Journaling on estrip is easy and free. sign up here

Dcoffee's Journal

dcoffee
My Podcast Link

03/13/2008 21:15 #43656

News Roundup
Category: politics
So much News So little time.

Pentagon Cancels Release of Report that finds Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda.

"An exhaustive Pentagon review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network."

This is not news to me, Al Qaeda hated Saddam, they wanted to overthrow the bastard to have a chance at religious theocracy in Iraq. Bush wanted to link these two bad guys to have a justification to invade Iraq on a wave of post 911 blood-thirstiness. And it worked, when we invaded 70% of the country thought Saddam was "personally involved" in the 911 attacks, even though there were no Iraqis on the planes, but Americans didn't get that either. Propaganda anyone? Stop taking what politicians say in a speach as the official fact. Especially when we're talking about war. *cough* Iran *cough*

If I knew there was no link, Why didn't Hillary Clinton? "(Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." - Clinton October 10, 2002

Anyway, the report, with the obvious conclusion, finally coming from the Pentagon, is not going to be quite as public anymore. If they don't talk about it, maybe it will just go away right?

Put that together with the fact that almost 4,000 of our soldiers have died in Iraq alone, many more wounded. Fighting for our.. um.. what.. our right to tell other nations what to do? I'm not sure anymore.

And we've been there for 5 years on March 19,

And it's costing us 12 Billion per month and over 3 trillion so far, 50 times more than the 60 billion predicted in 2003,

Add that to higher oil prices, stronger terrorist networks, and a less stable world, and a less safe USA, and you might want to... oh I don't know Impeach the President!

Deep Breath... next


The Iraq War is only 2% of media coverage.


No news is Good news... for the bush administration and McCain at least, if we don't hear about Iraq it must be going great. A perfect time to cancel the release of the Pentagon Report so Iraq doesn't become news again. The lack of media coverage is partly to blame for the fact that only 20% of Americans know we're about to hit 4,000 dead in Iraq


At least I'm talking about Iraq here right? I'm doing my part.



Admiral Fallon, the top US commander for the Middle East Abruptly Resigns.

Who is this guy? Probably the highest ranking officers in position of power trying to talk sense into a bush administration hell bent on World War III. You know telling Bush it would be a bad idea to bomb Iran.
What? We'll be greeted as liberators! More Kool-Aid Please.

Quoting Fallon
"This constant drumbeat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Bush Quote Instead
"Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. To achieve these aims, they are funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which allow them to attack Israel and America by proxy."

Talking trash and telling countries they are pert of the "Axis of Evil", and we might bomb their country if we feel like it, doesn't help anybody, every time bush gets on the TV and threatens Iran it makes us less safe.

Read more about Fallon resigning .


Presidential Politics.

The math is against Clinton, she needs about 64% in all states to overtake Obama, not happening.

The only way she can win is if the super-delegates appoint her at the convention, against the will of the people. That sounds pretty terrible right, we have all kinds of young people voting for the first time, huge turnout, new grassroots networks, and millions of people believing that if they vote, they can take back the government. Protesting in the streets didn't work, but maybe voting will, that's how everyone tells us democracy works right?

But the Democratic party could just say, thanks for your opinion, I know you spent months of your life working for this candidate, but you can't have him. You don't know what the hell your doing, let us take care of the government, you're too stupid to be trusted with that kind of power.

The Democratic party has no desire to snub their voters at a time like this. I know it was supposed to be Clinton's turn to be president, sorry, I'd like to see a woman president too. But Barrack Obama is just a better candidate.

But Clinton is counting on the super-delegates appointing her in the end. Probably the reason her campaign keeps mentioning Obama as a splendid Vice President, but a terrible Commander in Chief, like that makes any sense. But maybe, she can convince us that really it was her turn, but she will let Obama be VP.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign had a private meeting in DC with her big donors today "the clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate."

I have bad news for Clinton, she's not winning the popular vote or the delegate count, and she's right that those things do matter.

I'm starting to think The Clintons really want their power back so they can get revenge on the Republicans for impeaching Bill Clinton, and going after him for all those years. They were a royal pain in the ass, and still are. I think the Clintons have their pockets full of smear tactics and venom that they were intending to use on the Republicans, but Obama has been getting their dirty tricks cause he got in the way.


