My sister is awesome!

Check out the Obama love over at Mabel Hand Bags:

I ♥ Obama Hand Bag - in blue and in red
Obama Rocks My Socks Hand Bag in blue and in red


I do have to stop myself for a second and appreciate the fact that someone who got upset when my parents and I had political discussions at dinner is now so excited about a politician. I just wish the excitement was about policy and issues and not just his charisma. Either way, the bags are freakin' awesome. Don't you want one?

Some Articles on Obama's Terrible Economic Choices --

Considering that I am both doing NaNoWriMo AND have just moved, I don't have time right now to formulate my utter (although predicted) disappointment in Obama's cabinet choices, especially his economic choices. Instead I'm offering my dear readers (are there any really??) a smattering of articles that might give some insight - especially for progressives who think Summers & Geithner are good choices (and I'm not even taking into consideration the fact that Summers thinks that women just aren't good at science):

About the Advisory Board - Paul Krugman's suggested picks. Why oh why Paul won't you do it??
Return of Wall Street Hustlers - Think that Rubin & Clinton aren't partially responsible for this economic mess? Think again.
State Banks Could Solve Financial Crisis - why not get the good part of 'socialism' (i.e. control) instead of the bad (i.e. the debt)?
Surprise! This Bank Refuses Fed Bailout - See? Integrity is possible.
Obama's Wall Street Woes - I don't agree that there is any evidence that Obama "gets this" but I agree that he "seems perilously close to following the same course as Bush in the banking bailout" (which is to say the same course ALL presidents have been following for the past 28 years).

That's just a smattering. Also, take a peek at some quotes from On the Wealth of Nations, Book 1. Not quoted is the part where Smith argues that corporations which take government subsidies will soon spend all their time and energy getting free money and not actually do anything else.

Even the Wall Street Journal called this crisis "Minsky's moment," so why aren't we putting post-Keysians or, hell, even a Keysian into positions of power? Hello?

Just for FYI --
Banks panics in the US:
1819
1837
1857
1873
1893
1907
Great Depression
80s & 90s Savings & Loans Crisis
1987 Black Monday
Tech Bust of 2000/2001
2008

Hmm ... seems like there is a large period missing from this list? 1945-1980? And yet, New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America gets prominent billing in the Union Square Barnes & Noble. Seriously? Yes, America was so damaged by the New Deal that we became a singular super power and the most prosperous country in the world until Milton Friedman came along and made that same argument - and we are currently seeing just how well THAT worked out.

Well this went longer than planned ...

From the Pen of Adam Smith Vol. 1

Due to NaNoWriMo (and its textbook like qualities), I decided to split up my reading of On the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith's definitive work on capitalism.

So here are a cropping of quotes of Book 1: Of the causes of Improvement in the productive powers of labour, and of the Order according to which its Produce is naturally distributed among the different Ranks of the People.

Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath, and lodge the whole body of people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed, and lodged.
p.110-111

In reality high profits tend much more to raise the price of work than high wages ... In raising the price of commodities the rise of wages operates in the same manner as simple interest does in the accumulation of debt. The rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effect of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
p. 136-137

The pretence that corporations are necessary for the better government of trade, is without any foundation. The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman, is not that of his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which restrains his fraud and corrects his negligence. An exclusive corporation necessarily weakens the force of this discipline.
p.178

But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension, of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.
p.338

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adapted til after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
p. 339

The Truth about ACORN and Voter Fraud

Before we have any discussion about voter fraud, we need to clarify the difference between voter registration fraud and voter fraud.

Voter Registration Fraud is when Mickey Mouse registers to vote. For this to be an issue at all, a fake voter registration form needs to be turned in (actually, it's legally required that is turned in) then election officials need to someone how not realize that Mickey Mouse isn't a real person and then someone who claims to be Mickey Mouse needs to show up and actually vote. Oh and this would need to happen hundreds of thousands of times to have any affect on an election.

Vote Fraud on the other hand is when someone who isn't allowed to vote for whatever reason actually does vote.

ACORN "committed" voter registration fraud ... sort of. ACORN, like most organizations that register voters or petition, often pays people by the signature/registration form. Obviously, there will be unethical people that turn in bogus papers to get paid. (Incidentally, this is the reason that petitions often have a goal of double the number of signatures they actually need). In the incidence that has beeen highlighted this campaign season, ACORN itself was the one who pointed out the phony forms to the state. They are legally required to turn in the forms anyway. Let me repeat: ACORN told the state the forms were fault and followed through on their legal obligation to turn in the forms.

Here's a video with more info: The Truth About ACORN.

But there is another kind of activity that limits people's right to vote: Voter Suppression. There are many tactics that are used to suppress voters: purge lists, "challenging" voters, provisional ballots, intimidation, and whatever else the Republican party comes up with. The Republican party has been engaged in systematic disenfranchisement of voters on a national scale since at least 2000. The ACORN story (as noted in the video) is just another tactic. How you may ask?

Well, here's how it works: Republicans cry voter fraud before the election which in turn gives them fuel to challenge the results of the election once it's over. Or they may do what they're planning to do in Michigan which is to get a list of voters registered by ACORN (or whose homes are foreclosed or whatever) and then have people at polling stations who challenge those voters as they come into the polls. As noted in the Palast article, most of the provisional ballots handed out (along with many absentee ballots) in 2004 were never counted.

Worried about whether your vote will count? You should be.

Here is information and a guide to ensuring your vote will count from Greg Palast and Bobby Kennedy Jr. ... in the form of a comic book!!

The key points are:

• DO NOT Mail in your Ballot
• Vote Early
• DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES vote provisionally
  

To verify that you are registered, go here.

Obama & McCain on Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math

This is an issue close to my heart:

Campaign Responses to Questions from The Association for Women in Science & The Society of Women Engineers

Obviously I'm biased, but McCain really comes off and not knowing anything about the issue. His answers are much shorter than Obama's, he doesn't show that he even knows what the initiatives they are asking about are, and his focus seems generally to be on education. What about female scientists, engineers, and mathematicians working right now? McCain's only real input is to say that he will create a presidential commission to study the issue. Why? There is a plethora of research out there on these issues. To me, this just says that he doesn't care enough to get informed and he doesn't want to committ to a decision.

At the very least, it becomes clear that this is an issue that the Obama/Biden campaign either already was somewhat knowledgeable about or they did some research before answering the questions. McCain comes off as if this is just a waste of his precious time and he'll just delegate all the work to "commissions."

On the SD Abortion Ban ...

Feministing posted this news story on the new South Dakota Abortion Ban. Watch it, then read.

