Iraqi Elections

The news from Iraq is mostly good. It is truly amazing to see the happy faces despite long lines, the dancing in the street while showing off their inked fingers, the relatively few instances of violence despite the massive threats against the people of Iraq.

The number of dead in Iraq was listed, over and over, as 44.

I just found out that 9 of those deaths were the suicide bombers.

People who murder others should not be listed in the same body counts as innocent victims. It's just wrong to do that.

35 people died while trying to exercise their right to vote. 9 people saved us the trouble of tracking them down to execute them for murder.

When candidates don't go away

One of the nicest benefits of an election is that the campaigns are over.

Sure, it's nice that it is a peaceful transfer of power and all that, but really, we all just want the darn thing to be over. When it is over, one of the candidates disappears for a while, eventually becoming a former candidate of statesman like proportions.

Even after the 2000 election, Gore eventually went away. And, before he did, the biggest complaint wasn't really about who was going to win...the biggest complaint was that the legal challenges were dragging everything on.

Even so, eventually it became official. Bush won, Gore lost and Gore went away. All may not have been right with the world, but we came to a conclusion and moved on.

So when I saw John Kerry on "Meet the Press" today, I was surprised. But, given his continued position as a senator (btw, I was always surprised that he didn't resign...I always thought that, when running for a higher office, you gave up the lower one, if only to show that you thought you would win), I figured he was being asked to comment on the remarks by the other Massachusetts senator.

While he did respond to Kennedy's remarks, it quickly became apparent that he was there as a former presidential candidate, to talk about Iraq and the race. He talked about his simple 4 point plan* and how, if he were in charge, things would be better.

After saying not to 'over hype' the historic Iraqi election (funny, how the words of his warnings sounded the same as Condi Rice's warnings that the elections wouldn't end the violence, yet the tenor of his sounded more negative), he talked about why he lost the presidential race. Apparently, it was because he didn't spread his percentage win in the battleground states out correctly. What, nothing about the voters?

Oh, and because the voters didn't want to remove a sitting President during war. Interestingly, not because the voters had no faith in Kerry's ability to handle the war (y'know, given that he showed his massive military strategy by offering a plan that differed from current strategies only by offering a veto to other nations) and absolutely nothing about voters preferring one candidate over the other on any other issues. According to Kerry, the primary reason people voted for Bush is...because he was there.

Kerry was so condecending. It was so annoying. I just kept thinking: "When will he go away?"

*does it count as a plan if it is identical to strategies that are already in place?

Right Now, On The O'Reilly Factor

A man who compared the 9/11 victims to Nazis has been asked to speak at Hamilton University*.

On O'Reilly, their is a 9/11 widow and her son, who attends Hamilton, explaining how hurt and horrified they are that an otherwise good university would give this man a platform for his hateful views. A representative of the university is also there. He admits that the speaker has some truly horrible things to say, but insists it is a "Freedom of Speech" issue.

No one is suggesting that this disgusting man's freedom to say whatever garbage he wishes be abridged. But giving him a forum to espouse his views is not "Freedom of Speech", it is giving him a platform. He does not deserve a platform and all people of conscience should avoid giving him one.

If he wants to talk, he has that right. But make him do it on his own dime.



*In their defense, when they first asked him to speak, it was on another topic and they were unaware of his cruel comments at that time.

Supermarket Errors

I was at the supermarket behind a woman and her young son, watching them buy a substantial amount of groceries. $197.91, to be exact.

The woman told Suzie, the cashier, that she wanted to pay $100.00 in cash and put the rest on her card. After handing over what appeared to be 5 $20s, the woman attempted to swipe her card and pay the balance.

Suffice to say, she was shocked and a bit upset when the machine asked her to pay for $196.91, and asked Suzie what was wrong. It took Suzie a minute to figure out what was wrong before she said, "Whoops, I put in that you paid $1."

Kind of a big mistake, but the woman was calm and Suzie fixed it.

The woman then paid the $96.91 (apparently, she got $1 off for her trouble) and Suzie handed her the receipt to sign.

The woman took a moment and then asked if Suzie had swiped her savings card. Suzie admitted she hadn't but pointed to the receipt and said that there were no savings to be had. The woman insisted that she had seen several items on sale and wanted her savings card swiped. Suzie adamantly insisted that the receipt demonstrated that there were no savings available.

