Driving Me Crazy - This Isn't Any Signal

"This isn't any signal. It's a direct statement. If it's a signal, fine." - George H. W. Bush, as reported in New York Times, Mar 10, 1980, p B10

On most cars that I have been in, there is a stick coming out of the left-hand side of your car's steering column which I'm certain is gathering dust in some people's cars. It's the lever that operates the turn signals, otherwise more cleverly - and properly - known as "directional indicators", on account of they're for indicating which direction you intend to take your car next. And that's the whole key right there. Until you use your turn signals (I'll use turn signals if it makes everyone happier, until I have a point to make), people are going to expect that you're going to continue what you're doing, especially if what you're doing is just driving along at a steady speed in the lane you're currently in. [And unless otherwise indicated, and as will be the usual standard for this series, it is assumed that the roads are clear and dry and the weather conditions are favorable for driving. So none of these, "What if it's raining?" retorts. We'll cover that another time.]

And that brings us to a good tip about using turn signals. There's a right way to indicate to the driver behind you (let's call him "Me") that you're about to turn into your driveway, and there's the way too many people who live near me do it. The trick is to remember what the purpose of the turn is signal is. (I'll give you hint: It has to do with "indicating" a "direction".) Here comes the next rule:

Wayne's Driving Rule #2
The proper sequence for making a turn off the main road is:

1. Engage the turn signal (the correct turn signal) about ten to fifteen seconds before you make the turn, but at least five seconds before you hit the brakes.

2. After a pause of about five seconds, begin applying the brakes.

3. Then slow down sufficiently (it's okay if you have to come to a complete stop because of those discourteous people having the audacity to be coming from the opposite direction) to safely make the turn without turning it into the slowest possible maneuver ever made by man and machine.

You see, it really doesn't do anybody any good if you wait until you've already hit the brakes and started turning your wheel to flip on the turn signal telling Me (the driver behind you) that you're about to make a turn, when the fact that you are in the process of making that turn already gave it away. How much help do you think flipping on the signal last is going to do?

And by all means, do use that signal if you're doing anything that would come across as "unexpected" to the non-psychic behind you. (Me, again.) That includes pulling over to the side of the road. That would be one of those excellent occasions where some way of telling the guy behind you (Me) that he can swing around you and get on with his life would be appreciated. It's just like you're turning into a driveway, except you're not actually turning into a driveway. But you still have to put on the signal (I'm guessing it's going to be to the right), then put on the brakes, then slide off to the side of the road, preferably far enough off so that your car won't be sticking out into the lane.

But you know, turn signals aren't just for indicating a complete change in direction (such as perpendicular to the one you were going). They're also good for letting the cars around you driving at speeds in excess of 65 MPH (and the legal speed limit) that you're considering cutting over in front of the car moving up swiftly in the lane to your left. (Me again.) Now, in these cases, it isn't always necessary to hit the brakes, but you still want to turn on that signal a few seconds before you make the actual maneuver. Again, once your car has already swung over in front of mine, causing me to either brake fiercely, swear loudly, crap pungently, or perhaps some combination of all three, what's the goddamn point in putting on your turn signal then? It's not like you're preparing me for something. The best thing is to glance in your sideview (and rearview) mirrors, turn your head to check your blind spot, hit the signal, then wait a beat or two before making your move. And for crying out loud, if you're going to move over into a lane of traffic that's going faster than you were, do remember to hit the gas and speed up. (Remember Wayne's Driving Rule #1.) Otherwise there was no point in moving over in front of the impatient asshole coming up hard on your ass. (Me.)

Nothing Funny About It At All, Karl

Well, if there's one thing about Karl Rove that we know for certain is sick, it's his sense of humor. During a speech at the University of Pennsylvania, Rove said, "History has a funny way of deciding things," he said. "Sometimes history sends you things, and 9/11 came our way." Really, now, Karl? You actually think there was something "funny" about the 9/11 attacks?

This has nothing to do with whether or not you believe the government's version of what happened that day (I don't), it has to do with the fact that Karl Rove must be one sick motherfucker to suggest that there was anything "funny", in any sense of the word, about the most horrific attacks on our shores since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Why would he say that if he felt even the slightest bit of empathy toward the victims of that tragedy? Is it wrong to suggest that perhaps he lacks empathy? I don't think so.

It's time conservatives in this country, of any stripe, wake up to the fact that Karl Rove may or may not be a "political genius" (he sure nailed down those 2006 elections, didn't he?), but he certainly is one of the most inhumane creatures to ever rise to the top of politics. He cannot possibly be thought of as "normal" in any sense of the word. He has no clue what the average American thinks, nor does he give a flying fuck. His whole mindset is about winning power and maintaining power. He does not have the best interests of the American people at heart, only what he believes to be the best interests of the person he works for at heart. He believes that the president is above the law and has full authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States any way he sees fit, including the exact opposite of the plain text and meaning. Why on Earth does anyone listen to this man?

AND ANOTHER THING... "History" doesn't "send" you things, you idiot. "History" is the written record of the past, not the events of the present, or the potential events of the future. Only "Fate" (or, for some, "Destiny") can "send" you things. And I wouldn't speak of 9/11 and what you did with it too much, Karl. It's hard to come across as human when you do.

Bill-O and the Sword of Damocles

His mouth was bound to get him in serious trouble one of these days, and we can only hope it happens this time. Bill O'Reilly has done it again. This time, the thread on which his career hangs, the one holding the Sword of Damocles, ought to be cut. If only his bosses at Westwood One and Fox News Channel had the decency to realize that O'Reilly has stepped further over the line that even Don Imus did. Just because he's back on the air is no reason not to punish O'Reilly for his profane and despicable comments. (And for all you "First Amendment" defenders of his, I'll have something to explain to you later.) In case you missed it, on his Feb 19th radio broadcast, Bill O'Reilly said the following:

You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.

That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.

He then tried to apologize for his remarks with the non-apology apology, "I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything." That's right, Bill. You said that you wouldn't join any "lynching party unless" (and you did put a lot of emphasis on the word "unless") "there's evidence". So, to put what you said in another, equivalent way, if there's evidence that she feels "that America is a bad country or a flawed nation", you would feel it "legit" to "to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama". And you don't understand why this is offensive? At all? Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that Mrs. Obama is black, it is a horrible thing to say about anyone. That she is black makes it inexcusably worse.

No one, myself included, who is not black and who did not live through that shameful period in our nation's history can know what it was like to live in fear of having it happen to you or a loved one. No doubt there are many alive today who are parents, children, descendents or siblings of lynching victims, and they know the pain and fear that I never could. To have a black person lynched, even in the public square, sent a powerful and frightening message of domination to the black man. "Do not even think of forgetting your place." (And that's putting it politely.) It was a message of intimidation to everyone. It was terrorism. And what made it all the worse was that it was often condoned by local, white-controlled law enforcement. Sometimes, they participated in the lynchings and help stall ot thwart the investigations. There are many outstanding cases today for which there has been no justice, and may never be. To suggest, even in a joking or flippant manner, that you would have anything whatsoever to do with something called a "lynching party", even in the figurative sense, is one of the most insensitive and racist things one could say. Especially when the person in question is black. And a woman, no less. And the wife of the man who may very well be the next president of the United States. And Bill O'Reilly is not being fired? Or suspended? Or even admonished about his poor choice of words? Nothing? You mean his bosses at Westwood One and Fox News Channel are perfectly okay with this? Perhaps we should let them know how we feel. (Those last two links take you to their respective "Contact Us" pages.)

Now, for all you O'Reilly defenders who want to say that I am depriving O'Reilly of his First Amendment right of free speech, let me explain something to you, and I will try to use go slowly so you'll understand. The First Amendment says that the Congress (not private citizens) shall pass no law "abridging freedom of speech." It means that, with a limited number of exceptions, you can't be put in jail for anything you say. That does not mean that as a condition of employment, your boss can require that you not say certain things in public or as part of your job (such as the fact that your bosses are soulless capitalists who are only interested in making a buck, like Rupert Murdoch). No one, myself especially, is suggesting that O'Reilly be imprisoned for what he said. We just want some kind of sign from his bosses that they do not approve of comments like that, nor would they want to be associated with them and thought of as the purveyors of racism. I know I wouldn't.