I want to point out a couple things:
- Of the two women from the anti-abortion group, both were motivated by regret for their own abortions.
- One of them said: "... most women do not weigh all of the true decisions that need to be made."
- Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, often considered a swing vote, was brought up. Some argue that he will vote in favor of overturning Roe v Wade by citing his brief in the late term abortion case in which he states "some women come to regret their decision."

All of these arguments effectively boil down to this: women cannot be trusted to make a responsible decision. I think this is incredibly condescending and offensive to all women not to mention fundamentally un-American.

Democracy is based on the premise that as a society we trust people to make well-thought out, responsible decisions about their lives as well as other people's lives and that this collective action will result in what is best for everyone. The Bill of Rights exists to protect people's fundamental rights despite majority opinoin. My point is this: By questioning women's ability to make decisions about their own lives and body, you are inherently question their ability to make any decisions and be political actors. We crossed this bridge when we gave me women the right to vote ... in 1919. Let's get over it.

Moreover, just because you made a bad choice for yourself doesn't mean that you have any right to make my decision for me. Even anti-abortion activists speak about abortion as a 'decision' and yet they are fighting to NOT make it a decision at all and to have a decision forced upon people by the government. I don't think they really realize what they are fighting for - the women in this news story seem to be fighting more out of their own regret than any sense of well-being for women or children.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that women don't think through "all the true decisions that need to be made." Does that mean we should make the decision for them? A lot of people regret decisions they've made: beginning smoking, dropping out of school. Yet we don't force them into a different decision.

Lastly, out lawing abortion will NOT stop abortions from happening. (Abortions happened before 1973.) All it will do is force women to have unsafe abortions and increase the likelihood that they will regret it (due to the unsafe conditions, medical complications etc). Thus the motivation of the South Dakota anti-abortionists is completley illogical.

Final thoughts (I swear!):
Ask yourself -

If the government has a right to interfere with my reproductive capacity by forcing me to have a child, can they also force me NOT to have a child by forcibily sterilize me for example (ps - this has happened)? If you say no, what's the difference? (Note: forcible sterilization cannot be construed as "killing" since you are stoping any egg - or sperm - from ever becoming viable)

If my body isn't considered private under the 4th amendent, what is? Do my house or purse get a privileged status under the law but my uterus doesn't?

Find Voter Info On Google!

2008 Voter Info on Google

Even though Wired says you're evil, I love you Google.

Bloomberg says 'F*ck You' to Voters

NYT Times article on Bloomberg seeking a third term despite term limits that have been upheld, overwhelmingly twice - in 1993 and 1996. Apparently, he has the support of the 'business community' so it's a-ok.

We have spent the last 8 (or 20 depending on your perspective) years throwing democracy out the freakin' window in the face of crisis after crisis. Did it occur to anyone that, perhaps, it is this very action that is causing/exacerbating the crisises? Now is the time to rally around what we stand for - citizens in power; not business in power (cuz that, my friends, is fascism).

Philly Saves Homes!

Here's a good article in the NYT about a program in Philly that is saving 80% of foreclosed homes.

Just because this blog is called "Rebecca Rants and Raves ..." (I do way more ranting than raving though don't I?), I'll throw in a rant for good measure:

"Ms. McGrath, a nursing assistant, said she had refinanced her $64,000 loan at 9.75 percent to help pay medical bills. She had expected to pay $1,406 a month, but from the start of the loan she was presented with bills of $1,886, which she could not afford."

Let me just reiterate for the zillionth time - We need Universal Single Payer Healthcare. NOW! (Note that the "single payer" part is key). Think I'm alone? The majority of physicians support universal single payer health care. (Otherwise known as 'Canadian Style' - seriously, when else can you say that outside the realm of bacon?)

Rebecca's Bailout Plan

This might be the only time I will say this: Thank you, thank you House Republicans for voting 'No' to Bush's bullshit "bailout my friends and leave the american people with the debt" plan.

I just got a new issue of the nation with their bailout plan. I haven't read it yet so I'm sure I'll have more to say on this topic later. If you haven't yet, take a glance at Nader on the Bailout and Kucinich's "Main Street Recovery Plan." I, also, saw Paul Krugman on Keith Olberman tonight and he had some good points that found their way here.

First, let's start with what's bad:

1. Buying bank's bad assets. Um, would you buy a house that was ruined by Katrina? No. It's absurd.
2. Giving Bush 700 Billion (or 350 Billion now and 350 Billion later unless you explicitly vote No) to do whatever the fuck he wants. Didn't we already do that in Iraq? Where has that gotten us? Here. That's where.
3. Rewarding people for royaly fucking up the economy ... no, ALL the economies in the whole fucking world. Austrailia's market dropped 15% in the first 5 minutes; Japan dropped 5%. Capitalism is 'sink or swim' but the only businesses that seem to be allowed to sink are small business.
4. Not helping out average americans who are drowning ... BAD. BAD. BAD.

Ok so ... Here's what I think:

1. Yes, we need to help Wall Street. Why? Because they aren't lending to businesses and students and that is the money that makes the world go 'round. Here's what we do: The Treasury buys Preferred Stock in the companies they bail out. Enough stock to have a controlling interest in the company - to prevent ridiculous CEO compensations and ensure that tax payers get their money back ... with interest. This way, if the company is back on it's feet, the tax payers gets payed back by buying low and selling high. If the company goes backrupt, preferred stock holders get paid first.
2. Start with 50 Billion; not 700 Billion
3. In the short term, the Treasury should lend directly to businesses and students alleviating the credit crunch and ensuring, again, that tax payers get their money with interest.
4. Take some of the 700 Billion and create some fucking jobs idiot. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we have an energy and environmental crisis. Let's revive the Tennesee Valley Authority and the Civillian Conservation Corps. Let's build some wind farms all across the country. Let's fund research in energy - I'm sure many of my fellow IT workers at Lehman and other financial institutions would gladly switch over to working in other fields. Gladly. If people have jobs, they have money. They have money, the spend it. Economy better. Seriously, Economics 101 ... and The New Deal 101.
5. Empower bankruptcy judges to renogiate mortgages ... and get rid of any bankruptcy consequences for 6 months to 1 year of the new mortgage. If you still default, then you can ruin your credit.
6. Regulate the fucking economy. Adam Smith is rolling over in his grave guys. This is not capitalism. For example: increase the requirements for buying on margin (buying stock with money you don't have), tax speculation, regulate derivatives; re-instate Glass-Steagall (separate commercial from investment banking).
   

A few things I'd do after the immediate crisis passed:

1. Give stockholders real rights. Stockholders - the owners of a company - should be approving things like executive pay. Let's incentivize companies to do the right thing.
   
2. Expand Medicare and create a universal, single payer health care. NOW. No one should go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills. (Currently, half of all bankruptcies are the result of medical bills).
   

There's so many more things we should do - take a look at Kucinich's comprehensive plan - but these are the most obvious and pressing I think.

