In God We Trust, but not Anonymous Emails

I recently received this email:

Payback is fun!!!!!!!!!!!!! WRITE IT ON THE BACK OF YOUR ENVELOPES or front! WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. WE'LL START WRITING IT ON THE FRONT OF OUR ENVELOPES, TOO! ! Including Bills You may have heard in the news that a couple of Post Offices in Texas have been forced to take down small posters that say 'IN GOD WE TRUST ,' The law, they say, is being violated. Anyway, we heard proposed on a radio station show, that we should all write 'IN GOD WE TRUST' on the back of all our mail. After all, that's our National Motto, and it's on all the money we use to buy those stamps. We think it's a wonderful idea. We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed. If you like this idea, please pass it on and DO IT. The idea of writing or stamping! 'IN GOD WE TRUST' on our envelopes sounds good to us WE'RE HAVING A STAMP MADE TOO! Lets use it as our signature on e-mails too! It's been reported that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, we have a very hard time understanding why there's such a mess about having 'In God We Trust!' on our money and having God in the pledge of Allegiance. Could it be that WE just need to take action and tell the 14% to 'sit down and shut up'? If you agree, pass this on, if not, delete!!! BUT REMEMBER IF YOU DELETE THIS, that's 1 reason why this world is in the mess we're in now. WE SIT BACK & LET IT HAPPEN!!

These kinds of things should always be checked out at Snopes.com. Sure enough, it's there, and the story didn't exactly play out as implied in the email. There's a lot of information left out. It is true that several small post offices in Texas had to remove their "In God We Trust" posters. It was not because anybody had a problem with the message, and it was not because the "law was being violated" as claimed in the email. It was because the posters were provided by a private citizen (Frank P. Williamson) and postal regulations don't allow display of private material. The "In God We Trust" posters were removed at the request of the local postmaster, not because of some anonymous and intolerant "they."

Here is the relevant portion of the postal regulations:

"Depositing or posting of handbills, flyers, pamphlets, signs, posters, placards, or other literature (except official postal and other governmental notices and announcements) on the grounds, walks, driveways, parking and maneuvering areas, exteriors of buildings, and other structures, or on the floors, walls, stairs, racks, counters, desks, writing tables, window ledges, or furnishings in interior public areas on postal premises is prohibited. This does not apply to the following:
a. Posting notices on employee bulletin boards as authorized by 39 CFR 243.2.
b. Interior space assigned to tenants for their exclusive use."

Now if people still want to write "In God We Trust" on their mail and bills, more power to them! It's a great use of free speech to express your beliefs. But as for telling the 14% to 'sit down and shut up' I do have a problem with that. This country thrives on diversity, and in my opinion it is the unique genius of this nation that all views get heard. In this case, the person who wrote this - the person who wants those not like him to shut up - was just plain wrong. Sadly it is too often the case that those who want others to shut up would benefit the most by listening.

Ms. Goose Says...

Early voting has begun in Florida and the lines are huge. This is great news. Unfortunately, the news media is portraying the long lines as a symptom of problems. People are complaining about having to wait two or three hours to vote. In reality, the long lines mean nothing more than that turnout is high, and the majority are exercising their right to vote. It means that early voting is working, because trying to process all these people in one day on election day would be impossible. And, as Ms. Goose says "If they can wait an hour in 95 degree heat for a ride at Disney, they can wait on a nice day to vote!" I have to agree.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Some Republicans allow themselves to see some insidious meaning in Barack Obama's middle name - Hussein. It's used as a kind of code at rallies, as we saw recently in Florida when Sheriff Mike Scott introduced Sarah Palin at a rally. The idea is that Obama's true loyalties reside within his middle name. It's clearly a bad idea, in this time of national danger, to allow a man with this middle name to lead the war on terror. The Moose Goose Gazette thinks having Obama in charge during the war on terror would be as bad as having a guy with a Native American middle name be commanding general during the Indian Wars of the late nineteenth century (William TECUMSEH Sherman). Or as bad as having a man with a German last name lead the armies against Hitler (Dwight David EISENHOWER). Or to have a man with an Arabic last name lead the fight against Al Qaeida in Afghanistan and Iraq (John ABIZAID). A curious person may wonder why, of these and other examples, only Barack Obama is being portrayed in a suspicious light.
The point is this: conservatives have plenty of policy differences with Barack Obama to justify not voting for him. Demonizing him on top of these legitimate issues only promotes divisiveness, stunts honest debate, and is ultimately harmful to our country.

Winning The Post-Debate

Senator Obama may have won the debate by some arguable margin, but won the post-debate by an unarguable landslide. Two things happened after the debate that, if they get any media traction, can move undecided voters to Obama.
The (Perceived) Snub: Liberal blogs are all upset over John McCain refusing to shake hands with Barack Obama while they were working the crowd together. I think there's a lot more smoke than fire on this one. They shook hands right after the debate, while Tom Brokaw complained that they were blocking the view of his closing lines on the teleprompter. In the snub video, McCain clearly approached Obama so that Barack and Cindy could exchange pleasantries (Which is odd, given Cindy McCain's claims earlier in the day.) McCain simply didn't expect Obama to extend his hand, and so had an awkward moment. We've all had them... well, at least I have. So, while it's no secret that McCain isn't fond of Obama, I don't see a snub here. Still, if it gains traction in the media, it could hurt McCain.
A Man of the People: Far more telling was what happened next. John and Cindy McCain worked the crowd, walking around the room right to the exit and out the door. Barack and Michelle Obama worked the crowd and stayed. And stayed. And stayed. For at least 20 minutes, while the talking heads were dissecting the debate, the backdrop video showed Barack and Michelle simply spending time with the people. Talking, and smiling, and having pictures taken. The impression was that John McCain came for the debate, while Barack Obama came for the people. It doesn't matter if those interpretations are accurate, the impression is there. America got a great big dose of unscripted Barack and Michelle, mingling with the Joe Sixpack's the McCain campaign is appealing to...and enjoying it. For an undecided voter asking "Who understands the needs of everyday people?" it would be hard to pick the absent McCain over the engaged Obama.
The Moose Goose Gazette gives the post-debate to Obama as a clear winner.

