Normally I try to write about bigger issues, national politics or the constitution and try to present information that is at least attempting to be even handed and respectful of opinions other than my own. I'm a firm believer that the only way to have a productive discussion on hard topics is to understand the opposing view as thoroughly as possible. We can't argue against what we don't understand, and we can't convince anyone if we start by assuming they're malicious or stupid (or both).
That said, this is not one of those posts. Instead, this is something that matters. It matters to me on a personal level, to a lot of people locally now and in the future on a practical level, and to some extent to everyone on some more abstract levels.
On September 8th 2015 Fayetteville AR is holding a special election to attempt to pass Ordinance 5781, titled "An ordinance to ensure uniform nondiscrimination protections within the city of Fayettevile for groups already protected to varying degrees throughout state law". It's a clunky, inelegant title but there are reasons for that. Last year Arkansas declared that no subdivision of the state (county, city, town, etc) may protect classes of citizens not already protected by state statutes. (The merits of that, or lack thereof, are a topic for another post.)
The ordinance itself is 6 pages long and largely references other statutes at the state level. The gist of the ordinance is that if a class is protected at the state level in one area, then it is protected in all areas covered by state protections.
So why does this matter?
The US may have legalized gay marriage through the Supreme Court, but it didn't protect those who choose to get married. However, in roughly half of the country it is perfectly legal to fire or refuse housing to someone who chooses to exercise that right (or even if you don't and someone happens to find out).
Growing up in the Northeast and living on my own in upstate New York that's not something I ever really thought about. Even if it were a possibility it was something that never crossed my mind. When I moved to Arkansas it was an adjustment, but by and large Fayetteville is a college town and most of my Northern prejudices were unfounded. That said, looking for an apartment here was an unsettling experience. I'm still not sure if that nice older couple who seemed vaguely uncomfortable really had a problem with us and I probably will never know but what really threw me off was the complex we ended up living in telling us how open and accepting they were.
They were right, and I have no regrets about moving there, but that statement has stuck with me. No one should ever need to be told "we're accepting here" because what we do in our homes is none of their business. Not discriminating should not be a selling point.
Fayetteville has an opportunity to stand up and say "We welcome everyone." It's not everywhere, but as I told one of my roommates in college... I may not be able to change the world, but that doesn't mean I won't try to improve my small part of it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Sunday, March 30, 2014
The 1st Amendment: Part 1: Religious Liberty
The First Amendment
In the new tradition of almost timely posts, I've decided to renew my ongoing 27+ part series on US constitutional amendments. Today we have part 2 (you can read part 1 here). Luckily, unlike my first piece, I had somewhere to start with this one and enough to say that I will most likely break this into three posts.The Text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As you might have surmised from the title, I'm going to stick to religion today, speech, press, and assembly will just have to wait until another time. This is not an expression of importance; in many ways I believe the freedom of speech to be the most fundamental of all rights; this is solely because of the number of current issues regarding religious liberty and how it can contrast with civil rights.
Public Prayers
First, a local case currently pending a decision from the Supreme Court, the Town of Greece v. Galloway (a more comprehensive breakdown can be found here). In summary, the Town of Greece opens their town meetings with a prayer and generally invites a member of the local clergy to lead it. Those leading the prayers were primarily Christian and so non-Christian residents are suing to either have the prayers ended or expanded by giving guidelines to those leading the prayers as to what would be appropriate. Let me start with this; I'm not a particularly religious person and public prayers outside of a church service always leave me feeling a little out of place. That said, I also realize that these prayers are an inescapable fact of life. Even as a secular society we have no shortage of public institutions invoking deities through prayer to open meetings or any of a dozen other types of gatherings. As (and I can't believe I'm citing him) Justice Alito raised during the arguments, no prayer can possibly appease every religion, especially when atheists are included in the discussion. Typically this is why prayers of this sort are expected to be as inoffensive as possible, and come from a variety of sources; something that the Town of Greece had been trying to do, but failed to follow through on. The Supreme Court decision is due back this summer, but it's unlikely to be anything earth shattering. A sweeping ruling could ban all such public prayers, which would be a wildly unpopular decision, so I expect it will amount to little more than some type of enforcement of more diverse prayers.Aside from being of local relevance, this case lets us talk about what will be a recurring theme. Where does my freedom to exercise my religion end and someone else's begin? This isn't an easy question to answer and it becomes the central argument in most of these cases. Does the city have a right to open their sessions with a prayer if they choose to? Do the clergy leading the prayers have the right to do so without government oversight? Do the citizens have a right to a government that does not favor any one religion? The city probably does have that right; without some compelling reason higher governments shouldn't be dictating to local governments how to run their own meetings. The clergy definitely have the right to non-interference; just the concept of the government dictating which types of prayers are publicly acceptable is clearly unconstitutional, even if it would resolve the immediate problem. Finally, the citizens definitely have the right to a government that respects all religions. So how do we balance the rights of the city, the clergy, the citizens? Perhaps the best answer is really to give time to each religion represented in the city. There will always be some who feel put off by however the meetings are started regardless of the prayer or lack thereof, so sometimes the best thing to do is cycle through making everyone uncomfortable occasionally.
Birth Control
Second, the first big national topic, Birth Control and Religion. I'll leave the analysis of the specific cases to the more qualified and speak to the general principles involved (though, again, SCOTUSblog is a fantastic resource for the curious about both Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius and Sebelius v Hobby Lobby). I find these cases fascinating in the abstract. Do private companies have a right to operate based on religious principles? And, if so, to what extent are they allowed to enforce those principles on those who work for them?For the most part we, as a society, don't care when businesses operate on religious principles. If they want to be closed on Saturdays or Sundays, or choose not to sell alcohol, or operate a Kosher or Halal kitchen, or any other manner of operation that is based on religious tenets, we rarely care either as customers or as employees. Unfortunately, under the Affordable Care Act, we have to deal with address the implications of faith based private businesses. If we accept the premise that a business can be faith based regardless of their actual business, we must decide how far they are allowed to enforce that faith and we need to deal with the conflict between non-discrimination acts and those religious liberties. Hobby Lobby can't refuse employment based solely on the religion of the applicants which means they must have some employees who do not share their religious beliefs. Even if we accept that the owners are running their business based on their faith, do they have the right to limit the health care options of the employees who do not share those beliefs? Must everyone who works for them adhere to their religious standards? In any other situation this would be an almost obvious no, but because the ACA is so controversial, this is seen as another avenue to attack an unpopular (at least in some groups) law. Imagine if, instead, the employees were being required to maintain a religious diet, or join in management led prayers daily. A common argument is that this is a slippery slope to religious exemptions for other types of medical coverage, but I see this as a slippery slope to employment discrimination. If businesses are allowed to be adherents to a religion then they would be able to argue for all rights therein, not just this specific scenario.