"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Sorry.. I know this is long already and I wanted to get straight to the point here. What the fuck is that? And this woman hung around for an entire week before voluntarily resigning her post as a fundraiser for the Clinton campaign?

Obama has gotten to this point because he's black... funny, cause that didn't work for Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton... We've had a black presidential candidate almost every election for the past 30 years. But Ms. Geraldine Ferraro can say that crap and pretend it's fair, it's objective, it's just the truth nobody wants to admit right? No, it's a smear tactic, meant to win points with other racists. Obama got this far because he's a good candidate. Because he's run a good campaign, and risen above petty attacks like this.

And Hillary had this to say "It's regrettable that any of our supporters _ on both sides, because we both have this experience _ say things that kind of veer off into the personal." yea, take that, I love Black people.

On the Obama Campaign, an Staffer named Samantha Powers called Hillary a "Monster" and was gone the next morning. Hillary still has not condemned Ferraro's remark. Not to mention the Muslim thing that came from her campaign chair in Iowa, and the Drug Dealer thing, and the Obama doesn't know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance thing... yea real cool. If the truth doesn't work, make something up.

Olberman did his homework and found at least 3 occasions where Ferraro said the same crap about Obama. But the media is taking it out of context... sure they are. Interesting, the first time we herd about Ms. Ferraro this campaign season, she was calling Obama, Edwards, the Media, and the entire nation sexist for confronting Hillary. Ok she may be right about the nation, and about Chris Matthews. But now that someone is calling her statements Racist, she thinks that the Obama Campaign owes her an apology for calling her racist. And she's not even close to being sorry for what she said.
Here's Olbermann


"Senator Clinton Isn't A Republican, As Far As I Know" 't-a-r_b_91187.html

Found that title while looking for some sources for this entry it cracked me up. The title is a play on Hillary's response to the muslim garbage "there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said on 60 minutes.

Anyway, there's all the news that's fit to bother me, for now.




joshua - 03/17/08 12:39
David the point of the surge was to crush violence! It wasn't going to create a political solution - for that matter liberals have claimed for years that the military is incapable of creating a political solution, which is something I tend to agree with. To the degree that it could have had anything to do with politics, our surge bought the Iraqis time to create one for themselves to come up with a solution, which they have not done. They are deciding their own future and are taking their sweet ass time doing it.

Anyway thats not why I've posted - your journal entry popped in my head today when I was reading the news - an article in the Miami Herald addressed the exact topic you were interested in. Check it out -

:::link:::

A direct quote -

"There is always news out there if you look for it," said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president. "What too many news organizations were doing was covering the car bomb du jour, and when the car bombing ceased, the coverage ceased."

I told you they were focused on the negative stuff only, and being lazy to boot. Now we have the word directly from the horse's mouth.
dcoffee - 03/14/08 13:02
Thanks Josh, I hope people read the whole thing, I try to be specific, direct, and a bit entertaining. And you know I really value different opinions, especially those from the non-neo-con type conservatives like yourself.

About your War opinion, there has been a reduction in violence, but the political progress has not been made. That was the point of the surge, so I don't view it as a success.

If you were a militia and the Americans are at full strength, and they're handing you cash to "keep al Qaeda out of the neighborhood" you might want to wait it out instead of attacking the them. But are we building anything that will stick around after we leave? Because we do have to leave, we can't continue to spend this kind of money, going into debt, just to blow stuff up and rebuild it overseas. Where's all this money going anyway, to Haliburton, so they can do substandard work that ends up getting torn down because it's a health hazard? Then Halliburton moves their headquarters to Dubai? I thought war was supposed to help _our_ economy, not Dubai. And what's up with the gas prices, if the plan was to steal their oil we failed at that too.

sorry I digress.

We do have Iraq News today apparently, and you can say I told you so, cause it's bad news.
- Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress' -
:::link:::

Oh one last thing. This is one of the reasons why I can't listen to Rush Limbaugh without swearing. To be fair, you only said we "don't want to hear good news" and that holds more water. But just to make the point, Liberals do not want to surrender or let the terrorists win. Sure bad news allows me to say I told you so, but we don't want to surrender, we want to be safe just like everyone else. We just don't believe force is the best tool. I know there are bad guys out there who won't listen to anything else, but we should prove the need for force beyond any doubt, and through that process, we prove to the world that we are a just and honest country that doesn't deserve hatred. The only way toward peace is to prove that we are good, just, and honest. You know the crap we've pulled with other governments, we got some work to do. That's part of what makes me so angry at Bush.

