Gore vs. Bush

Last night, one of the stations was showing the Presidential debate from last time around.

I can't stand listening to politicians give speeches. Usually, within a few minutes I become disgusted (and all the debate was was two politicians taking turns at giving speeches), so I only heard bits and pieces between flipping between this and something more interesting.

One thing that surprised me is the response to the question, "Do you believe that it is possible to safeguard Social Security without raising taxes or lowering benefits?"

Gore responded saying essentially yes, by depending on our continued prosperity, taking care of even the Baby Boomers would be no problem because he would put the current surplus in a locked box to pay down the deficit and the savings on interest would help pay off Social Security beneficiaries.

At this point, I once again became disgusted.

Overall, I would call myself an optimist. But I strongly believe in hoping for the best while you make sure you are prepared for the worst. To do otherwise is foolhardy bordering on dangerous, yet that was exactly what Gore proposed we do: hope for continued prosperity that was good enough to make the problem go away.

Especially with hindsight, we can see how disasterous this 'plan' (if it can be called a plan) would have been for us. The economy was already in a downward spiral (after the collapse of the tech bubble) when 9/11 hit.



The whole problem with people who have socialistic impulses or plans is that, while being incredibly pessimistic about what individuals can do for themselves, they are foolishly optimistic about how to pay for the immense benefits they propose. They never even seem to realize that increases in taxes never create as much revenue as the models predicted.

When you raise taxes on a so-called 'unfair' income, people divert their money so that it comes from other sources. When you increase taxes on income over a certain amount of money, people find ways to postpone receiving too much at one time or find ways to increase benefits without actual income. And when you put America at a tax disadvantage, people find ways to earn money from other places.

And if I have started to drift away from a critique of what Gore said to a critique of another presidential candidate's claims about his tax plan...well, sorry.

But not too sorry.

Yom Kippur, Day of Atonement

For most holidays, you say "Happy Holiday" or "Have a good time". Not so with Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur is not a joyous holiday, it is a reflective one. In direct contrast to most Jewish Holidays, instead of having eating as being a major component of the holiday, not eating is the major component.

Therefore, for Yom Kippur, you say "Have an easy fast".

Well, I had a really easy fast.

My mood wasn't significantly different from last Yom Kippur to this, nor was I spending more or less time concetrating on my sins and atoning for them. So what made the difference?

Pritikin, I think.

While here, I have gotten used to smaller portion sizes without feeling hungry (in fact, by only eating when hungry, I find I am eating less here than I normally do). Also, there are no refined sugars or carbs, so no spike in blood sugar followed by a huge drop made me hungry. And by not stuffing myself before, I did not stretch my stomach out.

Today, I am a bit more hungry than usual, but I am filling up on veggies and feeling good.

It makes me feel like G-d approves of the changes in my life, of my decision to make the changes and is helping me along.

I survived Jeanne and all I got was this lousy post title

At Pritikin, Hurricane Jeanne was basically a non-event. Yes, dinner was early last night, yes, the gym closed at 4pm and yes, the staff handed out flashlights and gave us care packages in case they couldn't have breakfast ready, but everything was fine.

This morning though, I was watching the same news programs you all are watching. The devastation caused by Jeanne is just horrible. I feel so bad for all of the people who have lost homes. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Madeline Albright

I was flipping through the channels last night, trying to get information on the CBS apology without access to the internet, and stumbled on a Hannity and Colmbs interview of Madeline Albright.

Now, please keep in mind that, until recently, I actively avoided even learning about politics. So, I knew nothing about Albright other than the fact that she was the former Secretary of State. I assumed she was of the statesman type of politician: respected, respectable, dedicated, mostly non-partisan.

Boy was I wrong.

The line I happened to flip to FoxNews for was her saying the chestnut about the President lying* to the American people. Colmbs (yes, she was being interviewed by the liberal half of Hannity and Colmbs) asked her why she thought the President lied: as he put it, "What do you think the President hoped to gain by this lie?"

How did she answer this? "The most dangerous thing, I think, is that we have a President who actually believes this false information."