Photographers and Cakes
Third, we're going west to the gay weddings, photographers, and cakes. Arizona made big news twice, first for passing a deeply unsettling bill and second for vetoing it. Arizona made the big news, but they weren't the only state with a bill of that nature on their agenda and they won't be the last. This has also been couched as a "religious liberty" question. Since the business owners are good faithful Christians who can't, in good conscience, provide services to gay couples, they must refuse service based on religious grounds and they argue that they should have that right based on the 1st amendment. Unlike the first two questions, I don't believe that this is a question of religious liberty. The first is a clear question of Establishment (City vs Citizens), while the second is definitely a case of Free Exercise (Company vs Employees). This last situation is, at least in my opinion, a question of business rights vs consumer rights regardless of religion.Some business owners would like the right to decline service to certain customers. These are primarily service businesses and they are largely basing their current claims in religious beliefs. Unfortunately I think this misses the fundamental question: Do businesses have a right to deny services to customers? In most cases they don't unless there is a key business interest in that denial. In that sense, it may circle back as a question implied by the Birth Control exception cases. Does maintaining religious beliefs constitute a key business interest? That's a tough argument to make since religions generally believe in individuals living properly rather than businesses. A person might find salvation, but their bakery won't be joining them in heaven. That said, I'm not entirely convinced that businesses should be required to serve individuals that they disapprove of. Typically a business functions best by providing their services to everyone regardless of their particulars, but if they choose not to, that seems like a decision best defended under Freedom to Assemble rather than Freedom of Religion.
The Point?
So what is the point of all of this? Much like the point I reached in The 2nd Amendment post; the point is that we're thinking about rights in ways that our bill of rights was never designed for. Our founders wanted to ensure that we would not be citizens of a country with a new State Religion. We were to be free of both the Church of England and the Pope. We were to be free to exercise our own religious beliefs, whatever they may be. Well we have that. We live in a society where the government does not tell us which religion we must be members of and does not arrest us for exercising our own beliefs. Everything beyond that, be it liberal or conservative, is trying to find a justification in a document where none was intended to meet our current needs.Saturday, March 15, 2014
Anthropogenic Global Warming An Important and Irrelevant Argument
Welcome to week 2 of my "tell me what to write about" challenge (all requests accepted, but try not to get too far outside my wheelhouse). My topic this week was "the Humboldt squid". When I reminded them that I don't even know how many tentacles (arms?) a squid has, I was given a reprieve with a nice light topic like global warming.
Anthropogenic Global Warming
First let's break down the concepts before we talk about why it's important and what makes it irrelevant. So what is anthropogenic global warming? In short, it is an average increase in global temperatures caused by human activities. This doesn't mean that an exceptionally hot summer or an exceptionally cold winter proves or disproves anything. The key word, often forgotten, is Global. If three quarters of the world is warmer than normal, it really doesn't matter that I'm currently shivering. (It does, however, make me hate them ever so slightly.) All told, this isn't really a difficult concept to understand, to relate it to a house, if you turn the heat on in 3 out of 4 rooms, the house is getting warmer even if the poor sucker in the guest bedroom is freezing.
So why is this controversial? The arguments generally come in three varieties: "Is it happening?", "Are we causing it?", and "Is it a bad thing, or how bad will it be?".
Is it happening?
Yes. That's really all I'm going to say on this one. You can argue about the causes; you can argue about the severity; you can argue about the effects; but this one really needs to be dropped.
Are we causing it?
Probably. Most of the prevailing science points that way and most of the counter arguments are coming from those with vested interests in proving that we aren't causing it or from people radically opposed to science in general. But more on this later.
Is it a bad thing or how bad will it be?
This gets complicated, but the best answer I can give is "probably" and "we're not sure". It's probably going to be a bad thing for much the same arguments as above, but also due to the fundamental principle that change in an environment is generally a bad thing for the things that are currently living in said environment. Nature, humanity included, does not adapt quickly to changes in their living conditions. Humans are amazingly resilient creatures, but we rely on technology to adapt our locations to our needs. Areas that rarely see snow are traumatized by even small amounts where areas that get multiple feet per year don't even blink. Similarly areas that are accustomed to and prepared for hurricanes or earthquakes or heat waves are more than capable of handling them, but areas that aren't can be shut down entirely by what would be considered a common occurrence elsewhere. As climates change more areas are going to have to adapt to more types of events, the only question is how much it will change and how severe those events will be.
How bad will it be then? That's decidedly less settled. Global climate models have come a long way in the last 20 years, but they're massively complex and still frequently wrong with their predictions. We've been left with the extremes of "we're all going to die" and "maybe it'll even be a good thing" neither of which seem particularly credible. The former incites unnecessary (though they would disagree with that) panic, while the latter implies that we should ignore it entirely and enjoy the warmer weather. As with most things, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, more on a scale of "annoying" to "severely unpleasant".
Why this is all Irrelevant
Now that I've finally gotten the background out of the way, I can get to the point. None of it matters. Don't give me that look, yes I'm serious, and no I'm not crazy. I'm not trying to argue that Global Warming is irrelevant, just that the arguments about it are. The reason is simple. The things that we should be doing to stop Global Warming are things we should be doing anyway for much less controversial reasons.
Let's start at a personal level (for reference, the EPA actually has a site with a list of things individuals can do). First, using energy efficient bulbs and appliances. Regardless of one's views on climate change, there is a near universal acceptance that using less energy (and spending less money on it) is a good thing. New bulbs and new appliances use less energy, last longer, provide the same quality, and in the end cost less than the inefficient products that they replace. The same thing goes for heating, cooling, and insulation. Who cares if you don't believe in Global Warming when everyone believes in paying less in utilities. In transportation (and more on this in the next level up) mass transit should be a good idea because it's cheaper than commuting. Alternatively, for relatively short commutes, bicycling should be a good idea because it's better for our health. Growing our own fruits and vegetables should be a good idea, not because the transportation of produce is causing the ice caps to melt, but because they're cheaper (and in my opinion, more delicious) that way. Obviously most people don't have the time (or space) to grow enough food to be entirely self sufficient, but that isn't the point. There is plenty of room between every house having a white picket fence and 2.5 SUVs and an agrarian society and good, self-serving, reasons to take a few steps in that direction.
So after the personal comes the municipal. Towns and cities aren't making environmental policies on the grand scale; they don't set CAFE standards or set up cap and trade markets; but they do have impacts and motivations similar to the personal level. If we want to reduce vehicle emissions, then towns and cities need to give people non-car alternatives for feasible transportation. That means bike lanes and trails that go places that people want to get to (that also promote public health) and public transportation (that also saves on congestion, parking, and can be revenue generating). If we're worried about offsetting emissions with carbon sinks, they can promote parks and green spaces (which again, promote public health and community building), tree plantings (just to make an area look nicer, which can raise property values) or community gardens (which can brighten up downtrodden neighborhoods as well as provide under-served communities with much needed fresh produce for public health reasons).
