And now for something completely different

I have a new hobby. I really enjoy Skiing. The first time I went was about 3 years ago in the Adirondacks with (e:mmtornow) and her family, I caught on fast. I guess after skateboarding for most of my life balancing on skis is like second nature. My mother never skied so growing up we just went sledding at Chesnut Ridge. Snowboarding seems fun, but I feel like it's easier to control yourself on skis. But eventually I'll probably try snowboarding too. Anyway.

This past weekend (e:mmtornow) and I went to Kissing Bridge, it was my 5th time ever skiing, my third at Kissing Bridge, We've moved on to black diamond hills, jumps, and a really fun hill called "Moment of Truth", it consists of about 8 big quick jumps and then a steep dropoff. It was really fun. After a while I got pretty confident, decided I wanted to do some jumps and try sliding on a rail, the rail didn't work, but the jumps definitely did. They wear out your legs when you start really flying over them, but it's so fun. We Skied for about 7 hours. I'm looking forward to using my last pass of the season.

Me on the Hill at KB


Not Skiing, Cheap Plastic Snowboarding at the Cabin in the ADK's


Marvin the Mountain Dog.


The Fam at Oak Mountain in the ADK's


(e:mmtornow) on the slopes at Oak Mountain


Check out the View of Lake Pleasant from Oak Mountain, Larger at Flickr


Oak Mountain's only lift. Small but cheap and laid back place, they have these long chill trails that wander through the woods, after a while you just go full speed all the way down, they're not too steep.


On the Lift


Leaving Kissing Bridge


After Skiing, Pizza and a Beer, or Hot Chocolate, whatever you like.


Not Cooking tonight. Beer Pizza, Couch.

In my last entry I forgot to mention that Nader is running without the backing of a third party. Probably no third party wants to base its mission on pissing off Democrats, but agitating the political system is an honorable vocation, and shame on Nader for abandoning the Green Party.

To change the 2 party system we need a persistent threat of "spoiling" and "stolen votes" not an occasional surprise candidate. The two parties should expect a Green candidate and a Libertarian candidate who mess up their pretty little duopoly, not the current "aww crap, Nader's running again". The only way the system will change is if it's in the Democrats and Republicans self interest to change it. A determined third-party can accomplish this, an individual can not.

So even though I may defend Nader's candidacy, he is a jerk for failing to inspire a third party to agitate the system in the long run. The Greens should run a candidate every year, and embrace the anger of Democrats, tell them if they don't like it, do something about it, because there are a lot of people out there who don't believe in either of the 2 parties. For example, 90% of the people who will read this. Carolinian, Jason, Josh, James, Jim, Terry, Metalpeter etc etc


About fixing the electoral system, (e:metalpeter) commented that we should have each state divide its electoral votes based on the percentage each candidate receives. Good idea, but it doesn't fix the Ralph Nader Spoiler problem though. If some third candidate goes through the election with 5%-20% of the vote from all the states combined, it's similar to "spoiling" Florida or Ohio except Nationwide. We could end up with neither of the two popular candidates receiving a majority of the vote (ie. winning with 44%), so we still don't know who the majority of Americans actually prefer. In order to find out who would have beaten all other candidates in a 2 way race, we would still need a runoff election, or IRV to figure out the majority candidate.

It does however make my vote count here in Blue NY, and it eliminates the "swing state" garbage. I'm pretty sure at least one state does it that way (can't find a reference source). I do like that Democratic Primaries are done this way, makes a lot of sense, but it still pushed Edwards out and gave us only two. (It's a start Sign a petition to support this )

The solution I recommended is to have each state do their own Instant Runoff Election. Voters rank candidates so that even if there are more than 2, we can still find out who the majority of the voters in that state support. If you voted for Nader you also put down a second choice. if nobody gets 50% your second choice is counted and Nader's votes are reallocated. This should be done nationally but it would require a constitutional amendment. States could either give the majority winner all their electoral votes, but a better system would be to divide the votes by percentage after the runoff is complete.

Instant Runoff Voting explained


Healthcare - going to make this quick -
I'm starting to see a system like Social Security. The government guarantees some basic insurance, and it is paid for through a percentage of your taxes automatically. With Social Security you can still invest in additional retirement accounts, or if an employer is trying to compete for skilled workers by offering a hefty retirement account they can do that too.

Same with Universal Healthcare, you won't get screwed if you break your arm no matter what, you can go to the hospital and they will help you. You won't end up a cripple who can't work just cause you couldn't afford the hospital bill, and you tried to deal with it on your own. If you have money, or a good job, you may get some fancier service, but everyone is at least covered.