Beating The Spread

Just a thought prior to the VP debate on Thursday.

Sarah Palin will almost certainly perform higher than expectations. That's partly because her recent television exposure has set the bar so low, partly because the structure of the debate will help her to focus, and partly because her preparation will pay off. If she does better than expected she could win this debate, even if Senator Biden shows himself as the more competent of the two.

Presidential debates are unlike most other contests in this sense. Take an example from college football where a team that is supposed to lose by 40 points loses by only 20 points. They did better than expected, but clearly they are still the lesser team. They didn't win the game, they only beat the spread. I just hope that voters use the same criteria for the debate that they do in football. Governor Palin should not be declared the winner simply by beating the spread.

Sarah Palin Sentence Generator

I'm a professor who teaches computer science courses at the college level. When I teach my students about artificial intelligence (AI), I show them examples of computer programs that are able to create English sentences. The simplest, least intelligent programs randomly select pre-programmed phrases and string them together to make sentences. The resulting sentences don't have to make sense and usually don't. Here's an example. This is exactly what I see with Sarah Palin. Her handlers have filled her with little 5- and 6-word catch phrases and she tries to make sentences with them. You can see her searching for them as she pauses, selecting one almost randomly. The resulting sentences don't have to make sense and usually don't. Using this AI related measure, she is demonstrating the lowest level of intelligence.

Now, I don't literally mean that is her functional level of intelligence. Clearly she is more than that. Her progression from PTA member, to mayor, to governor implies that she can operate in the public view successfully. However, during her interviews on the national stage, she has so far shown only that lowest level of capability - the ability to mimic intelligence. It is most likely due to having to learn too much too soon in terms of volume of information on the issues and how to manuever on the national stage. It is a palpable demonstration that she simply isn't ready to lead this nation and by definition that means she is not ready to be in the VP slot.

The $600 Toilet Seat, Deregulation, and You

The DoD is often criticized for wasting money by paying too much for things. An infamous example from the past is the $600 toilet seat. Well, I used to work in the Defense industry and can easily see how a toilet seat can cost $600. It goes like this: A manufacturer makes toilet seats for, say, $20. The DoD approaches this manufacturer with a request for toilet seats. But these toilet seats, being used in an airplane, have different dimensions than the ones currently being made by the manufacturer. So the manufacturer has to invest in new tooling, production lines, and possibly employee training. In addition, the DoD has a set of requirements that the toilet seats must survive rough airplane flights, hard landings, and long term usage. So the manufacturer must invest time and money to create the machines and (more importantly) documentation to prove to the DoD that these toilet seats have been produced and tested in such a way as to meet the requirements. The manufacturer has invested a lot of money. Maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars. This outlay must be recouped during the production run. A normal production run of toilet seats may run in the millions. But this DoD contract? Maybe a few hundred seats.
So, at first glance it appears that the DoD is their own worst enemy, insisting on excessive requirements and requesting small numbers of product. Many advocate for the DoD to relax their requirements, to effectively deregulate their suppliers. This has been tried in the past and has always resulted in disaster. Here's an example I remember quite well from the mid-1980s. The DoD buys millions and millions of bolts and they had a requirement in place where every time bolts were procured, a few were set aside and tested to ensure that they were as strong as advertised. These tests cost money and the bolts always passed the testing. So, as a cost savings measure, the rules were changed to allow the bolt maufacturers to simply provide paperwork showing that the bolts were tested at the time of manufacture. The bolt companies were now deregulated. By the mid-1980s the market was flooded with millions of counterfeit and substandard bolts that were not nearly as strong as the suppliers claimed on paper. This was a true scandal and affected the entire DoD (tanks were literally shaking apart), the space program, and even the consumer market. I was working on a satellite project at the time and we had to replace every bolt we still had access to with tested replacements and provide justification for bolts not replaced. The end result was stricter regulation in the form of the Fastener Quality Act of 1990. (More information on the Fastener Quality Act).
This is nothing new. The problem was so bad during the Civil War that the term for it entered our language. Shoddy originally meant an inferior type of cloth. So much of what the government purchased for the war was so bad, the time became known as "The Age of Shoddy," and we still use the word to mean any inferior product. Every time the government spends a lot of money, the contractors try to take advantage of it. The problem is universal, applying to the commercial world and even traditionally non-capitalist markets. Consider China and the recent recalls of pet food , toys, and the scandal over 53,000 children falling ill from poisoned milk.
The root of the problem is that corporations exist solely to make money and are sometimes run by unscrupulous or unwise people doing whatever they can to make that money. Corporations do not exist to make reliable products, they do not exist to donate to community projects, they do not create social justice, or to improve your quality of life - though those things may happen if it improves the bottom line. Some CEOs use their wealth and influence to attempt to improve the world around them, but that speaks to the nature of the people, not corporations. Corporations in and of themselves tend to focus on their agenda at the expense of all other things, much as a sociopathic person does. Again, this is not new. We've all heard of the age of the robber barons.
There are those that believe that the free market will take care of all of this. Companies that produce inferior products will get weeded out of the market. Banks that make bad investments will fail. This is a plausible argument, but goes against history and practicality. History is telling us that when corporations are not regulated, we suffer through shoddy products and practices. The current banking crisis tells us that the principle can apply to entire industries, not just individual players. Allowing the giants to fail will create shockwaves in the economy that in the end punish you and I severely. Knowing that the giants have failed and new giants will arise someday to replace them is small consolation on a personal scale and economic suicide on a national scale. There is little choice but to help them out. In the end, their risk is our risk. And, if we accept that, then We The People should demand that our risk be minimized through regulation.