I'll address the last two levels together, state and federal policy. A lot of this comes down to energy and transportation policy, though obviously they can also support green spaces and parks at a larger level as well for the same reasons as the cities and towns. So why should they support things like more efficient vehicles or alternative fuels or alternative energy sources if not to reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming? Simply because it's good policy. We have more people driving more, using more fuel, and using more energy than ever before. Regardless of your views on the impacts, these are all limited resources. Even if you believe that there's no urgent need for alternatives, we have people who are capable of doing the research now and, when or if they're successful, they may come up with a vehicle that meets all of our current needs in ways that are cheaper and easier for the consumers. The same goes for alternative energy. We should be researching solar and wind because it's there and because it gives us another option for generating energy. We should also be researching nuclear and cleaner coal and cleaner natural gas and anything else that comes along. The more options we have, the more secure, and less expensive, our energy becomes.
All told, this is the final point. We don't need to argue about Global Warming. Climatologist will continue to research it and other researchers will continue to figure out how to stop it. In the end, if it is truly so severe that we need direct action (here I'm referring to some of the more outlandish plans, like seeding the clouds to thicken them and cool the planet) it won't matter whether this is anthropogenic or natural, we'll take action to sustain society. In the meantime, we should all be taking steps to reduce our energy consumption; even if you don't believe we're affecting the climate, it's still a rational fiscal and health decision.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Ukrainian Maidans and Why We Should Care About Them
Ukraine
In keeping with my tradition of timeliness (which, in my defense, is improving), we're going to talk about Ukraine, the situation therein, the history thereof, and why it matters to us. There are a number of reasons that this is a challenging post for me to write. First, it turns out I don't know that much about Ukraine that doesn't involve a Risk board. Second, I'm not well versed in foreign policy or the relevant entanglements that the US has in Eastern Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I'm sure it was included in the things that I was taught, but my true love was energy policy and the rest of the world fell into a bucket with economics of "things that are important that I hope someone else is caring about. That said, when I asked for a topic, I was given a choice between Ukraine and Venezuela, so here we are.
As it turns out, in researching for this post, the little that I do know about Ukraine is not entirely useless knowledge. [Token side note, Ukraine is typically considered to be derived from the word for "border" as stated by basically everyone who has written or spoken about the situation in the last month.] Let's start with the Risk board. Situated neatly as the entirety of Eastern Europe, Ukraine serves as the buffer between Europe and Asia while technically being part of Europe and, while Europe is relatively secure with just their own territories, Asia is essentially uncontrollable unless you also control Ukraine. [Second side note, it is officially "Ukraine" not "The Ukraine" since 1991.] While Risk is certainly not the same as reality, the need and desire for Russia to control or influence the country bears a striking parallel, as does the lack of interest from Europe. Europe is perfectly happy with a Ukraine that is free, independent, and doing it's own thing while Russia really needs a Ukraine that is actively friendly toward it, if not outright dependent.
At this point, it is worth noting that this type of conflict in this region is not new. The Ruin of the 17th Century, The Great Northern War of the 18th Century, The Crimean War of the 19th Century, and the Iron Curtain post WWII in the 20th century. All of these conflicts or arrangements were, at least in part, over who would control the borderlands. Come to the present and Ukraine is finally coming into it's own. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have been coming in to their own. They have substantial productive farm land, the third largest total area in Europe, and the 9th largest population. More importantly, they're one of the few economies in Europe that has been growing consistently since the last crash that hit all of Europe in 2008.
Maidans
So if that's a brief (and probably overly simplified, if not outright wrong) summary of Ukraine, what are the Maidans? In short, the Maidans that we're talking about are the current protests. They have been named after the central square in Kiev that has been a focal point for the current movement (as well as most of the ones in the last 30 years, it's a popular place to protest in Ukraine), the Maidan Nezalezhnosti. So why are they protesting? That gets complicated, but the short answer is because half of Ukraine wants to take support from Europe while the other half wants to get the support from Russia. The Ukrainian government had been leaning toward Europe, but that angered Russia who started withholding their trading opportunities. That dramatically hurt their economy which led to a reversal to accept support from Russia instead of Europe.
As it turns out, both sides had strings attached to their financial support. Europe tied their support to laws requiring Ukraine to become a freer nation, and Russia tied theirs to not being friendly to Europe. I would imagine that this is a bit like finding oneself trying to choose between the pretentious snob who wants to tell us how we can be a better person and the insecure bully who will take his toys and leave if you're friends with anyone other than just him. Ukraine is stuck in the middle where what it probably needs is to just be left alone to pull itself together as a modern nation and not be controlled by either side. The protesters against the Russian influence appear to be of a mind that at least the snob doesn't make threats when he doesn't get what he wants, making Europe the better choice for support.
Then things got messy. Ukrainians who favored Europe protested, and Russia, for lack of a better term, invaded. Why Russia invaded is a matter of debate. Russia claims they're just there to keep the peace (or they're not there at all, those soldiers are just pretending to be Russian). The popular view seems to be that they're hoping to scare enough Ukrainians that the protesters will lose and Ukraine will continue to seek support from Russia. (Personally, I just think Putin is an egomaniac who wants to reclaim the lost territories of the USSR under the Russian flag, but that doesn't seem to be a popular view.)
Why Do We Care?
Why do we (being the US) care about Ukrainian political protests? Primarily because Russia, even post cold-war, scares the crap out of us. We don't want them too weak because we don't want chaos in a country with that many nuclear weapons, but we don't want them any stronger than they have to be either. If they get stronger we are weaker by comparison. Our interest is not in the Ukraine, it is in Westernizing the former Soviet Bloc with a long term goal of Westernizing Russia itself. We don't want a Russia that we're just "not at war" with, we want them to genuinely like us so we don't have to worry about them going rogue (again, they have a lot of nukes).
Why does Europe care? Europe has more pragmatic interests in the area. A stable Ukraine with a healthy economy and friendly European relations is good for everyone. That said, Europe doesn't really care if Ukraine is also friendly with Russia. The stronger the Ukrainian economy, the better for Europe, as long as Europe isn't blocked out of the deal entirely by Russian influence.
It's important for us to care about what is going on on the other side of the world, but it's more important for us to care for the right reasons. This isn't about us or them. It isn't about whether we want Russia or Europe to come out better in the deal, this is about Ukraine getting the opportunity to decide for itself where it wants to stand and letting it make that decision without the threat of repercussions from outside influences.
In keeping with my tradition of timeliness (which, in my defense, is improving), we're going to talk about Ukraine, the situation therein, the history thereof, and why it matters to us. There are a number of reasons that this is a challenging post for me to write. First, it turns out I don't know that much about Ukraine that doesn't involve a Risk board. Second, I'm not well versed in foreign policy or the relevant entanglements that the US has in Eastern Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I'm sure it was included in the things that I was taught, but my true love was energy policy and the rest of the world fell into a bucket with economics of "things that are important that I hope someone else is caring about. That said, when I asked for a topic, I was given a choice between Ukraine and Venezuela, so here we are.
