What You Won't See On the News

We spent the afternoon walking Baltimore.

I am more afraid of the consequences of my wife knowing that than I was that we would get hurt. And if you stop reading here, I hope that thought stays with you: the fact that there is no reason to be afraid.

We started in Harbor East - this is the upscale centerpiece of the downtown area, where my daughter works. For the past several days, National Guard troops have been lining these streets, carrying AR-15s, looking bored, and watching yuppies and hipsters scurry back and forth from Whole Foods and the wine shop to the ritzy hotels and apartment buildings.

First, we went west, towards the Inner Harbor. We waved at Mr. Trash Wheel (I'm a huge fan), and we headed over the bridge by the National Aquarium. There were probably close to 100 soldiers and cops lining Pratt Street, shoulder to shoulder, looking up the empty streets toward City Hall. To call their apparel "full riot gear" seems an understatement; there were half a dozen carrying gas guns and bandoleers of tear gas.

We said hello to some of the soldiers (and airmen!), and we were not afraid.

There were a lot of civilians, like us, roaming nervously along the water and eyeing the situation. We walked down past where the forces stood arrayed against what might come, and found a crosswalk. On the other side of Pratt, there were almost no cars, and very few people. There were a few young, 20-something black men, mostly in pairs, walking towards us, talking about the protest march.

We said hello to them, and we (and they) were not afraid.

At City Hall, there were a lot of people milling around. Most of them were either black and holding hand lettered signs, or they were with the press. There were a couple of groups on the side streets, that appeared to be part of different religious organizations, speaking to each other over portable microphones, but they were out of sight of the media.

The news vans were packed bumper to bumper around the square, and easy-up tents were erected over sound boards, lighting equipment, and scurrying techs. There were dozens and dozens of people there, but the mood was light; a lot of the folks had their kids with them. Two adorable twin girls were with their dad, and their schnauzer; they carried balloons that said "All Lives Matter," and they posed by the barricades in front of the lines of Guardsmen while their dad took their pictures. Then they turned and waved and blew kisses at the soldiers.

I told them that I liked their balloons, and none of us were afraid.

We followed the barricades up Gay Street, and under the Jones Falls overpass at Saratoga. Brent bought two "Black Lives Matter" shirts from a guy hanging out and selling them from his car. We live in the future, so of course his phone had the square thing for swiping credit cards. A black lady approached me and asked if the shirts came in any other colors, and I told her that I had only seen them in white. 

We kind of looked at each other, both thinking the same thing, and I think both of our mouths twitched a little bit, not quite sure enough of each other to laugh about it outright - but the point is, we weren't afraid.

Back up on President Street, we stood across from the police headquarters; Fayette was closed and barricaded, and there were a couple of Guards and a cop taking a break and eating some dinner - behind them, on the wall of the police headquarters was a huge recruitment banner.

Our first thought was "how ironic" - but if you really want to change things, maybe it starts here?

A photo posted by Tad Callin (@tadmaster69) on May 2, 2015 at 7:48pm PDT

We roamed back toward the car, stopping for some impulse book shopping. (I bought a nifty edition of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and selected writings to include the Federalist Papers and Common Sense. I wish more of our leaders would read them.) We dropped the books off at the car, chatted with some soldiers and airmen who were getting some food, and headed eastward from Harbor East towards Fells Point.

The soldiers were less prevalent, but they were still there - Humvees were parked down side streets, and patrols of one or two Guards strolled around their assigned blocks along the cobbled brick streets, while cover bands blasted their versions of Bob Marley, 311, and Rusted Root songs. The patrons weren't numerous, but there was a kind of defiant cheerfulness about them.

My favorite was this guy, though (note the Hummer and soldiers in the background):

Fells Point tonight #Baltimore

A video posted by lydiandude (@lydiandude) on May 2, 2015 at 5:13pm PDT

But...

We weren't afraid.

Why not?

Partly because we're privileged. I have to acknowledge that - two white guys and a white girl walking the streets (two of them in "Black Lives Matter" t-shirts) aren't going to get looked at twice by any of the police or soldiers. The fact that we're veterans doesn't hurt - the Network Warfare guy and I hit it off in the Five Guys, and were instant buddies. And even before buying the shirts, none of the black people protesting gave us any reason to feel uncomfortable in our city - we were all neighbors, equally free to be in the public square, and equally exasperated with the media circus.

But the main reason we weren't afraid was because the people who are angry are not angry at us.

The national news has made much of our city's story this week, but for all of the hand wringing and race baiting in the national media, they have failed utterly to tell you the truth about Baltimore. And that truth is this:

Baltimore is full of angry black citizens who are fed up with having their friends, family, and neighbors killed in police custody. They're tired of the corruption of their police department, and the failures of city leaders - not just recently, but for a long time, now. (2013 example, 2012 example, another 2013 example, and many more from the Baltimore Sun files.) If you want to understand this situation, you must read David Simon's take, and Ta-Nehisi Coates's piece.

While the rioting is certainly a Bad Thing, and in no way justified, it isn't the main thing that has happened here this week. A lot of people behaved badly, but focusing on that violence is misleading. Reporting only that is an example of saying something that is factually true while still being dishonest - because as many have pointed out, the same people pouring out their derision on the rioters have said nothing at all about the 100 people who died in the custody of the Baltimore police since 2010. And here's the uncomfortable truth about the riots:

They were the smallest part of this week's events.

The rioting was limited to one night - and while I can't point you to a news source that says this, it seems to me from reading the Facebook and Twitter posts of friends and friends' friends that what happened at Mondawmin Mall - the spark that set off the violence and looting - was also due to actions taken by the police. There were hundreds of school kids who were trapped on the streets because the city suspended bus services, and they had no way to get home from school. The police - in full riot gear - started busting up groups of them, and to indulge in an understatement, things got way out of control.

As I heard it told, there were about 250 looters arrested - and most of them were released after 47 hours, because even with a special order extended the time allowed for submitting charges, there weren't enough commissioners to do the paperwork, and they were set free. That tells me that these "riots" that have been hyped and fretted over were not the central event here. And I only hope that as the charges against the six officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray are taken to court, that the media attention will stay focused on that, instead of on the rash behavior of one or two nights.

Because the discussion that needs to happen is about repairing trust in the local government and law enforcement. I hope that the angry people I saw in the square outside city hall today will stay involved, and hold their local representatives accountable for making these changes. I hope that the rightfully outraged, and non-violent citizens of all ethnic backgrounds in the city will ignore their privileged, suburban critics and keep demanding that accountability.

And I don't expect it, but I hope all of my friends and neighbors in the surrounding county areas will stop foaming at the mouth about "Castle doctrine" while they stroke their guns. Fantasizing about getting the chance to take a shot at their fellow citizens and blowing racist dog-whistles on social media is not going to solve problems for anyone; I hope that instead, they'll remember that they're supposed to be models for good behavior - especially the Scout leaders - not pouring fuel on the fire that brought the National Guard to our streets.

Yes, of course we should support the hard working police - the three of us went out on the streets today in part to do just that - but those police are working hard for us...and "us" should include everyone who lives here. That isn't the case, yet, and the protesters are out there on the streets to make sure that happens. Maybe you are one of the people who finds their anger and their protesting scary, but you're only getting a taste of the fear they live with all the time.

Yes, it's #NotAllPolice that are the problem, but it only takes one (or sometimes six) to do irreparable damage, and it's clear that more needs to be done to weed out those "bad apples".

When that happens, none of us will need to be afraid.

Lb4Lb#9: Yours, Mine, and the Truth

There's three sides to every story:
Yours
Mine
the Truth.
- Cupid's DeadSometimes we're just too clever for our own good.