Tea Leaves Redux

So another possible reason that the media is so thoroughly fact-checking the McCain-Palin claims is that they're mad at the campaign. As we all know, Governor Palin has been kept virtually isolated from the media since her selection as Senator McCain's running mate. It appears the media has finally had enough of this and showed their displeasure at the UN today. The campaign managers were restricting access to the photo-op events and CNN threatened to boycott the event, taking away the only television coverage.

So, should the media be upset? I think so, and I think we all should be upset. America at large was introduced to Governor Palin with only 60 days to decide on her capabilities and qualities. We've known Senator McCain and Senator Biden for years. We've seen Senator Obama being grilled by his opponents for eighteen months straight. But we have no way to gauge Governor Palin. She may be great. She may be incredibly gifted. But, We The People have the right to decide that for ourselves by watching her in the public spotlight. If she were truly competent, one would think she would be making appearance after appearance. The McCain-Palin campaign would be shoving her ability down our throats. The argument that the media might be unfair to her is not valid - a real (self-professed) bulldog would tear apart any interviewer who stepped out of line. Since they are choosing to hide her and protect her at every turn, it is hard to conclude that she is the competent woman they wish us to see. It is even harder to conclude that she should get our votes in any substantial way.

Tea Leaves?

Probably every one of us knows what it's like to watch an interview of our favorite political villain and ask "How can you not ask about ?" Sometimes it can get pretty bad and your spouse has to remind you that the people on TV can't really hear you. And so you ask your spouse "But... how could they not ask about it?" This phenomena happens most often during election season when the politicians are taking their usual liberties with reality and the news people look the other way.
Something new has been happening lately during this election cycle. I noticed it shortly after Senator McCain picked Governor Palin as his running mate. The major media markets have been calling his and her bluffs. Not just the markets you would expect, either. Normally bland news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC are fact-checking the McCain-Palin claims.
I think it started with Governor Palin. Her "No thanks" claim for the Bridge to Nowhere has been challenged repeatedly and pretty well run to ground. Her trooper-gate claims are being challenged by ABC. And when Charles Gibson was hand-picked to give the first interview to Governor Palin, he did not give her the softball interview and "deference" the McCain campaign demanded. Now the NY Times is reminding us that while the McCain-Palin campaign has criticized Barack Obama for receiving donations from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, McCain's own campaign manager earned $2 million as president of an advocacy group set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations. We've seen the Today Show question why John McCain rails against CEO's who are given golden parachutes while their employees are being laid off while one of his top advisors, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, received a $45 million golden parachute bailout while 20,000 Hewlett-Packard employees were laid off. And the low road approach of the McCain-Palin campaign has been criticized by numerous newspapers, including the International Herald Tribune, Newsweek, and even Karl Rove on FOX (though to be fair, Karl Rove also said that the Obama campaign has gone too far).
I take this as a sign that the media outlets are betting on an Obama win. There are some out there who believe that the liberal media are simply trying to ensure that Obama wins, but that doesn't take into account past behavior of letting similar claims slide. Nor does it take into account that major media outlets want to be on good terms with the victor, no matter who it is. That's just good business. There was a real change in the pre-Palin and post-Palin actions of the press. I suspect that the major media players were underwhelmed with the choice and believe that the Obama campaign can overcome her positive aspects to win.

Drill, Maybe, Drill!

There's a lot of talk about offshore drilling, but not very much analysis about the benefits and costs. The McCain/Palin campaign says "Drill, baby, drill!" From a political perspective it's a great thing to do, because McCain can pound on the podium and say "Drill here, pay less at the pump" and it gets people all wound up and brings out the vote. But getting out the vote and doing something useful are not always the same thing. Similarly, the Democrats in Congress claimed recently that the oil and gas companies already hold the leases to huge, productive tracts that they simply have not yet developed. This too is a great political claim, but it's hard to find real data to see if the claim is valid. It may be true, but the lack of hard data regarding estimated reserves makes it difficult to assess. Usually reality falls somewhere in between the extremes of broad politically based claims.

We need a real discussion on offshore drilling, not a war of slogans and knee-jerk reactions. The discussion typically takes the form of weighing the environmental costs against the economic benefits of lifting the offshore oil ban.

Conservation: The typical one-liner says that oil exploration and environmental groups can never get along. That makes offshore drilling a show stopper for many. It turns out not to be an absolute truth. In Santa Barbara, CA, an environmentalist group called Goo! negotiated with the Plains Exploration and Production Company to re-open offshore oil fields previously closed down. This does not mean that the entire community is on board with the project, as this Newsweek article points out.

Oil and gas drilling technology is clearly improving. With public and regulatory support, that technology can be used to provide cleaner recovery and transport. A case can be made that in the course of normal operations, oil recovery is quite clean. For example, this 1995 NASA study claims that offshore drilling adds 15 million gallons of oil to the oceans every year, but this is a much smaller source than from natural seepage (62 million), routine ship maintenance (137 million), and poor usage by us landlubbers (363 million). What about abnormal events? Some claim there was no oil rig damage and no oil spillage due to Katrina, but don't believe them! Some 7-9 million gallons from onshore sources and an additional 741,000 gallons from offshore sources were spilled. The numbers for Gustav and Ike are not in yet. Clearly, oil rigs were lost (at least 49 for Ike). Assuming production is shut down prior to the storm, the loss of rigs is an economic issue for the oil/gas companies, but does not have to be a strong environmental issue. I'm not convinced that offshore drilling is environmentally safe in general, but it seems sensible to allow the discussion on a case by case basis.