As it turns out, in researching for this post, the little that I do know about Ukraine is not entirely useless knowledge. [Token side note, Ukraine is typically considered to be derived from the word for "border" as stated by basically everyone who has written or spoken about the situation in the last month.] Let's start with the Risk board. Situated neatly as the entirety of Eastern Europe, Ukraine serves as the buffer between Europe and Asia while technically being part of Europe and, while Europe is relatively secure with just their own territories, Asia is essentially uncontrollable unless you also control Ukraine. [Second side note, it is officially "Ukraine" not "The Ukraine" since 1991.] While Risk is certainly not the same as reality, the need and desire for Russia to control or influence the country bears a striking parallel, as does the lack of interest from Europe. Europe is perfectly happy with a Ukraine that is free, independent, and doing it's own thing while Russia really needs a Ukraine that is actively friendly toward it, if not outright dependent.
At this point, it is worth noting that this type of conflict in this region is not new. The Ruin of the 17th Century, The Great Northern War of the 18th Century, The Crimean War of the 19th Century, and the Iron Curtain post WWII in the 20th century. All of these conflicts or arrangements were, at least in part, over who would control the borderlands. Come to the present and Ukraine is finally coming into it's own. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have been coming in to their own. They have substantial productive farm land, the third largest total area in Europe, and the 9th largest population. More importantly, they're one of the few economies in Europe that has been growing consistently since the last crash that hit all of Europe in 2008.
Maidans
So if that's a brief (and probably overly simplified, if not outright wrong) summary of Ukraine, what are the Maidans? In short, the Maidans that we're talking about are the current protests. They have been named after the central square in Kiev that has been a focal point for the current movement (as well as most of the ones in the last 30 years, it's a popular place to protest in Ukraine), the Maidan Nezalezhnosti. So why are they protesting? That gets complicated, but the short answer is because half of Ukraine wants to take support from Europe while the other half wants to get the support from Russia. The Ukrainian government had been leaning toward Europe, but that angered Russia who started withholding their trading opportunities. That dramatically hurt their economy which led to a reversal to accept support from Russia instead of Europe.
As it turns out, both sides had strings attached to their financial support. Europe tied their support to laws requiring Ukraine to become a freer nation, and Russia tied theirs to not being friendly to Europe. I would imagine that this is a bit like finding oneself trying to choose between the pretentious snob who wants to tell us how we can be a better person and the insecure bully who will take his toys and leave if you're friends with anyone other than just him. Ukraine is stuck in the middle where what it probably needs is to just be left alone to pull itself together as a modern nation and not be controlled by either side. The protesters against the Russian influence appear to be of a mind that at least the snob doesn't make threats when he doesn't get what he wants, making Europe the better choice for support.
Then things got messy. Ukrainians who favored Europe protested, and Russia, for lack of a better term, invaded. Why Russia invaded is a matter of debate. Russia claims they're just there to keep the peace (or they're not there at all, those soldiers are just pretending to be Russian). The popular view seems to be that they're hoping to scare enough Ukrainians that the protesters will lose and Ukraine will continue to seek support from Russia. (Personally, I just think Putin is an egomaniac who wants to reclaim the lost territories of the USSR under the Russian flag, but that doesn't seem to be a popular view.)
Why Do We Care?
Why do we (being the US) care about Ukrainian political protests? Primarily because Russia, even post cold-war, scares the crap out of us. We don't want them too weak because we don't want chaos in a country with that many nuclear weapons, but we don't want them any stronger than they have to be either. If they get stronger we are weaker by comparison. Our interest is not in the Ukraine, it is in Westernizing the former Soviet Bloc with a long term goal of Westernizing Russia itself. We don't want a Russia that we're just "not at war" with, we want them to genuinely like us so we don't have to worry about them going rogue (again, they have a lot of nukes).
Why does Europe care? Europe has more pragmatic interests in the area. A stable Ukraine with a healthy economy and friendly European relations is good for everyone. That said, Europe doesn't really care if Ukraine is also friendly with Russia. The stronger the Ukrainian economy, the better for Europe, as long as Europe isn't blocked out of the deal entirely by Russian influence.
It's important for us to care about what is going on on the other side of the world, but it's more important for us to care for the right reasons. This isn't about us or them. It isn't about whether we want Russia or Europe to come out better in the deal, this is about Ukraine getting the opportunity to decide for itself where it wants to stand and letting it make that decision without the threat of repercussions from outside influences.
Friday, November 1, 2013
This is not a Novel, I am not a Writer, and Congress is apparently not a Government
Welcome to day one.
So, for a variety of personal reasons, I have decided to participate in National Novel Writing Month this year... sort of. First I should take a moment to explain NaNoWriMo to those who don't know (and can't be bothered to look it up). It is, in short, an excuse to use crappy November weather as motivation to stay inside and write like mad to the tune of 50,000 words in a month, or a ballpark of 1,700 words per day and at the end of the month have something resembling a short novel (or a long novella, it appears to depend on who you ask with novelists scoffing at 50,000 word novels and everyone else agreeing that 40,000 is the barrier, but I digress).
I say "sort of" regarding my participation because while I am challenging myself to sit and write, in volume, every day for the month of November, this is not going to be a novel or anything resembling one. I am not a fiction writer, or more accurately, I am not a dialogue writer. I can write a nice, compelling short story, but 200+ pages without a single conversation would be painful to read, let alone write. So, those expectations being set aside, my goal this month is to write 2000 words per day, every day on the kinds of topics that I've written about before. Politics, current events, possibly some things about science and technology, and, if all else fails, random thoughts about life.
When I agreed to do this, it didn't seem like too big of a deal, I like to write, and I have wanted to get back to writing on here anyway so it seemed like a great idea. After all, how hard can 2000 words be to write? Well, for perspective, my last post was just over 1000 words and took me two days of intermittent writing to finish (a fact that disheartened me more than a little when I realized how short it was).
The other part of NaNoWriMo that I'm going to buy into is creating entirely new content. I have at least a few posts that are half finished from the last few months that never quite got finished. I don't plan on using any of those this month to cheat on my word count. If any of them do get fleshed out, then I will only be counting the new content toward my total (so if you see any 3000 word posts, that's probably why).
So, now that the housekeeping is out of the way, let's move on to something lighter like... the government shutdown. Okay, so I know it's over already, and I should have written this a month ago, but November is young and this will probably come up again soon enough.
I guess that the easiest way to break down the government shutdown is by the fundamentals; who, what, where, when, and why.