Extreme is a band that has suffered from straddling a line between down-to-earth and over-the-top. They clearly had the chops and the musicianship needed to rule the earth, but they wanted something else. And what they wanted was something that you can't come right out and ask for: your fans have to figure it out on their own.

I'm a hapless romantic
St-t-tuttering p-poet
Just call me a Tragic Comic
'Cause I'm in love with you
- Tragic ComicI'm one of the many fans and critics who consider their best effort to have been the album entitled (somewhat ambiguously) III Sides To Every Story. It was their third, following up their breakout hits More Than Words and Hole Hearted. If the world was a fair place, then III Sides would have been the homerun the band needed to hit. It showcases one of the world's best guitarists without being a "guitar" album, and it blends thoughtfulness, spirituality, and humor in a wickedly funky metal confection.

The band tried to pull off something really difficult with their concept. After all these years, even a fan like me isn't entirely sure what the message was, or what it all really means. I know that there are parts that I really get, and others I don't. I'm never entirely sure I'm comfortable with what it says.

Mr. Goody Two
Do you really thing the world
Can be Black, White, and Jew?

...Mr. Music Man
Don't turn your back on me?
Cause I'm the one with the gun
- Peacemaker DieAt first glance, this bold and disturbing stance seems obvious. Clearly, since this is a concept album about politics and belief, and since the first "side" of the three - Yours - was not meant to reflect the band's own opinions and beliefs, you can't take this bravado and swagger at face value. For these songs, they ought to be painting a picture of the Other Guy - the one we're supposed to be against.

This world ain't big enough for two
And I've got my sights on you
- WarheadsOh, yeah - that guy is an aggressive jerk. That's YOUR side, alright. Not mine. I know people like him, so "Your" side is about him, right?

That works to a point. But then you see something of yourself in that Other guy:

"Make love/not war" sounds so absurd to me
We can't afford to take these words lightly
or else our world will truly Rest in Peace
- Rest In PeaceWait a minute - I hold to that sentiment myself. Even though the threat of Soviet-inflicted Armaggedon is even less likely now that it was in 1992, I know that we can't afford to neglect our own defense. Maybe these guys consider me to be that Other guy? And yet, I'm also far from the Warhead described in the opening track.

This second-guessing goes on throughout the whole album; what are these songs trying to tell me about the band? Or about myself?

Picture a world without any color
You couldn't tell one face from another
I can't understand why we fight with our brother
- Color Me BlindJust when you think you've got it figured out - which side is which - they throw in something that doesn't fit. Are they hippies? No, because why would hippies put Color Me Blind on "Your" side? Maybe they're trying to show that both "sides" have some balance? Maybe they're trying to show that there's common ground between the "sides"?

But then there are the chilling moments, where you see something horrific and alien in the Other side. I still get goosebumps from the sick feeling of being inside the mind of a violent extremist as the band plays a sample of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech over the repeated leit-motif of "Peacemaker Die." I know exactly where the gunshot is, and I still jump when I hear it. If I identified with "Your" side up to this point, I would be suddenly forced to realize something horrible about the person that "Your" side describes.

All the world's
a masquerade
made up of fools
and philosophers
Were it to rain
on our charade,
all washes away,
except for our true colors
- Stop The WorldHow many listeners were put off by this inherent confusion, I wonder? And how many missed the larger point because they either took the lyric at face value as something the band really believes, or pushed away from what they took to be criticism of their own beliefs? Judging by the sales figures, a lot of people didn't get it.

Which is sad, because there is a lot of goodness here. I suspect the disappointment from the way this album was received led to the frustrating compromises the band made on their next release; a so-called "grunge" album that their more loyal fans saw as a "sell out" move. I'm just glad they had the courage to take this risk, and give us this album first. It must have been a real conflict to decide to do so.

And conflict is really what this whole thing is about. While the conflict on Your side is harsher and more threatening, Mine is more open and accessible. This side is the questioning, sentimental side.

If I had one wish
It wouldn't be hard to choose
Seven Sundays in a row
'cause that's the day that I spend with you
- Seven SundaysI think we can all recognize the hopefulness and futility that comes from trying to sort out our place in a world that seems downright crazy. We all think we're just good, average folks trying to make our way through; we all want to rely on someone stronger and smarter than us to pull us through; and we all want to escape from the glad-handing charlatans trying to take advantage of us.

But even here on what should be common ground we have a problem to sort out, because of all of this religious imagery and language. Seven Sundays could be a sweet song for your steady girl - or it could be about a relationship with God. And that duality gets more overt when you compare it to the aggressive R. Lee Ermey father that opened the album. Just what exactly are they trying to say about God?

Oh Daddy please
Take me with you, where you going
Oh Daddy please
Come find the time, come watch us growing
- Our FatherI used to only listen to the halfway point of this album - something which has changed, or I wouldn't rightly be able to call this a "pound for pound" album. I used to get mad or bored with the more religious and heavily orchestrated songs from Our Father on - but now I don't.

I would get mad because it sounded (in my younger days) as if the band were urging me toward some kind of religious answer. I would get bored (later on), just dismissing this section as an attempt to deal with Daddy issues. Now I see that, like the other sections, we have the same mix of conflicted points of view that we saw in the first half.

So I start off every day
Down on my knees I will pray
(for a change in any way)

But as the day goes by
I live through another lie
if it's any wonder why!

Am I ever gonna change?
If I say one thing then I do the other
It's the same old song that goes on forever
- Am I Ever Gonna Change?After years of listening, pondering, wondering, supposing, and rethinking, I still don't really have any answers. But I do think these guys were onto something 20 years ago. I think there is an important lesson here and that it still applies. I don't pray, but I recognize that prayer is an externalized form of meditation. We humans keep looking for answers outside of ourselves; we keep hoping to change others - whether their minds or just their behavior - as if that alone would make everything better.

But the world keeps spinning, and I keep getting sucked into the same arguments with the same kinds of people. Anger begets anger, frustration breeds contempt, and no one ever feels like their "side" is fairly represented.

Maybe the real solution to the puzzle is to let someone else have the last word.

Am I ever gonna change?
I'm the only one to blame
When I think I'm right, I wind up wrong
It's a futile fight that's gone on too long.

I Don't Understand It, So You Must Be Wrong

I have three anecdotal threads to tug on today. The concept isn't necessarily limited to the discussion of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" (or whatever we're supposed to call it), but 2/3 of the anecdotes came from that discussion:

1. By coincidence, I was involved in two unrelated conversations at work where the person I was speaking with dismissed the idea of global, man-made climate change/warming (whatever poorly marketed descriptive term you wish to use) in this manner:

I just don't think we should make policy and harm our economy based on bad science. I mean "the hockey stick"? Come on!

2. I was driving my 8-year-old somewhere, and she began telling me what she learned in class about the environment:

When you drive, the gas from your car goes into the ocean and pollutes the moisture; then the moisture from the ocean pollutes the water we drink. And that's like drinking gas.

3. Then this morning I enjoyed this XKCD comic:



These three ideas caused a glimmer of Truth to flicker in my admittedly thick cranium - that glimmer being that despite having the science horribly wrong, the 3rd Grader was basically correct: driving cars does cause environmental damage. She's dead wrong on the mechanisms at work, the chemistry, and even the vocabulary ("pollutes the moisture"?); and she's got no idea what the relative impacts of auto emissions on the hydrological cycle might really be. But car exhaust does have an effect on the planet - and some rough guesses (based on data available at http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/) indicate that there are about 62 million cars which might be operated on any given day. So, her basic premise is essentially true.

Of course, what will the 3rd Grader learn if you try to correct her science? (See the last panel of the cartoon again.)