A lie is defined as an intentional mistruth. Mistakes are not classified as lies unless there is some intent behind them. If I ask you what time it is and you tell me it is 6:30pm when it is really 7:30pm and unless you did it intentionally, you did not lie to me. Even if I miss my bus or don't pick up my little brother or suffer any other consequences because of this misinformation, it is not a lie.

If the President believed that he was giving the American people accurate information and he was incorrect, he was not lying.

Either Madeline Albright is stupid and does not know a simple definition of a commonly used word or...

She was lying.

Think about it.




*The reason I call it a chestnut is specifically because it claims the President lied, not that he was mistaken or wrong (though I might still argue with that assesment, I would consider it a reasonable claim to make).

The Link CBS Doesn't Want You To See...

Well, maybe I wouldn't go that far. But if you've been following Ra^thergate mess and wondering how this entire fiasco was possible (How could Rather put up such obvious forgeries? Who would even bother making such obvious forgeries? Why did the White House release the documents? Even if he didn't authenticate the documents before, why didn't Rather apologize when the fake aspect came to light?), you MUST READ THIS.

Is is accurate? Maybe. As far as my opinion goes I think that, even if it isn't accurate, it is extremely close to the truth (isn't that the standard for journalism these days?). Seriously, Daniel Wiener makes a very astute assesment of the facts and, as long as you keep in mind that it is an unproven hypothesis (made several days before CBS apologized), it is extremely worthwhile reading.

Please note: I was tipped off to this fabulous link (as I often am) by Gerry of DalyThoughts.com. Please visit Gerry's blog when you get a chance.

Too Little, Too Late

So, CBS has apologized for airing documents since they "cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report."

Wow. I am blown over in the depth of this apology. [/sarcasm]

This apology is unacceptable. An acceptable apology would include the term 'forged documents', not the wishy washy 'cannot prove they are authentic'. The documents are fake. Period. CBS showed not merely an error in judging the jounalistic standard, they aired a show that was blatantly wrong (as well as partisan...speaking of which, have they apologized to the President yet?). More than that, they forced their viewers to do their fact-checking for them AND, as if that wasn't enough, they made denials that insulted the intelligence of everyone who took the time to look at the documents and who knows Microsoft Word.

And does anyone doubt that the only reason they apologized is because of the pressure they got?

Their apology was less an admission of "We're Sorry" then "We're Sorry We Got Caught".

Dina Update

Sorry for the lack of posts...I've been so busy here at Pritikin that I just haven't had time (or energy) to post before now. After the bunch of posts right now, don't count on anymore until Sunday (which is 1-on the weekend when I will be less busy and more used to the program and 2-is not during Yom Kippur (Friday night to Saturday sunset) during which I will not be writing.

The amount I'm learning about the American Diet (and my own bad habits) is startling not because it is different than I thought it was, but because the problem is so much more extreme than I believed it to be. I have come to an entirely different place in my thoughts and motivation and will definitely be sticking to this when I leave (Dad, I would like to hold off a bit on the leaving...we should talk).

If you have a problem with your weight, blood pressure, cholesterol or any 'disease of affluence', I strongly suggest at least starting to look at Pritikin.

Where's Dina?

So Dina is somewhere other than her usual haunts, as she mysteriously alluded to in the last post. Where is she?

Somewhere incredible. Somewhere where they leave little cards on your bed each night with interesting sayings such as

I am endowed with the power to make the best decision for me.

Somewhere where she fully expects to have tons of fun and learn a lot of good stuff too. Somewhere that has the unfortunate expectation of wanting her to wake up at 6am tomorrow (ugh!) for blood and urine samples.

Where exactly?

A place called Pritikin.*



*I'll be giving you more details in future posts.

Rosh Hashanah Services

My synagogue is blessed with an entirely capable, smart Assistant Rabbi who leads the study services (which my family and I attend, rather than the larger, more traditional service) on the High Holy Days with incredible skill. I love the insights he brings to the services and I love how the services are more participatory as well as tending more towards Hebrew (which is good for me since, sadly, my Hebrew is very poor).

But, as good as our Assistant Rabbi is, he was totally eclipsed this Rosh Hashanah when the Rabbi spent part of the second day leading the study service.