Perfecto en Nicaragua

Years from now, some older Nicaraguans will look back on 2008 and Super Bowl XLII as the year the New England Patriots went 19-0 to cap off the greatest season in NFL history. Never mind that they'll have no idea what "XLII" means, or what a "Super Bowl" is, but they'll know it happened because they'll have the proof. They'll have the official caps and jerseys issued by the NFL commemorating the historical event. How is that possible?

Well, it's no secret that the only way it's possible for a winning Super Bowl team's members to be standing on the field wearing baseball caps declaring them the victors immediately after the game ends is if the NFL had both possibilities covered ahead of time. The team that wins gets their hats and jerseys distributed, but what happens to the ones made up for the eventual losers? Well, for one thing, they could become very valuable collector's items on e-Bay, and that may yet happen.

Instead, the humanitarian organization World Vision made arrangements with the NFL to donate those hats and jerseys to two small, impoverished villages in southern Nicaragua. Once the game of football was explained to the kids (they know "football" as what we ignorant Americans call "soccer"), they were supposedly thrilled. Thrilled to have a piece of sports memorabilia that could one day be worth thousands of dollars to them. I wonder if they know? And I wonder how many of them will sell their hats and/or jerseys on e-Bay, and use the money to help their communities? I think it would be wonderful if even a few of them made such a selfless gesture. Think of how much money some rabid New England Patriots fan would pay to have one of those jerseys. This has the potential to change a lot of peoples' lives for the better. Not that making a bunch of small, poor children happy isn't a good thing, too. But they could have done that with a bunch of Nerf balls. Someone should tell those poor people how much money they may be holding in their hands.

Driving Me Crazy - The Pacer

Well, lucky you, Dear Readers. Today starts a new feature on Pick Wayne's Brain. It's where I finally start fulfilling my dream of being able to tell you about those idiots out there who don't know how to drive properly. Oh, the things I've seen. Worse still, the things I've heard about. Well, I'm going to tell you where some of your fellow citizens are going wrong. I'll introduce you to the vast array of Driver Types that I've created over the years (well, "created" in the sense that I thought of them myself and didn't steal them from anybody, even though someone else might have thought of them, too) including "The Gapper", "The Pokey" and, today's target, "The Pacer". (By the way, how do I know it's not one of you I'll be writing about? Because I know that you are all smart people, otherwise you wouldn't be reading this blog. And if there's one thing I've noticed about the people of whom I'll be writing, it's this: They're not very bright.)

A Pacer is one of those people who likes to drive down the interstate (or other multi-lane road) at the same speed as the car next to him. If the people in the middle lane of the three-lane highway are going along at 65 MPH, The Pacer will be in the left-hand lane driving side-by-side with him at the same speed, never zooming ahead and moving in front of him, never dropping back and slipping in behind him. The Pacer is the guy who violates Wayne's First Rule of Driving:

Wayne's Driving Rule #1
If you want to drive at the same speed as the people in the lane next to you, then get in the lane next to you.

Is that so hard to understand? I mean, what is the point of having a multi-lane road or highway if you're going to plant your sorry ass right next to the only other person in the lane next you, thus blocking everyone else from exercising their right to go around you and get the hell away from you? Okay, so you don't want to get caught by the cops speeding up just to move ahead of the guy. It doesn't mean you can't just put on your right turn signal (I'll be talking a lot about those folks another day), ease off of the accelerator, and slide into the lane behind the guy you're matching pace with? It's not rocket science! Okay, so, technically, it is rocket science, but it's not like you have to solve for any of the variables! Not precisely, anyway. You just have to know when one is less than the other. In fact, that's the beauty of it. You actually do calculus and rocket science in your head, but you don't do it with numbers. And if nobody hits anybody else, then you did it right.

Just remember to do it in the right order. Signal first, then ease off the gas pedal, then slide over. Signaling first is most important, otherwise if you slow down first, the guy behind you (probably me) might end up ramming into you, or he might have to hit the brakes hard causing a chain reaction of people suddenly braking behind you. Eventually, if the line of cars behind you is long enough (and on the interstate, that could easily be a mile or two), the people near the very end of that bunch of cars begin coming to a stop because the cars in front of them are going so slowly. And that's how you find yourself coming to a complete stop on the highway, for no obvious reason in the world. You expect to see debris or, if you're the ghoulish type, some blood that hasn't been hosed away yet, but there's nothing and you wonder for the life of you why you all had to come to a complete stop. The answer is simple. It's that dickhead Pacer at the head of the line.

Once you've put on the signal, then you ease off the gas pedal. For the benefit of any Pacers out there trying to learn from this, I cannot emphasize the importance of following Step One with Step Two, and not skipping ahead to Step Three. I know it's tempting in this hustle-and-bustle world to want to multi-task and combine two things in one, but this is not the time to be trying that. Remember, there's been a car beside you this entire time, and if you attempt to complete Step Three before you have completed Step Two, you may find yourself suddenly spinning out of control. Oh, sure. It'll be cool for the rest of us to watch as your car flips end-over-end, finally coming to rest on the median before bursting into a ball of fire, and you run from the vehicle, flames dancing from your waving arms and legs, as you dive to the ground in a possibly vain attempt to put out the fire, but how would I know because you're finally no longer in front of me and I can get the hell away from you! Thank you for finally "moving over."

So, having successfully completed Steps One and Two (in that order), you are now ready to move on to Step Three, the Slide Over behind The Guy Next To You. You want to be careful here. He might be a Pacer, too, and his natural instinct would be to slow down with you so that neither of you is ahead of the other. This, by the way and for the record, is why some of us would like to equip our cars with missiles. But that's a topic for another blog. (Or maybe "Car Talk" on the radio.) If, as you are about to execute Step Three, you perceive that you are beside a Pacer, your best bet is to suddenly step on the gas and get ahead of him as quickly as possible and then slide over in front of him this time. (Remember, the original plan was to slip in behind him, but he thwarted that artful maneuver by being a dickhead. Switch to Plan B.) At this point, it's better for all concerned (specifically me, in particular, in the car behind you), that you speed up to get into the next lane rather than slow down because if you slow down, you're more likely to cause an actual fender-bender about a mile and a half behind you.

That's all for this edition. If there's enough enthusiastic support for this column, there may be future editions. (At this point, one favorable comment might be enough.) And be safe out there, there's a lot of pretty stupid fucking people on the roads.

Picking My Brain 08-02-01

So I'm watching the political coverage of the Democrats on MSNBC last night and Craig "Aaaaaa-ggggh" Crawford says that a dream ticket for the Democrats would be "an Obama-Clinton, or Clinton-Obama ticket, depending on who's on top...and who's the running mate." I'm so glad he remembered to add "...and who's the running mate," because it looked for a moment like he might not. And if he left that part off, well, we are talking about a man and a woman here...

If extra-terrestrial beings were in orbit studying our planet and deciding on which country they should make first contact with, do you think that if they took a look at the Bush Administration, the United States would be their first choice? Me, neither.

An old favorite joke by stand-up comedian John Mendoza: I think every car should come with a cell phone, and the phone number would be your license plate. That way, I could call you up and say, "Would you mind getting the fuck out of my way?"

Media Matters has decided to launch a The Matthews Monitor to keep an eye on the often-rambling MSNBC host of "Hardball". Seems he has a "long history of degrading, sexist commentary". He also has this weird tendency to lapse into some kind of man-crush speak on some of the Republican candidates, like Romney and McCain. Anyway, I think it's time someone was paying attention to the things that man says. I'm not bringing this up because I want you to donate money or anything. That's entirely up to you. (I say that because they do have a place for donations there, but you can ignore it.) But Chris Matthews is a very influential Washington Political Commentator, and he represents the so-called "elites" of the political talk scene. If he wants the answer to a certain question, he can be relentless about going after people who might have the answers he wants. But only if it continues to interest him. So he has to be reminded when he strays from the important topics, and when he makes his patented sexist remarks.

That's all that seems to be floating around my noggin to night. If there are storms where you are, please be careful. We had an ice storm pass through here that, luckily, wasn't too severe. Could have been worse. So, as Sgt Esterhaus reminded everyone on Hill Street Blues, "Let's be careful out there."