But this is the nature of the "debate" I see going on regarding the impacts that mankind has on our complex systems of atmosphere, water, and biodiversity. Those of us who aren't scientists have to have this stuff explained to us - I don't do the research, I don't have a degree, and I have an admittedly imperfect understanding of what I am told. And when I try to talk about it - especially when I try to figure out what information CAN be trusted in this discussion - I feel like the 3rd Grader being challenged by the skeptical student from the cartoon.

In other words, the more I read and try to figure out "ground truth" in the whole Global Warming discussion, the more I see people dismissing the real science offered by the "professor" because of the poor understanding the other students have of the issue. And that gives me an uncomfortableness.

It seems to me that if everyone who claimed to be interested in a rational approach took a rational approach, we could quickly establish what the "facts" are: that there are a LOT of people on the planet, and that their various activities have a complex, but calculable impact on said planet; that the sum of these activities *might* be causing problems that could put us in danger; and that there might be some choices we could make that would mitigate these dangers. Most scientists agree with the first fact. Even the scientists I have seen cited as "global warming skeptics" don't question that mankind is causing rising temperatures; and then there are the doubters who actually DO their own research and convince themselves in the process.

There are plenty of folks in the general public who will refuse to concede any ground because they see this as a political issue; but the "wacky liberals" are in the company of rational conservatives on this one, and even the solution that our politically motivated deniers attack most aggressively was first implemented by one of their own. I have found that these facts won't protect you from the scorn of those who insist there is no consensus, and that by buying into the idea that humans are damaging their own habitat you are falling victim to the money-making machinations of a vast, environmentalist cabal.

(One has to wonder how the non-profit environmentalists intend to make all of this money, but if one can ignore the multi-billion dollar oil industry's interest in promoting this conspiracy theory, then I suppose one can just as easily find that motive. I think it goes deeper than just the oil companies, though.)

I don't expect anyone to take my word for any of this. The discussion is all Out There - and I'm just a poor 3rd Grader trying to make sense of it. I can recommend a guide to the talking points. I can offer my opinions, and my poor approximations and explanations. But in the end, not understanding the real costs and the real damage that we are doing will most likely cost more than any steps we might try to take to avoid them.

I just hope our skeptical students will give their professors the opportunity to explain it.

What's Not to Like?

I had a lot going on this week, so I'm finally getting around to digesting the State of the Union. I enjoyed watching the speech; I like President Obama, and I felt like he was able to go back to the themes of bipartisanship that he campaigned on. The last two years were, predictably, about 1) bringing the economic collapse to a screeching halt, and 2) letting the opposition get their "I hope he fails" antics out of their system. Both sides learned a lot - I hope - and since the Tucson shooting coinciding with the beginning of the new Congress, there is a sense that the next two years will be about *actual* cooperation.

We shall see.

But my positive feelings aside, there were some things that I heard in this year's State of the Union that made me sigh. Here's a short list:

1. Bio Fools. I am keenly interested in seeing our energy policy move away from fossil fuels and toward decentralized renewable sources. As a consumer, I don't want to be dependent on a large, expensive infrastructure to deliver the power I need, and I don't want that power to come from sources outside of my control. I am mildly concerned about mankind's impact on the environment, but to be honest, I am more concerned with removing the alleged free market's ability to make decisions for me.

That said, there are energy policy ideas which I do not like that this President seems too willing to support. Bio-fuels, so-called "Clean Coal" and nuclear generation are where I feel he misleads himself. Bio-fuels/ethanol/corn-based alternatives are turning out to be a very poor replacement for petroleum-based fuels, according to environmentalists and scientists, and has an impact on farm subsidies and food supply, as well.

The case against "Clean Coal" is strong, too. It is an expensive attempt to sell environmentalists on the continued use of regular old coal, but ignores the problems of extraction and the expensive infrastructure of high-powered transmission lines needed for delivery.

I would personally like to see Nuclear power develop into the cleaner, safer source that the next generation of nuclear generation technologies promises to be, but even more than the still-young solar industry, this is a technology which is "not there yet."

2. Why Speed Trains? I would love to see public transit take off in this country. I would, as a free market consumer, LOVE to have a real choice between car and a system of reliable, timely buses, trains, etc. I pay so much in financing, fuel, maintenance, and insurance, I am certain that a competitive and profitable business of getting people from here to there within any metropolitan area could be built.

Highways are far and away the deadliest way to travel, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Congestion is increasingly costly (see Texas Transportation Institute stats). Compare fuel consumption (and see issue #1), too, while you're at it. It's pretty clear that our "free choice" to drive ourselves everywhere is not only an illusion of choice, but it is also a pretty poor one.

But are high speed trains the place to start building that? How am I supposed to get to one from my house? What about getting to and from the grocery store? Perhaps the self-driving Google car will make this a moot point? If so, then perhaps the President was right to include Google in the company of the Wright Brothers, after all?

3. The Feeble Response. Rep. Paul Ryan's response was a crucial part of the State of the Union. He had an opportunity to really make the GOP case that they have ideas and can compete with the President's agenda. But there was no "there" there. Never mind the factual inaccuracies; all he tried to do was restate the memes of "spending discipline" and "limited government" without explaining in concrete terms what either meme means.

Since the President talked about the debt and spending in some depth, and listed specific ideas for dealing with the issues, the GOP needed to address his ideas with specific ideas of their own. Instead, Rep. Ryan reiterated the tired rhetoric of the last two years - the stimulus failed (which is not necessarily the case), health care reform should be repealed (which is not necessarily a good plan or the right battle), and "unshackling business" will lead to new jobs and growth (for which there is no real evidence).

I would have liked to see Rep. Ryan come out in support of something truly innovative, like the FairTax legislation (now proposed by Sen. Chambliss). Or perhaps he could have talked about ways to make Social Security solvent without leaving those who paid into it their whole lives out in the cold? I don't know - I'm not a Republican, so I don't know what I should expect them to come up with.

At the least, perhaps they could publicly distance themselves from the odious talking heads and pundits lying to America in their name on Fox News and Talk Radio? (Just a thought.)

Let's see what happens this year.

The Party of NOvember

So, the Republicans made historic gains (as was more or less predicted four and two years ago, respectively) and the pendulum swings back to the so-called "right"... like clockwork. And yet, there is still hope in the world. What makes me say that? A few encouraging signs:

Michigan elected a centrist coalition builder to their governor's mansion.

Crazy did NOT win in Nevada or Delaware. (UPDATE: What the Tea Party Cost by David Frum)

The GOP (mostly) didn't gloat.

There are certainly a lot of things we're all going to differ over, but I'm looking forward to having a Speaker of the House who uses Twitter effectively.

And while the Republicans have vowed to waste everyone's time trying to repeal the Health Care Reform bill, I think the fact that so few of the Tea Party candidates got in (and those who did, like Rand Paul, seem to already be co-opted by the Establishment) that there won't be as much danger of that actually happening. In fact, the impression I have from the news I have not been able to avoid is that the nation didn't get yanked as far to the so-called "right" as we were led to believe it would be. It might just be the case that enough of these new Republican representatives will turn out to be ... drum roll... pragmatic moderates who want to get things done! Maybe even some of these things:

I'd like to see Energy dealt with; take the big Government subsidies away from oil exploration and put it toward developing solar panels that don't use rare-earth elements.

I'd love to see Immigration Reform - only this time, it will let good folks who are already integral members of our community "get legal".

I'd love to see our Defense dollars go toward actual training and equipment for our troops and not toward sweetheart deals that pay too much for not enough support.

And since it wouldn't be right to let this go unsaid: which do you think is money spent more wisely? A failed campaign for Governor of California, or the entire budget of the National Endowment for the Arts. (I can tell you which one will last longer.)

Maybe we'll even start to figure out that money isn't the solution to every problem; work, thought, and practical effort are.

