George the King...er...President

I'll admit I was surprised this morning by a number of things. First, Ohio still didn't have its votes in. My first reaction was "uhhh.ohhh...it's Florida all over again." Then after some reading I discovered that Bush led in Ohio by 130,000 and that it was 'statistically impossible' for Kerry to make up the difference with the provisional ballots. THEN, on the way to work I hear John Edwards blathering about not giving up until all votes have been counted. Then I thought "Oh Christ, it really WILL be another Flordia." The second surprise was Kerry conceding defeat in the early afternoon. At least he accepted defeat when it was staring him in the face. So, now there are two questions:

 

First, when we will first start hearing "Hillary in '08" advertisements? My guess is sometime next summer.

Second, when will Barack Obama run against Arnold Schwartzenegger for President? I'm putting my money on 2012.

I Don't Wanna Vote

With Election Day tomorrow, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, papers and television and the web are gearing up for a heated battle between Bush and Kerry. This year the expected voter turnout is near 70%. In the 1996 election voter turnout was at an all-time low for a Presidential election; somewhere near 50%. In the ‘ideal’ world, according to many of the papers, the voter turnout would be 100%. But why is this ideal?

MTV and the candidates and virtually every political outlet in the country is urging citizens to “Rock the Vote” or some other similar nonsense. Why? Why is it so important that I vote? Indeed why is it important that ANY of us vote? Of course, SOME of us need to vote, otherwise no one would win an election that tied at 0. But do ALL of us need to vote? Probably not. And it’s probably best that some of us don’t. And some us should refrain.

George Bush has told me I need to vote. John Kerry has told me I need to vote. But do they really want me voting for the other guy? Of course not. They get to mask their “non-partisan public service announcement” in political propaganda. They only tell me to vote so that the next clause “FOR ME” doesn’t sound out of place and pushy. Voting should be an well-reasoned, intelligent, decision. Almost by definition that excludes most of MTV’s viewership. But even MTV, indeed every ‘news’ outlet has a clause equivalent to “FOR ME” that they follow up the “get out and vote” statement with. Just look at the media and look at who they endorse. Dave Matthews, Bruce Springsteen, Foo Fighters, Rolling Stone, MTV, CNN, AFL/CIO all want you to “Get Out and Vote” – FOR KERRY. While the NRA, Religious Right, Fox News and Chicago Tribune also want you to “Get Out and Vote” – FOR BUSH.

I know I’m ALLOWED to vote. I don’t need MTV, the NRA, or certainly not the candidates, to tell me, in a non-partisan condescendingly friendly voice, to “get out and vote.” Instead, provide me with a REASON to vote. Why should I vote for John Kerry over George Bush? Or vice versa. Tell me, exactly, what Kerry will do differently from George Bush; and be honest about it.

One of John Kerry’s recent ads suggests that we are ‘too dependent’ on Middle East oil. But, duh. That isn’t going to CHANGE under John Kerry. First of all, it’s not, physically possible. Something like 70% of all the oil in the world is concentrated in the Middle East. The reserves in the US are not sufficient to sustain our economy for more than 1 month, let alone for years into the future. Where else are we going to get our oil if not from the Middle East? I hear Kerry and the Democrats telling me that the war is bad because it over oil, and that’s not disputed; of course it’s over oil – they have it, we need it, and they want to bleed us dry for it. But is Kerry’s solution ‘find alternatives to the internal combustion engine’? No, the auto-lobby won’t let him put that one on the platform. So, what, exactly is Kerry’s plan for the Middle East? To date I haven’t heard one.

As for domestic issues, Kerry spouts the typical liberal bullshit but I actually agree with him on some regards. We do need a balanced budget. But that’s not possible with an on-going war. We simply can’t produce the money fast enough to cover war costs AND domestic programs. So, the alternative is ‘stop the war.’ But given that it’s started, what’s the best way to do that? I haven’t heard any suggestions from Kerry’s side. We also need universal health care and better schools. Both of those programs cost money. Where is the money going to come from? I’d put down my last dollar to bet that the insurance industry is no fan of universal health care, so their lobby will make sure that stays off the agenda. Meanwhile, real reform of the education system will require pissing off teaches, because, quite frankly too many of them don’t know what they’re doing. But will Kerry alienate one of his most solid backers in the teacher’s union?! Doubtful.