Some parting thoughts:

- "... there are no libertarians in a financial crisis." Paul Krugman on Real Time with Bill Maher
- Aren't you glad Bush didn't succeed to privatizing Social Security???

Understanding Science ...

I think most competent, intelligent people would agree that our society - mostly fueled by right wing fundamentalist Christians and/or oil execs - is seeing a major assault on science. I would argue that this is more pervasive than even the standard anti-climate change conservatives; it is perpetrated by our poor education system as well as left wing radical animal rights activists, a lazy, profit drive media, and others. My views on that are for another post but the point is that it is clear that there are many misunderstandings about how science works. So here is an incomplete list of things I'd like to see more widely understood about science:

1. Yes, science is based on "theories" but those theories are upheld by consensus among experts in the field. How do you know if a theory, climate change for example, has passed the test? A good rule of thumb is that it is published in a peer reviewed journal. I found a great guide to understanding peer review in the scientific community here. The key points are:

• "Science has a system for assessing the quality of research before it is published. This system is called peer review.
• Peer review means that other scientific experts in the field check research papers for validity, significance and originality – and for clarity.
• Editors of scientific journals draw on a large pool of suitable experts to scrutinise papers before deciding whether to publish them.
• Many of the research claims you read in newspapers and magazines, find on the internet, or hear on television and the radio are not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Some of this research may turn out to be good but much of it is flawed or incomplete. Many reported findings, such as claims about “wonder cures” and “new dangers”, never come to anything.
• Unpublished research is no help to anyone. Scientists can’t repeat or use it and as a society we can’t base decisions about our public safety – or our family’s health for example – on work that has a high chance of being flawed.
• So, no matter how exciting or compelling new scientific or medical research is, you must always ask… Is it peer reviewed? If not, why not?"

2. Almost all research is government funded, especially medical and pharmaceutical research. Just in case you buy the argument that if we had universal, single payer health care that medical "innovation" would take a down turn, you're wrong. (Actually, it's possible that it would take an upturn because the government would actually get compensated for successful drug research. Anyway ...) Most drugs are developed by government funded research grants and then handed over, free of charge, to pharmaceutical companies to market and produce ... in a monopoly for the first few years. (Yay for "free" markets! <- sarcasm)

3. Just because a break-through didn't come directly out of previous research doesn't mean that the break through could have happened without that research. Understanding what doesn't work is just as important, and sometimes more important, than understanding what does.

I'm not the only one with the Great Depression on the mind ....

... according to the consumerist

The Largest Rally in Alaska History was for ... Alaska Women Reject Palin

Despite the angering total lack of respect for life and liberty and the lack of ethics or morality by a conservative, Alaska talk show host, this article about the rally for Alaska Women Reject Palin - the largest rally EVER in the state of Alaska - is quite uplifting.

Biggest Rally in Alaska History... Alaska Women Reject Palin

Oh, FDR, how I adore thee

"The present administration has either forgotten or it does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army. These unhappy times call for ... plans ... that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the pyramid." - FDR

The Great Depression v2.0

I've been saying or hinting for a while now that the current fiscal crisis we are in is absolutely akin to the Great Depression. I think most people think (thought?) that I was overreacting. Well, now I'm, sadly, not the only one.

McCain & Hoover: The fundamentals are strong!
"The day before Hoover insisted that the fundamentals were strong was the day that came to be known as Black Thursday, when in heavy trading the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost about 9 percent of its value. And while, in endless stock-footage documentaries showing images of dumbfounded traders over a soundtrack of mournful jazz clarinets, the crash is supposed to begin the Great Depression, it wasn't quite so. The real cause was the collapse of the banking system, which followed the crash in part because Hoover believed strong fundamentals would protect the economy from disaster."

The panic sets in ...:
"At some point, the new president might have to do what FDR did in the wreckage of early 1933--declare a "bank holiday" and announce emergency rules to govern banking and finance until the crisis is broken. For the country's sake, I think this a better approach than buying up junked banks and failed financial firms, one by one. People have the right to ask: what exactly are the rest of us getting for our money?"

I know that after eight years of a President who respects neither the constitution or history I shouldn't be surprised. But really, who hasn't heard the old adage that those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. (Actually, the quote is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it")

Mostly, when I employ this adage, I'm talking abou t the economy; about, what I see as, the fundamental lesson we learned during the Great Depression: that the government plays a fundamental role in the economy, both to ensure stability and to ensure true capitalistic competition or consumer protection when capitalistic competition is impossible (utilities for example). Ok, all of that didn't come directly out of the Great Depression. The latter came out of the Gilded Age but I thought I'd throw it in for good measure.

Anyway, my point is this: the financial crisis were are seeing is a) exactly what happened during the Great Depression (run on banks causing a crash of the economy), b) a direct result of the financial deregulation of the last two decades, especially the repeals of the Glass-Steagall Acts (a trend that, instead of being nipped in the bud by the government - you know, the one bailing out these free market corporations - is being continued by the process.), and c) is only not as a bad as the Great Depression (well, so far - fingers crossed) because we still have some remnants of the New Deal era regulations and safe guards in place.

Seriously, what is wrong with this country? Why do people buy this bullshit? How is it that I, a financial and economic lay person by most accounts, can say 'I told you so' and we have the top honchos of Wall Street scurrying around trying to justify their greed?

*Just because I know what people assume: I believe in capitalism. But, like, real capitalism. Capitalism that involves competition by many, consumer protections (because consumers are a part of the market too!), government regulation to ensure that competition exists and is fair or, in industries, that lend themselves to monopolies (utilities), ensure that corporations aren't taking advantage of consumers, and little to no government subsidies to private enterprises. I, particularly, believe in supporting and nurturing small business in America. Also, I do believe there are some things that do not benefit from being motivated by profit - education, health care, and the military in particular. Most importantly, though, I believe it's the role of the economy to serve society; not the other way around.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Bullshit ....

In writing my last post, I was googling to try to find the democratic party official or worker or something who said that while working for the democratic party, he didn't have to listen to the left at all. Instead, I came across a random blog - I guess it can't be that random if it showed up in google's first page search results - some guy wrote about how both the Democrats and Republicans have it wrong. Don't get me wrong, as evidenced by my voting for Nader, I think both parties have a lot of shaping up to do. However, this guy's reasons for why the democrats need to shape up are right out of the Fox News play book. Seriously, dude, seriously.

Before I, inappropriately, post a comment, I thought I'd share here my responses to his post:

Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because

1. This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
2. The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.