PS, thanks for the nomination Drew! Season's not over yet though.
joshua - 03/14/08 12:18
Eh, anytime somebody commits their time and effort to lengthy posts involving civics, I think the person at least deserve attention and a proper reading of what he wrote.
dcoffee - 03/14/08 12:13
I know this is long guys, don't be intimidated I really enjoy one sentence comments too. Perhaps my longest post ever, but I try to make it entertaining.
jason - 03/13/08 23:04
I fully plan on reading all of this epic post carefully soon, but first thought that came to my mind was:

I'm pretty sure that it has long since been reported and admitted by the government that no "operational links" (think about what exactly that means or doesn't mean) existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I don't think that's the information our government wants to keep hidden. What is it? I suppose right now we can only guess.

I was shocked by what Ferraro said, and imagine if someone said something like that about Hillary, except that the insinuation was that the fact Hillary is a woman is the reason for her rise to the top. The Sisterhood would shit a solid fucking brick.

That is just straight up wrong wrong wrong, and I don't believe it for one second concerning Obama. I'm not even an Obama supporter, I probably will never vote for him, but I understand his blackness isn't what attracts people to him. She's a repeat offender, and deserves scorn for it. The cynical side of me says it was planned, for a surrogate to say the scandalous shit instead of the candidate.

I still have to read it all, and I probably won't (as usual for me) agree with all of it or even respond but you've made the effort and so I'll check the rest of it out later.
joshua - 03/13/08 22:00
There is nothing more hilarious to me than a career liberal like Geraldine Ferraro being accused of being a racist by OTHER LIBERALS! Democrats always eat their own. The Clinton slash and burn tactics have come to bite them in the back... and I don't know why she wouldn't condemn Ferraro. Allow me to take the piss for a second - I think its because she's a woman!

I know that its incredibly unfashionable to say so, but the reason why Iraq isn't a big ticket item in the news is because the news is far less negative than it used to be - at this point every credible news organization acknowledges that things are improving in the country. As you well know David, savvy news readers understand that negative news always comes first because, well, it sells papers and gets website hits. People reject this because they expect the impossible - perfection. These people are not military experts and don't know the foggiest thing about it, really. Not to mention that most of the people complaining believe that the soldiers are the cowards and that the people running to Canada are heroes.

Lets be honest - the people that are complaining don't want good news anyway - they never have and they never will. Its really that simple. The biggest crime the press has committed isn't the lack of reporting but the lack of reporting on the progress in the country. These "patriots" in the media have done our country a grave disservice because of their personal hatred of President Bush.

The $3T estimate as its been assembled is wrong. The book is littered with examples of "fuzzy math," as the example I cited previously with death benefits illustrates. The government pays $400k per death to the family. The government itself, as the authors illustrate, value the life of a person who died due to health and safety concerns at $7m. One figure is the actual payout, and the other figure is the one that isn't actually paid out - I'll give you one guess as to which is used in the $3T estimate. The book is littered with examples like this that compromise the entire exercise.

The truth is that we have, to this point, have spent $800b or so. Its a staggering amount of money. When its said and done its unreasonable to think it could easily double or triple. What I want is a credible study, and I'm sorry but the Stiglitz book is not when they include examples as I've shown.

I won't get into the obvious agenda-driven baggage the economists' co-author harbors - she is releasing a book in June about how government money should go into more socialist-style public services. Where do you suppose she wishes that $3T went? It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is going to skew her work, and to be honest, it shows in an embarrassing way. In reading the book it becomes patently obvious that the conclusion came before the beginning.

Sure, the author is a Nobel laureate, but so is Yassir Arafat, Jimmah Carter and Al Gore. There is a differentiation between the scientific and, well, fluff awards that I willingly acknowledge, but I think Stiglitz has tarnished his credibility by having his name on the book. Its as if he traded his scientific credibility for liberal popularity, because as usual, the details never matter that much when you get the answer you like.