A Decent Man I Happened to Disagree With

A few weeks ago, a Facebook friend described George W. Bush to me as "a decent man you just happen to disagree with politically."

I would tend to describe just about anyone in our elected government that way - though their "decency" may be a fragile thing at times. But her dismissal of the very real problems that I had (and still have) with the Bush Administration bothered me, and I wanted to find a way to address them without being snarky or simply argumentative. Contrary to the picture some of my friends like to paint of me, I never "hated" George W. Bush. I think it's important to remind people of that, but it's hard to separate my strong disagreement with the things he did from the man himself.

Today, that same friend posted this video, which gave me something direct to address:



Since Mr. Bush laid out the points that he seems to think are most important, and capture the best snapshot of his terms in office, I'd like to address them - Point by point:

Quitting drinking at age 40 - this is, of course, an admirable thing to do. It shows a strength of character, and he clearly relied on his strong relationship with his wife and his faith in Jesus to make this change and make it stick. From where I sit, I can see that he essentially replaced the crutch of alcohol with the crutch of his relgion.

That's fine in and of itself - I'm a big proponent of letting damaged people use the tools they need to use to overcome their shortcomings. I also disagree with those who say that a President should not wear his faith on his sleeve the way Mr. Bush often did; if it is truly a part of you, your faith should not be something you hide or avoid mentioning. My only "disagreement" with Mr. Bush's religion is that it is not right for me, and there are other Points where it affected his Decisions in ways that it should not have done.

Running for President - When Mr. Bush ran for President, I was a tired, shift-working burnout serving in the USAF in England. As a distant ex-pat grappling with how I felt about Libertarianism, and wearied by years of anti-Clinton rhetoric, I wasn't ready to vote for the Republican party's theory of "reducing government", but I figured that it would either be a) successful, and therefore worthy of consideration, or b) a failure which might prod the country in a more Centrist direction.

Later, I read about Karl Rove's underhanded tactics (told from John McCain's POV in David Foster Wallace's "Up, Simba" essay), and the cutthroat dishonesty that Mr. Bush engaged in to get the GOP nomination; it was an illuminating discovery, but by then, of course, the damage was done. None of it was, technically, "illegal", but it was dodgy, and I recognized enough of the same in 2004 to be doubly angry at our so-called "two party" system.

But you can't deny that the American populace finds the idea of an affable "good ol' boy" to be appealing, and W. was thoroughly qualified to play that part.

Selecting senior staff - I allowed myself to be optimistic in 2001 when Gen. Colin Powell was added to the Bush team. Never mind that he was one voice among a dozen others that included already-discredited former Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (an essay for another day, I'm afraid). Never mind that Karl Rove was already known as "Bush's Brain" and that Grover Norquist - the man who said "My goal is to cut government...down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. " - was planning the destruction of the American government from within.

After Gen. Powell's UN speech and Mr. Cheney's dishonest tactics in coralling U.S. Congressional votes, it became clear which "half" of the staff was in charge of these important Decision Points.

Education reform - "No Child Left Behind" is often touted as the Bush Administration's one success. Holding teachers accountable for their students' performance and breaking the Unions' death grip on any reform effort are both admirable goals, in my opinion. But as a single "success" it is hardly compelling.

Over the years, I have asked everyone I find who liked and supported Mr. Bush to tell me what else he accomplished. So far, no one has come up with an answer.

Stem Cell research - This is not a debate I enjoy. Finding a legal precedent for the beginning of human life is emotionally wrenching, and the impact of the decision on other lives is horrifying, no matter which way it falls. The only thing in this debate - like the debate over the legality of abortion - which seems certain is that the law must either trust individual doctors and women to make the right decision in each case, or must arbitrarily decide in advance what that "right decision" is, and find a way to intrusively enforce it.

It's a lose-lose situation.

9/11 - There was a moment after the attacks when all Americans were on the same page, and felt the same way. For me, that ended on 9/15/2001, when Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced (without any evidence) that he intended to get revenge on Saddam Hussein for the attacks. I can't find a reference to that speech, but CBS dug up notes that were more revealing in 2002.

The following points Mr. Bush mentioned in his video all stem from bad decisions made at the urging of his most trusted advisors. Going into combat was debatably the correct move in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. The lasting debacle that is Homeland Security is a testament to the kind of "big government" that Mr. Bush was elected to bring down, and while in the context of "winning" (an idea that was never defined or given a tangible goal) in Iraq the Troop Surge was the right decision, it would not have been necessary if not for the earlier mistake of invading Iraq in the first place.

Re-election - 2004 was a frustrating time for me. Everything I had seen the Bush Administration do to that point told me that the next four years would be equally, if not more awful. And yet, when the Democrats handed us the turd sandwich that was John Kerry, and the American people failed to demand a third option that wasn't on the menu, I began grasping for hope. In the debates, Kerry dismantled Bush point by point, while perversely making him look like the better candidate; Bush spoke of love for each other and our fellow man, and actually gave me a glimmer of hope that his second term would be marked by humility and compassion.

It wasn't.

Tax cut plan - When we got our check - which my lovely bride still refers to as our "Dirty Bush money" - we had to ask: where does this money come from? Did it come out of the welfare checks that would have gone to the "welfare queens" that conservatives hate so? Nope; they're still ahead of us in line at the grocery store buying foods we can't afford. Did it come from subsidies that we shouldn't be paying for "oil exploration" or for small farmers - like ConAgra?

Apparently it came from all of those places where you don't see spending happening; roads, bridges, schools, state and local services, and infrastructure.

At least we got a big screen TV out of the deal, right?

Global AIDS initiative - This really does seem to be a success; at least the 1.7 million Africans benefiting from it might think so. What I find interesting is that no one seems to think of it when they talk about Mr. Bush's successes. Obviously, his opponents wouldn't want to admit that it's a Good Thing(tm)... but it's worth wondering why his supporters wouldn't tout it more loudly.

Unless it simply goes against everything they believe in; tax dollars going to save the lives of brown people in foreign lands without any discernable profit to the U.S.

Mr. Bush: I applaud you for this success.

Then there are the areas where Mr. Bush regrets his failings:

Social Security - I've written and spoken many times about how I agreed with Mr. Bush's approach to this, and how it bears a more rational look from all sides.

Immigration - This, too, is often overlooked as part of the Bush Administration's plans. A real Comprehensive Immigration Reform which would welcome those who want to become a legitimate part of our Dream, and find ways to secure our border against criminals, thugs, and smugglers is still needed. I still hope that we'll be able to look past our racist and nationalistic instincts, and past our petty desire for some kind of "justice" against those who have committed a relatively minor crime, and come up with a solution.

Katrina - This was a difficult issue for everyone. On the one hand, the U.S. President doesn't control the weather, and obviously can't be expected to anticipate every emergency that crops up. Personally, I ignored a lot of the criticism of the immediate response from the White House because so much of it seemed to come from political animosity and misdirected fear; at the same time, there were a lot of bad things that happened or didn't happen because the government was unable to perform its mission.

I saw Katrina as a symptom of the success of Grover Norquist's goal to reduce the government to something that could be drowned in a bathtub. New Orleans showed us that a bathtub is the least of our worries. If we don't invest in public infrastructure, and ensure that the organizations that oversee its maintenance are kept up to date and efficiently managed, we could all end up in a similar situation. There is no way to know in advance whether it will be a hurricane, an earthquake, wildfires, or some other disaster. Global Climate Change scientists have been warning for decades that storms and weather patterns will become more severe AND more unpredictable. Without good government, we will be unprotected.

Katrina did not show me that the Bush Administration was "bad"; it showed me that good government is important.