Meanwhile, President Bush has been a walking disaster. His presidency has gotten us into a stupid war and his cabinet has pulled the blanket off of government chicanery and exposed his staff for the frauds they are. To his credit, the economy isn’t really his fault, but he’s getting the blame for it anyway. The only program that he’s had even minor success with might just prevent his re-election – The No Child Left Behind Act is bringing up the bottom of the education system, but at the expense of the top of the education system and by imposing national standards on a local problem.

So, we, the people, are left with a choice between bad and worse – I’ll leave it to the reader to decide who is who. Will it matter who is in office? That’s a question that goes to the heart of your faith in the political system as it exists today. Some argue that as the leader of the most influential nation in the world, that of course it makes a difference. The President influences policy and sets the basic tone for the country. But does he really do anything? The Secretary of State is usually in charge of foreign affairs, and by all accounts Colin Powell hasn’t been a complete disaster. As for domestic matters, given the gridlock in Congress, nothing remarkable, let alone revolutionary, will ever get done there.

And besides, very little that the President personally does will affect my life in any way in the next four years. Kerry might cut taxes for the middle class, so that’s a good thing, but it’s also a very Republican thing for Kerry to do and probably won’t get done because money for his ‘programs’ has to come from somewhere. Kerry’s also promised to roll back tax cuts for the richest Americans; but by all accounts they are temporary anyway and will naturally get rolled back as the economy comes out of its recession. Besides, the tax cuts were one of the few more inspired moments of the Bush presidency that actually instigated capital spending and kept the markets afloat through a very mild recession. Otherwise, universal health care and a balanced budget are not going to happen in the next four years. So, I’m left with a decision that I don’t really care about. Do I vote for the guy who will say anything to get elected or the guy who did a pretty bad job (though not terrible job, given the circumstances) in his first term. Well, it doesn’t really matter to me, one’s as bad as the other so I’ll let the American people decide and I’ll stay at home and play the new Grand Theft Auto.

Justifying the Electoral College

The Constitution provides that: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.” This is the clause that establishes the Electoral College system. Why use this manner rather than a popular vote of the people? It goes to the very fundamental nature of the democratic system, checks and balances. The Legislative System is entirely elected by popular vote. Each state holds elections and Representatives and Senators are chosen by popular vote to represent the people in the centralized government. The federal judicial system is entirely appointed; the executive branch makes appointments and the legislative branch approves the appointments. The executive branch on the other hand is meant to be the representative of the states.

An individual is best represented at the state level. For the most part, ours is a government where the central, federalized, government leaves the states to rule for themselves. The federal branches only interfere, in theory, where one state’s action would impact another state, or for the benefit of all the states. If a citizen wants action that directly affects him, he can vote for his governor, or mayor, or towns’ select-man or whatever local government exists. On the other hand, the federal government merely tells states what they can and cannot do; in theory, it has no (or at least very little) direct influence over the individual. At the time the constitution was written this was even more pronounced as the taxing clauses were mostly unused and federal subsidies were non-existent. As a result, the executive branch was deemed to be the mouthpiece of the states that would check the mouthpiece of “the people” in the federal system, the legislature. The veto power was vested in the President because ultimately it is the states that the federal government controls, not the people.

The Governor of each state appoints members to sit on the state’s electoral college. Each state gets a number of votes in the Electoral College equivalent to the number of representatives (a popularly represented group determined by the population of the state who represent each local interest) plus the number of senators (those that represent the interests of the whole state). In this way, the state appoints its officers to elect the president on its behalf. The members of the Electoral College are, of course, free to vote in way they see fit and in most states every member of that state’s Electoral College vote as determined by the popular vote in that state. This is all the popular vote is for in a Presidential election; to determine how that state’s Electoral College members should vote. In deed, the State could develop a system whereby the Governor simply tells the Electoral College how to vote and this would be Constitutional. The people are not voting for their representative, the President, as the head of the executive branch, does not represent the people, he represents the states. The Speaker of the House and President of the Senate represent the people. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court represents the non-partisan judiciary. Each of these people stand on equal footing in the governing process, with the caveat that the President gets to veto the legislature because ultimately the federal government rules the states. The judiciary simply ensures that the each group does not over-step its bounds. The states rule the people.