Effects of Increased Production: It's hard to find numbers estimating how much additional oil and gas could be extracted via offshore drilling. The US Energy Information Administration claimed in 2007 that lifting the offshore drilling ban would increase overall production by about 200,000 barrels per day. That's a trivial amount. It's about 10% of US production, but only about 0.25% of world production. Consider that Saudi Arabia alone promised to increase oil production by 500,000 barrels per day earlier this year, and the global oil market didn't move an inch. Some people put forward a "Every little bit helps!" argument, but it's a non-argument. If I paid you a dollar for a day's hard labor and rationalized it by saying "Hey, every little bit helps!" you still wouldn't take the job. You would use your time and energy in more productive areas. Similarly, this may be a case where utilizing the time and energy that is needed to explore and develop new offshore oil fields may be better used in more productive areas, such as studying alternative energy sources.

I think we can identify a few things we can agree on. One is that environmental effects of drilling are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, rather than blanket statements about certain doom or certain success. Another is that there is no strong case for completely lifting the ban, based on production estimates. New information or new technology could change both of the previous statements and we should be open to that. Lastly, reality-based analysis will have no impact on the political argument. Those that believe they will achieve political advantage by advocating or opposing offshore drilling will advocate or oppose regardless of real world results. And because of this last, it is incumbent on us to be informed so that we can allow reality to shape that political advantage.

Defending the Constitution

I was thinking about the ongoing discussions as to whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be the President of the US should the need arise and re-read the Presidential Oath of Office as a reminder of what the job entails. The Oath reads as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Judging by what I see and hear, the vast majority of people interpret the "protect and defend" clause in its most obvious sense, whereby we are threatened by a foreign military power. Clearly, this is a highly unlikely scenario. We are still the only remaining superpower. Our military budget equals the rest of the world's nations military budgets combined.
Loss of Constitutional power through other actions, however, is always a possibility. Internal power grabs or slow erosion may occur. Preserving the Constitution in this sense requires a deep knowledge of the Constitution itself, as well as a familiarity with Constitutional interpretation and the historical court cases developing that interpretation. In this sense, Barack Obama certainly has the most credentials. He has a JD from Harvard and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. Next would be Joe Biden, who earned a JD at the Syracuse University College of Law and has a long career in the Senate. Senator Biden currently chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. Next is John McCain. His academic career at the Naval Academy was not directly related to law, but his long service in the House and Senate has clearly given him direct experience with the checks, balances, powers, and limitations laid out in the Constitution. Sarah Palin has none of this. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Communications-Journalism, two terms as the mayor of Wasilla, and is in her first term as the governor of Alaska. There is nothing in her resume indicating a sense of Constitutional Law, or issues that may arise. This unfamiliarity leaves her vulnerable to attack, and by extension, We The People are vulnerable if she is in office.
Sarah Palin has some good qualities. She's confident, articulate, intelligent, and aggressive. But, she doesn't have the training or experience to work within a Constitutional framework. Will she be able to protect Executive powers from a greedy Congress? Will she push back if her advisors attempt to push her further toward the Unitary Executive that George Bush's administration envisioned? I doubt she could gain that kind of insight in such a short time. Regardless of our political leanings, we should be able to agree that putting a Constitutional amateur in the White House is not the most likely way to ensure that the President can fulfill the Oath of Office.

Why Won't They Attack?

One theme I've seen on both conservative and liberal blogging sites is how much better things would be if the [insert political party here] would only take the gloves off and attack the other side. Why say "My opponent's statements aren't always well supported by factual evidence," when you can just call him a liar? We all know he is! He's also a traitor, coward, moron, pervert, etc...
The reason is simple. Ultimately, these people need to work together. While the election lasts for one day, the governance lasts for 2-, 4-, or 6-years. Most of the Senators who start out on the election trail have to return to the Senate. The only way for the Senate, or any governing body, to function in the long run is to maintain a sense of civility and mutual respect. It may be only a thin veneer of civility, but sometimes that's all that's required. So the candidates refrain from the truly harsh, personal attacks during the short campaign out of deference for the long term good of the Senate. They have to walk a fine line, being aggressive enough to fire up the base and get out the vote, but not so aggressive as to harm the working relationship. To do otherwise would be like a chef burning down his restaurant because he didn't like the soup du jour.
It might not be a bad idea for We The People to act the same way. Maybe we shouldn't call so loudly for the red meat. Maybe we should not work so hard to bait and insult each other on the blogs and instead exchange information and our differing points of view in an honest and respectful manner. Maybe a thin veneer of civility is all that's required. After all, the politicians may have to work together but we have to live together.

Protecting the Best of Us

It's easy to express the high ideals of individual rights in a broad and abstract sense. It's harder to do so in the real world, especially in the presence of danger. Fear tempts us to trade in our morality for security. People start to think that violations of individual rights might make sense if they keep us safer. Nothing is off the table, including torture. There is no shortage of people explaining in very practical terms why what we're doing is acceptable. The explanations take many forms. Yet each of them has a very practical refutation.

It's Not Really Torture: The first line of defense for any torturer is to deny, even to themselves, that they do it. Nobody can admit that they torture because the political cost is too high. So people use euphemisms, and rely on legalistic definitions to argue that the specific techniques used aren't really torture. Our government uses the term "enhanced interrogation techniques." Is it a cover for torture? It's hard to say just from the name. We rely on convention and tradition to decide when the line has been crossed.

One of my uncles knew a missionary named Larry Zellers who was held prisoner in North Korea during the Korean War. Larry Zellers wrote of his experiences in "In Enemy Hands", and described the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, food and water deprivation, psychological stress, and repeated beatings. We in America have no doubt that the techniques used by the North Koreans was torture. But when we use stress positions, deprive people of food and water, and induce psychological stress we claim it's not torture. What's the difference? It turns out the techniques the United States of America is using today in Guantanamo come directly from the techniques developed by the Chinese and used in Korea. The techniques were lifted directly from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese coercive techniques designed to illicit false confessions from American prisoners. Anyone defending the US techniques currently in use must also then admit that the techniques used in Korea were acceptable. My Dad is active in the Korean War Veterans of America (KWVA) . I'd like to see anyone go into one of my Dad's KWVA meetings and explain how the Chinese techniques weren't really torture. Go ahead, I dare you.