The woman closely examined the receipt and indicated that she should have saved over $16. Suzie then directed her to go to customer service and then finished the conversation by saying, "Everyone makes mistakes."

The woman gathered up her groceries and, obviously upset, left to deal with her refund.

Suzie called after her, "Mistakes happen all the time."

After the woman left, Suzie continued on this theme, "I'd like to see the person who doesn't make mistakes, I'd like someone to show me that person" and "She forgot to give me the card, I forgot to ask for it, both of us made mistakes."

By this point, I was upset. This cashier made, not one, but two major mistakes that, if the customer hadn't caught them, would have cost the customer over $116. The cashier owed the customer a profuse apology, not the excuse that all people make mistakes.

Yes, all people make mistakes. That is why, when people apologize for mistakes, we are inclined to forgive them. We are considerably less inclined to forgive people for actions that are made with malice and forethought...but even evil actions against us are more likely to be forgiven if an apology is offered.

Right now, the woman is probably seriously annoyed. She was forced, through no fault of her own, to deal with a serious shock and then wait on an additional line for savings that she should have been given already. Meanwhile, Suzie probably feels as though she is the wronged party, that she made a simple mistake and was not forgiven. But the reason why she was not forgiven is that she did not take the step necessary for forgiveness.

Had Suzie simply taken responsibility for her mistake, this could have ended more simply and quickly.

When did saying something was a mistake in such a way to disavow responsibility, replaced a simple apology? Why is saying "It was a mistake, you make them too" easier than saying "It was a mistake, I'm sorry" or even just "I'm sorry"?

Now that it is over: The Counter Inauguration

There are two major aspects of the Inauguration protests: 1-the traditional, people in D.C. with signs, turning their backs on the President protest and 2-the "Not One Damn Dime Day" Protest.

To take them in order...

The traditional protest was, by all accounts, rather successful, at least from the perspective of getting attention. The fact that there were people talking about it the next day (albeit in more negative than positive terms) means that it got attention. It was never the sort of protest that would change policy, actually, the people talking about it before the fact never attempted to claim otherwise: they only claimed that this would be a signal that Bush did not have a mandate.

One thing to consider though: even some Democratic congressmen thought there was innapropriate behavior by the protestors. Reports of people throwing rocks at the Vice President's car were the most mentioned and, was condemned by all.


As for the "Not One Damn Dime" protest, it was a failure.

I mean, c'mon, it was doomed from the beginning. How many people are willing to put their jobs on the line (by not showing up) for a symbolic protest? And if some massive number of people decided to call in sick...it wouldn't mean much during flu season.

And look at the age group most likely to want to be involved in slacktivism (slacker activism or activism that requires minimum effort): college students. As a recent college graduate, I just want to remind people that college students have access to 'free' food and are not particularly likely to spend money in the middle of the week.

By the way, I was actually out on Inauguration day. I saw for myself that people were definitely out and spending freely...more than a dime each, I would think.

And if it had worked, then what?

It wouldn't have harmed President Bush in any way...only the American people. Every time a trade happens, both parties are better off (a basic tenet of capitalism). When trades don't happen, people are worse off.

When people boycott a company, they are willing to be slightly worse off themselves in the hope that the company is massively worse off. Who were the intended victims of the boycott? The American people.

Makes one wonder if that isn't what the protest organizers were hoping.

Now that it is over: The Inauguration

The Inauguration was pretty interesting. As someone who is usually bored to tears by pomp and circumstance (sitting through my own graduation was painful), I was quite surprised about how much I wound up watching. True...I flipped back and forth between the coverage and real tv, but I saw much more than, say either convention or any of the debates.

I was particularly impressed with Bush's speech. Freedom, as a basic human right that all people should enjoy...how very Founding Father of him.

And I found some of the responses and reactions to the responses of those who said there was too much religion in the speech. Anything that gets people to pull out centuries of Presidential speeches is amusing...and after that complaint, everyone started bringing out speeches all the way back to Lincoln.

One thing that kinda pissed me off was the reaction of virtually all Democrats, regardless of their opinion of the religion in the speech. Basically everyone I heard complained that Bush did not put details of exactly how he planned to accomplish freedom throughout the world...in a 20 minute speech. (I wouldn't have thought that 20 minutes was enough time to do that, but that's just me.)