And it would be cheaper, because of less paperwork, and a more purchasing power. I paid $1000 in healthcare this year, you bet your uninsured ass my healthcare tax would be less than that.

Please spare me the criticisms of Social Security going bankrupt, etc. Those problems come from our lazy and corrupt politicians not following the rules. And I said "like" Social Security.

We need a new system, and yes it will include the private sector, no matter who calls it Socialized.

Just started watching the MSNBC Debate from last night. First Topic is Healthcare. They spent a bunch of time on it. They both want universal healthcare, the specifics of their plans differ slightly. But I realize that the nitty gritty details will be worked out as the bill moves through the House and Senate.

The question in my mind, is who can get the job done, who can go beyond the smear politics of "socialized medicine" and convince the 100 senators and 435 house members to move on, and finally get down to business. Americans have been demanding Healthcare for years, it is literally embarrassing that this wealthy and educated nation cannot provide this basic need for its people. The process in Washington has gone nowhere. Which candidate can get the congress and the people to move past the turf wars and smear tactics and get results?

Watch the video for yourself, you'll see Hillary slander her opponent, call him stupid, misrepresent his remarks, and mock his approach. This may be par for the course in Washington, but you're not going to get people to agree with you. Obama is better at getting people to see where he's coming from and see eye to eye. You need to reach agreement with other people to get things done. Especially if you want to transcend buzz words like "socialized medicine" and "Islamofascism". Hillary is divisive, and Obama can get people to move beyond petty politics.

Watch It


Ralph Nader

I guess I'm one of the few, who don't blame Ralph.
Our election system is broken. We call ourselves a democracy, but we can Only have Two choices. And most of the time, one candidate has 5x-10x more money and airtime as the other candidate. In fact, the battle is so difficult over 90% of US House races only have one choice. It's not Ralph's fault.

Here's a quote I hear all the time, but this really bothers and amazes me. "This election is too important to have a third party." Stop, think about it. You're really saying, "This election is too important, we need fewer choices, fewer ideas, less diversity of opinion, fewer solutions, fewer voices, less discussion, less involvement, please... only two." This is our problem. Important decisions deserve robust discussion, and important elections inspire many candidates and voters to voice their opinion. That is a good thing, why do we think it's ok to limit the debate? Why do we think it's ok to throw out candidates with passion and ambition? Someone decides to run for office because they are so moved and inspired and determined to make a difference in their community. But we think it's ok to get rid of them as quick as possible, just to make the election fit nicely into an ancient and broken electoral system.

So, Ralph, go on with your bad self. And if it pisses off the Democratic Party good!! Change the system to allow more than two candidates, without "spoiling" the election or "Stealing" votes from the better candidate. There is a nonviolent way to keep Nader, and Bloomberg, and Steve Calvenesso, and every third party candidate in history from ever "Spoiling" another election, change the system. If the Democratic party is pissed off and scared of Ralph, they had better do something about it.

Solution. In the constitution, States decide independently how they award their electoral votes. They can split them up or do winner take all. Also the vting process is up to them, as long as it is an open fair election.
Get all the Democratic Governors together, and have each state agree to do Instant Runoff Voting (aka. Ranked Choice Voting). In this method we voters rank our candidates in order of preference, (Nader first, Kerry Second). If nobody gets 50% you get rid of the loser (Nader), and his votes are redistributed to the voters second choice (Kerry). Bingo, no constitutional amendment, everyone's vote counts, there is no spoiler candidate, and we don't have to blame people for voting for the person they actually believe in. And we get to rank our choices, which is what we do in our head all the time. (Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Dodd)
IRV Explained




We can speculate about 2000 and 2004 elections, What if, Ralph didn't run, what if black areas had adequate voting machines, what if Jeb Bush wasn't the Governor of Florida...

Let's think about a different set of What ifs. What if this year, we had a stage full of candidates, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Edwards, Blomberg, Lieberman, Nader, McCain, and Obama. There are a lot of Republicans who will be staying home, if Ron Paul was out there taking the party back from the neo-cons, you know he would get a couple hundred-thousand votes. And you'd have Kucinich calling out hypocrites and sticking to real progressive values as always.

You'd have a real discussion of critical issues. The most public discussion of ideas in the nation is the presidential election, let it be a marketplace of ideas, where people present real and diverse solutions to problems. We'd have near 75% voter turnout, and an informed electorate. If this is truely an important year, and a crossroads for the country, let's have democracy. Government would once again be more engaging than sports and Hollywood.

My Guess, Nader gets at least a few people out to vote who would stay home otherwise, so do Kucinich and Edwards and Ron Paul. Let them participate. I hope Nader Scares the crap out of Democrats, go fix the system, you have the power. I am loyal to no party, I only seek what is best for the American people in the long run.