From Tapper to Drudge to Fox News Channel

You've got to hand it to the Republican Noise Machine for doing it once again. They've taken one segment of a comment Bill Clinton (D-USA) made on the campaign trail and totally misrepresented what was said in order to score more digs at him and, by extension, his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Perhaps you've seen some of them talk about it. Ironically, if they had read the entire post by ABC's Jake Tapper, they would have seen the line taken out of context. I'm surprised Tapper didn't read it, even though he allegedly wrote it.

It started with a blog post by Jake Tapper, in which he claims that Bill Clinton said that we need to slow down the economy to fight global warming. (BTW, Tapper added some updates in which he says he changed the title of his blogpost to better reflect what he meant, but I don't think it helped.) From there, internet gossip and self-styled humanoid Matt Drudge put a link to it on his compost heap, I mean blog. Well, that's all Fox News Channel needed, because later that day, E.D. Hill was leading a discussion on whether or not Bill Clinton was right to say that we need to slow down our economy in order to fight global warming. For the sake of fairness, let's quote what Bill Clinton actually said, and you tell me if he's saying that we need to slow down our economy to fight global warming:

CLINTON: And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties [sic] -- would say, "OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren." We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future... If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan.

For some reason, Jake Tapper completely missed the point that Clinton was making, which was that this approach is unnecessary and might not even work! He was saying the opposite! He was saying that the rich countries that did make a committment to fighting global warming have created jobs and improved their economies overall. Yet, Tapper puts in his headline that Bill Clinton was advocating a position he wasn't, and Matt Drudge (whose reading comprehension skills I seriously question) sticks the out-of-context quote in a link to tapper's blog.

Enter Fox News Channel. Not content to merely continue mischaracterizing what the man they hate most in the world said, Fox Airhead E.D. Hill decides to have a guest on to discuss it. This is where it starts to get really perverted. After showing a clip of Clinton saying just these words "...we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren..." (she acknowledged only that this was a "small part" of what he said), Hill invited a gentleman, Charles Payne, CEO of Wall Street Strategies, to discuss the "puzzling" statement by Bill Clinton. From the video clip at Media Matters, it appears that Payne took no time to familarize himself with the actual comments that Clinton made. Instead, the two of them ridiculed Clinton for suggesting that we slow down our economy which, once again, is not what Clinton said we should do. But it gets worse.

This dovetails into a discussion between Hill and Payne about how "the free market" will find a solution to this "so-called problem". (Yes, Payne referred to global warming as a "so-called problem".) In fact, Payne even suggested that our grandchildren "will find ways to make money off this". Friends, global climate change is a very real phenomenon, and every reputable scientist who isn't being paid to say otherwise agrees. At present, we are experiencing an overall increase in average temperatures, and one result of this is that the storms we do get tend to be more intense. And human activities are very definitely contributing to this in a very negative way. (Negative in the sense that we aren't making it better, we're making it worse.) Yes, to fight the effects will cost money, and it is entirely possible that the people who work in the industries that contribute to the problem may some day have to find other work. But there will be other work. There will be plenty of work in the alternative fuel industries. The problem is that right now, oil and coal, two of the biggest causes of pollution, are very profitable, and the kind of people who support George W. Bush (Fox News Channel, etc) believe that financial worth is equivalent to social worth. In other words, if it makes money, it must inherently be a good thing.

This is one of many battles that Liberals and the other Forces of Goodness and Light have to face each day. There are people out there who feel that making a profit is not only the most important thing in the world, but that it is a sign that you are doing something good. (This is why the Military Industrial Complex is so beloved by Wall Street, even though they make equipment designed to kill and maim people. They make a profit doing it, so they must be "good".) It makes no difference to these people how many lives are lost or destroyed, how many jobs are eliminated, or how many children go hungry and homeless each day. If someone has found a way to make money off the problem, that person is the one who is "good. It doesn't seem to matter if what they are doing is helping or hurting the problem, as long as they are making a profit. In fact, if someone were to come along and eliminate a problem that was proving highly profitable by someone else, they would probably be attacked for destroying jobs and ruining the economy, even if they saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the process.

We need to get off this inane ideas that "the free market" will provide the solutions to our problems. The Free Market only supports profitable solutions, not ones that might be costly but necessary, or even (dare I say it?) effective. We need to get off the idea that financial success is equal to social worth. There are quite a few very wealthy people who you wouldn't want your kids to learn from or even go near. Money isn't everything, and there comes a point where, quite frankly, you may have more than you'll ever need. Is there any sensible reason in the world why you would want more? Do we have to continue to support a national policy of greed? I'm not saying that Capitalism should be eliminated completely. I'm just saying that it is not the only way to live.

I do think that we can eliminate Fox News Channel with no longterm harmful effects to our society.

Keep Watching The Skies!

Now look what they've done. They've gone and lost control of one of their satellites, and now it's going to fall sometime soon (late February, early March, they can't seem to say when yet) over somewhere unknown (might be the big blue ocean, might be your living room). Personally I find it hard to believe that our government has no one capable of solving problems in orbital mechanics like this. I mean, they knew exactly where the satellite was when it lost power and they lost control. They knew its velocity (which includes both its speed and its trajectory) when that happened. They know its co-efficient of friciton. They know its mass. (They built the damn thing.) Other than upper air weather patterns, the only other force acting upon it is gravity. Seems to me like they have enough information to figure out when it's going to hit the atmosphere and start burning up and falling to Earth. Why can't they tell us this? Ah, yes, because the fact that this is happening is still considered classified. Because it's one of their spy satellites.

Shouldn't the safety of the public be considered at least as important? If it's a rural area where the satellite might land, they should at least speak to local government officials. Tell them that what they are about to hear must remain classified for the time being. Besides, there is no need to alarm the public over what may be nothing. Be prepared to evacuate your town should it become necessary sometime around the end of next month and the beginning of the month after. We cannot say why right now. And if it's projected to land in a major city, what are they planning to do? Let thousands of innocent civilians die? Again?

What also bothers me about this story is the fact that they leaked enough classified information to make you nervous, but not nearly enough to make you feel like the potential danger to yourself is minimal. I mean, they could at least remind people of statistics like "You're 1,000 times more likely to be hit by lightening than by a piece of falling classified satellite debris." (Or whatever the actual odds are.) Instead, they leak this much info and no more. Why? If they have no intention of telling us whether or not we really are in danger, then of what benefit is it to us to leak this info at all? I mean, there's clearly nothing any of us could have done to stop it, of course, nor a Wile E. Coyote-style umbrella strong enough to hide under should it come right at us. Nothing we could do at all, really, except just try to stay out of its way if and when it comes down toward us. But they can't tell us when that will be, possibly because they expect that the laws of Gravity might be changed through a Bush Executive Order, or something.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. Gravity is just a "Theory".

Why Polls Are Always Wrong

On the Jan 9, 2008 edition of "A Daily Show with Jon Stewart", guest John Zogby, of the famed Zogby polling, was asked if pre-election polling actually affected the outcome of the election and he answered,"I don't know." Is it unreasonable to think that people will or will not support a particular candidate because polls show the person they were thinking of throwing support to was going to win anyway? In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader because even without the benefit of polls, I knew that my home state, New York, was going to go to Al Gore. So I decided to try to help a third party get on the ballots by getting at least five percent of the national vote. We came up short, and Al Gore, "as predicted", won New York anyway. I am hoping that more people understand the benefit of voting this way. If your candidate wins with 70% of the vote, all of those people who were above 51% could have done the same thing I did and their candidate would still have won. If more parties can get to field candidates without having to get signatures every year (the benefit of getting at least five percent of the national vote), then our choices won't continue to be limited to the goddamn Democratic Party and the goddamn Republican Party. (Yes, I'm a liberal libertarian, but I despise both of those national parties. Local politics are different.)

As everyone who follows the polls knows by now, none of the major pollsters got it right in New Hampshire, certainly as far as Democrats are concerned. And there's a good reason for that. Political polling as a means of predicting the eventual winner of an election does not work! The theory is flawed. Stewart asked Zogby how many phone calls he would have to make to get the 850 to 900 people he uses for the poll, and Zogby answered, "About six to seven thousand." Suppose it was 6,300 calls to get 900 responses. That means that six out of seven people were not asked about their opinion on that particular question or issue. So how do they make the leap that the one out of seven that they do question is representative of the rest of us? How do they know, for example, how people who screen their calls with an answering machine will vote, or how people who don't like being interrupted to take a poll will vote, or how people who don't believe that polls are accurate will vote? They don't because they can't. How could they prove that they are "just like the people" who do give their time to a pollster (on the assumed pretense that they will give truthful and non-evasive answers)? How much do they weigh the respondent's qualifications to answer a question when taking results? Do they ask every person how politically aware they are? Or do they just ask for whom they'd like to vote (and if they plan to vote)?