As for Obama - wait until we see who plays the race card once the general election season hits. Then we can talk about who is being cynical! Anyone want to wager with me that not Obama, but a campaign surrogate or classic race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson will be the ones to cry racism when people start scrutinizing Barack Obama? Obama has absolutely, positively gotten a free pass up to this point. The rhetorical question - why is that?
drew - 03/13/08 21:43
great post. I nominate this for best political post of the 2008 primary.

03/12/2008 15:11 #43637

Books Vonnegut Fiction and Creativity
Category: life
I've discovered I really enjoy reading Novels. I haven't read too many yet, because I just realized how relaxing and interesting it is to read Fiction. When i was younger I thought people who read fiction were lazy, maybe they just couldn't handle the truth or had some other issue. Truth is stranger than fiction right, so why bother? Turns out, there's a big difference, non-Fiction is a bit like studying an interesting topic, and Fiction is like immersing yourself in a movie.

I read a lot of news, and the Nation, some other magazines, and listen to talk radio, but recently somewhere between 7:30 and 10:00pm I grab my book and relax for the night. Right now I'm reading Kurt Vonnegut Slaughterhouse Five, I really like Vonnegut, he cracks me up, always entertaining. I just finished Cats Cradle, also by him. Anyway, I wanted to share this tidbit from Slaughter-House Five..

Billy was twelve years old, quaking as he stood with his mother and father on Bright Angel Point, at the rim of Grand Canyon. The little human family was staring at the floor of the canyon, one mile straight down.
'Well,' said Billy's father, manfully kicking a pebble into space, 'there it is.' They had come to this famous place by automobile. They had had several blowouts on the way.
'It was worth the trip,' said Billy's mother raptly. 'Oh, God was it ever worth it.'
Billy hated the canyon. He was sure that he was going to fall in. His mother touched him, and he wet his pants



Maybe it's just me, maybe it's not as hysterical out of context... but if I wanted to describe Vonnegut's writing style, I might read that paragraph for starters.

Other books... I read the Lord of the Rings twice. My last novel was a 4 book series by Dan Simmons called the Hyperion Cantos, best Science Fiction series you'll ever find, in my opinion. Read that one for the second time a few months back, Takes a while to finish, and when i finally did, I was a little depressed that i didn't have my book anymore, I felt homeless or something, a fish out of water, till I found Cats Cradle. A while back I read a few others that were good, Black Like Me, 1984, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, Forever by Pete Hamill. Next I want to read Catch 22, Tale of Two Cities, Animal Farm, and some of the classics.


Different topic, my old job. I've been gone since October, they hired somebody new. I tried to leave good records of how things were done, because nobody knew how to do all the things I did and I was worried the place would fall down without me. So it goes.

Found this advertisement in the Phone Book Coupon thing that came in the mail. They just shifted around an original design I created for them last year.

image

My Original, designed for the phone book, you'll currently find it under Photography.
image

I know, they own it, it's not my property, as a business they don't want to waste time reinventing the wheel, or whatever. But it made me sad. I'm not even there and they are still relying on my creativity to get them by. I don't care if they reuse my ad for the next 10 years, but subtly mutating it instead of being creative on their own, kind of burns me. This type of thing ever happen to you?



theecarey - 03/12/08 19:57
Vonnegut. Nice. Please add his "Breakfast of Champions" to your now ever growing pile of books to read :) His characters make multiple appearances throughout his works. Excellent excerpt from SH5, too!

I'm a book-eater; tearing through several fiction and non-fiction novels a month...always looking for suggestions and offering them myself. Whether at the same time or one after the other, when selecting a book, I aim for a smart balance of 'brain candy' and 'brain food'. There is just so much great stuff out there. Welcome to the fiction world. Enjoy!!


joshua - 03/12/08 19:12
So it goes - how many caught that in his journal that has read the book? =D I got a kick out of seeing that.

SH5 is his only novel that I've read... there are too many authors out there for me to focus on one for long! Actually looking at my bookshelf I think the only author I've read multiple times is Jack Kerouac. I am reading a couple works by James Joyce though.

Lately I've been interested in Latin American authors as well as exiled (one way or another) Chinese authors. Ha Jin might be one of the only Chinese authors that writes natively in English rather than being translated... Bei Dao is probably the best Chinese exile author out there now. They write pretty frankly about life under communism - the one I want to read is a short story collection by Ha Jin called Ocean of Words, which is a collection of stories that details the extraordinarily harsh existence of being in the Chinese Revolutionary Army... which Ha Jin was in fact a member of prior to staying in America when Tienanmen Square happened.