The why is actually the easiest part to understand for once so we'll start there. The short answer is, of course, Obamacare, with some side arguments on the Debt Ceiling (again) and, in more general terms, spending. Of all the shocking parts of the shutdown, perhaps the most shocking was the lack of depth to any of the underlying problems. Republicans in broad, general terms oppose government spending, and that's okay. There is nothing inherently terrible about believing in a government that can operate smaller and more efficiently than it currently is. Unfortunately we seem to have reached a point where that is their only concern. A large section of the Republican party (I'm look at you Tea Partiers) seem to currently believe that the only responsibility of Congress is to spend less money, slash expenditures, then slash taxes, any spending is bad spending. That view is, and I’ll be generous, simplistic. To that end, obviously they inherently oppose Obamacare (Spending money to help poor people? Egad!) and, less rationally, raising the debt limit. With those forces combined (and the need to have something resembling a budget for next year) the House Republicans promptly jammed their fingers in their ears, stuck out their tongues and refuse to act like adults, let alone congressmen. (I don't live in DC, so I'm just assuming about the fingers in the ears part.)
I can understand Republicans opposing Obamacare; it's a massive bill that involves the Government spending money to meddle in otherwise free(ish) markets. It would be shocking if they didn't oppose it, but it passed and they've failed 46(?) times to repeal it. That is a truly remarkable level of ineffectiveness, but in researching this, they seem to believe the next time they'll finally hit that football (just like they did after attempts 30, 41, and 45, and those were only the ones I stumbled across trying to find the most recent number. (That analogy doesn't really work, there's no Lucy pulling away the ball, they're just a delusional Charlie Brown kicking over and over again and hoping someone feels sorry for them and puts a football in front of their foot.) That's a reasonable, if somewhat sad principle to stand on.
That brings me back to the Debt Ceiling. First of all, let's just establish that the Debt Ceiling is awful. It is bad policy. As with many things that are awful, it started as an attempt to avoid fighting in Congress; specifically, over loans required to run the country. I'm going to let that sink in... Before 1917 Congress approved borrowing when it was needed. In what now appears to have been misguided optimism, Congress approved the Second Liberty Bond Act to establish that the Treasury could just go ahead and borrow whatever was needed up to a specified limit. And, shockingly, it worked just fine; at least until 1974. That was when congress established a new budget process through the Budget Act of 1974. At that point Congress had managed to create a process where they required two separate and unrelated bills to pass a budget. One to create the budget and spend the money and a separate bill to actually approve borrowing the money they just spent. From 1979 to 1995, they bypassed this (wisely, in hindsight) with the Gephardt Rule, essentially saying 'if we pass the budget we must, obviously be willing to borrow what is needed to pay for it'. Congressional Republicans, because apparently they were crazy before the Tea Party, decided that was too easy and split the votes back apart. So now, just shy of 100 years later we find ourselves with a Congress that can't manage to cut spending, but can, somehow, manage to refuse to pay for their spending after the fact. This is why the debt ceiling is not the same as a credit limit. We're not buying things on credit cards; we're essentially buying things on our word. Buying them with little more than a "no really, I'm totally good for that" and we get away with it because, well, we have been. Refusing to raise the Debt Ceiling is Congress saying "thanks for that stuff you gave us; we're not going to pay you for it". If the Republicans had a problem with the spending, they could have addressed it in a budget, but they didn't, so to come back now and claim to be fiscally responsible by refusing to pay what has already been spent is just flat out disingenuous.
So that was the easy part. Now for the Who did What, When and Where. (In the following paragraph, you might notice a lot of Republican names and very few Democrats, ponder that if you're trying to figure out who to blame over the fiasco.) The only word for the lead up to the shutdown that seems appropriate is "plodding". It wasn't sudden, it wasn't shocking, and it wasn't effective. The buildup started over the summer with letters of commitment to de-fund Obamacare that were circulated by Senators Lee, Cruz, Rubio, and Paul, and Representative Meadows. These letters formalized a written opposition to Obamacare, just in case anyone was confused about where they stood after the first 40-odd actual votes on repealing it. So, come October 1st the Republicans refused to approve any budget that did not rescind funds from Obamacare. The Democrats apparently found a spine somewhere and decided that this time they were going to stand up and say "no".
A brief aside about defunding versus repealing: At this point, the Republicans were not trying to repeal the law, just take away the money to pay for it. Essentially, Obamacare would have still been the law of the land, but no money would have been allocated to make it actually usable (and they're having enough problems even with the money, but more on that tomorrow).
So the Republicans said "you can't have money for Obamacare", the Democrats said "yeah... we can" and... that's basically it for 16 days. I'm certain the negotiations were more in depth than that, but when you strip away all of the fluff, that's what is left. Intermittent bills were introduced to fund certain things, primarily to relieve constituent pressure, which were primarily rebuffed by Senate Democrats. And so, 16 days later, they passed the bill that functionally said "we can keep paying for things the same as we are now", the same bill that some (on both sides of the aisle) had called for before the shutdown.
So, the good news, it got resolved without any major harm on a national level. I have no doubt that those directly affected by the shutdown, the federal employees, were in a bad way through no fault of their own but it could have been much worse. Unfortunately, there's still bad news. It will happen again. And again. And again. This isn't the last debt limit crisis, nor is it the last shutdown. These are the new tactics of the Republican Congressmen and they'll be reelected and reinforced. They'll be reelected because nearly all incumbents are, to the tune of 91% in the last election. Americans, as a rule, hate Congress but love their own Congressmen. They'll be reinforced because, even if it was a spectacularly bad plan, Cruz et al did actually DO something. Or at least they tried to. Even in districts where the incumbent loses, the Tea Party is likely to gain seats. They're more likely to gain from within the Republican Party than from the Democrats, but either way we're going to end up seeing more of this unless some dire consequences finally come to pass.
There is a bright side though. Most of the problem Republicans want to be President in 2016. There's always the possibility that they'll take themselves out of Congress to run and tear each other apart in the primaries without leaving any room to recover. As long as nothing goes wrong before then...
1,820/60,000
So, for a variety of personal reasons, I have decided to participate in National Novel Writing Month this year... sort of. First I should take a moment to explain NaNoWriMo to those who don't know (and can't be bothered to look it up). It is, in short, an excuse to use crappy November weather as motivation to stay inside and write like mad to the tune of 50,000 words in a month, or a ballpark of 1,700 words per day and at the end of the month have something resembling a short novel (or a long novella, it appears to depend on who you ask with novelists scoffing at 50,000 word novels and everyone else agreeing that 40,000 is the barrier, but I digress).
I say "sort of" regarding my participation because while I am challenging myself to sit and write, in volume, every day for the month of November, this is not going to be a novel or anything resembling one. I am not a fiction writer, or more accurately, I am not a dialogue writer. I can write a nice, compelling short story, but 200+ pages without a single conversation would be painful to read, let alone write. So, those expectations being set aside, my goal this month is to write 2000 words per day, every day on the kinds of topics that I've written about before. Politics, current events, possibly some things about science and technology, and, if all else fails, random thoughts about life.