We Need The Information: The next line of defense for the torturer is to claim the ends justifies the means. We need to do whatever it takes to win. We need the information. Of course, information gained through torture has been shown over and over to have no bearing to the truth.

You'd think we would have learned our lesson a long time ago. Like over three hundred years ago, in Salem, Massachusetts. A number of people confessed to being witches, knowing the confession meant death, and were hung for it. Do you believe that those who were hung were really witches? Do you believe they thought they were witches? I don't. The confessions were brought out under torture. The information was wrong. You'd think we would have learned the lesson again in Korea and Vietnam. Many US servicemen signed confessions admitting that they were war criminals. Do you think those soldiers were war criminals? Do you think they thought they were? I don't. You don't have to agree with John McCain's politics to see the shame and guilt he still lives with for signing his confession. The information was wrong.

So why do we think that the Chinese methods designed to get Americans to lie will get non-Americans to tell the truth? The "information" is almost certainly wrong. It has no value, but it does have a cost. Our strength has always come from our respect for individual rights. This respect for the person, no matter his station in life, is probably the single strongest reason for our success as a Nation. This focus on the individual has served us well when threatened by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. The populations of many of those regimes were, in a way, on our side, because in the end we were on their side. Now, once more, we are engaged in trying to win the hearts and minds of a large, diverse population. When we accept torture, we throw our greatest strength away.

They Deserve It: The last line of defense is to claim that the torturer's victims are so awful, their actions so heinous, that they don't deserve protection from torture. They are the worst of the worst and deserve whatever they get. Those that disagree "just don't get it" or care more about terrorist's rights than America. It's an easy sell because people are so angry over the horror that was done and fearful that it may occur again. What people don't understand is that this is not about them. This is about us. Who we are. What we stand for. Torture is outside our system. Once you accept that torture can be applied to anyone, even the most heinous person, you make torture a part of the system. And once inside it will devour the system from within.

People think we can draw circles around certain groups of people and say "We only torture them and it's OK because of what they've done." But circles change. We only torture known terrorists. We only torture suspected terrorists. We only torture those who might lead us to suspected terrorists. We do nothing because we think we are not affected. We are all familiar with the poem that starts "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist..." The circle grows. New threats appear. More justifications for using torture appear and the bar is lowered each time. Cop killers, those who threaten cops, those who resist arrest. Child killers and pedophiles. Drug lords, drug dealers or drug users who may lead us to dealers. Criminals and suspected criminals of all types. This tears out the heart and soul of the thing most precious to America - the insistence on the rights of the individual. In the end, each and any one of us can be victimized. Taken, tortured, confessed, and then the confession used to justify the act of torture. It can happen to anyone. By protecting the worst of us, we protect the best of us.

Reform Who?

The Republican campaigners have chosen to focus a lot of attention on reform. By definition, reform refers to dismantling a long-standing political system or process. So who are they reforming? George Bush has been President for the past eight years. Republicans have been in the Oval Office for twenty of the past twenty-eight years. Republicans held both the House and Senate for twelve years prior to the Democratic party gaining a slight majority in 2006. The long-standing power structures are Republican. John McCain himself has been in the Senate for the past twenty years and was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal in the 1980s.

Sarah Palin herself is already under investigation for abuse of power of the Governor's office, has ties to Senator Stevens, the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", and the Alaskan Independence Party. These issues may be resolved in her favor, but it's hardly the environment in which to run a reform ticket.

Political campaigns thrive on powerful, emotional words. You will hear both parties using them to motivate voters to get out to the polls, preferably without stopping to think. In both cases, though, it is our responsibility to stop. Think. This choice of themes seems misguided. If enough people stop to think and ask "Who are we reforming?" it could be bad for the McCain-Palin ticket.

News vs. Noise

A lot has been going on in August, and I haven't been blogging about it. Russia invades Georgia, President Musharrif steps down, the Iraqi government demands a timeline for US withdrawal, and human-rights impaired China hosts the Olympic games. I was bothered by all of these events in the same way, and was unable to express what was bothering me. Then it hit me - it wasn't the events, it was the news reporting. There's a difference between informing and influencing. From news agencies, we want the former, and too often get the latter.

People associate the word "news" with the word "factual," for now at least. We all know that the ideal of journalism is to take in the history of an issue, mix in the partisan and conflicted views of the major players, and summarize current events objectively and factually. In any newsworthy event there are people with something at stake. These stakeholders are going to try to influence us, not inform us. So when the major news outfits blindly repeats their statements without correction or comment, it really doesn't do us much good. It does not even approach the ideal.

The problem is an old one. Thomas Jefferson said "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." As usual, General William Tecumseh Sherman was more blunt, saying "I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are." Last week Jon Stewart took the media to task. I don't have an answer to the problem. Perhaps all we can do is be aware of the imperfections in the system, and remind ourselves to always listen with a skeptic's ear, and never come to rely on a single voice.

One Party Rule

Last Monday the Department of Justice released the results of their investigation into the hiring practices of Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson. They were both implicated as hiring attorneys for the Department of Justice based primarily on political loyalty instead of qualification. It didn't get much air time in the mainstream media, which is not too surprising. There's no strong visuals and no easily grabbed punchline. It sounds like some bureaucrats violated some obscure internal policies and may get their hands slapped.