(Disclaimer, I am not loyal to any party, in fact I think the 2 party system is one of Americas biggest problems. I am a patriot, not a party loyalist. But the democratic party is on the verge of something important.)


The Democratic Party has finally started to figure out that it needs People, more than anything else.

Not money, or TV ads, or fliers, not consultants, patronage, or polls, just People.

Since the dawn of color TV, advertising and packaging has been the main concern of a campaign. Usually about 80% of a candidates budget was spent on TV advertising. Lots of attack ads, and focus group tested soundbites for 30 second commercials.

Now, move on to the internet, Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, and a Democratic Party that is finding its Grassroots.

The power behind Obama's campaign is its volunteers. Real People, voters who usually sit at home on election day, now have decided to go door to door asking people to vote.

I say it every election. Inspire people to get off the couch, stop fighting for the ambiguous middle that makes up their mind on election day. Now the benefits of that strategy are finally coming true.

There's a technical side and an emotional side to this revitalization of American Democracy. Howard Dean, as current Chair of the DNC, helped lay the groundwork, and create an organized network to coordinate volunteers. Standardized databases, and intra/internet systems, to help connect with interested volunteers and put them to meaningfull work.

Barrack Obama, is the emotional side, he gets volunteers energized because he actually believes in us, he believes in the public, and he believes in democracy.

Other candidates have tried to dumb down the debate with wedge issues like flag burning, haircuts, and fear. Obama insists on rising above that, and treating the public like a collection of concerned individuals, not a heard of sheep who can be fooled and manipulated into giving you their vote.

I have been waiting for a candidate like this, one who can stand on principle and speak openly and honestly. A candidate who has little tolerance for divide and conquer political games. Someone who doesen't have a hidden agenda. One who has faith in the beautiful chaos of an informed democracy.

Systematic, organized word of mouth, has become the most important tool of the Democratic Party. Thank You Barrack, and the Internet. If the youth stay involved, the political games of 2000 and 2004 will be forced into extinction.


One Quick Note, about Obama's position on the war.

Some people say that since he was not a senator at the time, and he didn't have to vote on the Iraq War resolution, it is easy for him to say he opposed the war from the start. That argument really bothers me, anyone who agrees with it does not remember 2002.

Or maybe in 2002, you agreed with war in Iraq, maybe you were like 70% of the country who were convinced by Bush Cheney propaganda that Saddam Hussein was 'Directly responsible' for the attacks of September 11( ). Maybe you believed that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, like Hillary Clinton who spoke on the senate floor about her vote, and specifically mentioned ties to Al Qaeda. If you know anything about the Middle East, you know Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies, that the terrorist group had tried to overthrow Saddam, If he gave them any WMDs they would bomb Baghdad, not NYC.

In 2002, I was protesting on the streets of Washington, NYC, Buffalo and Fredonia, I was passing out fliers, planning events, and sitting behind an anti-war information table in the Campus Center. And I can tell you for a fact, that it was not easy, or popular to be against Bush and his war. There were ribbon magnets and flags on all the cars, we were shouted at, demonised, and threatened. Our protests were marginalized, the media and 3/4 of the government never gave us the time of day. Obama's opposition to the war was courageous. And he was right about the consequences.


Obama on War


Clinton on War



PS, The Nation is now endorsing Obama

Holly crap, I just found a video of Hillary Clinton on Dave Letterman''s show, from like 2 days ago,

And when Dave asked how much money she raised for he campaign, she said 100 million dollars, and said it's not a good way to run campaigns, and we should we should go to public financing of campaigns!!! That's beautiful, she gets a giant gold star for that one.

Campaign financing is my biggest issue, if everyone got pissed off about that one thing and went out and changed it, we would be saved. seriously, the whole country would be saved, from the corruption and greed that led us to this point. no middle class, huge poverty, insecurity, devastated cities, and bridges falling into the Mississippi river. Public financing would do the most good for our country over time.

One thing letterman said, when they talked about the supreme court saying "money = free speech", essentially that means people who can't afford to contribute money to campaigns have less speech. That's key. Equal Influence. People united as a group should have a bigger voice, but as individuals we shouldn't have to pay for access. It's like a reverse of the poll tax, income based influence.

Anyway, here's the video... maybe I'm starting to see that dream ticket after all.



____________________________________________________
And here's Barrack's speech from yesterday, this man speaks plainly and honestly. You can tell he's for real, he's not just saying what you want to hear. It's easy to see how he could unite the country around a progressive agenda. Obama will get the results by having public support. And his agenda is boldly progressive.



PS
The key for the Democratic party is to get people off the couch to vote. So many don't vote because they don't have faith in government. Restore that faith.
____________________________________________________