The Rabbi used a well-known element of the Passover service, the telling of the four kinds of sons who might be at the Passover seder, to explain what he saw as the four kinds of Jews who come to the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah. I think he nailed his analysis and managed to give me a good deal of insight into my own behaviors on this holiday.

I was already sorry that I will have to have my Yom Kippur somewhere else this year*, but now I'm even more disappointed to be away from my synagogue.


*See my more recent posts to find out why.

New Traditions

In my synagogue, there is a wall that tends to be revolving art exhibits. Currently, there is a collection of black and white photographs showing various scenes of study from Jewish life. Several pictures of older men with beards and even side curls; a few of younger people, some of just scrolls or holy texts, one of a bookshelf in a Jewish library.

But my favorite?

A picture of a young boy, reading a book (and obviously intent on it), wearing a yarmulke and a GAP sweatshirt.

This is my favorite because of what it says about the combination of modernity and tradition; about acceptance of and by mainstream society while retaining uniqueness; about the new face of Jewish scholarship.

Also, because it just makes me smile.

Rathgate happened before?

According to the NY Times, Dan Rather is in a familiar place: he's being accused of being partisan. Jim Rutenberg, the author, seems to be rather dismissive of this, calling Rather "the television presence conservatives love to hate."

In fact, he does a pretty good job of substantiating the charges (they relate how Rather has tangled with all of the Republican Presidents and none of the Democratic ones) while still giving Rather the more powerful position in the article.

But whether or not Rather is partisan is not really the issue right now. Sure, partisanship goes to motives (if he is partisan it would help explain why he would not properly vet the documents), but partisanship does not explain if he allowed forged documents on his show.

However, since the evidence demonstrates that the documents used on the show were forged and since this NY Times article inadvertantly shows that Rather has been involved in partisanship in the past, a conclusion can easily be drawn about the entire situation.

Bathrooms and the Commons

Today we were talking to my dad's cousin at a family lunch. She has a 15-month-old baby boy and lives in New York City. She was complaining that, at the park she likes to go to, the bathrooms are disgusting. She asked if anyone had any idea of who she could complain to.

A few people made half-hearted suggestions but no one had any great ideas.

The real problem, as we began discussing it, is lack of incentive. There is no person who has an incentive to keep the public bathrooms clean.

What do you mean? The city has an incentive to keep them clean.

'The city' is not a person. Who exactly has an incentive to keep them clean?

In airports, the airlines as well as the stores want clean bathrooms to keep their customers happy. Malls have the same incentive: if they don't have clean bathrooms, customers are might want to shop somewhere else.

But no one realizes any penalties when bathrooms in public parks are disgusting.

In the course of this conversation, I was remined of an anecdote from John Stossel's Give Me a Break:

Start reading page 62 at TOO MANY RULES,
continue on page 63,
and finish on page 64,

for an explanation of how, through red tape and lack on incentive, self-cleaning, individual, inexpensive (25 cents), privately-owned bathrooms that would be available to the public, were kept out of NYC.

Bathrooms and the Commons

Today we were talking to my dad's cousin at a family lunch. She has a 15-month-old baby boy and lives in New York City. She was complaining that, at the park she likes to go to, the bathrooms are disgusting. She asked if anyone had any idea of who she could complain to.

A few people made half-hearted suggestions but no one had any great ideas.

The real problem, as we began discussing it, is lack of incentive. There is no person who has an incentive to keep the public bathrooms clean.

What do you mean? The city has an incentive to keep them clean.

'The city' is not a person. Who exactly has an incentive to keep them clean?

In airports, the airlines as well as the stores want clean bathrooms to keep their customers happy. Malls have the same incentive: if they don't have clean bathrooms, customers are might want to shop somewhere else.

But no one realizes any penalties when bathrooms in public parks are disgusting.

In the course of this conversation, I was remined of an anecdote from John Stossel's Give Me a Break:

Start reading page 62 at TOO MANY RULES,
continue on page 63,
and finish on page 64,

for an explanation of how, through red tape and lack on incentive, self-cleaning, individual, inexpensive (25 cents), privately-owned bathrooms that would be available to the public, were kept out of NYC.

Double Standards on Who Can Say What

At the Rosh Hashanah dinner tonight, we went around the table saying something we were thankful for or something we wished for for the new year. Most people said something along the lines of "I am thankful for my friends and family."