"...Putting ideology aside" during 2008 economic crisis - This is a point where I agree with Mr. Bush. I agree with him wholeheartedly that the ideology he espoused did not have the answers needed to protect us from the economic crisis. He may not be willing to admit it - his GOP successors certainly don't - but the ideology of "unregulated financial products" that he championed throughout his presidency caused the crisis, just as clearly as uncontrolled speculation caused the 1929 crash.


Thanks to Annie for posting Mr. Bush's video. I intend to read his book, and if moved to do so, may write about it. But I am grateful that Mr. Bush was able to lay out the points that are important to him. It gave me what I have long needed to help define his presidency, and to rationally describe my reaction to it.

How to Restore Honor

There is a relatively new trend in the U.S. to call for a "return to traditional values." I say "relatively" new because we've only been hearing it since the early 1600s, and on a geologic scale, that's pretty recent. Since the early colonies in Massachusetts and Plymouth were started by Protestant outcasts seeking a place where they could bring about a society built on values that they thought were lost on a decadent contemporary society Americans have been on a quest for that elusive Tradition of... something.

Considering that Traditional has different meanings for different people, it is worth asking those who demand a return to Tradition what, exactly, they think they are asking for. Some are vague, longing for a nostalgic period from their childhood that didn't really exist; others are adamant and focused on a particular set of rules or behaviors... which they hesitate to admit to because they know admitting to those rules won't go over well with those who will have to live with them.

No two individuals you ask will be able to agree on what Traditional Values are. Try me on that one - find two people who you think are in agreement, and they will find something to fight over. But there are two fairly consistent "trump cards" that those who want to stump for Tradition will play: The U.S. Constitution, and The Bible.

I find this to be frustrating, because in almost every case, those who insist on "returning" to the system of values and behavior enshrined in those documents have read neither. Thus, the links.

Sure, they've skimmed - we all have. Human animals are social creatures with a long history of oral communication, and we have traditionally ruled ourselves through rumor and word of mouth. How many times since toddling onto your first playground have you heard or used the "you can't make me, it's a free country" defense? I've had the First Amendment on the tip of my tongue as a response to anyone told me to shut up since First Grade (along with the Seventh Commandment).

The problem with ruling by Oral Tradition is that a lot of error creeps in. We are ephemeral beings, only here on Earth, if we are very careful, and very lucky, for about 100 years. (And only being here mentally for less than half of that time.) Some clever blokes in Sumeria about 4,000 BCE figured out how to etch their thoughts into lumps of the hardy clay found in local marshes (a practice which became known as "bogging"), and noticed that it was a good way to pass down exactly what they said so that later generations wouldn't screw up their pithy quotes. So, while writing is also relatively new in the geological sense, I think it's safe to call it a "Traditional Value".

The Bible is a difficult document to live by, at best. Historically, it is (if you believe what people say) as old as writing itself. In its way, it is rather like Wikipedia; a collaborative effort of hundreds of writers and editors which is sometimes really useful, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's hard to tell which Traditional Values in it are useful, but most Traditionalists seem bent on emphasizing those Ten Commandments; which is odd considering how few of them make good, enforceable laws. Even if you accept the "this is a Christian nation" tradition, how does that make sense? If we are supposed to be Christians, shouldn't we include something that Christ actually said? How about the Beatitudes?

But The Bible is a controversial thing to base American traditions upon. Nevermind the fact that for the approximately 6,000 years of its traditionally accepted existence, no two groups have ever agreed on what it means or how to apply its tenets. And never mind that the polls showing the majority of Americans are Christians count people who would not be considered "real Christians" at all, if proving a political point weren't on the line.

That is why the Founding Fathers though it better to trade that tradition of strife and disagreement and non-inclusion for a simpler, modern document focused on secular laws. Better to create some basic boundaries between religion and government, and create a safe "arena" within which we can quibble and fight. And we can call those rules and boundaries: The Constitution.

Of course, for its youth, the Constitution is just as difficult for people to understand. It's full of words, clauses, and concepts that... well, the confusing part is that it's full of words, clauses, and concepts. Fortunately, it includes instructions on how to pick people to read it and interpret it FOR us! Unfortunately, that means that we still rule ourselves by rumor, and that people who want to return to a strict reading of it usually haven't.

Don't take my word for it. Traditionalists are just as lost and confused about what the Document means as the rest of us. That's why there are Traditionalists who protest the U.S. Census, even though the 4th paragraph of Article 2 Section 1 clearly spells out how and when it should work. There are Traditionalists who rail against the "immoral" practice of taxation - though Article 1 Sect. 2, Sect. 8, Sect. 9, and Amendment 16 all clearly spell out how and when THAT should work. Traditionally, these things are managed by Congress - the direct representatives of the population.

Traditionally, the Congress hasn't been very good at representing the general populace. It's hard to do, what with all of the ignorant masses yelling out their ideas and throwing things at you when you're trying to figure out the best way to divide your time between getting into bed with lobbyists AND getting into bed with anyone impressed by your awesome elected power. Most people - traditionalists and non-traditionalists alike - rightly view the Congress as a congregation of whores, only out to satisfy the next John carrying a fat roll of money. The problem with this view is not that it is inaccurate, but that We the People are the "John" and we keep coming back for more. (Talk about maintaining a market!)

The solution to corruption has always been the same: remove money from the equation. Even if you think I'm overstating the level of corruption, it takes absurd amounts of the stuff to run an election these days. Recent Presidential campaigns have run into the billions - with a B - and some high profile Senate races run into the double-digit millions. There's really no getting around how ridiculous this is.

We're doing it now, too; complaining about government spending while wasting obscene amounts of money to watch our pet whores trash each other in TV attack ads. Remember the big flap over President Bush not signing off on $35 million dollars funding health insurance for poor children? The Minnesota Senate race cited above would have almost paid for that bill, and chances are, we STILL would have been treated to the spectacle of the race, courtesy of the media whores desperate to cash in on Al Franken's controversial celebrity.

I know it doesn't sound "traditional", but how about we try something new? We've already seen how easy it can be to get a message out to people using free platforms. I could shoot a campaign video with my $100 iPod, and with a bit of savvy social networking, get it to go viral. I could use a Public library computer to photoshop a compelling campaign poster, sell it as a bumper sticker, and fund my registration fees. Why don't I? Because I like my current job, and am forbidden to run.

Of course, there's nothing stopping any of you from trying this. There's a lot of drivel about "grass roots" campaigns out there, but the truth is, no one has had the cojones to abandon their two-party system, turn their backs on their pimps, and vote for the "unknown". Never mind that it's easier than ever to get to know the "unknown" - I'd link you to examples, but for the Hatch Act; you have Google. Never mind that it's easy to find out how "write in" candidates work in your precinct; what's stopping you from picking someone you think would represent you well and campaigning FOR them? That's traditional, at least.

George Washington didn't even run for President; he was elected, and then agreed to take the job. He is also the only President who never chose a party, explaining on many occasions that he thought partisan politics would ruin the Republic. It seems we have ample proof that he was right about that.

So, even though the practice seems decidedly "non-traditional", I would argue that starting a new Tradition is the most traditionally American activity of them all. What's to stop us Restoring our Honor by demanding that money - corporate or otherwise - be removed from our electoral system? Only the 330 million of you, my friends, and your willingness to wait for the Congress to reform itself for you, out of a sense of honor that none of you believe exists.

The Dismal Science

This is Part IV of a series of posts looking at  The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Dr. Ron Paul.

•  Part I 
• Part II 
• Part III

I promised I would write about Ron Paul's economics approach, but I'm having a hard time finding the angle I'm looking for. It seems we don't have the vocabulary yet to express where I think we are in the evolution of economics. I've written before about this new kind of "free market" that we seem to be developing:

Instead of manufacturing, sales and service are our bread and butter. Marketing, transportation, and information; these are what the U.S. really thrives on, now. Look at our most successful companies, like Google. They "manufacture" a product which they give away for free, and yet their value has continued to rise...