Recently there has been a movement in the United States (note: United STATES, not United PEOPLE) to remove the Electoral College system. Most see it as an inequitable façade and an impediment to the wishes of the people. Given the above, I fail to see how this is the case. It is what it is. It is the system by which states elect the President. A popular vote for the President is not necessary, and would throw the system of checks and balances out of balance. If the President were popularly elected, he would, then be the voice of the people and the people would control all aspects of the government, leaving out the interests of the state from the federal government.

What interests do the states have that cannot or should not be expressed by the people? First and foremost, the states have an entire executive system charged with enforcing state laws that need to be considered separate of the will of the people for the purposes of domestic tranquility. Take, for example, the Patriot Act. At the urging of the President Congress passed a bill establishing the regulations that consist of the Patriot Act because the President believed that the federal government, and the state enforcement systems needed the things outlined, sometimes to the detriment of the People. It is the responsibility of the Congress, not the President, to determine the needs of its constituents and properly balance proposed legislation in the best interests of the people. If the bill unfairly affects the people, it is the responsibility of the representatives and senators to ensure that the people are adequately protected. The President’s job is to ensure that the legislation is properly imposed on the states where it will be the State’s duty to implement and execute that directive (if appropriate).

If the President were in charge of the will of the People, he must consider the need of the people rather then the need of the state when determining whether to veto given legislation. Not only is this determination duplicative, it removes the State interest in governing itself from the equation, and is improperly determined. One person cannot be responsible for the will of 250 million people; it is physically impossibly and logically unwise. As it is, one person is responsible for the will of approximately 20,000 people (the approximate number of people each representative represents). If the people take issue with legislation passed by Congress, it is the duty of the people to complain to their representatives and senators, those responsible for the will of the people.

But, the complaint is, that the people should not be ruled by a person whom they did not elect. But, that’s obviously the point. The people did not elect the person, the states did. That one state has more people than another is largely a matter of chance. If we remove the Electoral College, the whole function of the state within the federal system is removed. If the state is removed from the federal system, what good is the federal system? If it simply becomes a large state ruled by the will of the people, why have states at all? The United States would simply become the United People of America with 50 very large counties.

Why Steve Jobs in Full of Shit

From: http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/42503/windowspaulthurrott_42503.html

Furthermore, the subscription music services that are gaining traction on the PC side are unsuccessful, Jobs says. "People want to own their music," he noted in a conference call yesterday.

Jobs is full of shit. Rather, he's not full of shit, people do want to own their music. He's just full of shit because he implies that his company allows you to do that via his ubiquitous iPod. You don't own your music on iTunes. If you owned your music you wouldn't be restricted from playing it on only 7 devices (can you only use your toaster on 7 surfaces?). If you owned your music you wouldn't be restricted from burning it on only 10 cds (can you only use your books 10 times?). If you owned your music you wouldn't be prevented from using any other software player on your computer (can you only use one software to play DVDs on your computer?).

Each of these things are distorting our copyright law (which provides that limitations are the EXCEPTION not the RULE) and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it because consumers buy into it.

Unbelievable

How about the Patriot Act? I have only one thing to say: I told you so. Back in late September of 2001 millions of people were crying for the downfall of terrorism; we can't allow this to happen; millions of Americans are going to die; this is an infestation in our country that must be controlled; etc. etc. etc. And everyone was warned that we could improve security, but by necessity basic freedoms would have to go and we would be inconvenienced. You'll have a background check and thorough search at the airport. Employers will have more access to background information. Security will be tighter everywhere. Police will be able to respond more quickly. And the American public said "Do it. We must stop 9/11 from happening again. I don't have anything to hide, and I'm not a terrorist so why should it affect me."

So the legislators did it. And now all anyone can do is bitch. Airport security is back to normal except that now they put the scanners out front so people can see their bags being scanned. And the legislation that allows background checks and faster response by the police is being criticized by everyone with a pen and some paper. Look folks, you asked for it. You got it. Luckily, they included "sunset provisions" so that the legislation will go away. But you would have passed it without them.