Many people also seemed to be complaining that this was a massive departure from U.S. policy. Yeah, the idea that human beings have ineliable rights was really just sprung on us. [/sarcasm]

I even enjoyed the balls a bit. The people attending were so excited, so happy to be there. And when Bush told the people that he wanted to have a dance with the First Lady, not only were the people at the ball thrilled beyond measure, even thought the tv, I was a bit excited.

Of course, that particular moment was not made for tv...Bush said basically the same line at each ball. But it was new for the people at the balls...and boy did they appreciate that line.

It was really nice...and at the last ball, the ball for members of the armed forces, the President put a slightly different spin on it by asking a young servicewoman to dance with him as a serviceman danced with the First Lady. The nervousness was practically dripping off the soldiers, the First Lady and the President were gently trying to get the soldiers to relax...it was quite a lovely moment.

Death Penalty Loopholes...

16 years ago, Michael Ross was convicted of murdering 8 women after having raped most of them. He has since admitted his guilt...there will be no overturning of this conviction, no newly found evidence to prove his innocence. He is guilty of the crimes of which he has been convicted.

So?

Well, his sentance was unusual for Connecticut...he was given the death penalty. His execution will be the first in the state in 60 years.

Again, so?

He has given up his fight to delay his execution. After 16 years of appeals and legal manouvers to delay his punishment, he has decided to conceed to the inevitable...

...and his father and former public defenders have decided to attempt to use this concession as evidence of his mental instability and use that as a reason to appeal his sentence, if not his conviction.

Mr. Ross has stated that he is ready to die, as sentenced...his father and the former public defenders are filing this appeal completely against his will.

One of the reasons given for why people should be against the death penalty is that the cost of compliance is quite high. In many cases, the cost of the many years of legal bills (with the state frequently needing to fund both sides of the battle) is higher than if the convicted person were simply incarcerated for life. Silly me, I had always assumed that if convicted criminals would just take their punishment, rather than filing frivoulous* appeals, we would be better off as a society.

But let's look at the most serious issue this appeal sets up...if Mr. Ross gets a permanent stay of execution, there will be a rash of death row inmates clamouring to be executed, and lawyers will rush to say that this is proof that they can never be executed.



*as opposed to substantive appeals, which, of course, I strongly believe they should file

Bigotry of Liberals

This Sunday, my mom's friend A. invited us over to show off her newly done kitchen. While there, she, near spontaneously, started attacking President Bush.

She blamed him for single-handedly being: the cause of anti-Americanism in the world, the Iraq War being a total failure and the problems with Social Security. She followed this up with saying he was a stupid moron who was simultaneously smart enough to commit the massive evil deeds that his cruel mind comes up with.

If you think I'm exaggerating, I'm not. It was an incredibly vicious attack...with no provocation.

Incredulous, I asked her if she was serious. She responded with an 'of course' and continued her attack.

I reminded her that 51% of the country strongly disagreed with her (and, as soon as I figured out how to say it politely, I planned to continue with 'and many of the other 49% voted because of policy or party and not because they have such ridiculous and nasty ideas'). Before I could say anything else, she said "and how scary is that? That those kind of people live in this country."

I was stunned for a moment.

This is a woman who decided to file for bankruptcy, maxed out all of her credit cards immediately before filing, and easily lived off the salary of her neurosurgen husband when she did actually file.

The idea that this woman dared to judge anyone else left me near speechless.

She continued saying something along the lines of them being religious fanatics.

I started saying that, most definitions of 'religious' used in polls in this country result in 96% of people being given that label.

She said that that was scary as well.

Every so often, my mother comes home and says something about A. that leads my stepfather to ask, "Why are you still friends with her?" the unnecessary bankruptcy just one incident in a long line.

I now know she has only disgusting things to say about the President and is bigoted against people from the parts of the country that is not ultra-liberal as well people who are religious.

I was the only one in that room who was disturbed by her comments. Why did others think that this bigotry was okay when I know that racial bigotry or bigotry about sexual preference would have produced horrified, shocked and embarassed reactions.

Why is that the case?

And Mom, why are you still friends with her?

Hillary's Having a Bad Week: Part II

President Bush nominated Michael Chertoff to be the new Homeland Security Secretary.

So why have I listed this under 'Hillary's Bad Week'?

First, he was chief council in the Whitewater investigation, that is, he helped investigate the Clintons.

Secondly, he was later nominated for several Senate-confirmable positions, including the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. For that position, the only negative vote was that of Senator Clinton.

