how can we possibly expect them to regulate and manage something so important as the taking of human life?

Why Net Neutrality?

2006-06-14T17:03:00.000-04:00

Take a look at your Cable bill. When was the last time it got cheaper or offered you more for the same price? Technology gets cheaper every day, why should a technology driven company not take advantage of this? Computers get cheaper, networking equipment gets cheaper, why doesn't cable get cheaper?

The answer is simple.

Cable and telecom companies are NOT tech companies, they are MEDIA companies. They make their money on content.

However, the home user is not the customer of the cable companies. Their customers are the advertisers. We are the cable companies' suppliers. We supply them with eyes which they can sell to their advertisers. So, in actuality, their product (advertising) probably is getting cheaper, but not for you.

So, are you going to trust the companies who are charging you to sell your time to play fair with companies who would take your time away from them? After all, if you're browsing Amazon.com, you're probably not going to be watching the shopping channel at the same time...

It's just a matter of time before cable and telco providers try to take proprietary ownership of the Web as a whole. Degrading certain traffic is the obvious first step to crushing the competition. We can stop them here, now, or let them have the Internet.

We don't care if people can access our blogs or not anyway, right?

Update 8/4/06:

Why Now?

It is at this time that many hardware manufacturers and ISPs are starting to implement Quality of Service (QoS) features. QoS levels make it possible for someone to prioritize traffic that requires more consistency than normal net traffic, such as voice or video. The reason for this standard is to differentiate traffic that is resilient to brief interruptions (standard) such as web pages, email and file transfers versus traffic that requires more cohesivness such as VoIP and video conferencing.

Small VoIP providers such as Vonage and Skype would like to implement these features. Large ISPs would like avoid giving priority to this traffic, but would like to give the priority 'lanes' to their own VoIP services. There are standard priority levels for most if not all existing types of traffic. It is regulation that is needed to make sure that traffic is tagged with the appropriate priority markings, and that equal priority markings are being treated equally.

Make no mistake about it, traffic on the net will be prioritized. The object of Net Neutrality is to make sure that the QoS standards are followed the same for all traffic, regardless of its source or destination.

Well, we could impeach Bush

2006-06-09T16:35:00.000-04:00

My wife sent me this: http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

Sure, we could do that. However, I can't say that I'm particularly enthusiastic to get rid of Bush. It's not that I like him or anything, it's more that I think a political process that could get HIM elected TWICE has some more fundamental issues. I would prefer to try to find and fix the more significant issues so that we never have Bush III.

Big issues in my book:

A two party system that has no room for third parties
Political scripts are so tightly controlled alternative views are never heard in mainstream media
A Democratic party that seems to have alienated religious Americans
The myth of "Electability"
Lack of public campaign funds
Participation of Big Business in the political process. (If possible, I wouldn't mind banning them entirely)
Too few independent voters
Electoral College is obsolete
Too few citizens actively participate in the political process

We Americans are in serious danger of losing our Democracy to the Rich and Powerful. Everyone needs to get involved.

There is no reason to pirate office software

2006-05-03T09:08:00.000-04:00

There is no reason to pirate office software when a perfectly good free alternative exists. If you are looking for MS Office compatible software that does nearly all of the same things, check out OpenOffice.org. The only exception is if you have macros that you use in MS Office. If you don't know what macros are, you're probably not using them.

Go to the download page.

Why We Love Capitalism

2006-01-18T23:30:00.000-05:00

Ah, America--the birthplace of Capitalism. The capitalist system provides security and opportunity for millions of people--and for some, even wealth. As a direct result, the USA is the wealthiest country in the world, is a driving force in the world economy, and has provided a model that much of the rest of the world has adopted.

In short, Capitalism is good. Right?

Capitalism is just like any other system. It has strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that its strengths are seductive, and its weaknesses are easy to ignore.

The Good
Nothing motivates people as effectively and consistently as money. Capitalism provides a structure for wealth building that is unparalleled. Opportunities for rags-to-riches possibilities abound. Americans believe that anyone willing to learn how to use capitalism for personal gain can do so. This provides hope to the destitute, opportunity to the ambitious, and security for the hard-working.

You can do anything if you have enough money.

The Bad
You can do anything if you have enough money.

"You have to spend money to make money." As a result, the wealthiest continue to get wealthier, amassing power proportionate to that wealth. Power can easily be misused; this is especially true when speaking of power that comes from wealth.

Amassing wealth often requires compromising morals. Drug dealers use Capitalism extremely effectively. However, morals can be compromised without breaking laws. Consider the company that under-sells competitors temporarily to put them out of business. Is destroying the livelihood of a small business owner virtuous? There's a reason they call it cut-throat.

Seduction
However, most people are uninterested in looking at the problems of Capitalism unless they have been directly and obviously hurt by it. (And people who are hurt by it generally do not have enough money for the rest of the system to care about them.) The reason is that for all but the most destitute, capitalism provides us with a wealth of stuff.

Before money was invented, the measure of wealth was stuff. If you had more food, clothing, pottery, trinkets and tools than the next person, you were more likely to survive and procreate. We have been genetically wired to collect things that add perceived value to our lives.

Capitalism is happy to oblige this need.

The most wealthy entities, corporations, need to sell products or services to make their money, which means they need consumers to buy them. The bulk of consumers end up with little money but lots of product, which satisfies our "need" for stuff.