Wow. Priviledged much? Would you stop working just so you could get welfare? I doubt it. Welfare and food stamps barely cover the cost of living. Welfare to "Work" is effectively slave labor - for example, Welfare to Work in New York City involves working sweeping parks for the New York City Parks and Rec. The New York City Parks and Rec has no incentive to hire anyone because they get workers for free and the workers aren't learning any valuable job skills. Also, you need to take into account the terrible education for the urban poor and that there are very few unskilled jobs where a worker can make enough to pay the bills anymore. Let's also not forget that Welfare to "Work" affected a lot of single mothers who were going back to school so they could improve their situation. So, yes, if I had a choice between working 3 jobs to barely pay the bills or going on welfare to barely pay the bills, I might take welfare.


3. Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai

The vast majority of corporations in the US don't pay any taxes at all so this argument doesn't make sense (and it makes it a bit comical that you think US corporations pay 40% of their profits in taxes). Companies are moving away even though they don't pay any taxes. Also, historically, all nations have had trade importation regulations which would encourage a company, especially one who wants to sell to the enticing American consumer, to stay. If no one is employed, no one can buy your product so it's not actually in a companies best interest to move away.
In fact, the most prosperous time in the US was '63 or so, when all the New Deal regulations were still strongly in place and might be considered the height of economic regulations. Post-WWII to the '80s saw the smallest gap between rich and poor; today the gap between the rich and the poor is as large if not larger than it was during the 20s ... an era that lead to the Great Depression, which is where we are now.
Last but not least, who said that the US supporting and bending over backwards to have "true multinational" corporations is the goal of the economy. I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to serve society - with jobs, products, education, health care - not the other way around.


5. What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?

Depends who you think the goose is. Clearly you think it's corporations. I'd argue it's consumers who make corporations profitable. So having an economic system that ensures capitalistic competition (which we currently don't have) and supports an ardent middle class, is in the best interest of the country.

6. This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.

I'd say it's pretty difficult to be happy when you cannot afford to eat. And I'm not sure how taxation really impedes your ability to pursue happiness ... unless you believe happiness is equivalent to money and then I just sort of feel sorry for you. Our founding fathers - you know, the ones that wrote the Declaration of Independence - also said "No taxation without representation" so they created a system of representation. Also, since the supreme court long ago ruled that a corporation is entitled to the benefits of being considered a "person" under the law; shouldn't corporations also be required to bare the burdens - such as taxation - of being a "person" under the law.


7. This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).

Well, we sort of have capitalism (just like China, the USSR, East Germany and North Korea sort of had socialism and just like China now sort of - very very sort of - now has capitalism). Capitalism is based on many, small entities competing which we generally don't have today given corporate consolidation, corporate welfare, and a systematic dismantling of consumer protections in the last 20 or so years. Also, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, warned against the treachery of corporations in the same industry cohorting to manipulate the "invisible hand" which they do today, perfectly legally. There's nothing that says that the government does not play a role in a capitalist economy - in fact, that's a huge lesson we learned during the Great Depression and was the basis for the New Deal. Then there's NAFTA: a trade agreement, especially one that trumps government rules, is by definition not capitalistic. I could go on and on ...

Secondly, there's nothing to say that there aren't areas of society that should be socialized; areas that don't benefit from the motivation of profit - education or health care, for example. Moreover, even today, the amount of government money flowing through our economy - fire fighter, police, and teacher salaries, research grants, subsidies for corporations etc etc - is greater than the stock market, effectively making the US one of the most "socialist" countries in the world and thus making your argument absurd.

Also, our current "wealth" goes to about 1% of the population so in fact, your "capitalism" has made most Americans less wealthy.

In fact, I would argue that what we currently have - a system that both republicans and democrats support with ridiculous campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists - is much closer to fascism (by definition, a corporate run state) than socialism.


-- End Inappropriate Comment --

Why I'm Voting for Nader

I thought I'd start my election '08 blogging off with why I'm voting for Nader. True, I'm a little late on the uptake - in more ways than one. Firstly, I've been meaning to write this post for some time but haven't had a chance until now. Secondly, I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 or 2004 so why, - you might ask - in 2008, would I vote for him?

Up until this election, I have essentially been a single issue voter. That issue, of course, being abortion. (In fact, I refused to vote for my local assembly person because he is anti-abortion. Instead, I wrote in "Ficus" - wink, wink, Micheal Moore.) I got my election guide from Planned Parenthood and voted down the line.

Adam and I have attended two Nader rallies so far this year and he talked about me - well, me as in the prototypical single issue voter. He brought up a good point. If I vote for a politician based on one issue and I disagree with said politician on other issues 49% of the time, have I really voted for someone who represents me? Have I performed my civic duty? In an election where there is a candidate, albeit an unlikely one, who I agree with more than 50% of the time (way more in fact), the answer is a resounding NO. The answer is no because I am against: NAFTA, torte reform, restrictions on abortion, corporate welfare, energy trading, media consolidation, FISA, welfare to "work"; I am for: universal single payer health care, new deal-style regulation of financial markets and utilities, small business, small farming, increased car efficiency standards, public transportation and works ... just to name a few.

The second reason I'm voting for Nader and perhaps the most resounding one for me is this: the democrats will never move further to the left (or even just not toward the center!) unless I prove to them that I am willing to not vote for them; prove that they are not entitled to my vote. As Eugene Debs said "It's better to vote for someone you believe in and lose than to vote for someone you don't believe in and win."

Lastly, what have the democrats done for me lately? Let's see: they voted for the war in iraq, they voted for the Patriot Act, they voted to renew FISA, welfare to "work" happened on clinton's watch, etc etc. It's nice to blame Bush and Cheney for all of this - and they deserve A LOT of blame - but they couldn't have done it without democrat support.

So that's it. My mind is made up. As you can see, it really has less to do with Obama or even Nader than it does with a deep desire to see our country be great again. That, my friends, is real patriotism.

America: The New India?

One of the things I've always hated about liberal intellectuals is the glorification of non-Western culture. I'm not saying that eastern cultures don't have positives - they have plenty - but they also have many many negatives (just as we do).

I remember talking with a friend of mine who was preparing to head to grad school for Indian History. She began telling me about how the Indian government was so responsive to the people - responsive in a way that the American government isn't. Specifically, she was talking about the Indian government's attempts at dealing with the exponential increase in suicides among poor farmers.

I looked at her quizzically. In America, I said, we would never get to a point where poor farmers are so desperate that they start killing themselves - we subsidize farmers, we have welfare. I wasn't saying that any of these solutions were perfect - the subsidies of Reagan should surely be replace by the revolving loans of Roosevelt; welfare plus promotion/creation of middle class jobs should surely replace welfare-as-slave labor, i'm sorry, i mean "welfare to work" - but the point was that in American, for better or worse, we generally keep people from killing themselves because of financial ruin.