When I agreed to do this, it didn't seem like too big of a deal, I like to write, and I have wanted to get back to writing on here anyway so it seemed like a great idea. After all, how hard can 2000 words be to write? Well, for perspective, my last post was just over 1000 words and took me two days of intermittent writing to finish (a fact that disheartened me more than a little when I realized how short it was).
The other part of NaNoWriMo that I'm going to buy into is creating entirely new content. I have at least a few posts that are half finished from the last few months that never quite got finished. I don't plan on using any of those this month to cheat on my word count. If any of them do get fleshed out, then I will only be counting the new content toward my total (so if you see any 3000 word posts, that's probably why).
So, now that the housekeeping is out of the way, let's move on to something lighter like... the government shutdown. Okay, so I know it's over already, and I should have written this a month ago, but November is young and this will probably come up again soon enough.
I guess that the easiest way to break down the government shutdown is by the fundamentals; who, what, where, when, and why.
The why is actually the easiest part to understand for once so we'll start there. The short answer is, of course, Obamacare, with some side arguments on the Debt Ceiling (again) and, in more general terms, spending. Of all the shocking parts of the shutdown, perhaps the most shocking was the lack of depth to any of the underlying problems. Republicans in broad, general terms oppose government spending, and that's okay. There is nothing inherently terrible about believing in a government that can operate smaller and more efficiently than it currently is. Unfortunately we seem to have reached a point where that is their only concern. A large section of the Republican party (I'm look at you Tea Partiers) seem to currently believe that the only responsibility of Congress is to spend less money, slash expenditures, then slash taxes, any spending is bad spending. That view is, and I’ll be generous, simplistic. To that end, obviously they inherently oppose Obamacare (Spending money to help poor people? Egad!) and, less rationally, raising the debt limit. With those forces combined (and the need to have something resembling a budget for next year) the House Republicans promptly jammed their fingers in their ears, stuck out their tongues and refuse to act like adults, let alone congressmen. (I don't live in DC, so I'm just assuming about the fingers in the ears part.)
I can understand Republicans opposing Obamacare; it's a massive bill that involves the Government spending money to meddle in otherwise free(ish) markets. It would be shocking if they didn't oppose it, but it passed and they've failed 46(?) times to repeal it. That is a truly remarkable level of ineffectiveness, but in researching this, they seem to believe the next time they'll finally hit that football (just like they did after attempts 30, 41, and 45, and those were only the ones I stumbled across trying to find the most recent number. (That analogy doesn't really work, there's no Lucy pulling away the ball, they're just a delusional Charlie Brown kicking over and over again and hoping someone feels sorry for them and puts a football in front of their foot.) That's a reasonable, if somewhat sad principle to stand on.
That brings me back to the Debt Ceiling. First of all, let's just establish that the Debt Ceiling is awful. It is bad policy. As with many things that are awful, it started as an attempt to avoid fighting in Congress; specifically, over loans required to run the country. I'm going to let that sink in... Before 1917 Congress approved borrowing when it was needed. In what now appears to have been misguided optimism, Congress approved the Second Liberty Bond Act to establish that the Treasury could just go ahead and borrow whatever was needed up to a specified limit. And, shockingly, it worked just fine; at least until 1974. That was when congress established a new budget process through the Budget Act of 1974. At that point Congress had managed to create a process where they required two separate and unrelated bills to pass a budget. One to create the budget and spend the money and a separate bill to actually approve borrowing the money they just spent. From 1979 to 1995, they bypassed this (wisely, in hindsight) with the Gephardt Rule, essentially saying 'if we pass the budget we must, obviously be willing to borrow what is needed to pay for it'. Congressional Republicans, because apparently they were crazy before the Tea Party, decided that was too easy and split the votes back apart. So now, just shy of 100 years later we find ourselves with a Congress that can't manage to cut spending, but can, somehow, manage to refuse to pay for their spending after the fact. This is why the debt ceiling is not the same as a credit limit. We're not buying things on credit cards; we're essentially buying things on our word. Buying them with little more than a "no really, I'm totally good for that" and we get away with it because, well, we have been. Refusing to raise the Debt Ceiling is Congress saying "thanks for that stuff you gave us; we're not going to pay you for it". If the Republicans had a problem with the spending, they could have addressed it in a budget, but they didn't, so to come back now and claim to be fiscally responsible by refusing to pay what has already been spent is just flat out disingenuous.
So that was the easy part. Now for the Who did What, When and Where. (In the following paragraph, you might notice a lot of Republican names and very few Democrats, ponder that if you're trying to figure out who to blame over the fiasco.) The only word for the lead up to the shutdown that seems appropriate is "plodding". It wasn't sudden, it wasn't shocking, and it wasn't effective. The buildup started over the summer with letters of commitment to de-fund Obamacare that were circulated by Senators Lee, Cruz, Rubio, and Paul, and Representative Meadows. These letters formalized a written opposition to Obamacare, just in case anyone was confused about where they stood after the first 40-odd actual votes on repealing it. So, come October 1st the Republicans refused to approve any budget that did not rescind funds from Obamacare. The Democrats apparently found a spine somewhere and decided that this time they were going to stand up and say "no".
A brief aside about defunding versus repealing: At this point, the Republicans were not trying to repeal the law, just take away the money to pay for it. Essentially, Obamacare would have still been the law of the land, but no money would have been allocated to make it actually usable (and they're having enough problems even with the money, but more on that tomorrow).
So the Republicans said "you can't have money for Obamacare", the Democrats said "yeah... we can" and... that's basically it for 16 days. I'm certain the negotiations were more in depth than that, but when you strip away all of the fluff, that's what is left. Intermittent bills were introduced to fund certain things, primarily to relieve constituent pressure, which were primarily rebuffed by Senate Democrats. And so, 16 days later, they passed the bill that functionally said "we can keep paying for things the same as we are now", the same bill that some (on both sides of the aisle) had called for before the shutdown.
So, the good news, it got resolved without any major harm on a national level. I have no doubt that those directly affected by the shutdown, the federal employees, were in a bad way through no fault of their own but it could have been much worse. Unfortunately, there's still bad news. It will happen again. And again. And again. This isn't the last debt limit crisis, nor is it the last shutdown. These are the new tactics of the Republican Congressmen and they'll be reelected and reinforced. They'll be reelected because nearly all incumbents are, to the tune of 91% in the last election. Americans, as a rule, hate Congress but love their own Congressmen. They'll be reinforced because, even if it was a spectacularly bad plan, Cruz et al did actually DO something. Or at least they tried to. Even in districts where the incumbent loses, the Tea Party is likely to gain seats. They're more likely to gain from within the Republican Party than from the Democrats, but either way we're going to end up seeing more of this unless some dire consequences finally come to pass.