The complaints are mostly about the lack of privacy. I thought you didn't have anything to hide? Oh, NOW you care about your privacy. I thought you weren't a terrorist? Oh, you don't want to know that sometimes terrorists aren't muslim, middle-easterners; that sometimes the terrorists are the white males across the aisle from you on the bus. That's certainly inconvenient; you can't look like a patriot for refusing to sit next to a white male on an airplane. I thought you wanted to be able to electronically track terrorist activities? Oh, you must not have realized that the feds could also see how much porn you look at on a yearly basis with the same technology - that somehow the terrorist activity was conveniently labelled so that they could filter out anything not labelled "terrorist activity." I thought you were sick of the CIA having information about terrorists but the FBI had no clue, or vice-versa? Oh, you didn't realize that the same databases also contain your public information, too.

Look, the Patriot Act doesn't really do anything that couldn't already be done, anyway. It just makes it easier for law enforcement to do. It makes information sharing easier. It makes task force coordination easier. But, hey, if you want to go back to pre-9/11 security and bureauocracy, that's your perogative; you're the American public. If you bitch enough you'll get your way.

Just don't be surprised when you find out you've sacrificed more of your American citizens for privacy.

I'm going to chime in about the war because ... well ... because I can. It seems to me that a lot of people have some false understandings about the war. Primarily, I hear things like "This war is bad because it's only about oil." Well, there are many things wrong with that sentence. First and foremost, of course war is bad. It's not supposed to be good. War, by necessity, involves death and bloodshed. So, of course, war is bad. But there is a reason we have an army; to fight wars. No person in the Armed Forces is deluded into thinking that they couldn't be killed at any possible moment; they all understand that their job is to fight and they might end up dying because of it. We've been spoiled since Vietnam (which was also a 'wrong' war) in that: a) the cold war didn't actually involve any fighting and b) that the Persian Gulf War was over in an hour and half.

But, about this war particularly. Of course, to understand it you have to go back to the first Persian Gulf war which was about Saddam Hussein abusing his power, and about oil. In the early 90s Iraqi Kurdish minorities started complaining about being oppressed by their country's leader (Saddam). Neighboring countries also started complaining about Iraq's political issues disrupting the region; to stop the complaining and to free up better access to the ocean Saddam marched his military into Kuwait. When the US complained, Saddam started cutting off oil supplies to countries in the area that were friendly to the US (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.). His solitary actions affected oil supplies and prices around the world. Pres. Bush 1 managed to get support from the UN to go in and stop the abuses and free the oil lines that were being tied up.

Of course, after we 'won' the war, Saddam said "Ha ha, I was just kidding," and promised to be good. Since then he has done everything in his power to taunt the US and the UN. He has violated OPEC regulations and varied oil output to cause wild fluctuations in oil prices, he has allowed his military to continue to oppress the kurdish minorities, he has given his sons free reign to terrorize the populace, and he has given aid and support to known terrorist organizations (including Al Quada). Reliable intelligence by countries other than US showed that he was assembling a nuclear program (which he was, but only now are we finding out it was power-related, not weapons-grade) and had factories producing biological weapons in contravention of numerous UN treaties. Of course, those reports now seem to have been wrong, but how were we to know that when Saddam stood in the way of every inspector to ever step foot in the country.

Our nation is very oil-dependent. We need it to power our precious automobiles; and if anything our SUV nation has become even more oil dependent. The GM Hummer gets 11 MPG on the HIGHWAY and the average SUV gets a little under 20 MPG. Meanwhile, auto manufacturers can't make the things fast enough. Our country needs oil and it needs it at a cheap price; otherwise we'll have to start using mass transit and we all know that Americans love their cars entirely too much for THAT! So, until you are ready to get rid of your SUV and jump on a train or at least drive something a little more gas-friendly, you can't complain about the need for oil.

Having established that Americans need oil, Iraq is one of the most powerful oil-producing nations in the world; behind Saudi Arabia. Given the worldwide (and US-specific) need for oil and the lack of stability from a country run by a leader gone amok, something had to be done. While there doesn't appear to be any 'tipping point' that is usually unmistakable in war-scenarios, it was clear from shortly after the Gulf War ended that Saddam had to go. He was de-stabilizing the region and de-stabilizing gas prices around the world. In the US prices fluctuated wildly from $1.00/gallon to unheard-of prices in excess of $2.50/gallon. Bill Clinton was too preoccupied (perhaps rightly) by domestic issues, but when the situation presented itself, we took advantage of it.