Turns out that I was wrong. In the wake of the recent mortgage crisis (and I mean recent in the sense that it's the direct result of 20 years of deregulation of financial markets and tearing down social safety nets of the New Deal), people have begun killing themselves rather then watch their houses - likely the accumulation of their life's work - be sold off to the lowest bidder.

Is this seriously what America - and it's lofty ideals - has come to? Seeing suicide as an effective solution - for debtors and creditors alike - to what generally amounts to wall street's speculation and predatory lending? During the Great Depression - and don't kid yourselves, this is Great Depression #2, we just have enough of the safety nets enacted by the New Dealers in place to keep the economy from complete and utter collapsie - people shot the bankers and cops who came to foreclose houses, not the other way around. The people said, fuck you - if you're going to sell my house for a fraction of what I owe you and not give me the opportunity to buy it, I'm taking to the streets with guns and fire and stuff. Or something like that.

Ever since Bush got into office, I just cannot help constantly thinking of the old adage: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's become my sad sad mantra as I watch people throw away the very solutions to problems they are claiming to solve.

And repeat it we will.

Read the article The Suicide Solution by Barbara Ehrenreich at TheNation.com.

Coat Hangers Happened

In case you think coat hanger abortions are all hype,i found - through feministing - a disturbing and graphic article in the New York Times today written by an OB who has been there, done that. He didn't actually perform abortions pre-Roe; he did, however, deal with the aftermath of illegal, unsafe abortion procedures. Read the graphic accounts of the risk these women put themselves in and think about the kind of desperation that would cause you to do such a thing. It is surely not a desperation that anyone in the US having grown up with birth control readily available and abortion somewhat available (although it's becoming less and less available) has truly felt.

I have volunteered as an abortion clinic escort for the past few years now. Basically, a clinic escort is there to counter-balance and sheild the woman - sometimes physically; often emotionally - from protesters.

I began escorting at the Hope Clinic in Illinois, outside of St. Louis. Hope Clinic began in the 70s just after Roe and has been constantly sieged with protesters ever since - including Operation Rescue. Protesters there were loud, offensive, and often pushed the boundaries of the law. Once, someone screamed that us "deathscorts" "ate babies." Protesters, and sometimes their children, would photograph or video tape the woman walking into the clinic as well as the escorts. As escorts, we tried to block the pictures - it was better for them to have our picture than the woman's. In fact, my pictures is up on one of the Organization's sites - along with lies about the clinic selling baby parts among other things. I knew that doctors, nurses, employees, and escorts had all been harassed by protesters. We weren't allowed to call another escort by name. It was intense, but, for perhaps the first time in my life, I felt like I was actually making a difference and standing up for something I believed in. There is something profoundly rewarding in that.

When I moved to New York, I immediately got in touch with the Brooklyn Pro-Choice Network about escorting. Although escorting in Brooklyn is far less exciting, there are still protesters, mostly from the Catholic Church next door, who show up everyday. When I tell people here that I escort at the abortion clinic, they are shocked to find out that in a liberal city like NYC there are protesters at an abortion clinic. People are often unaware of the siege currently going on against reproductive rights in America today - from increasing restrictions on abortion to clinics closing to protesters who show up every single day to harass woman as they make a profoundly personal and difficult choice.

This article by Dr. Fielding really puts what we are fighting for into perspective. His closing remarks some the issue up to a T:

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

More on Schlafly, Education & Beer

A Wash U professor wrote a very good article about how honoring Phyllis Schlafly & Chris Mathews is indicative of a larger issue: Is the University selling it's soul - a research-oriented, intellectual, scientific award winning soul - to look cool?

Also, of note, according to an alumnus who was a student rep to the Board of Trustees, the suggestion to honor Gloria Steinem was quickly shot down. Apparently, honoring individuals "from all aspects of the political spectrum" doesn't include both sides of the feminist "debate."

As I began writing this post - using only Schlafly's last name in the title, a burning, desparate question occurred to me: Is Schlafly's beer, the best local beer in STL, owned by Shlafly's family and does Phyllis have any say?

The answer is yes - sort of. According the Schlafly's website, Phyllis is the aunt of the owner, Tom Schlafly, and was married to Tom's father's brother. However, she is not involved in the business. Furthermore, it's unclear as to whether Tom even works there: "Tom is a lawyer who tells the people in his law office that he practices law full time; and he tells people in the brewery that he works on the brewery full time. No one in either place is really sure what he does." Funny.

To make things a little better, they give you some sense of their feelings about women:

• Why don't you guys have Schlafly girls?
• We do, they're just too classy to dress like tramps and flaunt themselves as sex symbols (anyhow, our beer is so good, we don't need gimmicks to promote it).
  

So next time I'm in the Lou, I know I can sip on a Schlafly guilt free.

The Dead Kennedys, Wash U, & Phyllis Schlafly

I just found out that my dear alma mater - Washington University in St. Louis - will be giving Phyllis Schlafly an honorary doctorate at the upcoming commencement. (Thank you Feministing!)

I can handle the fact that a douche bag like Chris Mathews is giving the Commencement address - especially since I didn't even go to my graduation so I'm not really inclined to be concerned about who graduates and their families have to suffer through - I can even, kind of, handle the fact that they are also giving him an honorary doctorate (I mean, what for?) but Phyllis fucking Schlafly?? Seriously?!?!?

As a response to this outrageous bullshit, I wrote a quick email to Chancellor Wrighton:

Dear Chancellor Wrighton,

I was shocked to learn that Washington University will be honoring Phyllis Schlafly this year. In fact, I double checked to be sure that it wasn't the other Washington, because I just could not understand how an institution that valued me as a community member could be honoring someone who doesn't believe that I have should have full rights as a human being. While I and my fellow students and alumni value diversity of thought, there is a difference between making a space for intellectual discourse across the spectrum and honoring, which in essence condones and validates, a divisive political figure - especially one who are argues against the rights of over half the student body.

I want you to understand that, given this information, I cannot continue to support the University. When donating to my alumnus, I had always assumed that my money would be helping to build an intellectual community of diversity and tolerance. I cannot in good faith continue to support an institution that chooses to honor someone who doesn't believe that I deserve the full rights of a human being.

In the immortal words of Jello Biafra (misogyny issues aside) in the Dead Kennedy's Song "Moral Majority":

Blow it out your ass, Terry Dolan
Blow it out your ass, Phyllis Schlafly
Ram it up your cunt, Anita
Cos God must be dead
If you're alive
God must be dead
If you're alive

Visiting Beantown

As possibly the biggest nerds ever, Adam and I went to Boston this weekend to see Greg Graffin of Bad Religion receive the Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism from the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy (Watch it here; Listen here.). I kid you not.