There is a bright side though. Most of the problem Republicans want to be President in 2016. There's always the possibility that they'll take themselves out of Congress to run and tear each other apart in the primaries without leaving any room to recover. As long as nothing goes wrong before then...
1,820/60,000
Thursday, August 1, 2013
The Conversation on Race and Hanlon's Razor
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Welcome to 2013, where Americans are, once again, calling for a national, local, personal, conversation on race. Every time this comes up I find myself rolling my eyes, sighing, and waiting for it to pass. Unfortunately, this time it seems to be a little more persistent than the last few times, so I got past that and into the question of "what does 'a conversation on race' even mean".
First, a disclaimer. I'm a young, white, male; I won't be claiming to understand what racial prejudice feels like.
Now that that's out of the way, let's start with something, 90% of us can agree on (I made up that statistic, but it isn't relevant to my immediate point). Racism is bad. I know that seems trite, but I'm afraid that if I don't say it explicitly, someone might misunderstand my point. If we can agree on at least that point, then we have a starting point for a conversation on race, which brings be back to the question, "what does 'a conversation on race' even mean" and the follow up question of "what does 'a conversation on race' look like".
On a national level, I don't think a conversation on race can happen. At least not right now. And why? Because no one at a national level actually wants to have one. Realistically, neither side (Democrat or Republican) has anything to gain by resolving racial conflict. The Democrats can count on racial tension to galvanize their base (regardless of race, all true Democrats hate racism and injustice with righteous fury). Meanwhile the Republicans, with their decidedly rockier relationships with minorities in general, can count on playing the 'playing the race card' card to rile up their own base. Since both sides benefit from the controversy, I can't see either side truly investing in actually addressing it. If the cynicism of that offends you... well... this is called "The Cynical Hammer", what did you expect?
Okay, but if we rule it out at a national level, we can still have this conversation at a local or personal level, right? Yes... maybe.
On a local political level, these conversations happen when they're needed, without the national call to action. When there is a race problem in a city, the city... eventually... addresses it. I think there's plenty of room to improve on that process, but that is going to rely on the personal conversations. Cities develop problems of race, not because they're led by cackling hooded figures who swear their allegiance to the Klan, but because they honestly don't see the policies and practices as racist or even creating a racial bias. If you want to have a constructive conversation about those policies, they need to be approached as well-meaning, but ignorant, not malicious. Accusations of deliberate racism are only met with defensive posturing and denial. Instead of bringing accusations, bring data, bring evidence that; well meaning as the policy surely was, it is clearly failing on racial lines. I know that places the burden on the victims to prove that they are victims, but we're at a point where we're not dealing with deliberate racism (for the most part), we're dealing with institutional, incidental, and accidental racism, and it needs to be addressed as such.
That brings me to the point of the personal level of conversations. First, we should accept that racism is never going to go away completely. People are typically hardwired to relate better to things that are similar to themselves and there will always be a certain, subconscious level, that feels that way. The best we can really hope for is to relegate it to the same level of importance as differences in height. Second, we should accept that both sides are probably going to have valid opinions and that disagreeing on something is not inherently racist. Third, and most importantly, we absolutely must accept that discussing these issues and asking questions does not make someone a racist or even intolerant. We will not move forward until we can accept that sometimes people don't know they're being offensive. Accusing or scorning individuals for trying to improve their attitudes only discourages them from trying.
And both sides need to take responsibility for their part in the conversation. When a white guy reaches out and says "how can I be less offensive" someone should take the time to answer the question. All too often the attitude seems to be "you should already know that, how dare you ask" and, you know what, yes, maybe they should, but they don't, and they're asking, so answer the damn question. And, when they don't ask and they're way out of line, say something. Say it politely, but firmly, and repeatedly if necessary.
In conclusion, I'm going to relate a pair of anecdotes. I'm not going to claim that in every circumstance that racism and homophobia parallel. I don't think they do, because there is something to be said for the fact that you can't necessarily identify a gay guy or a lesbian on sight.
First, I want to vouch for the effectiveness of honest conversations about offensive things. In college my fraternity, spurred by drunken antics, periodically threw informal "ask a gay guy" sessions. The questions ranged from benign to raunchy, from mechanics of how things work in bed to the social norms on who pays for dinner, and they touched on what is and isn't offensive. And people left knowing more than when they came in. Some took it to heart, some didn't, but they were productive enough to happen periodically. It is always better to ask the question and get the answer, than to make an assumption and be wrong.
Second, I had a roommate who knew I was gay, that idly, and with know malice towards me, would resort to using "fag" as a synonym for "idiot". I politely, repeatedly, and firmly reminded him that was offensive. (OK, I hit him in the arm with a wiffle ball bat every time he did it, but it was college and that was relatively polite.) He finally snapped that I would never change the world. My retort, and I wish I had this much wit most of the time, was "I'm not trying to change the world, I only need to change you". And that, ultimately, is the truth here. Racism, and all prejudice, born out of ignorance, can't be fixed at a national level. It can only be fixed by one person reaching out to another; by one person saying "this is something I don't know how to address appropriately" and another saying "that's okay, this is how".
Welcome to 2013, where Americans are, once again, calling for a national, local, personal, conversation on race. Every time this comes up I find myself rolling my eyes, sighing, and waiting for it to pass. Unfortunately, this time it seems to be a little more persistent than the last few times, so I got past that and into the question of "what does 'a conversation on race' even mean".
First, a disclaimer. I'm a young, white, male; I won't be claiming to understand what racial prejudice feels like.
Now that that's out of the way, let's start with something, 90% of us can agree on (I made up that statistic, but it isn't relevant to my immediate point). Racism is bad. I know that seems trite, but I'm afraid that if I don't say it explicitly, someone might misunderstand my point. If we can agree on at least that point, then we have a starting point for a conversation on race, which brings be back to the question, "what does 'a conversation on race' even mean" and the follow up question of "what does 'a conversation on race' look like".
On a national level, I don't think a conversation on race can happen. At least not right now. And why? Because no one at a national level actually wants to have one. Realistically, neither side (Democrat or Republican) has anything to gain by resolving racial conflict. The Democrats can count on racial tension to galvanize their base (regardless of race, all true Democrats hate racism and injustice with righteous fury). Meanwhile the Republicans, with their decidedly rockier relationships with minorities in general, can count on playing the 'playing the race card' card to rile up their own base. Since both sides benefit from the controversy, I can't see either side truly investing in actually addressing it. If the cynicism of that offends you... well... this is called "The Cynical Hammer", what did you expect?
Okay, but if we rule it out at a national level, we can still have this conversation at a local or personal level, right? Yes... maybe.