Another reason for flawed results is that there are, apparently, a lot of people who don't make up their minds until the day they vote. Zogby said that about 18% of the voters made up their minds on Election Day. That's a lot of people (about 2 out of 11). Is it any wonder that they couldn't accurately predict the outcome? And since this was being heralded as a "Three Horse Race" by the supposedly unbiased media (both left and right), it was unclear to the pundits who would get the "anti-vote" of any of the candidates. Would anti-Clintons throw their support for Obama or Edwards? That would depend, of course, on why they didn't like Clinton. Would anti-Obama voters support Clinton or Edwards? It is hard to imagine that anyone could be so against Sen Obama as people are quite clearly so against Sen Clinton. Personally, I feel that a lot of the hate directed at her is unwarranted and unfounded. Many of the talking heads I hear flinging poo in her direction are using debunked and irrelevant talking points in an often inarticulate effort to do no more than continue to foment hatred toward her. While there may certainly be good reason to dislike Sen Clinton, it's probably not for any of the reasons you've heard. Unfortunately, because little is explored in depth on these types of shows very often (Keith Olbermann, one of my favorites, being an obvious exception), people too lazy to cross verify what they hear on TV continue to believe the lies. And because they believe the lies, they believe the innuendo about her and what she might do once inaugurated as our 44th President of the United States.

Oh, wait, sorry. You mean she hasn't actually won? You could have fooled me. It sure sounds like it on TV. The entire Primary Process is completely different from any other election year because of all the changes to the voting dates. Much of their theory about who will do well after each primary is based on the past performance of previous winners of those primaries. But those primaries often had days or weeks more time between them, when a lot of things can happen to a candidate, than they do this year. So how can they be certain that the "winner" in New Hampshire is going to perform a certain way in upcoming primaries that now come sooner than before? Seriously, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to presume that any historical pattern will repeat in this election cycle. With the way these primaries are coming, the nominees of each party will be decided in plenty of time for them to screw up badly and an independent candidate gets on the ballots in all fifty states. It's not too late for that to happen. Don't say I didn't warn you.

And the analysis you hear all the time from the political talking heads is really just a bunch of nonsense. Look at what happened when Sen Clinton beat Sen Obama in the New Hampshire primary. Suddenly it was a "stunning upset" because all the polls showed that Sen Obama would win, some by double-digit figures. Could it be that their interpretation of the polling results was in error because their theory is flawed? I mean, do they ever "predict" the accurate results ahead of time? No. I know what you're going to say. "Wayne, you ignorant slut. That's what the Margin of Error is for." Oh, really? Then how come election results often fall outside the so-called "margin of error"? (It happens.) And do know why that is? The answer is mind-bendingly simple. The difference between what the polls predicted and how the election actually case out is not what the "Margin of Error" you hear so much is measuring. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It is not the percent the results may vary, it's the probability that your sample group (those 900 voters who answered the poll)is not representative of the actual group as a whole (them plus the 5400 people who did not take part in the poll). And even that is based on something that doesn't apply to actual political pollees: It is presumed that the group being sampled falls into a kind of general, bell-shaped graph of results (whatever they may be) where most things are more-or-less alike and there's a small number of things on either extreme. You've all seen them. It's fine for analyzing things that actually did or did not happen. They are facts. And they do generally fit the bell curve graph (for the most part). But the opinions of ill-informed people is no sound way to predict how they'll vote. People often base their opinion on things that are not true. And there's no telling when they will learn the truth and change their mind about the people they always supported before.

People, it's time to put an end to the belief that political polls can tell you anything about the outcome of an election. They can't. Not with any degree of certainty that is worth investing in, because they are flawed from the get-go. The best thing you can do is trust your own feelings about a candidate and what he or she stands for, and vote for the candidate who YOU think best represents your views. That is what Democracy is all about.

P.S. This Means You (A Song Parody)

P.S. This Means You
(Original Words and Music, "P.S. I Love You",
by Paul McCartney & John Lennon, 1963
Additional Lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2007)

"As I write this letter,
Send my words to you.
Remember that you have to
See impeachment through.

"Honor those oath's words you took together.
Remember them forever.
P.S. This means you.
You, You, You"

I'll be writing Hall again tomorrow
To tell him of my sorrow.
P.S. Why don't you?
You, You, You.

"As I write this letter,
Send my words to you.
Remember that you have to
See impeachment through.

"Honor those oath's words you took together.
Remember them forever.
P.S. This means you.
You, You, You.

"As I write this letter, Oh,
Send my words to you. You know I want you to
Remember that you have to, yea,
See impeachment through."

I'll be writing Hall again tomorrow
To tell him of my sorrow.
P.S. Why don't you?
You, You, You.
You, You, You.
Why don't you?

To Replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Purposes of Pursuing Impeachment Petition

Scott Creighton has initiated "To Replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Purposes of Pursuing Impeachment Petition". While this is a major step, it is not one to be considered lightly. Yet, after learning that she plans to use Republican corruption as a 2008 House campaign issue instead of pursuing the impeachment (and later removal from office) of Vice President Dick Cheney, I have no choice but to believe that she fully intends to put the interests of her political party ahead of the interests of the nation and of her obligation to support and defend the Constitution of the Unites States. I cannot think of any other way to get her attention than to threaten her with removal from her historic position as the first ever female Speaker of the House. But the fact that she is a woman and a Democrat makes no difference. The evidence has been forthcoming the most under her watch, and the previous Speaker who ignored the president's and vice president's crimes might be cut some slack, but not Speaker Pelosi. We now have proof that the vice president acted illegally. If she won't let impeachment proceedings go forward because she wants to use it as a campaign issue, then let's get someone in there who will go through with impeachment. Leadership isn't just holding a position or a gavel. Leadership is leading. So, Ms Pelosi, lead or get out of the way.

It is incumbent upon every American citizen to hold their Representatives to their oaths of office. If members of the US Military are expected to fight and die as part of their oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, how can our Representatives balk at impeachment?

Please read the petition and add your signature.

Dear Congressman Hall

Dear Congressman Hall:

I'm writing to express my extreme disappointment in you and the rest of the Congress for the useless and unconstitutional vote on "H. Res. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." This is an extremely dangerous step over the line that our founding fathers drew between church and state, and towards the establishment of a national religion. I'm saddened that someone of your intelligence could pander to the imaginary "War on Christmas" rhetoric of the type that Bill O'Reilly spews (he is now taking credit for "winning" the "War on Christmas", thanks to this resolution.) I'm also saddened, and frightened, by this resolution's obvious effect of insulting the many other religions practiced by American citizens. Our government, according to the Constitution, has no business recognizing the "importance" of any religion. I urge you to reconsider this vote and call for the resolution's repeal. If not, then I sincerely hope that the Senate quickly disposes of this as being patently unconsitutional, which should have been obvious to you and to every other Representative who voted for it. Thank you for your consideration.

I would still like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas, and I hope that we get to see you Friday night at the party in Pawling. If you're still in Washington right now, get ready for some snow, we got hit with about 8" of it today.

Sincerely,
Jane E. Schneider
Pawling, NY

Destroying Democracy

Democracy in America is slowly being destroyed. The attack has been insidious, and our desire for a government of the people, by the people, for the people is being eroded every day. And the worst part is that all of us have invited the attackers into our homes freely and willingly. Some of us even venture outside our homes to personally make sure some of the attackers have safe passage to our living rooms. We don't think of them as attackers of Democracy, but rather our friends and allies in the struggle against those who would take our Democracy away by force. They are supposed to be the ones protecting our Democracy without guns and bullets. They are supposed to be our trusted advisor, giving us the information we need to ensure our Democracy remains strong. They are the ones who are supposed to be our source of truth, the ones we can call upon to validate the facts we use to make informed decision about whom we would choose to govern us according to the way we want to be governed. They are The Media (the newspapers, television and cable networks, and radio stations, both land and satellite, and all the sources of information that purport to be following the standards of Journalism.)