Let's be clear. This story is about the survival of democracy in America. This is "shout it from the rooftops" and "march in the streets" kind of news. The key is to understand the difference between political appointees and career employees. The idea that the current administration may appoint a wide variety of department heads and agency officials has been accepted for about two hundred years. But, while political appointees come and go, the real work is done by career employees. They do not serve a single president, but serve all equally. They are expected to be non-partisan and competent--because they serve the nation--not the leader. Yet one of the questions Monica Goodling regularly asked applicants was why they wished to serve George W. Bush. Kyle Sampson wanted "loyal Bushies" to be given preference when hiring judges. In order to get the job, you had to belong to the right party. Eventually, that party would have a monopoly on government - One Party Rule. Now think of every country you associate with the rationale "My father really wasn't that way, he just joined The Party to get a good job. Everybody had to back then." Do you really want to live in that country? The path of Goodling and Sampson leads us all there. It is up to us to categorically reject and denounce these practices in any administration.

The Department of Justice controls who gets investigated and prosecuted for wrongdoing. It doesn't matter how many federal crimes a person commits, if the DOJ chooses not to investigate, they will go scot free. We cannot tolerate those decisions to be completely controlled by one political party any more than we can tolerate a military that defends only one party or an educational system that only allows the members of one party to go to school. We do not tolerate monopolies on oil, or food, or telephone service. "Power corrupts" has been true for all people in all ages and all times. We cannot tolerate a monopoly on power.

What really frightens me is that these actions were not isolated cases of low-level workers. Goodling and Sampson reported directly to Alberto Gonzales, who was then the Attorney General (his attorney claims Gonzales did not know what was going on). Similar actions were suggested within the White House to hire Federal Prosecutors. The State Department used the same criteria to hire diplomats working in Iraq's Green Zone. It sounds more systematic than accidental, so who designed the system? I suspect there will be no serious inquiry into that.

What others are saying:
Christian Science Monitor
CNN
MSNBC
Josh Marshall

What if it was the 2nd Amendment?

What if the recently passed FISA bill (H.R. 6304) addressed the Second Amendment? What if the President claimed that, in order to defend us from terrorists, he needed the power to remove all guns from any home in America? Now, he wouldn't say it that way in press conferences and speeches. He would instead say that he needs to have the capability to disarm terrorists and that this capability needs to be flexible and all encompassing to effectively combat the threat. He would say the terrorists are fighting a new kind of warfare and that the old laws don't work anymore. He would remind you that terrorists are trying to kill you and that disarming them is vital to the interests of the nation. And he wouldn't be alone in saying it. There would be a host of administration officials, pundits, operatives, and supporters giving rationale and voicing their support.

If you look closely, you may notice that the actual law allows for people who have done nothing wrong to lose their guns. You may notice that the administration can confiscate anyone's guns without telling anyone why they are doing it, or even whether they are doing it or not. If you spoke up about this, you would be told that you don't understand the nature of the terrorist threat. You will be told that unless the president can take away anyone's guns at any time, the terrorists will strike again and again. They will have already won. You would be told that innocent people who have nothing to hide needn't worry, because even though the administration could take away your guns, they won't. You would be told that you are putting our troops and law enforcement officials in harm's way by your ridiculous requirement that they stop off at the nearest court house to get a judge's order before they can say "Drop your weapon!" to some cornered criminal. When you point out that the existing law never required that, you will be told that the existing law was written a long time ago and things have changed since then. If you point out that the Second Amendment is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, you would be told that your idealistic and naive ideas can't work in the real world, and you are enabling our enemies. You will be told that you care more about the rights of terrorists than the safety of your own children. You will be told that when the terrorists go on a killing spree in the local mall, well, you'd better be ready to accept responsibility for it. And you would be called unAmerican.

Americans of all stripes should and would be up in arms about this. The outrage would be loud and clear and would overwhelm the fear-based arguments of those backing the law. But it's not the Second Amendment this time around. It's the Fourth. The loss is not so tangible. You can't hold it in your hand like a gun. For example, you would know if federal agents came to take away your guns. You would know if a Democratic administration confiscated the guns of all registered Republicans. With surveillance you don't know. The current FISA legislation is actually more insidious than any legislation targeting gun ownership. Every one of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights is precious, whether we can hold it in our hands or not. Every one of them was put there specifically to protect the innocent and that guarantee of protection for individuals has been the source of strength for America for hundreds of years. Weakening them in the face of a threat weakens us as a nation. And if we weaken ourselves, well, the terrorists have already won.

See what others are writing The Huffington Post.

My FISA Lament

So many have already said it so much better, but I may as well add my voice. The recent passage of the bill to "modernize" FISA (H.R. 6304) is being cheered by conservatives as a Bush victory, and panned by liberals as a blow to the Constitution. The conservatives are right, it is a Bush victory. But the liberals are right, too, which is why I lament the passing of the bill. The two big talking points of the bill are telecom immunity and expansion of the warrantless surveillance program.

Telecom Immunity
The question is "Why?" It's pretty well established that the earlier NSA surveillance program broke the law. Even knowing that, I would be okay with the telecom immunity provision if the administration could give a good rationale for it. They haven't.

President Bush says that immunity ensures the cooperation of the telecom companies in future information gathering activities, but that makes no sense. When law enforcement or intelligence agencies approach any business with a legitimate request for information, it is against the law for that business to withhold the information. It's called obstruction of justice. So, since these companies must comply, how does retroactive immunity help? Another reason may be to protect these companies from the expense of law suits. That doesn't wash. These companies have deep pockets and the standard defense in a civil law suit is to use your deep pockets to bleed the plaintiff dry. The last possible reason is to prevent details of administration activities from being released during the trials. Names would be named and specific (possibly illegal) actions pinned to them. Political futures are at stake. This is the only rationale that I'm not seeing an argument against.