We were already in the region looking for Osama bin Laden and reports started leaking that Saddam was helping him out. Having the largest military in the world allowed us to keep pressure on Al Quada to keep them on the run and in disarray while we committed the rest of the military to a task that should have been accomplished years ago. Did we rush in prematurely or hastily? Probably, but we didn't really expect to be there prior to 9/11/2001. And, as I said, since we're there, we might as well just take care of it.

Problems have creeped up, mostly how to let the country run itself since we seemed to have worn out our welcome. But, "luckily" our President and Vice-president come from oil families and have significant contacts in companies that are large enough and diversified enough to control the situation without a whole lot of babysitting. Have things gone wrong with Halliburton? Sure. But the same types of things you would expect from any company that was handed free reign to rebuild an infrastructure (namely the "3 for you, 1 for me"-type shenanigans). Overall, having one company control the physical rebuilding is certainly more efficient than the government having to supervise/babysit/coordinate multiple companies. Such a situation leaves the government free to undertake other activities, like establishing a democracy and hunting down Bin Laden.

I'll be the first to admit that perhaps our administration is being something less than direct with the American Public. But hasn't every President? ("I did not have sex with that woman", "No new taxes", "I forget, I think it was Ollie North's fault", "We'll get the hostages from Iran", "I am not a crook", "Russians are getting ready to attack from Cuba", etc.) Regardless, I believe that ousting Saddam Hussein was the right move. And everytime you go to the gas station to fill up your SUV you can thank President Bush.

Post No Bills 01/09/04

OK...back to posting...I suppose...for now.

I don't understand why Andre3000's "My Favorite Things" is so reviled by the critics who seem to love the album. I have a feeling that this album reached a critical mass (pun intended) and now people are jumping on the bandwagon and don't even know why. Undoubtedly Speakerboxxx/The Love Below is a great (set of) album(s). As many know by now, Speakerboxxx, Big Boi's effort, is fairly traditional for Outkast (if such a statement exists). The album is straight up (for the most part) hip-hop-funk in the Outkast/Southern Rap style. As such, it is well-executed but boring. Of course, many are offended that I would call such a work 'boring,' but compared to Andre3000's effort almost all prior hip-hop is now boring and irrelevant.

The Love Below has set a new standard for rap and hip-hop. Like Beck before him, Andre has transcended the idea of mixing genres to achieve an entirely new genre unto himself. "Happy Valentine's Day" could have been written by Parliament (if George Clinton hadn't been smoking crack) and "Pink & Blue" does a good imitation of Sly and the Family Stone. But where do you stick a song like "Hey Ya!"? It's quite possibly the most perfect, brilliant pop song written since REM released "Stand" back in 1988. Some of the songs on "The Love Below" are on the money and only held back by Andre's absurdity; for example "Dracula's Wedding." DW is a great song, the tune is memorable and the melodies are catchy, the lyrics are absurd and just get in the way. Often, Andre's absurdity works in his favor (for example, Happy Valentines Day) but on this particular song, it keeps a good song from being great.

And where does a song like "My Favorite Things" sit? It's a bit of an enigma, that song. Created as a show tune, it sat for many years relegated to status as a childhood favorite to keep the kids quiet. Many people (most notably reviewers who tend not to like Andre's re-imagining of it) I'm guessing have never heard John Coltrane's version. Even knowing that John Coltrane re-worked the song, instantly makes Andre's version a little more understandable. The song, as performed by Andre, is a jazz masterpiece. DJ Shadow and all of the nu-electro-jazz leaders could take notes from Andre here. Floating in and out of the song structure is what made the Coltrane-Davis-Monk-era jazz so refreshing and vital. Of course, listeners now want their hands held. They don't want to have to strain too hard to get the melody and they want their solos concise, to the point and in time with the rest of the song. Jazz doesn't work that way. The song goes where it goes, it's up to the players to take it there. And here, Andre takes modern instrumentation and takes where no one expected. In my eyes that's a good thing.