The Media is destroying Democracy. They destroy it by what they say, and they destroy it by what they don't say. When they talk about the various elections, they mislead us constantly, always steering us away from thinking differently than they tell us the rest of the country is thinking. They do this because it's easier than actually doing the work of reporting, of asking questions and verifying the facts behind the things being told them. And they do it when they fail to tell us about all of the candidates running for high office. They will claim that time constraints on live TV require that they limit how many candidates they can cover, but who says that we want them to tell us about just the "front-runners" in the first place? It turns out that they do.

When The Media speak of "the inevitability of Hillary", they begin to speak of how voters are picking the candidate who they think "has the best chance of winning the presidency." This is wrong. This is not what Democracy is supposed to be about. Democracy functions best when the people casting the votes are informed. When they understand all of the issues upon which they are voting, they are then able to decide what would be the best way to vote (which ballot measures to approve, which candidates to select.) But the way the Media presents the issues is not full, in-depth coverage, but scaled-down, limited scrutiny on issues they tell us we want to know more about. Who knows how much of the country really wants Hillary Clinton to be president? Who knows how much of the country really wants Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul to be president? I live in New York State, and I do not believe that I know a single person who wants Hillary Clinton to be president. If she's the nominee and the Republicans have put up one of the major front-runners we hear so much about (as opposed to one of the other candidates of whom we hear next to nothing), they would likely support her, but only because the Republican alternative would be unbearable (for different reasons). And yet the Media has been telling us practically since 2000 that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. How do they know this? They don't. They're creating it out of thin air and their own deceptions to the public.

And what makes them say that we voters select a candidate based on how we perceive their chances of winning that particular race? Where does the candidate's "chances of winning" enter into this? They should be encouraging voters to pick the candidate who best represents their views on how the country should be run. Instead of encouraging people to dream, to have hopes and aspirations for what this great country is capable of doing (and, for the record, despite what anybody thinks of Liberals, I believe that this is still a great country), to teach children to want to value public service enough to want to be a part of it, in any kind of positive way, they instead send the message that the object is simply to win. Nothing more. Without winning, nothing else matters. This is wrong.

Our representation in Washington has degraded to the point where Right and Wrong mean nothing, only winning counts. And we got that way because we elected people with that mentality. And we elected people with that mentality because the media has told us who is viable and who is not. And the media has told us who is viable and who is not based on what they think the public wants from the government. And what they think the public wants from the government is based on polls. And polls are based on a statistical analysis of how about a thousand people picked at random answer a pollster's questions. And this is the flaw in their logic. This is the tool with which they are destroying Democracy.

I have always been suspicious of polls, and after doing some research (I never studied the subject in school), I have come to believe that when it comes to public opinion polls, especially about politicians and candidate selection, polls are being misused and misreported. One of the key culprits is the "margin of error". (It's the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of this concept that is at the heart of how the Media is destroying Democracy.) I have learned a little about statistical analysis from a website set up by Robert Niles, who writes to help journalists understand how to use statistics.

It starts with the sample size. According to statistical theory, the researcher needs to be concerned that the sample chosen is not representative of the event(s) being studied. One thing the Media doesn't tell you is that there is a huge difference between analyzing statistics on car accidents or heart attacks, and analyzing public responses to pollster questions. The former involves actual facts and true events of things that, more or less, are the same across the whole spectrum of events provided you have properly defined what it is you are measuring, and how you are collecting the data. The data collected must be sufficient to ensure that a sample chosen at random will have a certain degree of probability of being representative of the whole, assuming that such a concept exists! When you speak of public opinion polls, you are often discussing responses to questions about which the respondent is not qualified to give an intelligent answer. "Should the U.S. impose sanctions on country x?" Come on! Does the average American have a sufficient grasp of all of the variables involved in determining whether or not to issue economic sanctions against another sovereign nation? Of course not! One could argue that neither do the people in government making those decisions, but they aren't the ones answering the poll trying to gauge public opinion. So how could the results have any meaning in the first place? Yet the Media will report results of this poll as if it represents the feelings of the nation as a whole. It clearly can't possibly do that, so what gives the Media the right to say it does?

So they tell you that the poll result has a margin of error, and they tell you that this margin of error means that the result of any response (whether it's a yes/no or agree/somewhat agree/somewhat disagree/disagree-type poll) could be that many points up or down. This is flat out wrong. In statistics, it is assumed that what you are measuring (is measurable, first of all, which may be debatable) will fit into a graph in the shape of a bell curve (high in the middle and then flattening out to he sides). I do not believe that public opinion on any subject (ballot measure or candidate) will graph out to such a curve, if it can be graphed at all. I do not believe it true that the majority of the country feels the same way about things, and that only a small percentage fall out to either margin. Statistical analysis of poll results assumes this, so the results are flawed for that reason, too. The Margin of Error of any statistical result is the probability that the sample you've chosen is not representative of the whole subject under study. If you have only ten things to sample, a formula used in statistics will tell you that there is about a 30% chance that this sample does not represent the event you want to study. If you increase the sample size to 100, the margin of error goes down, because you are now more likely to be picking samples more broadly representative of all events (of that type). Another omission by the Media is the fact that for a statistical analysis of factual events that did or did not happen, it makes no difference how big the pool is from which the samples are drawn. (On the theory that they are more or less the same for the parameter you've defined.) The higher your sample size, the less likely it is that your samples are a bunch of exceptions to the rule. But this assumes that there is a rule to which they might be an exception! It has nothing to do with the validity of the answers given, only the probability (not 100%) that your sample isn't an aberration. Have you ever heard an estimate of how many poll questions are answered falsely? I haven't. If you feel like searching for one, be my guest. I'd love to see the answer.

Now, consider that the fact that a great deal of Americans are ill-informed on the major issues. When Presidents Bush and Cheney launched a series of lies which lead to our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, a majority of Fox News Channel viewers believed one of three things they were told that were not true. (Iraq had WMD, Saddam worked with bin Laden and al Qaeda, Iraq was involved in 9/11.) A significant percentage believed all three! Yet no poll that I've seen mentions that a significant percentage of their polling sample are morons who wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass. What's more, I know for a fact that the poll results do not include the views of people like me, because people like me don't answer the phone when pollsters call! So how can they say that their poll results reflect my views? Don't think that I'm complaining because my views are not represented in all the polls you hear spouted on TV, because I don't believe those polls have any worth. The pollsters keep their algorithms a closely guarded secret, so how does anyone know if the numbers they publicly release are the ones their formula came up with or just made up? Hardly any of them accurately predict the election results, yet they claim that you should believe them. And the media (which often sponsor these polls, or participate in the collection of data) wants you to believe that what they say about what the country thinks is reliable, and in no way done just to direct you to think a certain way about subjects.

If a candidate for office doesn't have the money to pay for the media to follow him around, then the media does not report very much on what that candidate says or does, unless he does it in a place where the media normally goes. When do you see people like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul on TV? When they speak out on a controversial subject from the floor of the House. (Poor Mike Gravel, no longer in public office, has no such forum from which to be heard.) Do you see every stop they make in Iowa or New Hampshire? No, because the media only reports on who they tell you the front-runners are. How do you know that these people are the favorites among voters? Because the media tells you they are. How do they know which candidate people like me like? They can't, because I've never told them. If they tell you that they surveyed 1,200 people chosen at random, how do they know how a nation of 300,000,000 will vote, almost a year from now in an election that hasn't taken place yet, when they don't know what a big slice of the public thinks? Because they don't want you thinking. They want you to feel as though to believe something they say is unpopular makes you too different to have the right to have your say. They want to make themselves look good by telling you what you think. You want to support one of these "third tier candidates"? (Who gave them that name, by the way?) Well, then you might be a little crazy because the polls tell us everyone loves Hillary, and a lot of people love Obama (including Oprah!), so maybe you the voter aren’t so smart after all. And since your candidate can't win (they tell you), you're better off throwing your support behind someone who can. Why back a loser, especially one we decided is a loser?