Anyone with a ~$500 set-up can record, polish, and release an album of songs, and can set up a shop online to sell (or give away) their recordings... [several artists] have offered free downloads of their music, and toured "on demand", making money from shows that were sold out before they were booked, and from selling CDs and DVDs online - again, directly to their niche market.

In a way, we have become more purely Capitalist... and at the same time, with the means of production (almost) freely available to everyone, we have also become more purely Communist (without the purges and bread lines). So what gives? What do we call ourselves in an age where you make a profit from giving your stuff away?

-"It's Not Capitalism Any More - But What IS It?", November 22, 2009

Even money isn't really the "coin of the realm" any more. What is money, after all, but a digital record on a computer of a value that has been mutually agreed upon? What was our last decade of supposed "wealth creation" but a gigantic inflation of that value, which failed when enough of us stopped trusting that it was real?

The coin of the realm - the thing that drives our lives and determines our worth to each other - is information. Not just any information, but information that can be trusted. If you think about it, trust is the only thing that has any real value any more; if you don't believe you will get a return on your investment or be rewarded with a safe and comfortable retirement, you won't invest and you won't remain loyal to one company. If you don't believe that your government will protect you and the world in which you make your livelihood, you won't support it.

I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about economics. I understand a lot of the same "basic common sense" things that most of you understand: supply & demand, and interest, and return on investment. But I also understand that there are a lot of concepts that seem to work counter-intuitively. Insurance seems like a bad idea, gambling on whether the money I give to the company will ever benefit me; yet it's the only investment we made that survived the collapse last year. It's tempting to believe Dr. Paul's claim that getting rid of the intrusive and ineffective government will improve our lives, and yet without the government, all of our "free and unfettered" businesses would have dissolved along with their imaginary wealth, taking the rest of us with them.

But again, I don't think we have the vocabulary to describe what is really happening to our world. We talk about Government and Markets, Corporations and Individuals, "special interests" and "activist groups" as if they are not all the same thing: groups of people trying to get by, get along, or get one over. We all fit into those same groups in some fashion, and no matter how innocent or virtuous we try to pretend we are, we all try to balance our own welfare and that of our fellow humans according to whatever beliefs we identify with most strongly. (Some of us even include non-humans in that balance.)

Dr. Paul spends a lot of time trying to identify with a group of people we Americans call our "Founding Fathers." In passages too numerous and generic to quote here, he calls upon all of us to trust in their mutual vision for this country. He calls on us to protect our freedom and liberty, as those founders would have done. Freedom from what to do what, he would leave up to you to figure out, which plays into the American conceit that as long as you leave me alone, whatever you do is your choice. But these Founding Fathers didn't have a unified approach to things, either.

As Sarah Vowell discusses in her exploration of the Puritans who founded Massachusetts Bay Colony, The Wordy Shipmates, there were a lot of contradictions involved in the founding of our country. The Puritans were a people who believed strongly in personal integrity, industry (in the original sense), and morality - but also in self-sacrifice and the common good. Check out this passage describing a government built on their ideals:

"The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good."

That passage is an enigmatic encapsulation of what America is all about. It sums up exactly what I was trying to describe in my earlier post on government, and depending on how you read him, that social compact is either the summation or antithesis of Dr. Paul's entire life of public service. Any American running for public office builds on that idea, whether advancing it or demonizing it. It unifies and divides us, all in one sentence, and that self-contradiction is what makes our country so beautiful and frustrating all at once.

It was written by John Adams in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Reading Dr. Paul's book, I can appreciate his criticism of our government. We've drifted away from John Adams's ideal, whether from the idea of "voluntary association" or from the idea of "common good" - our systems and institutions have been corrupted by the worst impulses of the free market. But I don't trust his solution: to remove Government from the equation.

When you have a government that looks like the one Adams described, it is the extension of the will of the people it governs to operate in everyone's best interests. The reason we don't have that is because of apathy and neglect from the voting public; the participants who ought to be controlling the government. Dr. Paul should be calling for more involvement IN government, not freedom FROM government.

That is where the Founding Fathers agreed. They wanted to claim more direct control over their own lives and affairs, not throw away control altogether. Our government is supposed to be an extension of our own self-control; it is supposed to reflect our will and our desire for integrity, industry, and personal responsibility. I suspect that the reason we are all so unhappy with it is that it is doing just that.

As for economic theories, I think the new coin of the realm - information and trust - will move us in the direction we need to go. In that sense, Dr. Paul is right; no government body can dictate that trust or earn it through corruption or political wrangling. But that will mean we need figure out better ways to determine who and what to trust. Perhaps that will mean less Government, but it will definitely mean smarter government - and a voluntary involvement in the common good.

The Government: Who and What It Is

This is Part 3 of a series of essays I am writing after reading The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Dr. Ron Paul.  If you like, you can find Part I and Part II at these links.

The Establishment is and always has been a favorite target for abuse. Right or wrong, you can pick up a lot of support for your cause by contrasting it against a big, entrenched - and decidedly un-sexy - Establishment organization (aka, "The Man".) And whether you're a 1960s radical agitator or a Tea Party Express rider, it's easy to get carried away by the romantic ideal of bringing down the Bastards, and sweeping away your problems.

It's hard to argue against that impassioned radicalism, especially when you know what you're defending isn't perfect. Not only that, but Bureaucracy is always a vote loser, and maintaining the "status quo" is always looked upon as an oppressive move.

In my adult life, I have butted my head up against the Establishment and have complained loudly about Bureaucracy many times, and I have to admit - I'm not always right. As I heard one senior manager put it recently, "Bureaucracy exists to protect Government from whacky ideas." And some of my ideas are downright whacky.

In fact, when I consider the things I want to change about the world realistically, I've been forced to accept that Bureaucracy is not a Bad Thing(tm) in and of itself. I've written before on this blog about this:

That last Great Innovation happened 125 years ago, when a little known Republican "machine" politician named Chester Arthur was sworn in as U.S. President after the assassination of James Garfield. Arthur reformed the Civil Service and basically gave us the Bureaucracy that we all complain so much about these days. At the time, it was a huge improvement, bringing all of the shady deals and corruption of the system out into the light.

So, while instant change makes for a compelling rallying cry, for ideas to be accepted, they need to be proven first... to the Establishment. In America, the problem we have is in figuring out when something is sufficiently "proven" to warrant making a change. And in accepting that the Establishment is a Representative body of us. It is certainly frustrating, especially when you always feel like the one with the "right answer", and you always feel like you're being ignored.

From the beginning of his book, Dr. Paul professes to believe in our system of government. He analyzes the Constitution throughout the book, particularly in Chapter 3, where he excoriates President Bush and the Congress for overreaching their authorities in regards to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In other chapters he refers to the possibly unconstitutional body of laws regarding free trade and international organizations - laws which few people seem to understand. His observations are compelling, and I appreciate his point of view on issues and events which have disturbed me in recent years.

But what bothers me about Dr. Paul's approach is the pervasive assertion that our Government is innately bad; an outside influence, completely divorced from what the constituents want. He pays lip service to our system of government, but either implies - or states outright - that the laws we have in place are illegal, according to the Constitution, and imposed on us by unspecified Others we have no control over. It's a popular idea, often shared by whomever is in the current minority party or by groups which feel marginalized - and of course, by radicals looking to bring down the Establishment.

There are a few areas where I feel Dr. Paul takes this too far. He characterizes income taxes as a kind of armed robbery - despite the 16th Amendment, which specifically authorizes them. Regarding regulation of businesses, he refers repeatedly to Government as a thing outside ourselves, causing all of the problems that our society suffers. He argues passionately for that most Libertarian of ideas, that if Government would just butt out, we "free and unfettered" individuals and businesses could take care of ourselves.