The Latin American author of note is Jorge Louis Borges - he is a Nobel laureate and is generally considered one of the world's greatest authors of any extraction. He is heavily influenced by William Faulkner, as is another well known author (and a Nobel laureate as well) named Gabriel Garcia Marquez, whose most well known novel "100 Years of Solitude" is considered by many to be the greatest Latin American novel.
dcoffee - 03/12/08 15:31
Yay, suggestions! I also might read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
james - 03/12/08 15:30
May I recommend C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy.

I read novels and poetry constantly growing up and currently read almost all non-fiction and poetry. I hope I go through the same thing you are now and rediscover how great the novel can be.
jason - 03/12/08 15:20
Heyo. I haven't looked too much into this yet, but I saw there is a site called DailyLit that has a bunch of classics for free, right online.

:::link:::

ladycroft - 03/12/08 15:17
when you finish slaughterhouse five give sirens of titan a whirl :)

03/04/2008 21:36 #43555

Skiing
Category: life
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
image

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

Marvin the Mountain Dog.
image

The Fam at Oak Mountain in the ADK's
image

(e:mmtornow) on the slopes at Oak Mountain
image

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

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.
image

On the Lift
image

Leaving Kissing Bridge
image

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

Not Cooking tonight. Beer Pizza, Couch.
image

joshua - 03/05/08 13:48
Well done my man.
fellyconnelly - 03/05/08 09:56
JEALOUS!!!
imk2 - 03/04/08 21:44
you should have estip know so that we could have come along. i didn't go not once this season. damn.

02/29/2008 11:44 #43506

Nader, Healthcare Revisited
Category: politics
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.


dcoffee - 02/29/08 23:14
Peter, you're not alone in thinking Instant Runoff Voting is confusing. And thanks for admitting it :-). That's why every time I mention IRV I give a new description, I hope that by explaining it in different circumstances the idea might just click in one more persons head. You might want to watch the animation I linked to :::link::: Let's say Obama, Nader, Gore, and McCain are running for president. Gore Obama and Nader agree on most things, and their supporters probably would not vote for McCain right? But when the election comes around McCain gets 35% of the vote, and he wins, even though 65% of the country hate the guy. McCain does not have a majority of the country supporting him. A majority is 50% +1 no matter how many candidates there are. Check out the video to see how IRV solves this. Once you figure it out, you'll see why even Drew and his dad can agree it's a good idea.

Josh, I don't want to ignore Social Security, I just think the Hype is BS. Bush couldn't get us to agree on Social Security Reform (read 'Abolition') but he did succeed in getting many people to agree that it probably won't last much longer. For the FDR New Deal haters that's success. You're right that the longer we wait the more drastic the changes will be, but now minor reforms would fix it. Currently people only pay social security on the first $90,000 they earn, if you raised that cap to say $200,000 or eliminated it all together, you could fix Social Security. (Gasp! Raising Taxes) That brings me to my next point.

Even if my taxes are raised to pay for a new Healthcare program, my total _expenses_ will go down. Like I said, I paid $1000 for healthcare this year, and I'm positive the government could standardize the system and do it cheaper without losing quality. American Companies provide most of the Health Insurance in this country, imagine how much their expenses would go down. Why can Toyota sell a better car for less money than American Companies? Because they don't have to pay for Healthcare. Not only is it Humane and Morally right to provide Healthcare for everyone, it removes the burden from our companies, and that means they can compete better in the international marketplace. We have a $700 billion trade deficit, :::link::: that's why our standard of living has suffered, we need to bring money into the country, instead of consuming foreign lead paint toys.