Expanding Wireless Surveillance
This bill expands the ability of the Executive Branch to spy on American citizens in the United States without oversight. It contains some legalese requiring reporting to the FISA court and periodically to Congress, but there are loopholes big enough to drive a telecommunications truck through (See Common Dreams article.) The grace period for spying without permission expands from three days to seven and doesn't have to stop if the court denies the request (it continues through the appeals process). Worse, spying activities and rationales against specific individuals need never be disclosed. It weakens the 4th amendment requiring warrants before search and seizure. The only check that balances the increase in power is to trust the President to act responsibly. That's not how a "Nation of Laws" is run.


Agreement
This is sounding like a slam on the administration, but that's not the point. The bill is a bad bill regardless of who is in power. We can agree on a few things. Our government was designed so that no single branch has too much power. In the case of domestic spying, the executive must work with the court system. The intent is to limit domestic spying to legitimate uses. This bill weakens that particular check and balance.

Currently liberals are distressed, while conservatives are cheering the gain of a tool against terror for the current President. But there is a strong possibility that Obama will be president. Will they cheer that he has this power, too? What about future presidents? Power corrupts and this bill gives the kind of power that Nixon could only dream of. Instead of relying on a group of amateur plumbers, some future power grab may be made with all the sophistication and resources of the NSA. Do we really need to do this to defend ourselves against a terrorist threat? There will always be threats and there will always be someone telling us that our safety requires that we give up some of our Constitutional guarantees. Don't listen to them. In the long run, losing our identity by chipping away at the Constitution is always the greatest threat.

This post was edited July 13th, 2008 for clarity.

Reading the News

If We The People are ever going to run this country as intended, we need to know what is going on. It isn't easy. People know of the "Fog of War," which is the haze of information preventing a military commander to see a situation clearly. Military commanders have access to a vast array of information, most of which is irrelevent, dubious, or deceptive. The most important information may be deliberately hidden. You and I are surrounded by a "Fog of Politics," which prevents us from seeing what is going on around us clearly. Thanks to the internet, we have access to a vast array of information, most of which is irrelevent, dubious, or deceptive. The most important information may be deliberately hidden.

Relying on the news media alone is not the answer. Corporations exist to make money and news corporations are no different. You already know this because you've seen the endless hours of coverage devoted to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, or the latest missing (attractive, female) college student. You've noticed the distinct absence of air time devoted to details of the latest omnibus funding bill, or proposed revisions to the tax code, or in-depth pro and con discussions of US policy toward...well, toward anything. Paris, Britney, and the missing girl bring in the viewers and the ratings are the single most important thing. Things that really affect you are, oddly enough, not interesting enough for you to watch. There is a chicken-and-egg effect here. The networks provide us salacious stories masquerading as news in the belief that we'll watch and we confirm the belief by watching.

When real news is covered we are hardly better off. Coverage is kept at a top-level and the information is presented by advocates for one position or another instead of independent analysts. Their goal is to convince you, not inform you. We are forced to rely on the news anchors to "ask the tough questions" to "keep them honest." Of course, if they do ask the tough questions then notable guests would no longer appear on the show and ratings would plummet.

This is by no means a new discovery, but a reminder. And a twist. The inadequacies of the mainstream media is actually something liberals and conservatives can agree on. At least they can if they choose to. Liberals say the media is controlled by and voicing only conservative talking points and conservatives claim the media is filled with left-wing operatives spouting liberal positions. Conservatives claim that George Soros is the evil mastermind pulling the strings behind the scenes. While liberals claim that Rupert Murdoch is the evil mastermind controlling the messages we are allowed to hear.

What liberals and conservatives can agree on is the need for trustworthy, unbiased sources of information. Maybe we should stop arguing about who's side the news is on and demand with a unified voice news that is not on anybody's side. That means educating ourselves a bit. Fact-check stories, even ones you agree with. Consider all stories, even ones you don't agree with. Watch channels and read online sources you normally wouldn't. It really doesn't take much effort; a quick google almost always does the trick to get a fuller picture of a news item. Waiting a few days for the news cycle to catch up with the facts can help, too. If a false story is ripping its way through the internet, post a polite (can't emphasize that enough) note and link to more factual information. It may mean voting with your feet to show that anything less is not tolerated.

Agreement on these kinds of issues may seem trivial, but it is important. People who have something in common are more apt to listen to each other, respect each other's views, and work together on the harder issues.

And for what it's worth, I have always been impressed with Christian Science Monitor news (link at left).

No Other Side

When I first started reading online forums and blogs I sought out conservative sites. I did this because I was opposed to many of the actions of the Bush administration and wanted to understand where "the other side" was coming from. I was not impressed. Most of what passed for discussion was simply name calling. John Skerry. Demonrats. Dumbocrats. After a while I started to read liberal blogs and forums. Again, not impressed. John Asscroft. Rethuglicans. Freepers. People would post furious blasts about how awful the "other side" is. Communists. Fascists. Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!

The funny thing is that, underneath it all, both sides have very much the same goals. I'm not talking about individual high-profile political and business leaders, but about the everyday people these leaders are trying to appeal to. Everyday people the world over have the same underlying goals. They want a stable job, ability to care for their family's needs, a safe place to raise their family, and want to leave the world a little better off than when they found it for their kids. Even though there may be vehement arguments about what "better off" means, those fundamental goals are the same for the vast majority of people.

On political forums, you usually have to look to see it. First, strip away all of the posturing and name calling. That leaves policy positions, which still seem to be in opposition to each other. The advocates must therefore be opponents, right? Dig deeper. Set aside the policy details and look at the goals, they are almost always the same.