On a local political level, these conversations happen when they're needed, without the national call to action. When there is a race problem in a city, the city... eventually... addresses it. I think there's plenty of room to improve on that process, but that is going to rely on the personal conversations. Cities develop problems of race, not because they're led by cackling hooded figures who swear their allegiance to the Klan, but because they honestly don't see the policies and practices as racist or even creating a racial bias. If you want to have a constructive conversation about those policies, they need to be approached as well-meaning, but ignorant, not malicious. Accusations of deliberate racism are only met with defensive posturing and denial. Instead of bringing accusations, bring data, bring evidence that; well meaning as the policy surely was, it is clearly failing on racial lines. I know that places the burden on the victims to prove that they are victims, but we're at a point where we're not dealing with deliberate racism (for the most part), we're dealing with institutional, incidental, and accidental racism, and it needs to be addressed as such.
That brings me to the point of the personal level of conversations. First, we should accept that racism is never going to go away completely. People are typically hardwired to relate better to things that are similar to themselves and there will always be a certain, subconscious level, that feels that way. The best we can really hope for is to relegate it to the same level of importance as differences in height. Second, we should accept that both sides are probably going to have valid opinions and that disagreeing on something is not inherently racist. Third, and most importantly, we absolutely must accept that discussing these issues and asking questions does not make someone a racist or even intolerant. We will not move forward until we can accept that sometimes people don't know they're being offensive. Accusing or scorning individuals for trying to improve their attitudes only discourages them from trying.
And both sides need to take responsibility for their part in the conversation. When a white guy reaches out and says "how can I be less offensive" someone should take the time to answer the question. All too often the attitude seems to be "you should already know that, how dare you ask" and, you know what, yes, maybe they should, but they don't, and they're asking, so answer the damn question. And, when they don't ask and they're way out of line, say something. Say it politely, but firmly, and repeatedly if necessary.
In conclusion, I'm going to relate a pair of anecdotes. I'm not going to claim that in every circumstance that racism and homophobia parallel. I don't think they do, because there is something to be said for the fact that you can't necessarily identify a gay guy or a lesbian on sight.
First, I want to vouch for the effectiveness of honest conversations about offensive things. In college my fraternity, spurred by drunken antics, periodically threw informal "ask a gay guy" sessions. The questions ranged from benign to raunchy, from mechanics of how things work in bed to the social norms on who pays for dinner, and they touched on what is and isn't offensive. And people left knowing more than when they came in. Some took it to heart, some didn't, but they were productive enough to happen periodically. It is always better to ask the question and get the answer, than to make an assumption and be wrong.
Second, I had a roommate who knew I was gay, that idly, and with know malice towards me, would resort to using "fag" as a synonym for "idiot". I politely, repeatedly, and firmly reminded him that was offensive. (OK, I hit him in the arm with a wiffle ball bat every time he did it, but it was college and that was relatively polite.) He finally snapped that I would never change the world. My retort, and I wish I had this much wit most of the time, was "I'm not trying to change the world, I only need to change you". And that, ultimately, is the truth here. Racism, and all prejudice, born out of ignorance, can't be fixed at a national level. It can only be fixed by one person reaching out to another; by one person saying "this is something I don't know how to address appropriately" and another saying "that's okay, this is how".
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Obama vs. Romney
So. This is how things are. Obama vs. Romney. Honestly, I'm so disenchanted with both of them that I'm having a hard time caring about the contest. I couldn't even come up with a more interesting title for this post. I desperately want to be excited about one of them. They're just not that interesting.
I went back to read what I wrote about both of them during the primaries in 2008. 4 years later, my opinions haven't changed much. Obama hasn't convinced me that he can effectively work with Republicans (which was a major running point 4 years ago). If anything, and I don't blame him for it, the Republicans very effectively shut down nearly everything he wanted to accomplish. His current platform appears to amount to "Give me 4 more years, and I promise I'll be more effective this time." He's still charismatic, but I just don't think he has the fire to actually accomplish his big ideals.
As for Romney, if anything, he's even harder to pin down to any positions than he was 4 years ago. Thankfully the Mormon issue seems to have blown over this time with plenty of talk about it, but little actual effect. He's put even more distance between himself and his Governorship, which is probably in his own best interests.
On the issues... I'm conflicted. Obama says all the right things to make the socially liberal side of me want to support him. But for all of his talk, I'm not convinced that he'll actually accomplish any of them, even if he wants to. Romney, on the other hand, appeals to the social conservatives that I want to oppose, but, in my personal opinion, he has little interest in pursuing those goals with any kind of enthusiasm.
Economics issues... I tend toward more conservative principles (lower spending, balanced budgets, etc.). But, that said, the principles I favor are not, necessarily, ideal for the current economy. I've tried reading the Ryan budget and listening to experts, and the more informed I become, the more certain I become that none of them know what the right answer is. They're working by trial and error, which is unfortunate, but probably necessary. Economics (on the national scale, as set by national policies) doesn't have hard and fast rules (as much as both sides would like us to think it does). Or, if it does have hard and fast rules, we haven't figured out what they are yet.
So what am I going to do in November? I haven't decided yet. But I live in New York, the state is going to vote for Obama regardless of what I do. So maybe I'll worry more about local elections and less about the national contest for the next few months.
I went back to read what I wrote about both of them during the primaries in 2008. 4 years later, my opinions haven't changed much. Obama hasn't convinced me that he can effectively work with Republicans (which was a major running point 4 years ago). If anything, and I don't blame him for it, the Republicans very effectively shut down nearly everything he wanted to accomplish. His current platform appears to amount to "Give me 4 more years, and I promise I'll be more effective this time." He's still charismatic, but I just don't think he has the fire to actually accomplish his big ideals.
As for Romney, if anything, he's even harder to pin down to any positions than he was 4 years ago. Thankfully the Mormon issue seems to have blown over this time with plenty of talk about it, but little actual effect. He's put even more distance between himself and his Governorship, which is probably in his own best interests.
On the issues... I'm conflicted. Obama says all the right things to make the socially liberal side of me want to support him. But for all of his talk, I'm not convinced that he'll actually accomplish any of them, even if he wants to. Romney, on the other hand, appeals to the social conservatives that I want to oppose, but, in my personal opinion, he has little interest in pursuing those goals with any kind of enthusiasm.
Economics issues... I tend toward more conservative principles (lower spending, balanced budgets, etc.). But, that said, the principles I favor are not, necessarily, ideal for the current economy. I've tried reading the Ryan budget and listening to experts, and the more informed I become, the more certain I become that none of them know what the right answer is. They're working by trial and error, which is unfortunate, but probably necessary. Economics (on the national scale, as set by national policies) doesn't have hard and fast rules (as much as both sides would like us to think it does). Or, if it does have hard and fast rules, we haven't figured out what they are yet.
So what am I going to do in November? I haven't decided yet. But I live in New York, the state is going to vote for Obama regardless of what I do. So maybe I'll worry more about local elections and less about the national contest for the next few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)