Yes, when given the opportunity, Hillary expressed her displeasure on an investigation into her and her husband's possible illegal activities by casting a vote against a appellate court judge nominee...please note, she had so little basis for voting against him that she was unable to convince anyone else (not even a member of her own party) to join her in her protest vote.

This is going to make the vote on whether to confirm Chertoff as Homeland Security Secretary more difficult for Hillary. If she votes to confirm him, she will be asked why she thought he was unacceptable for the appellate court but acceptable for the more important position of Homeland Security Secretary. If she votes against (and doesn't manage to get others to join her) she will be seen as infusing personal dislike into national politics.

Between this and the investigation into her aide's campaign fraud, there have been suggestions that this will not only affect her plans of running for the presidency in 2008...but may affect her chances in next year's Senate race.

Hillary's Having a Bad Week: Part I

So, first, Senator Clinton has a major fundraiser from her 2000 senatorial campaign indicted for campaign fraud (an incorrect filing with the election commission) earlier this week. That's damning enough, even if it were some kind of mistake or some mis-filing that had no real effect on anything. But it looks like the fraud may have been enought to win her the election.

Remember the situation in the summer of 2000. Hillary Clinton was running against Republican Rick Lazio. Hillary had no problems with soft money...but had always said that soft money was a bad thing. She also did not have nearly as much in hard money. Rick, on the other hand, was just awash in hard money. Not from New Yorkers, but people all over the country really didn't want another Clinton in a national office. And all of the Clinton-haters sent checks of $1000 each.

So Rick made a bold move...he challenged Hillary to 'put her money where her mouth was' and ban soft money for the remainder of the campaign. After all, he was in the better position if he got her to agree.

Eventually, she did agree. But, as is now coming out in the wake of the indictment, soon after she agreed, she suddenly had access to $280,000 of hard money due to her aide's undereporting of the actual cost of a major event. The law states that 40% of an event of this type's cost must be paid with hard money. Had he reported the event's actual cost of $1.2 million rather than the underreporting of $400,000, Hillary would have been in a tough position, financially (a reminder...in a senate campaign $280,000 is a lot of money).

Hillary must know that the indictment, while not directly at her, definitely implies that she had knowledge of the fraud. As anyone in politics knows, $280,000 campaign decisions are not made without the candidate's knowledge. Hillary is probably having trouble sleeping due to worries about any evidence that might legally implicate her.

More Coercive 'Charity'

One issue that pops up every so often (and has popped up now with the Tsunami disaster) is businesses giving charity.

This tends to be approved of by the general public, although the general consensus is that businesses have ulterior motives for giving such charity. I believe that businesses have no business giving unless they have the ulterior motive of believing that the advertising value of the charity will give them more money than they are giving away*.

Why?

For basically the same reason that I am against the government giving 'charity'...it's not their money!

It is the investors' money and should not be used in a so-called 'charitable' way without the permission of the people whose money it actually is. It's easy for boards to vote away the money that isn't theirs...but there is nothing virtuous about stealing money from others to make yourself look good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My father, though, had an interesting idea. Let's assume that the people on a given company's board are people who want to give money to a particular cause (in this case, tsunami victims) yet are moral enough to recognize that the money is not theirs. What can they do?

Let's say the board wants to give $5 million and their company has 50 million outstanding shares. What they can do is offer a special dividend of 10 cents per share. Each investor then can choose individually whether or not to donate the money.

Stockholders for whom every penny counts can save or reinvest the money. Stockholders who believe that the tsunami victims are getting enough money, but the fight against cancer or AIDS is getting shortchanged can donate their money elsewhere. And stockholders who agree with the board that money needs to go to tsunami victims will be able to choose to give charity.

*with only a minor exception: if a business is completely privately owned and all owners agree that they wish to give charity, then they are agreeing as individuals and giving their own private money

Tsunami and Compulsory Government 'Charity'

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head."

-- P.J. O'Rourke

That has been one of my favorite quotes for years now (frequently used as an away message on AIM). Now, in helping the victims of the tsunami, the world's government's leaders competing on who can be the most charitable (with money not their own) and this quote is ever more relevant.

There is nothing charitable about a president, prime minister or other government leader giving away money that it has forcibly taken from its citizens through taxes. There is no generosity involved in using other people's money to do something you believe should be done.