So, instead of encouraging you to cast your vote for the person you would like to see win, they tell you to limit your choices to an annointed few. They say that in politics, perception is reality. The Media are the ones who have created the perception that certain candidates just aren't worth your support, because the Media has decided that they cannot win. And if they limit the number of candidates they have to cover, they don't have to spend the time and money covering the candidates with the best ideas. Instead, they talk about whether or not their favorite front-runners can convince people to want something else, something the favored candidate wants instead. If you want to believe polls? Then explain this: According to the polls, a majority of the country is opposed to the war in Iraq. A majority also dislikes the job that George W. Bush is doing. According to Rudy Giuliani's campaign statements, he has said that if you like Bush, then you'll like him. And he has been saying this for a while. So how can Giuliani be doing so well in the polls (overall) if he stands for everything the country is against? Yet The Media would have you believe that he may very well be the likely Republican nominee, based on the polls they report or conduct. Want further evidence? Listen closely when polls start deviating from the pre-determined results. Suddenly, voters are "surprising the pundits" by not favoring the candidate the Media thinks they should be favoring. It never seems to occur to them that the data they've been using is flawed from the outset, that the methodology they've been employing can't possibly be accurate.

Don't believe the polls. Support the candidate that YOU like, not the ones the Media like. After all, they aren't casting your vote, you are. Vote for the candidate that you feel best represents your view. If you're reading this, then you probably have access to the internets. Use it, the candidates do. Learn about the candidates yourself and make your own decision. And whatever you do, don't help the Media mislead the country by answering polling questions. You're only helping them to perpetuate a lie.

No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required

Cancel the speech, Gov Romney. You don't need to do it. You have the constitutional right to tell anyone who questions your religion to go to Hell, if you want. Assuming you believe in Hell. I don't, but that's neither here not there. You see, Gov Romney, there's an often-overlooked clause in the constitution. Article VI, Clause 3, ends with, "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Republican Party especially has been putting out the idea that if you are not a person of faith, then you are unfit to hold high public office. This is wrong, and it is unconstitutional.

Since, constitutionally, there is no religious test that any candidate for president must pass, then why do all the candidates act as if they are trying to pass one? Why do they make a big deal out of their religious beliefs? Those beliefs shouldn't matter, because they have no role in guiding public policy. Personal moral behavior, yes, if that's what you think is needed to be moral, but public policy, no. And therein lies the problem. There are too many people out there who believe that you must have a belief in God (or in some power higher than yourself which, to the skeptic like me, would look just like a god) in order to have a moral belief system. This is simply not true. I adhere to no religious beliefs (in case you didn't already know, I am atheist), yet I have as my moral guiding principal the same one many of you out there have: To try to treat other people the way I would like to be treated by them.

I do not need any fear of eternal damnation in Hell to frighten me into doing what's right. I try to do what's right because I feel good when I do it. I like helping people. I like teaching people new things. I like trying to make the lives of the people I see everyday just a little bit better for having given me the opportunity to share this life with them. I do it because I like to do it. And the fact that there are a lot of people who have the same moral foundation as I is evident in the way they return the kindness I give them. They, in return, are treating me as I treat them. And no deity need be involved. No fear of what may come after this life for not doing right by your fellow man. None of that. Just the simple recognition that if we all try to treat other people the way we would like to be treated, that kindness just naturally comes back to us. (Most of the time, anyway.)

So cancel that speech, Gov Romney. Your religious beliefs are nobody else's business. And just as you have the right to refuse to subject yourself to any religious test whatsoever (including do you have one?), the voting public has no constitutional right to insist that you do. And we don't ever need to hear about those religious beliefs because they will not be driving public policy. Will they? I hope not.

The Morality Quiz (Not Mine, Apparently)

In an upcoming issue of Time magazine there is a story called "What Makes Us Moral?" Accompanying the article is The Morality Quiz. It's five simple questions about five situations in which you would have to choose whether or not to take a human life. Go ahead and take the quiz. After each question, you can see how your answer compared to the other people who took it. I intend to discuss each of the five questions below, and I will discuss how I answered them and reasoned them out. One hint: I was in the majority only once as of the time I took the test. I'll be here when you're done.

Insert Jeopardy "Think" music here.

The questions in the quiz are used by social scientists to determine where humans draw the line on morality. My "Golden Rule", my moral philosophy of treating other people the way I would want them to treat me, governed how I answered those questions. I would not want to be the one sacrificed on someone else's say-so, at least not without the chance to offer myself up voluntarily.

I'm not an orphaned baby whose cries could fatally expose a group of adults (BTW, did this scenario remind anyone of the last episode of "M*A*S*H"?), but I might be a severely injured adult in a great deal of unsoothable pain whose similar cries might jeopardize the lives of others. I wouldn't want someone else to make the decision that I should die or be expelled from the group to save the rest. But, believe it or not, I would be willing to voluntarily sacrifice myself to save others. I was in the 41% who would not smother the baby in the quiz. I'm a little concerned that three out of five people would do it.

Similarly, I could not order a person certain to die to be thrown overboard from an overcrowded lifeboat, but if I were the one injured and I was lucid enough to understand the situation, I would sacrifice myself to save the rest. I was a little surprised to learn that I was in that one out of every three that would not toss overboard a grievously ill person, and again I was concerned to see that two out of three people could do it. Perhaps the respondents weren't putting themselves in the place of the baby and badly-injured they would so readily sacrifice. In the case of the lifeboat sacrifice, I'm a little further disturbed that the percentage was higher than in the first question, even though this one clearly spelled out that the person being killed was fully aware of what was happening. Did people answer this way because they thought that this was the kind of resolution a leader should come to? Is it that they feel that a leader must be able to decide who lives and who dies in order to lead? Does a leader have that moral right in the first place? I do not believe that the test fully addresses that aspect of the moral question being studied.

Finally, the last three questions are based on the same basic scenario: There is a trolley about to kill five people and a way is offered for you to turn that five fatalities into only one. But it's not an easy choice like a random one of those five will die, but you can't know which. That would be simple. Yes, do what it takes to save up to four of those lives, and let the Fates determine who the unlucky one is. But in this case, the random death is not a random one of the five, but a completely different person. Each one has a different way in which that would happen, and you have to decide whether or not you would take the option given. Here's where the responses reveal something interesting. In the first one, you can throw a switch that will divert a trolley from killing five people in a group to killing one person by himself. The deaths are assumed to be imminent based on which track the trolley takes (which is determined by whether or not you throw a switch.) I couldn't do it. I couldn't knowingly throw that switch and kill that unsuspecting man on the side. I was almost shattered to learn that I was one of only 18% who couldn't throw the switch. An astounding 82% said they would do it. Remember that in my mind, I'm not simply saving five lives, I'm taking one. Even though the two are simultaneous and derivative of the same exact action on my part, I couldn't bring myself to kill another human at random. (Now I suspect that by now you're thinking I'm the romantic hero, but I do feel this way. Ask Jane. I have told her that even if we were in a group of people trying to survive a situation, and it was necessary for one person to sacrifice himself to guarantee the safety of the others, then I would do it.) If it were me stuck on the tracks and I could reach the switch and divert the trolley from their track to my own, thus killing myself but saving them, I would do it. That was not an option in this quiz though.

The fourth question changes the parameters of the first trolley car. In this one I was finally in the majority, but I suspect that it was because a lot of people taking these life and death morality questions are, at heart, cowards who don't believe in why they would do things they claim they would do. In this question, instead of throwing a switch to divert the trolley upon another innocent bystander, you have to actually throw an innocent bystander onto the track to save the five people. I was part of the five out of nine who said they could not push the bystander onto the track. Of course, in my mind, if I could push someone else off the bridge and onto the track below to save five people, I could also throw myself over. So why would four out of nine people say they could personally, with their bare hands, kill an innocent person to save five others? I'm not so sure they had alternatives in mind. Nor do they put themselves in the shoes of the guy they decided to sacrifice to save five other people. Kind of scary, when you think about it.

Even scarier are the results of the fifth and final question. Like the previous question, you have to cause another person to get thrown onto the path of the trolley, but instead of pushing them with your hands, you throw a switch that catapults them. (Again, of course, I said no.) Surprisingly enough, one of those nine people switched their position and decided that not having to actually touch the person they are condemning made it okay to go ahead and kill them. Now only four out of nine would not throw the switch, while five out of nine people said they would catapult someone to their death to save five other people. I have to wonder if they ever thought of themselves as being the one chosen to be sacrificed.