Single payer Healthcare would help the country in more ways than one. By pooling our resources, distributing the risk, and cutting down on the waste that Insurance middlemen create, both citizens and corporations would end up saving money. Other countries may have tried to have their cake and eat it to, by keeping taxes level. If the government took better care of my money I wouldn't mind giving it to them for a good product. Instead they have been flushing it down $2,000 toilets built in Iraq under no-bid contracts. Government has failed in many ways, but the solution isn't as simple as taking our money away from them, We need better oversight, and we as citizens need to hold them accountable.


metalpeter - 02/29/08 18:24
(e:Joshua) I had no idea they used that system in California, I now think it is great that they do. I would like them to use that in every state. I admit I don't get the runoff thing to me it doesn't make sense and is complicated what Happens If there are say 4 People and I Only pick one person cause he is the only one I like. The thing I like about the percentage thing is that it seems very fair. I don't think 51% makes a Majority even though that is how it is defined currently. I think the majority is 100/ the number of people running so if 5 people (to many I know ran) then you could win the Majority vote with (20% would tie everyone)21% Of the votes or at least the elctoral votes. I say that the person who gets the most votes should win and not use the current system but the powers that be will never get rid of it, so that is why I say you tweak as in California and have all the states do it. That way a 3rd party has a chance at winning. Not only that but currently votes don't count. Say it obama Vs. McCain say Obama takes New York by 2 Million votes that is that many votes minus one that don't mean jack shit. But if it was done on percentage and then every vote would count. That could be said for McCain also he might lose but at least his voters would get him some points. I think that would make votes more important and it would send people who don't vote out to the polls. I think it would do that for 3rd parties also cause if a third party guy is 3% behind in every state currently he would get zero nothing no points, but with what I suggest it would be a close race and with a couple big wins he would have a shot at winning the presadentcy.
joshua - 02/29/08 13:48
I love your journal... you do think things through carefully and if I may pay a compliment its my favorite journal of the bunch.

  • "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." *******

Couldn't agree more. Our nation needs a change in mindset to make this happen. Many liberal Democrats freak out about Nader because they know what his role will eventually be - I see that view as incredibly undemocratic.

I don't know if Nader is even capable of inspiring a person, let alone a party. In my view Bloomberg would have even been more of an third adequate candidate than Nader. The man is dull. Even if I smoked an eighth I don't think I could find something amusing about him.

One observation is that no matter how much tinkering we do with the system, there is no way to erase close elections and how a third candidate can ruin it for somebody. The system Peter mentioned is already in place in the state of California.

The last Presidents to have gotten more than 50% of the popular vote -

GWB 2004 50.7%
GHWB 1988 53.4%
RR 1984 58.8%
RR 1980 50.7%
Carter 1976 50.1% (this was the closest election for 25 years)
Nixon 1972 60.7% (WOW! He won by 23%. BTW they call Obama the new McGovern, and I hate to say it but Nixon is more charismatic than McCain - should be interesting this year).

The only two Democratic presidents to have won with a majority vote in the past 44 years has been Carter and LBJ, and LBJ is the only one to have won in a landslide. He crushed Goldwater that year as Nixon crushed McGovern 8 years later.

You ignore Social Security at your own peril though David. The next President *will* have to address this, and as my brother has previously stated, taxes are about to go up for everybody, not just the rich... and this is before we ever discuss a national healthcare system.

As I've said to you previously I do not oppose a healthcare system. However I have to say this to you -

I still remain unconvinced that having the government manage this is a good idea. Take a look at how California and New York manage health care costs - I don't think it will likely be any different unless a radical set of changes and outlooks occur. Socialists in the UK (otherwise known as the Labour Party) are now examining the idea of cutting obese people out of the system. When costs spiral in these systems, as they inevitably do, the contradictions and problems with national healthcare become obvious. If a fatty gets cut off of the system, do they get to keep the tax money that goes into it? "Fat" chance. I'm not even mentioning the moral contradiction of a system set up for humane reasons only to do an incredibly inhumane thing.

I like social security too. I fear it won't be there for us. No President, Democrat or Republican, want to be the one responsible for raising taxes during a likely recession. By the time its over, its going to be too late without some incredible sacrifices that no American will find palatable yet will be forced to accept. Taxes are going up eventually though, and the middle class will not escape it!

I honestly feel very, very pessimistic about the next few years no matter who wins. We have a bunch of careerist milquetoasts in office.
drew - 02/29/08 11:48
The need for instant runoff voting is one of the few issues my Dad and I agree on. It's far past time.