Up until now I pretty much had a love-hate-but-mostly-hate relationship with Boston mostly informed by my early college years in Western Mass. People were rude, the punk scene was violent, and we could never find any place we were trying to go. Perhaps it's maturity or the fact that I currently live in the densest city in the US or an outgrowing of views I co-opted from friends but Boston was pretty darn good this weekend.

Planning this trip was unnecessarily stressful considering it's 2 day/1 night duration due to the outrageous (and currently beyond budget) price of hotels, the need for a dog-sitter, fear of dying on the chinatown bus but being too cheap to pay double for greyhound, and a general procrastination. Despite all that, it turned out well.

We showed up in Chinatown at the Fung Wah bus stop only to miss the 1pm bus. Fortunately, they run buses every half hour on weekends and as the first in line for the next bus, we got decent seats. Since we (shocker) left far later than planned (Adam and I, not the bus), we arrived in Cambridge with not much time before the event. I had purchased some pick 'n mix chapters from Lonely Planet's Boston guide book and was looking forward to trying one of the local restaurants - too bad everyone else had that idea too. We ended up eating at Lee's Sandwich Shop on Church St., a block or so down from Harvard. It was a fine, greasy diner kind of meal.

After finding the - get this - church(!) where the presentation was to take place ("oh right, it's that big huge steeple over there"), we waited outside with the rest of the motley crew. The crowd seemed to be mostly punk rock kids, the occasional parent, and a few middle age adults. Eventually, they let everyone in and we took our seats in the pews. The whole event was the highlight of the weekend but more on that in another post.

Exhausted, we skipped the waiting for an autograph and headed to the T. We found a relatively cheap Motel 6 ($100/night although it originally was advertised for $75) in Braintree which was conveniently located at the last stop on the Red Line (same line as Harvard/Cambridge). The hotel got some bad reviews on tripadvisor but we found it to be quite adequate. It's no Hilton but it was convenient and possessed the bare minimum (bed, bathroom). Also, it was clearly recently remodeled and there was a Chilli's, Burger King, and Dunkin Donuts (and apparently Dominos delivered) within walking distance in case you didn't eat before heading there. If we were to go again, I may try some of the hostels listed on hostelworld as cheaper, more centrally located alternatives but we might also stay here again.


The next morning we woke up, sleepy and ate a disappointing breakfast from Burger King (McDonald's has , by-far, the best egg food product out there). We then headed to the JFK Presidential Library which was even more disappointing than my Burger King breakfast. While externally grand, the set up inside was awkward and the exhibits kissed butt at best and glossed over reality at worst (Cuban Missle Crisis anyone?). Ah well, at least we saw it.

Next we headed over to Boston Common to walk the Freedom Trail. We followed the red brick strip around Boston common, up to the North End to see Paul Revere's house , and on the Charlestown to see the Bunker Hill Monument (question: How many phallic monuments can one city have?). You can actually walk up all 249 steps to the top of the Bunker Hill Monument but we, having gotten there at the very end up our day, got to step 50 when our legs and knees threw a temper tantrum so we turned back. I bet it's really cool though. The park around it is peaceful and surrounded by lovely brownstones.




Utterly beat, we walked back over the Charlestown bridge to eat in the North End, aka Boston's 'Little Italy.' Again, Lonely Planet steered us to what was likely the best restaurants but also the most crowded. At 4:30pm there was already a line around the corner for Pizzeria Regina so we headed down to Salem St and had some decent (and still better than New York's) pizza at PushCart.

Our stomachs duly satisfied, we set off to catch the bus home. Thinking we would surely miss the 6pm bus, I headed to the bathroom where there was the inevitable line. Fortunately, the bus was not full and after running across the terminal, we ended up getting on the 6pm bus. For whatever reason, bus #2 was less spacious and not as comfortable as bus #1 - plus Adam and I were sitting across the aisle from each other which always leads to the awkward 'trying to get comfortable while not touching the stranger next to you' dance. I watched Juno on my iPod (ps - I always thought this would kind of suck on the First Gen iPod Video but I was sadly mistaken. The video was sharp and I was duly amused for a couple hours. Go Apple.) and then rocked out to The Klopecs.

We got home exhausted and mildly crippled (my left knee still cries in pain when I sit down and stand up) but pleased with our weekend.

ps - I *swear* I saw Anne Hathaway walking her dog by Park St. Church across from Boston common on Sunday. She was wearing sun glasses and walking a dog along with a friend also walking a dog. I really didn't think much of the duo until I heard her voice - she called to one of the dogs named Esmeralda. Being the loser-lover-of-tween-movies that I am (namely the Princess Diaries), I turned instantly and the woman did look just like Anne Hathaway. To prove my hunch, I did a bit of googling and low and behold, Anne Hathaway does have a dog named Esmeralda. Am I a stalker or what?

I'm obsessed #1782.3

So I've become obsessed with Google Reader. It's like blogs! All in one place! Yay!

Seriously though, I've really resisted the reading things online movement (I'm not an early-adopter as they say). Reading on the screen just seemed so bright and uncomfortable - all that scrolling and clicking - ugh. I would occasionally bookmark blogs I'd heard of and check them occasionally for a while and then forget about them. Sure there were feed burners out there but I never really had the impetus to figure it out and investigate.

But then I decided I would try blogging - mostly because I'm on a writing kick. Writing a book is, after all, on my list of things to do in life. Since I couldn't motivate myself to just sit down and write regularly (or ever), I thought blogging might be a good way to get into writing and help me find my way. Of course, being the OCD person that I am, I actually started 4 blogs with mixed success in the writing-regularly department.

Anyway, some how I ended up on Google Reader and it all spiraled from there. I have my feminist blogs (yes, I'm finally reading Feministing) and political blogs and music blogs and tech blogs. Yeah! I feel very informed.

Anyway, that it - Yay Google Reader! :)

Hillary didn't win; she just didn't lose ...

Last night, CNN was covered with talk of 'Hilary Won!' and peppered with 'Why did Hilary win?' and 'Why did Obama lose?'

Here's the thing: Hilary did not "win" any votes yesterday. In fact, she lost many.

Prior to election day, Obama was polling at around 20% in Texas and Ohio. (Now we could go into a diatribe about how polling is bullshit but I'll hold off). Which means that, since Obama got around 45% of the vote , he won 25% of Hilary's voters or, put in another way, Hilary lost 25% of her voters.

Now I'm no Obama lover, but my hatred for simplistic media coverage trumps all political affiliations.


One guest on CNN finally got it right around midnight: The media (and perhaps the country) is treating this election like a general election, in other words, we are treating it like it is 'winner take all.' It's not. The delegate difference remains virtually unchanged.

Frankly, that delegate difference is the real issue and could result in another riot like the one in 1968 (i.e. if the super delegates don't vote for the popularly elected canidate or Hilary fights for Michigan and Florida's votes to count even though no one else campaigned or was even on the ballots there.)