When it was my mom's turn, she said, "My wish for the new year is that the troops come home."

I wonder how she (and everyone else) would have reacted if I said, "I am thankful for the sacrifices made by our soldiers and my wish for the new year is that we are careful not to be too hasty in leaving lest their sacrifices be in vain."



No, wait, I forgot. She can articulate her opinion because everyone agrees with her; I can't because not everyone agrees with me. If she says what she wants, everyone can feel smugly happy; if I do, I might make people as uncomfortable as she made me. Incidentally, that is why I didn't say anything in response..

Reflecting on My Past Deeds and Defending My Future Ones

Tonight is the first night of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. I am going to celebrate with my family: with my mom's side of the family.

I'm really worried about a repeat of Sunday night. I know that Grandpa F. respects my opinions, even if he does not always agree with them (this is possibly due to his philosopher background...but whatever the reason, when the subject of politics does comes up between us, I have never felt the need to cover my true opinions). Grandma R.B. has shown that she does not believe that my opinions are really my own. But that is nothing compared to my Great-Uncle B.K.

Uncle B.K. is strongly liberal. Whereas I prefer to avoid politics in social situations (not always, but mostly), he makes many political statements on the assumption that everyone will agree with him. It's probably true most of the time...at least, when I'm not there. But I am there. And, while I reserve my starting political discussions for this blog, I am considerably less reserved about responding to political discussions.

I am probably going to be the only Bush voter there. Unfortunately, I expect that instead of being able to enjoy my holiday and reflect on my past deeds, I will spend the evening by being on the defensive.

Wish me luck. I'll need it.

At My Alma Mater

Terry McAuliffe spoke to my alma mater yesterday. Here's something from his speech:

"You go to Kerry's office, you've got [a flag] from his swift boat hanging on the wall and it is riddled with bullets," McAuliffe said.

Here's something from the Kerry website, talking about where he keeps his medals*:

He walked across his study to a secondary desk with clutter on top, mainly books, and opened the top right drawer. This is where he keeps all of his war medals.

"Nothing too fancy," he said as he pointed to the various boxes in which his medals were kept. "They don't bring back good memories." After glancing at them briefly we went back to our taped interview.

I'm confused. Does he proudly display memorabilia from his time in Vietnam or does he keep it in the drawer of an unused desk? If he does both, why would a bullet-riddled flag have better memories than medals he earned?

Unfortunately, the only answers I can think of are rather unkind things to think about a veteran (or the DNC Chairman) so maybe one of my readers can think of a good explanation.


*If this quote looks familiar, it is because I previously wrote an entry about this article.

Rathgate continues: L and 1

Dan Rather has something to say that he claims will prove that the documents are real, not forgeries. In his own words:

"Richard Katz, a software designer, found other indications in the documents. He noticed the lower-case "l" is used in documents instead of the actual numeral "1". That would be difficult to reproduce on the computer today.

Um...no, no it wouldn't be difficult. Observe:

Yesterday, I left my l5 light blue, class-l books in l of my girlfriends' houses.

In case you are confused, I just typed a lower-case "l" instead of a "1" when I wanted to create that effect.

Nice try Dan. Better luck next time.




Update: Joseph Newcome of Flounder.com actually demonstrates that it is extremely unlikely that "1"s are lower-case "l"s due to the difference between mono-spacing and proportional spacing. If his technical discussion is a little hard to get through, Gerry from DalyThoughts.com (who is doing a fantastic job of covering the story) has a great post that just focuses on this issue with an excerpt from Mr. Newcome's post as well as a clarification for those less technically inclined.

I Passed a Pop Quiz!

Edward Mendelson has a pop quiz regarding the Ra^thergate forged documents. His claim is that since you can't tell which picture shows text from a IBM Selectric Composer and which shows text from Microsoft Word, this proves that imitating a real document does not invalidate the fact that the document is real.

Now Gerry, from DalyThoughts (who, by the way, is the one who pointed me towards Mr. Mendelson's pop quiz) has a great post explaining why this is an incorrect line of reasoning as well as being a faulty comparison.

But, I decided to actually take the quiz.