As the introduction to the quiz (and the aritcle itself) said, "The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you." I don't think I find it comforting to know that a majority of my fellow humans would sacrifice me against my will to save the lives of others. Yes, I believe it a noble thing to do it voluntarily (perhaps it's why I say I would do it, but I really would), but I also find it inhuman and inhumane to decide to sacrifice someone else, especially a particular someone else, for the good of the group. Drawing straws to see who must done for the others at least brings the element of fairness to the situation. The losing straw could be anyone's. I think we can accept the random death of one person if it ends up saving the group. But the deliberate murder of a single person, whether or not it could be rationalized as anything other than what it is, is more disturbing. Has our morality grown very high from its "deepest foundation" if so many people can forget what it might be like to be the one picked against his will to die so that others may live? I fear we have a long, long way to go before our species is ready for the next step in the evolutionary journey. We might reach it way before then, but we won't be ready for it. And that could be the momst frightening thing of all.

Private Accounts, Public Disaster

The Associated Press is reporting what some of the major party presidential candidates have to say about Social Security (see article at Raw Story.) In a nutshell, three of the Democratic candidates (Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen Barack Obama, Sen John Edwards) have all said that they favor "higher payroll taxes on upper-income earners" (I agree, as millionaires who wouldn't miss their future Social Security checks if they never got them won't miss the extra taxes taken from them); and five of the Republican candidates (Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Mike Huckabee, Sen Fred Thompson, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Sen John McCain) have all said they favor private accounts (which, make no mistake about it, is equivalent to saying they wish to abolish Social Security altogether.)

Money paid out in Social Security benefits today did not come from a Lockbox, but from the FICA taxes taken out of your paycheck today. It's basically a direct payment from your paycheck (and your employer's wallet, too) to the people getting the benefits. If you start telling people they don't have to pay into the system, less money becomes available to pay today's recipients. Since benfits are guaranteed, the difference must come from one of two sources - either higher taxes or more borrowing. Of the two, it is really better that we raise taxes on those who could most afford to live without the money. Should their benfits also increase since they'll be paying lots more into the system? Like I said, we're talking about the kind of people who wouldn't miss their Social Security checks if they never got them. Why bother raising their benefits? Does anyone really need to be that wealthy? Seriously.

What about the other candidate? Well, Congressman Tom "Bold Enough To Say It...(You're All Going To Die)" Tancredo favors private accounts. (There appears to be no truth to the rumor that Tancredo wants "to tax illegal immigrants back to their home countries".) There's Congressman Ron Paul, in addition to eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits (a fine idea), also favors private accounts. Finally on the Republican side, Congressman Duncan "Chicken Pilaf Dinner" Hunter" supports, you guessed it, private accounts. One of the abilities of the super smart people is a keen eye for pattern recognition. You won't need their help to see the pattern here. The Republicans seem Hell-bent on destroying Social Security.

What about the other Democrats? Funny you should ask. I've got that right here. Sen Joe Biden promises to "Protect Social Security, Not Privatize It". (He said so on his site.) Sen Chris Dodd suggests a Universal 401(k), and no privatization. Gov Bill Richardson didn't seem to have much to say about Social Security on his campaign site, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich didn't mention a plan for Social Security on his website, either, as near as I could tell. And finally, Sen Mike Gravel, who crawled out from under a rock to run for president, didn't make it easy for me to find his plan for Social Security on his website.

To follow news about all the candidates, I recommend Politics 1. I also recommend you not focus only on the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. They are not your only choices. That's just what they want you to believe.

UPDATE: Thanks to a fellow Critter, here's what Mr. Kucinich has to say about Social Security.

Mum's Window

Almost exactly three years ago, as we were all stunned and in mourning over Bush's "re-election", my mother lay dying in a hospital bed in my old bedroom at home. We had decided not to tell Mum the outcome of the election, knowing that she would only be more worried about our futures and our country's future. Mum had been alarmed and frightened during Bush's first term, and was concerned enough (although extremely proud) about our involvement in anti-administration politics, that we didn't want to add to her worries. At this point, Mum's only contacts with the outside world were our family, good neighbors, a few visitors, and the windows of my small childhood bedroom.

One window faced west, and we had decorated it with various stained-glass pieces to catch the afternoon sunlight. One late afternoon in the week before Thanksgiving, after a cold, blustery rain, the sun finally broke through shortly before sunset. Suddenly Mum's window was gloriously lit, with the setting sun gilding every raindrop still stuck on the window's screen and glowing through the stained glass. I didn't think that I had time to get my camera, so Mum and I just watched, oohing and ahhing, until the sun finally set and the spectacular show was over. Afterward, we commiserated over my not having my camera handy, but we were both glad that we were able to share the beauty.

Luckily, Mother Nature apparently was pleased enough with her work to show it again the next evening, when I did have my camera handy. The resulting pictures (shown here both with and without flash) serve as a reminder to me that no matter how horrific circumstances are, brief moments of beauty can fill the heart, most especially when shared with a loved one.

Angry White Man (A Song Parody)

We've all heard them at one time or another. The Angry White Man on the radio or TV bitching and moaning about this or that. They're never happy (unless some liberal is getting hurt somehow), and they always seem to have this hatred they feel the need to spew at some "other". Sometimes they name the object of their vitriol, and sometimes it's just a vague, nebulous group, which may or may not exist. For them, I dedicate this song parody. It doesn't have to be about any one in particular, you can pick your favorite and I'm sure it will apply. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael "The Savage" Weiner (I hope you know his real last name is "Weiner"; it might explain things), Sean Hannity, whoever you want it to be. I hope you enjoy. This is to the tune of Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man". Thank you, Mr. Joel, for providing me with another great song to use. I hope you don't mind.

Angry White Man
(Original Words and Lyrics "Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel
Additional Lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2007)

There's a place on the air for the angry white man,
With his working class act and his immigrant ban.
He refuses to think. He refuses to see.
He always believes he's the best that can be.
And he's proud of his views and the beatings he takes.
And he whines and he cries as he lays out the stakes.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

Give a forum or two to the angry white man,
With a beef for the world and a hate for his land.
He was called on his lies but he misunderstood.
It's a comfort to know that his critics are good.
And he sits in a room with a microphone on.
And he wishes the non-Christian people were gone.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

I believe he's reached the stage
Of thinking he's some kind of sage.
He thinks that racial purity's a noble fight.
I still believe in causes, too,
And think I'm just as good as you.
His show goes on no matter if he's wrong or right.

And there's somehow a place for the angry white man
With his head full of crap and his fear quite at hand.
And he's never been able to see his mistakes,
So he can't understand why they call him a fake.
But his honor's in doubt and his courage as well,
And he rants and he lies and he's stupid as hell.
And he'll go to his grave as an Angry White Man

There's a place on the air for the angry white man,
With his working class act and his immigrant ban.
He refuses to think. He refuses to see.
He always believes he's the best that can be.
And he's proud of his views and the beatings he takes.
And he whines and he cries as he lays out the stakes.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 6 - The Money Game

Rep Don Young (R-AK) is a perfect example of why campaign finance reform is so necessary in this country. According to a report in McClatchy Newspapers, about 85% [Correction: I mistakenly typed 895%. This was not intentional, and I was not being sarcastic. I meant 85%. My apologies.] of the money he raised to get re-elected came from people who did not live in Alaska. (Alaska only has one US Representative At Large). Why should any candidate for US Representative or US Senator be allowed to accept money from people who would not be constituents? There is no excuse for this, and it is unacceptable.

Let me give you a broad hypothetical. Suppose I was a multi-billionaire (many times over), and I wanted to heavily influence every Congressional race in the country. I want to see people in Congress who share my view about the licensing rights of the product I make and sell. Current law is eating into the potential for me to make billions more, and I want that to change. So I contribute the maximum amount allowable under federal law to a candidate in each and every race in the country. I will also part with several hundred million more dollars in soft money to the political parties. When the time comes to have legislation passed that would benefit me and, for the most part, me alone, to the tune of billions of dollars, how can legislators, some of whom might be voting against the best interests of their own constituents over mine, justify casting that vote? I'll tell you how. They don't, because they don't have to. They do it, I make billions, and most people never learn the truth. Why should I be able to wield that kind of influence over lawmakers who do not represent me in Congress?