I appreciate the difficult balancing act faced by all Libertarians in finding that area between "too many laws" and "anarchy." I recognize that getting their point across is hard to do without becoming pedantic and boring. And outlining the limits that they feel our Representatives have ignored is tricky; but pretending that Government - all Government - is the culprit in the equation is misleading and dangerous.

First of all, as Dr. Paul claims to believe from the beginning of his book, our government was formed to represent us. If the government fails to do so, it is directly our fault. We are to blame, because we "own" it. The main body of the Constitution outlines the system and the process for controlling our government. It's not as if Dr. Paul doesn't understand this; he seems aware that the Government is our tool for ensuring that we don't take advantage of each other. He discusses this in several places, notably in Chapter 4 (Economic Freedom), where he quotes Thomas Jefferson, William Leggett, and Walt Whitman at length to illustrate the idea:

"...one single rule...is enough to form the starting point of all that is necessary in government; to make no more laws than those useful for preventing a man or body of men from infringing on the rights of other men." (Whitman)

Reading this book, it becomes clear that he does not believe that our representatives, operating under our authorities granted by our Constitution have made the right laws. I would tend to agree that we have allowed our government to overstep those bounds, but I fear that Dr. Paul goes further than that. Throughout these pages, he implies or states outright that our Government has been hijacked by what are generically referred to as "special interests"* - another populist meme, and an attitude which I believe takes away the burden of personal responsibility that we are all supposed to share, and turns what is supposed to be our arbitrary instrument of control over how our lives are shaped into a foreign threat.

This amplifies the most dangerous meme Dr. Paul employs: that Americans are "forced" to obey our laws - in several places he decries any regulation of business, and repudiates the requirement to pay taxes. He hearkens back to the founding fathers repeatedly, citing their dislike for taxation, apparently forgetting that the rallying cry was not "no taxation", but rather "no taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION."

As for the "force" involved, I have spoken to many people about this over the years. Dr. Paul echoes this approach, which characterizes the collection of taxes as money being taken away at gunpoint by an authoritarian regime. At one point he asks the favorite Libertarian question: "don't you think you are entitled to keep the money that you earn?" This is always presented as a trump card; if you don't respond with an unqualified "Yes", then you are proven to be either a fool or a dupe. I often ask in reply, "don't you think you should pay for the services provided by your government?" Guess what that makes me.

But when you face facts, every individual does have the choice to NOT pay their taxes. There are certainly consequences for this - fines, jail time, sometimes even exile - but to imply that thugs from the IRS will come and rob you at gunpoint for failing to file is just plain silly. It's an exaggeration, and one we are inclined to accept because it sounds right.

In comparison, I recall how, after enlisting and signing all of the papers, I got to Basic Military training and heard all of the dire warnings of things that would happen to me if I failed to complete it. A lot of people hated Basic, and wanted to leave, and the truth is, despite all of the contracts and documents they signed, they could have done so at any time. Sure, there were consequences, depending on how they tried to leave - climbing the fence will get you arrested; pretending to be crazy will land you in a psychiatric ward for an extended visit - but at the end of the day, despite all of the threats, no one will shoot a recruit for deciding to go home. If you're desperate enough to get out, the worst you can expect is eternal disdain from those of us who fulfilled our commitments.

Following that logic, by choosing to remain a citizen, you have "volunteered" to pay your taxes; in our country, it's more of a fee for services provided than the arbitrary, emasculating excise most people consider it to be. And we all know what happens when you don't pay your bill. That's not robbery - at least not in a free market society - so much as the rule of law.

So my contention is that the Government which we occasionally choose to ignore or vilify, does represent us. We are asked to give up time, money, and effort in exchange for things like roads, education, and military security, and if we don't want to, we have the right to petition for changes in the law. Changing rules we don't like is not an "instant" process, and a citizen has to stay involved for a long time to make changes. And while I think we should seriously consider Dr. Paul's suggestions to limit the Government's power, we cannot and should not simply ignore or throw out the Bureaucracy which we use to protect ourselves.

I don't believe that Dr. Paul has proven his assertions about Government, and as I intend to explore in the next essay, I don't believe he has proven that his proposed solutions - namely, throwing away any Government regulation, taxation, or institutions - will have the positive affects on our economy that he asserts they would have.

*Terms like "special interests" and "agenda" seem to pop up a lot in our political discourse. They ring like accusations: "They caved in to 'special interest' groups", or "they have an 'agenda'!" But it's like accusing people of having skin or breathing; of course people with a common political goal with team together to promote their "special interest"; and they won't get far without an "agenda". These words by themselves do not make a case that their intentions are either good or bad.

Perspectives on a Manifesto - Part 2

What I was looking for.

Dr. Ron Paul ran for President about eight years too late, in my opinion. That is to say, if you believe in libertarian ideas and would like to see someone who holds them dear in the White House, it would have been better for him to run in 2000 than in 2008.

In 2000, I was weary of the Clinton era. I was tired of the baseless lunacy of the burgeoning Right Wing Media franchise and their constant attacks on the President, and I was tired of the unprincipled sleaze of the man in the White House. I was interested in the Libertarians because they seemed to reflect the common sense, middle ground that I felt I occupied. And the prospect of a Third Party rising that would allow people like me to support the traditional "lefty" causes (ie, be "socially liberal") and the traditional "righty" ideas (ie, be "fiscally conservative") was very attractive.

Dr. Paul's 2008 campaign seemed to be trying to build on that appeal. But by 2008, I was weary of hearing politicians claim that what they wanted was common sense, only to see them fail or get into office and begin pandering to one extreme or the other. It was easy to see where Barack Obama stood, and I respected (and still respect) his willingness to take a centrist position; and his party, while far from perfect, seemed willing to back him up. It was easy to see where John McCain wanted to stand, but his party seemed determined to continue what I see as the simultaneous bloat and erosion of our Federal government - and they had a history of betraying McCain in the past (see "Up, Simba!" for David Foster Wallace's fascinating analysis of the 2000 campaign), a pattern which Palin's nomination as VP seemed to guarantee would be their future strategy, as well.

In 2000, I would have readily embraced Dr. Paul's campaign ideas, but in 2008, I saw him as a tired snake-oil salesman, trying to ensure a Republican victory using discredited memes to lure independents away from Obama's platform. I didn't see any new ideas, just a lot of complaining about the way things were; I didn't see any solutions. And when I have expressed that opinion, supporters of Dr. Paul's revolution have told me to read his book. Considering his Third Party status, and the treatment given to Third Party candidates by the press, it's entirely likely that I didn't get a complete picture of what Dr. Paul was trying to communicate to us.

So, when I opened the book, I was looking for those solutions. I was looking for a vision of what we could realistically do to move in a better direction. I expect a little "Utopian exaggeration", and I expect more than a little criticism of the status quo. But what I want to see is more than that. I want to see how we're supposed to fix things.

I want to see the plans for what we're supposed to build.

What I Found

On the surface, there is much I agree with in Dr. Paul's book. I appreciate his anti-war stance; ironically, when I made many of these same arguments, I was labeled a pacifist liberal sissy by many of my friends and family. Dr. Paul is certainly none of those things. I also applaud his rejection of the creation of laws and federal institutions which have unintended consequences or are unenforceable and needlessly burdensome on our society. I agree with his analysis that many of our government's laws and policies intended to help the unfortunate and unite our wildly different demographic groups have in some cases served to perpetuate the problems they aim to solve.