The first thing I noticed is that, while similar, the fonts in the two samples is not identical. I had barely typed the first sentence before I became convinced that I knew which one of the samples was from Word. But, I continued with the quiz.

It was quite easy to format it and, when I was done, a simple comparison of each of the two samples with my sample proved that, in addition to the font difference, there was also a line spacing difference...the one with the same font matched up in line spacing, the other one simply would not match up.

Of course, I had figured out the correct one.

So, how exactly was this supposed to convince me that the documents were real?

The Dealmaker

My dad and I went out to dinner with some friends and then the friends' friend and girlfriend. (Just for clarification, my dad is 1, I am 2, the friends are 3 & 4 and the guy and the girlfriend are 5 & 6.)

It was a good meal, interesting conversation, nice people. The friends' friend explained that he was a dealmaker and mentioned that he was in the process of finalizing a deal. He started asking my dad some tax information (my dad being a tax accountant and all).

In the process, he began explaining what he does. What he does is find a company (or one finds him) where the company is not operating efficiently or needs more funding because the founders want to take the company to the next level.

But there are problems.

Founders are frequently idea people, scientists or artistic types. They lack the capital to do what they want yet are worried about losing control to financial types. Also, there can (and usually are) problems particular to the individual deal: to finish up a recent deal, the dealmaker literally moved in with the founders to help with the myriad of problems that previously prevented the founder from accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish. The work he does just sounds facinating.



At some point my dad brought up a husband and wife scientist team he knows who, through their brilliance have created a diagnostic tool that has the potential to help find cures for several diseases. Their work is so incredibly exciting, yet it is so hard to convince people of its worth not least because they have a hard time explaining the potentialities of their work in terms that laymen (i.e. money people) can understand. And, to continue and accelerate their work, they need more money.

What they really need is a dealmaker to help them.



The thing that got to me is that the Communistic/Socialistic/Particpatory Economics view of the world, the dealmaker is basically a middleman, and middlemen are worth nothing, stealing profits from the 'real' workers. But this guy has helped people. And he could be the answer for my dad's scientist friends in their quest to cure cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's and the common cold.

What he does adds so much value to the individual companies, he helps the founders get things that matter to them, he can help the world get things that we previously couldn't get.

I wonder how anyone can think that he is not doing an incredible service, one for which he deserves to be compensated.

An Otherwise Pleasant Evening

Tonight, I went out with my mom, my stepfather and my grandparents to celebrate Grandpa F.'s birthday (if you recall, Grandpa F. was recently in a car accident but he is feeling fine and driving a rental car paid for by his insurance company).

I promised myself that, especially because it was his birthday (i.e. not about me), I would not bring up politics.

Yeah. Like that happened.

But it really wasn't my fault. I swear.

See, Grandma R.B. was asking me about my job situation. I told her that I was fixing up my résumé and figuring out where I wanted to send it. She asked me if my father was going to get me a job. I wanted to tell her that he can't just snap his fingers to make a job appear for me, but instead, I just explained that he was just helping me figure out where to apply. I further explained that I'm not really in his field seeing as how he's an accountant and I'm--

She cut me off and told me I should work for a big firm. I explained that I was really more interested in working for a political think tank--

She cut me off again (she does that a lot) and told me I should call the Democratic group. I explained that I wasn't a Democrat and she asked me what I am. I started to explain that I was a Libertarian and--

She cut me off and asked me if this meant that I was going to vote Libertarian for president. I responded that I was voting for Bush--

She cut me off (notice a theme?) and told me that I was voting for him "because your father is".

Before I had more than a few seconds to get offended at this, she told a 'joke' that had as its punchline that only someone with an IQ of 50 would vote for Bush.



I'm tired of being told by certain people in my family that the only reason I think the way I do is because of my father. I can think for myself, thank you very much.

I'm tired of people, even friends and family, assuming that everyone agrees with them and expecting that they can say whatever they want politically while dissenting ideas are offensive.

I'm tired of liberals that I know personally as well as those in the media insinuating that to believe differently than they do means that you suffer from a lack of intelligence.

A Day of Remembrance

3 years ago today, we had a very painful wake-up call.

3 years ago today, innocents were killed in an attempt to topple our government.