Dashboard Politik: Gun Control.

I shot a gun for the first time in my life this year. It was loud and it hurt. It was also kinda cool when I figured out how to actually hit the targets.

On the long car ride from upstate to NYC, I got into a debate about politics with people I didn't know that well ... which is so the kind of thing I'd do. Obviously, the topic of gun control came up.

My biggest beef with the topic? Everyone says "It's a constitutional right! End of Story." This pisses me off for various reasons.

Firstly, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld for the last 80 or so years that the right of an individual to own a gun is NOT constitutionally protected. Now that doesn't mean we can't have a debate about it; what is means is that there are really two debates: The first is whether you believe the Supreme Court wrongly interpreted the sentence "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The second is, if the constitution doesn't protect an individual's right to own a weapon (which, currently, it doesn't), how much, if at all, should we limit an individual owning weapons.

Let's tackle the first "debate" first. Since I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I, truthfully, don't entirely understand the nuances of the Supreme Courts decision but the gist is this: When the constitution was penned, the term "to bear arms" commonly referred to military service. Taking into consideration the beginning of the amendment ("A well-regulated militia ..."), the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to protect the right of individuals to form militias. Well-regulated militias ... which are necessary for a free state. Arguably, the Illinois National Guard would fall under this definition. Note that Crazy Joe with his machine gun in Alabama does not constitute a well-regulated militia.

Now during this dashboard politik as I'm calling it (which now that I'm looking it up on Wikipedia doesn't really make sense but it's catchy so I'm keeping it), someone brought up an argument that I'd never heard before and couldn't immediately refute. The argument I have come to learn is termed the "Insurrectionist Theory." It goes as follows: The founder fathers ensured the right to bear arms so that individuals could have comparable weapons to the government which they then could use to overthrow the government. It's an interesting idea. I do believe that the founder fathers crafted our government to ensure that citizens could freely oppose the government. However, for me, it seems somewhat of an illogical argument. If you were plotting to overthrow the government, why would you respect its laws? Doesn't respecting its laws, forbidding you, for instance, from obtaining an assault weapon, inherently give those laws validity?

Let's say, however, you think it is logical. It did, definitely, give me pause. So I did a little research. Apparently, The Insurrection Theory of the Second Amendment, is actually a relatively new theory and is hotly debated by legal scholars. Something to note is that it's primarily supported by selective quotes from the founding fathers ... most of whom were Anti-Federalists. In case you missed it in history class, the Federalists won (twice, actually, if you count the Civil War.)

So let's move on, with the assumption that the Supreme Court has, for the last 80 years, correctly interpreted the constitution and an individual's right to own a weapon is not constitutionally protected. Now defining something as not constitutionally protected really tells us nothing - it tells us that we, as citizens of a democracy, have a right to make laws that prohibit, limit, require gun ownership or don't say anything at all. Obviously, every state, has some sort of Gun Control laws.

One of the questions I often ask is why does any individual need a hand gun? What purpose does it serve other than to kill people? It's not good for hunting so why do you need it? Here are some arguments and my opinionated refutation:

• Protection: You need a hand gun to protect yourself. Statistically speaking, if you have a hand gun in the house, it is more likely to be used against you than you are to use it against an intruder. The argument was made that that was a skewed statistic because people with unregistered hand guns wouldn't take them out for fear of punishment for having an unregistered hand gun. But if that's the case then you aren't using that hand gun to defend yourself. Furthermore, I think this argument perpetuates the atmosphere of fear we have in this country - don't move, you might get killed! Aaah!
• Sport/Recreation: Going to a shooting range is fun and recreational; shooting is a sport. Firstly, there is no sport in which people shoot hand guns. Secondly, is the fact that someone considers something "fun" or recreational really a good litmus test for its legality? I've read that Southerns considered lynching blacks quite the recreational activity. Does that make it OK? What about drugs or drive-by shootings or gang rape?
• Everything is Dangerous: Driving in a car is dangerous too. That's true. I could get hit by a bus walking across the street looking both ways. However, a car's main purpose is transportation. A gun's main purpose - the reason it was created (regardless of how fun it is to shoot at targets) - is to kill stuff. Danger is the point not the unhappy side effect.

Here's a shocker: I don't actually think all guns should be outlawed. Mostly, because I think by making something illegal, you take it out of your control. Also, because I think it's great that Joe-Shmoe gets his meat from hunting (as opposed to the evil factory farms our government supports). I do think you should need a permit and a background check to own a gun - any gun - and I think that, for guns that aren't intended for hunting, you should have a decent reason. Most importantly, I do not think it should be legal to carrying a concealed weapon. Period. Ever. Cops don't, why should you?

My real point, though, is this: Let's all wake up and read a history book. An individual's right to own a gun is not constitutionally protected so let's have a real discussion about gun control. I don't care if you agree with me but can we please talk about it without the conversation being cut off immediately by "It's in the constitution!" because it's not. Please?

The primary system is failing us!!

I just found out that Edwards is dropping out of the presidential race. This right after Kucinich - by far the best progressive candidate and the only politician i know with the balls to risk his career to do what's right - dropped out due to a fierce re-election campaign.

I'm heartbroken and I blame the primary system. Here's why:

• Having primaries on different days in different states gives more weight to those states that come first. Super Tuesday hasn't happen yet. Four states - count them four - have voted. (Well technically 6 states have voted but since the democratic party has used its corrupted weight to disenfranchise Michigan and Floridian democrats and not count their votes, I won't either). Only 8% of the country has weighed in on primary candidates and already 4 candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, andBiden) have dropped - one of them (Edwards) even had a real shot. Moreover, none of the states that have voted are states significant enough to swing an election. Plus I don't want Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to make voting decisions for me. Do you?
  
• Caucus's are bullshit. The caucus system (used in Iowa and I think Nevada), just like th electoral college, are fucking us time and time again. They are complex and time-consuming - we can't even get people to come out and pull a lever, let alone show up at a specific time to play musical chairs. Moreover, it gives a skewed perception of people's votes. If my candidate doesn't get enough people standing in the corner, then I have to more all my voting power to another candidate that I don't want. It makes it an all or nothing race and convinces people that a) certain policies are more popular than they are and b) that they can never vote for a long shot candidate because they'll have to pick the mainstream choice anyway. I do understand the motivation behind caucusing - it gives some semblance of a second choice. However, there are better options out there - like Instant Run-Off which allows you to rank candidates giving the politicians and the media and you a better picture of what Americans really want.
• The god damn media. Something needs to be done about the FCC and it's total unresponsiveness to the American people. (Don't believe me? The FCC recently ruled to open up media companies to even more conglomeration despite holding hearings across the country in which citizens overwhelmingly said NO to this proposal.) The media has talked about 2, maybe 3, democratic candidates - Clinton, Obama, and somtimes Edwards. And what do they talk about? Clinton's tear; whether race or gender will cause one or the other to win. It's ridiculous. Maybe, for once, CNN could mention some of their policies?
  