This has lead to a viscous circle where companies manufacture perceived need, in order to keep the flow of cash. This creates an unhealthy appetite for consumption in the general consumer base. This is one of the reasons for many social problems, including obesity. We want more than we need.

I would encourage all who read this to do two things. Next time you think, "I need that," or "I want that," ask yourself, first, if you really need it, and second, if you want to support the company that provides it. It's time to pause and think about Capitalism.

Solutions to "Why Nerds are Unpopular"

2005-12-21T22:40:00.000-05:00

In his article Why Nerds are Unpopular, Paul Graham identifies what is clearly one of the biggest problems with secondary schools in this country - the lack of purpose. Schools are primarily designed to keep kids occupied and out of trouble.

What we ought to be helping kids do at this age is figure out what they want to do with the rest of their lives. Taking a required set of classes is not going to do this. So, how can we best help them? I would suggest much more access to internship type programs, more possibilities for independant study and work study programs, and greater flexibility in required standardized test scores and college entrance requirements.

Additionally, it would be nice to help kids prepare for life ahead by offering more practical courses such as "accounting for households and small businesses," "the political process of <insert city name here>," "understanding the media," and "health and nutrition."

We need to give young people a reason to learn, not just a curriculum. If we can do that, we may find that many of the other problems our schools are struggling against fix themselves.

Keep your State outta my Church!

2005-12-16T17:51:00.000-05:00

Why is it that so many politicians are so completely wrong when it comes to the separation of Church and State? Why do they think it is there to protect them? The concept of separating Church and State came about to protect religious freedom, not to protect the government.

I am disgusted with the current investigation of the IRS into the tax-exempt status of a Church because of the pastor making political comments. (See a Washington Post article) What the IRS is doing (surely by the nudging of someone higher up) strikes at the core of the first amendment.

It should be the burden of the IRS to prove that the primary function of the church in question is political and not religious before making such a threat.

Fix the System

2005-12-14T20:05:00.000-05:00

The System is broken. We live in what has the potential to be the greatest civilization ever created - a civilization "of the people, by the people, for the people" - but are instead having our country stolen out from beneath our feet. The big businesses that pay for the campaigns of most of our politicians are doing their best to exert as much influence as they can without disturbing the waters. If the average citizen knew what the average Fortune 500 company was doing to them, there would be an revolt. It is only the morals of the politicians that keep them in check. What a scary thought!

I am starting this blog as my part in attempting to fix the political system of the USA. I believe that we can realize the potential of our country, and again become a world leader in things that really matter, such as the promotion of peace, humanitarian aid, and cultural diversity.

Unfortunately, most politicians are unable to do much to fix the system, as they are so deeply entrenched in it themselves. The president himself has some power to do this because of his leadership role, but the recent presidents we have had have been uninterested in significant change. We would need a much different kind of president. More Democratic or more Republican is not going to make a difference. We need a "Radical Moderate" president.

What is a Radical Moderate? Well, consider the main political issues that come up in a basic election: taxes, health care, education, national security, abortion rights, etc. Most of these are fairly polarizing issues that allow a candidate to take a side and criticize the other. A Moderate takes the position that we're doing fairly well on these issues where we are. A Radical wants to change things drastically. So, a Radical Moderate uses the compromised midpoint as a goal, and is willing to propose major changes to get there.

For instance, it is commonly agreed that the electoral system is not as democratic as we would like it to be. Percieved problems with it include the Electoral College, campaign financing, voter registration, fraud, outdated systems, etc. While many politicians sit on their hands thinking about these issues or arguing about the smallest change that is acceptable, a Radical Moderate proposal would be to abolish the Electoral College, severely limit (if not outlawed entirely) contributions from businesses, mandate donation of airtime to election coverage on major networks, and finance major voter registration drives.

Most politicians are more concerned with keeping their job than they are with making a difference. While this is understandable for many jobs, it is not what a Public Servant should be. Politics is not a field for job security. Change is good. Especially where politicians are concerned.

Anyway, as you can see, I have a lot to say (a lot of explaining to do?). Hence the blog. Please feel free to comment. I will remove unrelated (unless they're funny) and vulgar comments, but will leave all contrary opinions. My goal is to pursuade people to communicate with each other and their elected leaders. True democracy requires acknowledging all sides of an issue.

Fix the System

6 Myths of the Free Market

The Radicalization of the Electorate

Citizens United: Holding Republicans Hostage

Jesus was a Radical

Barack Obama vs. John Stewart

Thoughts on Improving Public Education

Always thinking...

Approval Voting

The stock market is not a bank

True Costs

Hot, Flat, and Crowded

Improving K-12 Education: It's a culture thing

Movies, Books, etc. to Make You Think

Response to a campaign worker

Possible Solution to Net Neutrality

My Post on PBS's Net Neutrality page

RMPP - Issue 4: Election Day Holiday

Radical Moderate Political Platform - Issue 3

Radical Moderate Political Platform - Part 2

Radical Moderate Political Platform - Part 1

Why Net Neutrality?

Well, we *could* impeach Bush

There is no reason to pirate office software

Why We Love Capitalism

Solutions to "Why Nerds are Unpopular"

Keep your State outta my Church!

Fix the System

Well, we could impeach Bush