3 years ago today, only a relatively small number of Americans were murdered, but all Americans were targeted.

3 years ago today, frantic phone calls were made across cities, states and the entire country, trying to find out if friends and family were okay.

3 years ago today, we came together because
3 years ago today, we learned that we are not as safe as we thought we were.



Today should be a day of remembrance. We should remember the innocents who died. They died for trying to live normal lives in our country.

Today should not be a day of protests or "mourning US policies". Today should not be a day of trying to drag attention to your pet cause. That's innappropriate. There are 364 other days (365 this year) when you can get attention.



I remember seeing the plane hit the building. I remember seeing the towers fall. I remember trying to call my father and not being able to reach him. I remember learning that my stepfather's office was much closer to the towers than I had previously thought. I remember trying to understand that there were people who hated us that much. I remember feeling that my safety had shattered. I remember wondering if this meant that all of the things I imagined for the future were no longer possible.

I remember the bravery of firefighters going into a building and I remember the horror of them never coming out. I remember the loss of innocents and heroes and the strength of a country that refused to be defeated.

Computer Illiteracy

By now, you have probably heard about the 60 Minutes story regarding George W. Bush's National Guard service and documents that shows that he didn't

You also have probably heard that they were forged. And forged badly.

In the controversy that is already being called Ra^thergate, CBS is insisting that the documents are authentic while they contain things that were not in common usage in the 1970s. Basically, many of the things that have been noted about why they are forgeries are things that *I* could have done correctly.

First, by using Times New Roman, a strictly computer font and the one that is most often the default on computers, the notes are identified as not being from a typewriter (this also includes the proportional spacing issue). It is the simplest thing in the world to change the font (although my mom has never gotten the hang of it). Furthermore, in the list of default fonts on my computer (Word from Windows 98) there is Courier New (which might not have gotten rid of the proportional spacing issue) and OCR A Extended (which would have gotten rid of the problem). Either of these fonts (as well as others that I have seen as defaults on other computers) would have been better choices for forging.

Second, there is the problem of the ^th and the ’ . Now, when I was a kid, I would sometimes play with the old typewriters at my grandparents' house. *I* could tell you that there is no such thing as the superscript button on a typwriter, not to mention no smart quotes. The difference between me and the forger is that I know how to turn the 'AutoCorrect' feature off in Microsoft Word. One of the notes even put a space between the number and the th, likely to prevent the AutoCorrect from kicking in.

This seems to be sufficient evidence of forgery without going into the fact that the son of the man who apparently signed the notes is claiming that this does not fit with statements his father made prior to his death about the then Texas Governor.



The thing that really gets me is the 60 Minutes fell for it. Sure, recognizing that the font is Times New Roman and realizing that that is not a typewriter font would require an expert (which, um, they should have hired, right?) as would seeing propotional spacing. But recognizing that the th is not from a 1970s typewriter only requires someone who has typed on both a computer and a typewriter...basically, anyone over the age of 35 who uses a computer today.

All appearances suggest that this was an attempt to discredit the President and his National Guard service. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe claims not only that he wasn't involved, but that Karl Rove was.

Personally, I am not willing to rule out the fact that a 'Republican operative' created obviously forged notes in hopes of showing that the media was unfair to the President by not properly vetting negative news.

If so, the point was certainly made.

Political Philosophy; Political Affiliation

I grew up in a very liberal area. I went to an Ivy League university which, while not as uniformly liberal as some other colleges, was also very liberal. I am in an age group, as are most of my friends, that is very liberal. My mother, and her side of the family, is also liberal.

In short, most of the people I have ever met have been liberals. More than that, in these environments, there is an assumption that everyone else agrees with the liberal philosophy as well.

Therefore, I am a bit of an anomoly. When others get an inkling that I do not agree with them on political issues and, more than that, that I disagree with some of their basic assumptions, it always launches into a discussion of what I believe.

I usually explain that I have a libertarian philosophy, but that I am not necessary affiliated with the Libertarian Party. When asked why (as I usually am), I explain that, given that our political system* with only two serious parties, people who have libertarian tendencies and are practical hold their noses and choose between the two parties. This leaves only the impractical, more extreme people to be involved in the party which, in turn, pushes the party further from the moderation necessary to appeal to median voter**.