02/27/2008 12:46 #43479

Healthcare Candidates, and Ralph
Category: politics
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.




metalpeter - 02/28/08 19:45
NADAR AND 3RD PARTY:
My problem with Nadar is simple really. He doesn't represent a real 3rd party if he did he would have been part of debates or at least ran against someone else in some form and he didn't he waited till it is almost decided who will run. To me that is kinda cheap. I think it is great to have a real 3rd party but with the current political voting process it doesn't really work. One of the reasons for that is that currently 3rd party is just that it is some party that no one really cares about and doesn't have a chance even being close to winning. If the Green party or the party that wants to make weed legal was a strong party and you had 3 equal parties then it would be great. But the way the system is set up all the 3rd party does is take votes away from one of the major parties and that could cause them to lose that state. I think there is an easy way to fix the problem. I think that both parties like the Electoral college because it keeps out 3rd parties because if you don't win the state you get nothing and that helps them keep their power. But maybe it could be altered. If I get 90% of the vote why do I get the same amount of points as if I get 51% of the vote. I say take every state and double there points (or you could not) then Each person who runs in a said state gets the percentage of votes that they get in the state. That would be much fairer. You could even add that for your votes to count you have to be in a certain number of states at least the majority of them I would say take out 3 states cause you shouldn't be forced to go to Texas, Alaska and Hawaii if you don't want to. Then who ever gets the most points at the end wins (sorry for long written form).

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE:
I know people use the term universal health care to mean socailised medicine. But they are not the same. Universal health care means that everyone in the country (not sure about illegal aliens or people here legaly but not a citizen) would be able to get health care who doesn't have it or that everyone has it. For example I work and have health care but not all jobs have it. Companies could be forced to either have it or give vouchers to help pay for it. Universal just means that people who don't have it would have a way to get it and laws could be made so more people get it with out going on and trying to get it.
"Socialised Medicine" When you are born you are given a card. Anytime you need anything you use your card at a Doctor or Hospital.
I have heard that one of the problems with this is that there isn't as much money in it so doctors go to countries where there is more money to be made. I have also heard that since it is government run that often waits to get not life saving (maybe life saving stuff) can be longer.
With Universal everyone would have health care but people have different plans and different coverages and "The Rich" would have better plans then "The Poor" . With socailised everyone would be the same. Besides do you really trust the people who didn't show up for Katrina to run Medical stuff.
dcoffee - 02/27/08 20:16
Don't get me wrong, I don't want Obama to get fucked either, he's the best chance we've had in a long time. and even though I live in NYS and my vote doesn't count because of the electoral college, Obama still has my support, especially if his name is on the Working Families Line.

But the way I see it, no candidate will save America, not Kucinich, or Gore, or Obama. Only if they change the election system, the electoral college, Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation in the Senate, and Publicly financed campaigns, then they can have credit for saving America.

But I don't blame James or Jim, or anyone else for being pissed at Nader. In fact it makes me nuts to think about what the world would have been like if we had a President Gore in 2000. Honestly I don't go there, cause it kinda makes me want to move to Canada. But if Obama fights to keep liberals behind him, that's not so bad, and I still think he'll win.

I think you're off on America being conservative though, only 20% call themselves liberal, but on most issues the majority position is the Liberal position, only on Abortion and somewhat national security does it even come close.

Republicans have done a great job of demonizing liberals, and I am worried about Obama creeping toward the center and trying to act conservative to avoid criticism. I think he has the ability, more than any other candidate, to persuade people that the liberal position is the right one, but it will be a struggle, and I hope he keeps his nerve.

Healthcare, per capita we spend twice as much as any other country, so even if the government raises our taxes, it will still be cheaper for us. I don't think Hillary or Obama's plan go far enough, it should be _more_ like Social Security, everyone pays out of their taxes. And with a single payer system you have a lot of purchasing and bargaining power (like Wal-Mart) even without price mandates. Social security doesn't buy anything, they just give individuals a check, so it has no parallel there. But I understand you have to phaise out Health Insurance companies instead of just putting them out of businesses.

On social security, minor changes could save it, especially if we act soon, but conservatives have hated this program since it started, they want to see it die.
Shucks, now mine is long too!