This is not to say that I believe that the world's governments should have been sitting by watching people die. On the contrary, while many individuals wanted to help, governments, with their standing armies and immediate access to large sums of money, were the most capable of getting the money and supplies where it was needed, when it was needed.

But now? There are mechanisms in place for individuals to help, charitable organizations that will get the money where it is needed most...heck, Google has a link on its search page that, within two clicks, people can donate online.

And people will help. People are helping. People are choosing to take their hard-earned money and use it in this way (as opposed to other charitable causes, investment opportunities or the other ways people use their disposable income) because they feel that this is the best use of their money.

But when the government uses the money, it takes the choice away from the people who live in the real world and are better at making choices than bureaucrats or politicians (honestly, would you want any bureaucrat or politician making any of the choices in your life?)...besides, it's their money and their moral right to choose.

Definition of "Honest"

While in CA, visiting my family, my uncle, stepfather and my aunt's brothers were having a 'political discussion'. Basically, they were doing the same old boring (non-substantive) Bush/Republican bashing without even considering that *gasp* other people might have different perspectives.

While clearing the table, I made an interjection here and there, mostly just to let them know that they weren't the only people in the room and that they should be able to back up their arguments.

Then, Uncle J. said that he considered Bill Clinton to be "an honest man".

I just looked at him in total shock and said, "Excuse me?"

He reiterated his statement and I asked him what his definition of a dishonest man might be.

Ignoring my question, I was asked if I believe George W. Bush to be an honest man. I admitted that I don't think any politician is honest and that, given that Bush is a politician, I don't believe he is honest either...but that Clinton was very far from my definition of honest.

My stepfather said that "Clinton only lied about sex."

So, basically, his definition of "an honest man" is "someone who only* lies about some things". Silly me, I thought the definition was more like "someone who doesn't lie".

Then P. pointed out that when Clinton lied, people didn't die. I managed to stifle it, but I found myself desperately wanting to point out that bumper stickers tend to make poor arguments in a serious discussion.

Instead, I asked what specific 'Bush lie' he was talking about. He started a convoluted line of reasoning that seemed to have as it's point that Colin Powell said something P. didn't agree with.

Riiiiiiiiight.

I asked him how exactly this was an example of a 'Bush lie'. He responded that this was proof af an atmosphere of lies that surrounded Bush.

So basically, he answered the question he wish I had asked, rather than the one I actually wanted answered.

The conversation continued in this vein for a while, getting more and more frustrating for me as I would continue pose questions and not receive relevant answers while the precise topic at hand constantly shifted. I'll spare you further description.


*After I came home and related this conversation to my father, he pointed out that many people would lie about really important stuff, in the consequences were severe enough, even if they normally tell the truth. But if someone lies about the unimportant issues (if you'll recall Clinton's defenders insisted that sex was one of those really unimportant issues), doesn't that mean that that person is all the more likely to lie about the important things?

Randi Rhodes and the Plot Against the President

If you are a regular listener of Randi Rhodes...or heck, if you have ever listened to her, you know she is convinced that there was voter fraud on a massive scale, particularly in Ohio. She didn't want the President to win, she wants someone to overturn the election results and was desperately looking for ways to convince others to agree with her.

She has finally accepted that he will be the president for the next 4 years, but she still wants to make a stink.

Her idea is to delegitimize Bush's second term. She is asking for at least one senator (preferably all of the Democrats) to join with the congressmen that already plan to protest the election results and for them to jointly require debate at tomorrow's joint session. She wants them to throw the vote to the House of Representatives, not because she thinks that will change the election outcome (Bush would have the votes to win), but because she wants him to be known as the president who was never voted into office by the people.

After the razor-thin election in 2000, I understood why people felt that President Bush's election wasn't necessarily legitimate.

But now?

President Bush has won the 2004 election with, not only the first majority (not merely plurality) vote since his father took office, but by the vote by the greatest number of voters in our nation's history.

Even if Randi succeeds, Bush's presidency will not be delegitimized...the House of Representatives will merely give their support to the President's popular and electoral vote win.

At the same time, I suspect any attempt to do this will help delegitimize Congress...

My New Year's Resolution

I've been dealing with some personal issues lately. A side effect of that is that I have not been motivated...in anything, including working on this blog. I'm working my way through these issues and am now ready to start doing the things I enjoy again.

So I'm back. And I plan to stay back.