In other words, minority parties tend toward extremism as the practical people who share the beliefs become members of the major parties and try to convince the party to adopt some of their ideas. In fact, these days, many people labeled 'moderate Republicans' are essentially members of the Republican party with libertarian tendencies.

*Poli-Sci geekiness: We have a Winner Take All system (without regional parties as they have in Canada) which tends to drive out minority parties, rather than a Propotional Representation system which allows non-regional minority viewpoints a greater voice.

**More Poli-Sci geekiness: In a two party system, the 'median voter' is the one to whom each candidate plays two because, according to the theory, both candidates can capture their own base leaving the voters in the middle open. Therefore, the candidate who can capture the voter in the middle will win.

Review of I, Robot

Yes, it is true, Dina is capable of writing a review without spoilers.

I, Robot is that incredible thing: a movie based on a written work that stays true to the original and is wonderful in its own right.

Instead of being a direct adaptation from one of Isaac Asimov's stories, it interprets the spirit of all of them. Will Smith, as the detective too leery of the robots that all others trust, is in the mold of Elijah Baley; Bridget Moynahan as Susan Calvin is only a touch off of Asimov's ubiquitous, straitlaced, understands robots better than people, robopsychologist.

Scenes, too, are taken directly from Asimov's collection. The scene where one robot must be found out of a room of identical robots from Little Lost Robot, the scene of a robot and child from Robbie, and VIKI is like one of the Machines from The Evitible Conflict.

Asimov's favorite themes are there too: the benefits of technology, the fear that technology will displace workers, irrational technophobia and fear of the implications of the Zeroth Law*.

And, since Asimov was the master of the 'puzzle' stories, it is appropriate that the entire movie is a puzzle with an eminently satisfying (although, I believe, not as neat as Asimov would have done it) ending.

*Okay, it's a tiny bit of a spoiler, but only if you have read all of the short stories, have a good memory for names and definitions, and haven't seen the movie. If, on the other hand, you don't know what the Zeroth Law is and you aren't going to read the stories, just google it.

Dean vs. Kerry vs. Kerry vs. Bush

Howard Dean, December 15th, 2003:

"[T]he administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at extraordinary cost..."

John Kerry*, December 16th, 2003; responding to Dean's remarks:

"I believe it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for violating UN agreements. I believed then – and I believe now – authorizing force was the only way to get inspectors in, and the only way ultimately to enforce Saddam Hussein’s compliance with the mandate he had agreed to, knowing that as a last resort war could become the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism.

And I also believe that those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President – or the credibility to be elected President."

*For the record, Kerry also made a point of calling Bush 'unilateralist' and that the President's policies resulted in us "paying too high a price – in dollars and the deaths of young Americans"

John Kerry, September 6th, 2004:

"[The invasion of Iraq is] the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"

Does this mean that John Kerry doesn't have "credibility to be elected President"? President Bush seems to think so...

President Bush, September 6th, 2004:

"No matter how many times Senator Kerry changes his mind, it was right for America then, and it's right for America now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

It's like they are playing musical quotes or something.

Dumb Things on Air America

Yesterday, on the Majority Report (I believe it was a rerun from earlier in the week) two people said really dumb things.

Sam Seder basically labeled Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and several others 'sell-outs', because "if you don't believe in [George W. Bush's] G-d and social conservatism, then there is no reason to vote for him because he isn't a fiscal conservative..."

Now, it is true that Bush is not nearly the as fiscally conservative as I would like, however, John Kerry (the only other practical choice) has been endorsed by the Communist Party of America (more precisely, the Communist Party of America has refrained from endorsing another candidate because, given their choices, they want Kerry to win). This gives lie to his statement that, if you are a fiscal conservative but not a social one, you shouldn't vote for Bush. Bush may not be perfect, but even the Communist Party recognizes that there is a difference between the candidates on economic issues; it is disingenuous of Seder to pretend that they are essentially the same.

Furthermore, there are other reasons than the ecomomic ones to vote for Bush: terrorism, national security, war in Iraq. Agree with Bush on these issues, disagree with him; don't pretend these aren't legitimate reasons for people to choose one candidate over the other.