But underneath some of these ideas, I see some dangerous mistakes. Dr. Paul makes some basic assumptions about what government means and about the basis of our economy which seem rooted in the past. It's good to know our history, but to ignore the direction that mankind is headed, and the fundamental changes that technology is bringing about is a fatal flaw.

I intend to explore some specifics in the next post, but I wanted to make it clear that I did not set out to pick a fight with libertarians or with Dr. Paul's supporters. I read this book hoping to learn whatever truth it was that motivated so many to support his dark horse campaign. There is a lot here to get excited about, and I don't want to seem like I am opposed to everything said here; no one is perfect, after all, and I don't expect anyone ever will be.

However, it would be wrong and foolish to ignore what I see as glaring errors in judgment. So, now that I've spent two "introductory" posts explaining the background, and trying to head off some of the more distracting possible responses, let's explore what those errors are...

Perspectives on a Manifesto - Part 1

Several friends have suggested that I read Ron Paul's book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" since the beginning of his 2008 campaign. Because the campaign is long over and these are my personal opinions about the issues and the underlying philosophies, rather than the candidate, I feel confident that I'm in no danger of violating the 1939 Hatch Act by putting my thoughts about this book here.

I do feel I am in danger of being misunderstood, however, based on some of the reactions I tend to provoke. To avoid that, I'd like to address some remarks commonly made by my readers in past discussions. If you have ever said any of these things, please rest assured that I am not singling you out, as the word "commonly" should indicate that more than one person has made the same comment in different contexts. (Hard as it may be to believe, you are not my only friend.)

So, if you've ever thought or said these things while reading my past discussions, please consider these points while reading my upcoming posts. It will save us both a lot of frustration if you do.

I just think ____ are so SMUG! Whatever you fill in that blank, you're probably right. People who believe strongly in their cause tend to sound overly confident about it. I apologize if I sometimes sound condescending, but there are times when I feel pretty confident about what I'm saying, or feel it is appropriate to use humor to express that idea. It's important that you, as a reader, recognize that your perception of my attitude (or the attitude of whomever we are discussing) doesn't change the substance of the argument. Often, though, the "smug" accusation is aimed at other who are beyond my control; all I can say is, I'm not them, so don't blame me for their attitude. In any case, attitude does not equate to right OR wrong, so don't be such a crybaby and address the ideas, not their presentation.

You're BIASED! or You just think you're right and everybody else is wrong. Well, yes. Everyone is "biased"...and why would I say anything at all if I didn't think I had something worth saying? As for my biases, I think I make them pretty clear. But don't mistake my chosen role as "devil's advocate" for "taking sides"... if I'm arguing with you, I will very likely disagree or contradict you a LOT before eventually making up my mind about your ideas. Don't give up too easily, unless you already know you're full of crap. ;)

You LIBERALS believe THIS.... Don't put me in a box, and then attribute everything OTHER people say to me. If you think my ideas or my logic are flawed, then address them. But don't fool yourself into thinking "his idea sounds like this group's position, so he must be one of them..." Don't waste our time arguing with people who aren't involved in the discussion at hand.

You're a HYPOCRITE because... Sometimes, I am confusing. Sometimes, I change my mind about things. I am only human, like you.

...you claim to be "centrist", but you spend all your time attacking MY side. Sometimes I don't have time to waste slamming "the other side" just so you can feel like I devote "equal time" to "both sides". Part of that is your own fault for locking yourself into a "both sides" mindset when the truth is that there are far more than just two sides to the story. Most often, I "attack" (your word, not mine) the group that I feel should be on MY side, but has failed. I am also an opportunist; I only really pay attention to what drifts across my radar screen. Not only that, but when I take a position - such as being opposed to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, which will be discussed later - even though there is strong opposition from both liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum, the immediate assumption is that I'm taking that position because of the liberal agenda. This is a mistake on your part, not hypocrisy on my part.

...you make arguments based on things you don't believe in. I don't think many of you have caught on to this, but I often build an argument out of ideas that I don't consider to be valid. For example, I am not a Christian, but I will cite scripture in my discussion; usually I do this because there is some religious element to the issue at hand, and I want the Christians I am speaking with to understand that there is a Biblical basis for a position that I am taking. It doesn't always matter why someone believes a particular way, but if we can agree on a position or solution, that's the outcome I'm looking for.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that, as far as I'm concerned, we are not enemies. I don't even consider most of the things we are talking about to be "political" - because politics is all about negotiating and horse trading to take these philosophies and put them into practice. I'm really only interested in the underlying philosophies, and consider all of the partisan bickering to be a distraction from that discussion.

Now, let me get to work on that discussion...

How Can WE Fix Our Medical System?

Now that the drama and debate over the legislation is done with, I'd like to try to capitalize on your frustrations. No matter what your point of view in this debate, one thing is clear: no one is satisfied with the outcome. And despite all of the ignorance and spite shown on TV, I think most Americans are more informed and engaged on this issue than they have been in years... which makes this the ideal time for us - individual people - to start doing this the right way: from the Bottom Up.

One of the things that I regretted about the President's approach to health care reform was the way the issue of keeping and managing medical records disappeared from the debate. There are two things that seem to be most broken in our national health care systems: Communication and Liability. Communication needs to be better, both between patients and doctors, and between different doctors (as a patient moves or is referred). Liability means (to me) balancing consumer protection and safety of the patient against protecting doctors from unwarranted lawsuits. (I don't like the term "frivolous".)

I think that we can go a long way toward solving both of these problems by taking control of our own medical records. Keeping good records will mean becoming more involved in our own health; tracking our habits and diets, keeping up on our own regular check-ups, managing our own health histories - all of this will serve to provide our doctors with the information they need, and protect us and them from legal problems down the road. We have online tools for doing this now, which we can access for free and use to interact with all of our different medical professionals.

I've written before about some of the different services, and now I'd like to hear from some of you who have used them. I plan to begin working with my own doctor to figure out which service will work best for both of us, and I will be suggesting to them that they start working with their other patients, too, so that this practice will spread.

We won't clear up the whole problem overnight, but if we all begin taking responsibility for the part that IS within our power, we can begin to influence how the solution will play out. And maybe if we are taking more direct control over our health, the issue of "government takeover" will diminish on its own.

There are four concrete ways this can happen:

1. By using free online services, the cost burden of maintaining records will not be laid on doctors offices, on Health Management organizations, or (as it would eventually land anyway) on the consumer. Services like Google Health (https://health.google.com/health/p/) are going to pay for themselves in much the same way Gmail and the Google Search services pay for themselves (which is a good subject for whole other essay).

2. Since they are free online services, providers and patients will have some flexibility in which one(s) they use. (I suspect that we'll see two or three front runners become the "winners", much the way we've seen Facebook emerge as "the" social networking site.)

3. Privacy has been a huge concern in this, so market pressure will be on these services to give consumers the kind of privacy they need. I see this as an area where the government might need to weigh in, as we (the People) determine what Privacy legally means in this age of widespread information sharing.

4. Health care will improve. When you go to the doctor, they won't have to rely on your memory or their handwriting to tell what your problems are. That alone makes this worth doing.

As I said, I plan on bringing this up with my doctor. I should be having a checkup soon, so I'll report back what I learn from him. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please do comment so I can research them.

Update: In exploring the various online health records services available to me, I discovered that my Insurance provider already has a pretty detailed record of everything I've done under their coverage. They allow me to update this record with tests, procedures, etc. that I might have done outside their system; with my family history; and they interface with the MicroSoft Health Vault, so that if I prefer to manage my records outside of their system (and I know some of you will be concerned about allowing your insurance company to have ALL of that information), I can use that service.

I am a bit embarrassed to discover that this "great idea" of mine was available to me all along, but that probably means that a lot of you could benefit from logging into your insurance company's online service to see what record management services they offer.