• Debates not being debates. This plays into the above topic. Kucinich - despite meeting their set criteria - was not allowed in multiple televised debates. Remember when we had fair access laws? Think we still do? Thanks to Reagan the media can favor a single candidate - even in a debate - for no reason what so ever. The American public - we included - tends to think that debates are run by the government or some non-partisan organization. Not so. Debates are run by the Democratic party and the Republican party period. So what you might say? So this means that they are not going to include third parties or even their own candidates if they seek to create change.

Ahh. I'm so fucking pissed about this. Now who am I going to vote for? Mrs. Corporate interests or Mr. I talk the talk but never show up for Senate votes?

Why Computers Don't Work and Touchscreen Voting Machines are BAD FOR DEMOCRACY ...

Over Thanksgiving, Adam and I visited an old friend and his new girlfriend. The conversation, predictably, turned to politics. Adam or I somehow or another, predictably, brought up Greg Palast and his investigations into systematic voter disenfranchisement by the republican party in 2000 & 2004 in FL, NM, and OH. Don't know what I'm talking about? Read about it on GregPalast.com and/or buy his book, Armed Madhouse.

Girlfriend commented that we are less sophisticated with voting that Honduras (or some Central American country) because they use touch-screen voting machines.

I was instantly transported back to my Computer Science professor's office after the 2004 elections and our, admittedly random, conversation on the horrors of touchscreen voting.

That's right: Two people with advanced degrees in Computer Science think touch screen voting machines are a bad idea. Bad bad BAD.

I think this surprises many people who equate technological advancement with 'better.' But let me ask you this: Has your computer ever crashed and lost ALL of your life's files? Has your computer ever crashed when you had a serious deadline in, like, 10 minutes? Have you ever read through a manual for a new gadget or software? Have you ever understood said manual? Have you ever had to wait days or weeks for someone to come fix your internet connection? Have you ever had to leave your computer for days or weeks to have it repaired?

Of course you have. Why? Because computers don't work.

Nah, I jest ... sort of. The truth of the matter is that computers are insanely complex. There are whole areas of theoretical computer science devoted to proving that software and computers do what they say that they can do. Most commercial software and hardware are never put to these tests - they tend to live in the minds and papers of disheveled professors and disgruntled students. The point is that a computer cannot be guaranteed to work when you need it, where you need it, and how you expect it to. And this isn't even taking security into account.

And touch screen voting machines are simply computers with fancy screens. Now it is true that there are computers systems out there (banking anyone?) that guarantee that their computers work exactly correctly and are rarely down. It takes a lot of money, planning, and techy people to make this happen.

Does every county in the state have a super tech on hand to immediately fix issues with touch screens? Do they have the money to pay for a redundant system and high security measures? Have they put in the time and effort to train the election volunteers on how to use, fix, and troubleshoot the machines?

Hell no.

In a disturbing turn of events, the Department of Justice has settled their lawsuit with the New York State Board of Elections by forcing NY State to comply with disabled-access provision in the Help Americans Vote Act of 2002. Now I am all for ensuring the voters can vote, no matter the circumstance. Who isn't? (Besides Bush, Cheney, and the Republican party) The problem with this settlement is that is defines both Paper Ballot Optical Scan Systems (PBOS) AND touch screen electronic voting systems (DRE) as acceptable disabled-access ballot marking devices.

The good news is that your precinct has a choice. The bad news is that many people, like Girlfriend, think that touch screen voting machines - machines that have been proven to be unreliable and easily tampered with - are better. Remember kids - shiny and pretty aren't better! Never forget the Ford Pinto.

Alright, now for some facts. I am totally stealing these talking points from the NY Chapter of Progressive Democrats for America:

OPTICAL SCAN TECHNOLOGY (PBOS) IS BETTER THAN TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES (DRE’s)
TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF FAILURE

One Example: AccuVote-TSX machines (Diebold) in Cuyahoga County, Ohio
May 2006.

• The poll workers were baffled on how to work the machines and the manuals from Diebold were useless.
• 143 machines broke down. Dozens of other machines had printer jams or mysteriously powered down.
• More than 200 voter-card encoders (which create the cards that let voters vote) went missing
• One audit of the election discovered that in 72.5 percent of the audited machines, the paper trail did not match the digital tally on the memory cards.

TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES ARE BEING REJECTED BY
ELECTION OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

• Spring 2006: Florida decides to get rid of their electronic voting machines.
• July 2007: California decertifies every electronic voting machine in the state after a Top-To-Bottom Review.
  
• December 2007: Colorado decertifies about half of its touch-screen devices.
• December 2007: Ohio secretary of State Jennifer Brunner releases a report that states touch-screens “may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process.” Brunner is now ordering Cuyahoga County, Ohio to scrap its touch-screen machines and go back to paper-based voting before the Ohio primary, scheduled for March 4th 2008.
• December 2007 Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sponsor a bill (S.2295) that would ban the use of touch screen machines across the country by 2012.

THE BEST CHOICE IS “OPTICAL SCAN” TECHNOLOGY

• The voter marks her votes on a paper ballot, filling in bubbles to indicate which candidates she prefers. Voters with disabilities or non-English languages directly mark and verify their ballot by using an accessible ballotmarking-device (BMD).
• The vote is immediately tangible to the voters; they see it with their own eyes, because they personally record it.
• The tallying is done rapidly, because the ballots are fed into a computerized scanner. There are no delays for voters because one scanner can countthousands of ballots a day (3500). With DREs you may have to stand in line because it takes twice as long to vote on a DRE as on a lever machine or paper ballot. You need at least two DREs to replace each lever machine. If a DRE breaks down, you are stuck, but if the scanner breaks down, you can keep on voting on paper ballots.
• If there’s a recount, the elections officials can simply take out the paper ballots and count the votes by hand.
• The voter-marked paper ballots prevent endless fighting over tight election results.
• Optical scanning is used in what many elections experts regard as the “perfect elections” of Leon County, FL where the error rate — how often his system miscounts a ballot — is three-quarters of a percent at its highest, and has dipped as low as three-thousandths of a percent.
• PBOS systems are MORE COST EFFICIENT to acquire, maintain, and use PBOS machines cost about one third what DREs cost. One DRE serves 200-300 voters, while one optical scanner and one accessible ballotmarking-device serves 2000-3000 voters, so far less equipment is needed. The cost efficiency of PBOS over DRE’s has been acknowledged by New York County Elections Commissioner Douglas Kellner.