Health care is an easy example. Some want federal government supported health care, and some don't. Are they in opposition? Not so much. Ultimately, both "sides" want all Americans to have access to affordable health care. Can you believe that any sane American watches a school bus go by and offers up a silent prayer "Please, God, please let some of those children have illnesses their family can't afford to treat!" Everyone has the same goal of universal access to health care. They are merely differing on how to achieve it. Specifically, they are working out how much support should come from the federal government. Some conservatives will respond "Zero!" With a little more thought, these same people realize that the Federal government already does supply health care in some cases, and with their consent. Veterans clearly deserve, and obtain, federally funded health care. Federal employees also must be offered health care plans as part of their compensation packages so that the government can hire competitively with industry. Providing health care to prisoners in federal penitentiaries is also accepted. And what of MediCare, MedicAid? Many accept these programs as playing a positive role.

So the federal government is already providing health care in a big way. Recognizing this changes the question significantly from "Should there be universal health care?" to "How much health care support should come from the feds?" It's a big change. The first question is all or nothing, and set up for confrontation and division. The second recognizes the underlying goal (everybody gets health care) and provides common ground to begin the discussion as to how we, as a single people, can achieve the goal. By the way, I have no idea as to the answer! I am merely pointing out that changing your point of view on the question helps come to a solution that most of us will accept in the long run.

Mainstream news media is another easy example. Conservatives claim the media has a liberal bias. They claim the media unfairly attacks the current administration. Liberals even have a Demon, George Soros, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Liberals claim the media has a conservative bias. They claim the media unfairly kowtows to the current administration. That the conservatives have a Demon, Rupert Murdoch, pulling the strings behind the scenes. Underneath it all, conservatives and liberals are clamoring for the same thing -- straight forward, reliable information from news services. We all intuitively sense that, if We The People are going to run this nation, we need accurate information. Now, there are all kinds of complications as to how we get truly accurate news services, but the underlying goal is the same. It is a place of common ground for liberals and conservatives to begin a discussion.


Why does it matter? It matters because it gives us a way to have political discussion in our nation founded on the basis of unity, rather than opposition. It doesn't answer the big questions, but changes the tenor from one of opposition to one of cooperation. We are stronger when we cooperate. It matters because it provides a basis for moving forward together, instead of dragging each other back and forth over the same old ground in an endless tug of war between sides. Most importantly, it matters because if We The People insist upon it, then it forces our political representatives to move away from partisan politics and begin true cooperation in moving the Nation forward.

Introduction

Since this is our first post, we'll do a little introduction and lay out the goals and approach of this blog. We are a brother and sister team (Keith and Wanda) interested in US politics. We're interested in other things, too, like gardening, but we'll stick to political and current events in this blog. Mostly.

We read a lot. Books, online news services, blogs, and discussion boards. We've decided to add our voice and become part of the discussion. Actually, Keith's voice, while Wanda takes on the technological challenges of creating an appealing look and feel for the site. So what makes my voice different from the thousands of others out there? Overlap is unavoidable, but I differ from the majority by focusing on agreement, rather than differences, when viewing the political landscape. Most conservatives and liberals would be surprised to see how similar their goals are on most issues, if they choose to see it. I hope this approach has a few things to offer that are novel, entertaining, and beneficial.

Posts Emphasizing Similarities

Almost everyone agrees that politics has become too partisan. And almost everyone agrees that it is the other party's fault. If only those other guys would see reason and change, everything would be fine. Meanwhile, both Democratic and Republican politicians spend too much time playing gotcha and too little time trying to find the common ground needed to build solutions. We The People put up with this. Worse, we encourage it! I don't want to add to that antagonistic atmosphere. In the long run, it is far more productive to discuss information emphasizing similarities between supposedly different sides. To do so means looking past the headline, past the slogan, and trying to tease out what is really going on.

The bottom line is that a nation of 300 million moving together is much stronger than two nations of 150 million going nowhere as they pull each other apart. Believe it or not, the so-called opposing sides of almost every issue have the same over-arching goals in mind. The disagreement, like the Devil, is in the details of how to get there. I sense you're not buying this. That's ok. I'll discuss it much more in future posts.

Looking for the similarities doesn't require being a Pollyanna, and is not the same as being neutral. I understand there are conflicts in the real world, but reject the idea that these conflicts control us. I will agree with one side or another on certain issues, and disagree with many Bush administration actions. But I reject slogan politics and the blind following of one political party or figure. I also reject demonizing political figures and parties, not out of some high moral standard, but for the very practical reason that it weakens us as a Nation.

Objectivity

As I come to understand events I focus on two separate questions: "What is it?" and "What does it mean?" Many people - even Americans! - have a conclusion, and then establish facts to fit the conclusion. If a piece of news supports the conclusion, then keep it, no matter how questionable it may be. If the news contradicts the belief, well it must be false, right? Rejecting or accepting everything a person says just because they are a Democrat or Republican will not help you gain a clear picture of what is actually going on around you. By emphasizing similarities, and not buying into the belief that an opposing political party is an enemy, it's a lot easier to attempt objectivity.

The trick is to ask the two questions "What is it?" and "What does it mean?" separately. Ask "what is it?" without attempting to interpret meaning. This helps to push personal preferences aside so they are less likely to influence what I see. The idea is to establish the "facts on the ground" as they say. Once I have an idea of what is going on, then I try to determine what the effect is. What it means. Both are tricky questions, but this is probably the trickier of the two, and most prone to personal feelings getting in the way. Once more, not viewing a political opponent as a demon is helpful.

Everything has a Benefit and a Cost

Political argumentation has become pretty one-sided. Options are presented as if they will solve a problem and have no down side effects whatsoever. The truth is that everything has both a benefit and a cost. "There ain't no free lunch" doesn't just mean you can't get something for free, it means that everything has positive and negative aspects. Try asking someone advocating some solution what the down side of the action is. Many won't be able to, which means they haven't really thought through the impacts of their position. It's a very short step from being a lazy thinker to being a non-thinking ditto-head no matter what your political leanings are. In this blog I hope to show both benefits and costs of current events so you can make your own conclusions...or disagree with mine.