And, as far as social issues go, I do not want the government involved. So you would think that I agree with John Kerry on, say, abortion. And I do, politically. I am pro-choice politically because I do not believe that life begins at conception. However, I have a great deal of respect for those who are pro-life because they do believe that life begins at conception. I have considerably less respect for those who claim to believe that life begins at conception and, at the same time, are pro-choice; in my eyes, this is tantamount to believing that people have the right to choose murder.



The other really dumb thing I heard on the Majority Report yesterday was said by Janeane Garofalo. She said that we shouldn't believe the mainstream media when they claimed that this was a horse race between Bush and Kerry because "I believe that it will be Kerry in a landslide! [cheers in the background]".

Apparently, Ms. Garofalo thinks that we shouldn't believe polls either. Poll after poll after poll has shown this race as too close to call; maybe radio hosts have access to a crystal ball.

Furthermore, this is akin to someone in Texas thinking that Bush will win by a landslide: it shows incredible lack of awareness of the rest of the country to think that, just because you and the people who surround you think one way, that is how everyone thinks.

Schwarzenegger Speaks

I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air. I said to my friend, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican!"

This is such a powerful statement. And to hear the way Arnold said it, as it was been repeated in the clips on the day after, was powerful.

I mean, think of the picture he created. An new immigrant, unable to speak the language, knowing none of the political background or backbiting of the past, having no idea of the personality of the candidates, has the ideas and ideas only, translated for him. He said that he had escaped socialism only to find it hear in the guise of the Democratic party, but that the Republican ideals offered him the real hope he was looking for.

And with his heavily accented voice a constant reminder of his origins, Arnold is a wonderful example of the American dream come true and the perfect spokesman for the Republican party.

Trip to NYC

Had an interesting trip into NYC yesterday. I wanted to check out the city under convention/protest conditions. I went to a place that offered refreshments (and bathrooms!) for protestors to check out what they were saying/doing. When I went there, they had some interesting literature.

One whole wall was covered with pictures (and some statements) from notjustastatistic.org. The pictures were of soldiers who died in Iraq, each with a statement that told some fact about the pictured soldier, "He was a boy scout", "He missed his own wedding", "She loved Stephen King novels". The originators of this campaign were right: it is very humanizing, very powerful. The soldiers aren't just numbers, they are young (too young, in many cases) men and women who had hopes and dreams and who died for their country. The campaign begs viewers to ensure that these men and women did not die in vain; from their "What is this project?" Statement:

"But instead of trying to ram an anti-war sentiment down people's throats, we are trying to transcend the politic by humanizing the Americans who have died in the war in Iraq."

Meaning, of course, that we should get out of Iraq before more lives are lost. But I noticed an interesting disconnect: under a few pictures, they had statements from family members that didn't entirely back up their anit-war stance.

Melissa Hobart's mother related that Melissa's daughter stated that her 'mommy was in Iraq fighting bad people'. It makes my heart hurt to think of a little girl who no longer has her mother. But it sounds as though Melissa was doing something she believed in.

Kenneth Conde Jr.'s father said, "As a Marine, I understand the decisions he made. I respect them. As a father, I wish he had come home ... Hopefully, it's going to be worth something and not just be a number or a statistic." The grieving father is totally honest, showing his conflicting feelings. And his second statement, the hope that the sacrifice is worth something is the honest, common, hope of a loving family member who hopes his grief at least has some meaning; it is not quite the exactly the anti-war sentiment that the campaign is promoting...



The next interesting table was one that was on voter registration. The guy at the table told me that they drive to battleground states ("We already have New York") to register voters in states that matter. He had worked on it and "About 90% of the people we register are democrats." I stifled myself and managed to avoid saying, "You mean, out of the people too lazy to register to vote, 9 out of 10 are democrats?"

There also was a Howard Dean table...but I didn't actually check it out. I was kinda worried about laughing at them.


Oh, and one more thing. I personally hate when people put advertising stickers on public property...I consider it to be a form of littering. I feel the same way even when it is funny, even when when it's thought-provoking and, yes, even when it is political.

Apparently, anti-Bush people disagree and pro-environment people don't think it is littering.