The Youth Vote (under 30), has huge significance, I love it, nothing says "Fuck the System" like doubling and tripling the youth vote. the game of politics is full of formulas, cohorts, and other BS, all that crap is moot when the internet browsing, college going youth show up. Love it.
joshua - 02/27/08 14:39
James is a hater! =D

I'm not surprised by the comment about the third party. When someone says "this election is too important to have a third party" what is obviously REALLY being said is "this election is too important for Obama to get fucked." The pretense that these people care about fair elections and what is best for the voters has long since been laughed off. You don't get fucked if your ideas are more palatable to the voters! This lesson has *never* been learned because of one main reason. Liberal Democrats never blame themselves for their ideas not being popular on a national scale; someone else is always to blame and plenty of hilarious conspiracy theories come to light. Every election they lose brings another round of bizarre queries about the integrity of our voting system, which coincidentally is never a problem or is never questioned when "their" guy does win. I'm still waiting for the cries of voter disenfranchisement after the incredibly narrow sweep in '06. Think I'll be waiting long? If the system is broken this year it was more than certainly broken in '06. The bottom line - Democrats do not give ONE FLYING FUCK about the integrity of the system because if its not good enough when you lose, how is the same system good enough when you win?

I'd respectfully disagree with an earlier assessment you've made regarding the palatability of progressive values on a large scale in America. Do not confuse wild-eyed, cultish fervor in the Democratic camp for Barack Obama for a widespread acceptance of progressive values across all lines in America. I believe this will be more than amply illustrated when the general election hits. Even if Barack Obama wins, which I see as completely plausible, any suggestion of a mandate could only exist if he wins in a landslide... which I see as completely implausible. The notion of an impending progressive wave in America is completely unfounded! Progressives better start winning in big numbers and by big margins if they want to make that claim.

What is next - liberals claiming that Nader voters are racist?

If its done correctly national healthcare would be nice. I simply don't believe that it will ever be viable because of our problem with Social Security going bankrupt - which if nothing changes will almost certainly occur in our lifetime. We may have to raise taxes and cut spending drastically merely to protect that program. Negative returns start in 9 years and NO politician is touching this issue. Anybody that says that Social Security is and will be solvent is either lying or misinformed.

Now you must be thinking, "but Josh, this has no effect on how much money is already being spent on healthcare!" True enough. But who is actually spending the money? Here is part of the answer - the government accounts only for less than half. 45% in fact. :::link::: In the UK's utterly flawed system total government expenditure as a measure of total expenditure is 86%. In Canada the expenditure percentage is about 70%. Where is the other 25-40% going to come from at all, let alone with our problems with Social Security?

Medical costs are outrageous in this country - before we talk about national healthcare I think we need to talk about how to control healthcare costs first, because without doing so we'll simply have another failed but well intended initiative. The only way this will happen is for the private sector to be compelled to keep costs lower. The only way this is done is competition. Trust me, if the government attempts some sort of cost mandate that makes risking billions of dollars in drug research impractical, you will see the end of medical innovation in America and a drastic cut in the number of drugs and vaccines that the companies manufacture. For that matter, in the United States I can't envision any kind of national healthcare without the cooperation of the private sector.

Lastly (god this is long) - you've brought up runoff voting again! I completely agree with you in spirit and in principle. There should be a better way. However, I don't think that having Democratic politicians collude to subvert the system as implemented is correct either. Simply, the system itself has to improve and THAT is the responsibility of Howard Dean and the DNC. Even with the introduction of an improved system I remain skeptical that the complaints would cease.

Sorry for being long man. I like your journal and talking about civic issues. Its our generation that is going to have to solve these problems so we need to be having a dialogue. I also think we need to tell the self-absorbed generation that continues to believe they are always right (remember - the ones who said 'never trust anyone older than 30'?) that we've taken their advice and aren't listening to them anymore.
dcoffee - 02/27/08 13:45
Ahh, good point, I forgot to mention that. Ralph has not tried to build the green party, or any other party, and that's a problem, he definitely looses points in my book. But beyond that our system should be open to more parties and more candidates.
james - 02/27/08 13:10
Ralph doesn't bring a third party to the table. He brings his own ego to it. He used to do good work with the green party and it could have really amounted to something. But since his falling out with them after the 2000 election it has become apparent that his interest has nothing to do with a viable third party.

The Green Party has not elected someone to national office. Green's litter city governments and school boards, but have not built a national party. Which is a shame.

So, I think it is reasonable to complain about both Nader entering the race and the lack of a viable third party.