How many people in Alaska knew that their sole Representative on Congress was taking $17 out of every $20 he raised from people he should care less about than the people from his state? If Alaskans liked him so much, then why did he need to raise money from people he's not supposed to be representing in Congress? As I have not looked into it, I do not know what percentage of his or her campaign funds his opponents collected from non-Alaskans, but I understand they were considered weak. If so, then why did he need so much money from outsiders? More importantly, why is this even allowed?

I know it sounds naive, but so many of our elected officials, who are supposed to be representing us, their constituents, accept money from people they won't be representing in Congress, and we all know that those political contributions are expected to be rewarded. None of them will ever admit this because it would be a crime to give back such favors in exchange for political contributions. Yet they do it, and they get away with it. And the reason they get away with it is because it's allowed. And it shouldn't be.

You want to clean up politics? You must start by banning any political contributions from non-individuals (that's means both corporations and Political Action Committees, or NAMBLA) and from people who will not be represented by that candidate in Congress. Otherwise, people you don't even know and will likely never meet will have more influence over your Representatives in both Houses of Congress than you ever will. And if they don't represent you, then you are being denied your constitutional right to a republican form of government. And that should bother you a lot.

You Broke My Heart Again, John Hall

My Congressman, John Hall (NY-19), has done it again. He has failed to support the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney when brought to a vote by Rep Dennis Kucinich. I cannot understand why, nor do I accept his previous explanations. I met Mr. Hall a couple of times while he was running for the Democratic nomination. I even contributed to his campaign (it's a matter of public record). When I met him, I even mentioned that he and I were involved in the same event though with completely different roles. I was a Peacekeeper at the No Nukes Rally in Battery Park, and he was one of the many talented musicians who organized it and performed there. (And a fantastic job they did, too. It was one of the proudest days of my life to have played a small part in it.) I remember specifically telling him that I was concerned with the many abuses of power by both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He seemed to indicate to me that he was concerned also, but I guess he wasn't concerned enough to do something about it. Earlier this week, he had his chance, and he failed his constituents again.

Don't misunderstand me. I am quite happy with virtually everything else my congressman has done not only for the people of the NY-19, but for all Americans, including veterans. And he continues to oppose the use of nuclear power, especially while no safe method exists for the disposal of its deadly radioactive byproducts, and particularly when the lives and security of nearby residents are threatened by an unsafe plant. And I was pleased that he recently returned from a trip to Iraq more determined to end our involvement in the war there. And while all those were the right things to do, they did nothing to address the ever-growing threat to our constitutional and democratic way of life posed by the president and the vice president. I have even written to Speaker Nancy Pelosi about this.

It was when I spoke to him personally, and it remains to this day my number one concern. That is not to say I don't wish to see the war in Iraq ended, for that is why I and thirteen other people from our community participated in our monthly Peace March (to which, I am told, Mr. Hall was invited but could not attend. Perhaps next month, Mr. Hall? Second Saturday each month, 11:00 AM, Lakeside Park parking lot.) But the current war in Iraq and the danger of another military conflict in and with Iran, would not be a concern if Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were no longer in power. And nothing that anyone can say, especially those two men, would ever convince me that they don't want a war with Iran. Were you paying attention to the rhetoric in the run up to the war with Iraq, Mr. Hall? Does anything they've been saying lately about Iran sound eerily like any of that to you? (It does to a lot of us, in case you weren't aware.) Now, here's the most important thing to consider: Was any of what they said about Iraq that justified going to war true? Any of it? Of course not, and we all know that. Nothing they said that was true justified going to war with Iraq, and nothing they said that justified going to war with Iraq was true.

So why, I ask you, would you even consider giving them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they won't ignore the will of Congress and attack Iran anyway, whether they actually pose a danger to us or not? Has the threat of consequences stopped them before? I don't see how since, to date, there have been none! Has the fact that they are operating outside the law stopped them before? Considering how often they've blatantly (and even proudly) done it, it's hard to argue that it might. Remember all those signing statements where the president said he would ignore the law if it infringed on his "inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief"? Would you care to point out to me where in the constitution it says that the Executive Branch decides what "authority" is "inherent" in the role of "Commander-in-Chief". You can't, because it isn't in there. That authority is found in Article I, Section 8. The Congress decides how the military, including its Commander-in-Chief, will behave and what constitutes lawful and unlawful conduct. A president who abuses that authority and ignores the law, as this one has done so many times in the past, has committed an impeachable offense. Go talk to a law professor at George Washington University. Go talk to John W. Dean. They'll tell you that there are numerous impeachable offenses to charge the president with. And there are also impeachable offenses for which the vice president can be removed from office. Impeachment is the only constitutional remedy for removing men like these before their terms expire. There are no recall elections nor votes of confidence during their terms. We have to depend on our Representatives and Senators to recognize when a president and vice president have overstepped their authority and violated the sacred trust placed in them by their fellow citizens. (And I don't just mean the five who put them there in 2000.)

I will end this as I did before, Mr. Hall, for it still remains true. I cannot support a candidate for Congress who does not believe in the oath of office every public servant in Washington is required to take, including you, sir. By not supporting the impeachment of either President Bush or Vice President Cheney, two men who have frequently subverted the constitution in an effort to have their own way despite the will of Congress, one of whom has accelerated a thirty-year personal vendetta to restore power to the White House, and one of whom once told an aide to "stop throwing the Constitution in [his] face." (You remember, that document he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend?) He then continued, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Are you are going to tell me, Mr. Hall, that these two men should not be removed from office through impeachment immediately, if not sooner? Do you honestly believe that if they remain in office, that on January 20, 2009, we won't already be in a hot war with Iran (and possibly Russia)? Do you think any president should be trusted with the kind of power these two men have amassed? I believe that most of your constituents would say, "No." It's up to you, Congressman John Hall. Remember your own oath of office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sincerely,
Wayne A. Schneider

An Open Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

It is my understanding, from an interview conducted with Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that you would prefer that the Democrats in Congress spend no time impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing from office, Vice President Richard B. Cheney (nor President George W. Bush, for that matter). You would prefer, instead, that they focus on obtaining a bigger majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House in the 2008 elections. I would remind you, Madame Speaker, that the 2008 elections are still twelve months away, and the expiration of their terms of office another two-and-a-half months beyond that. That is more than enough time for them to start a war of choice with Iran. If you do not proceed with impeaching Vice President Cheney, the driving force behind the march to war with Iran, good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will die. And you will have to live with the fact that you allowed them to serve out their crime-ridden terms unpunished and undeterred in their destruction of the Constitution you took an oath to support and defend against all enemies "foreign or domestic". President Bush and Vice President Cheney are two such domestic enemies, and it is your constitutional duty to defend the constitution against them. To prioritize your political party over your nation and your constitution is inexcusable.

Both of these men have claimed extraordinary, almost plenary, Executive powers found nowhere in the Constitution. They claim that the President has this "inherent authority" in his role as Commander-in-Chief during wartime (an excuse to always keep this country in a state of war, in case you hadn't noticed). The problem, Madame Speaker, is that they are making this up. No such authority exists anywhere in the Constitution. What does exist in the Constitution are the following:

Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Clearly it is the Congress that decides how our military, including its Commander-in-Chief, will conduct themselves. Nowhere in Article II does it state that the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief or otherwise, during wartime or in peace, has the authority to do whatever he wants with the military. The authority he has comes from the Congress, and it comes with a trust, a trust that he won't abuse that authority. Yet, time after time, President Bush has done just that. He has even gone so far as to lie to Congress about a terrorist threat against the Congress in order to get them to grant him more unconstitutional authority to spy on Americans. And for no reason or rationale I can understand, you want to keep trusting that he won't overstep his authority one more time. You want to trust that he won't lead this country toward an unstoppable war with Iran. Have I mentioned that good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will die if he starts another war?

You and your party have let the President and Vice President define just how far his "inherent authority" goes. And based on their many public statements, they believe that this authority includes taking us to war pre-emptively against another nation. They cannot claim that declaring war falls within the President's constitutional authority to determine foreign policy, for declaring war is a power exclusively granted to the Congress. You know that President Bush has been listening to neo-con war hawks like Norman Podhoretz, William Kristol, and Sen Joe Lieberman. All of these men have publicly advocated that we go to war against Iran. You also know, Madame Speaker, that President Bush has no interest in hearing the views of those who oppose his ideas. So not only is he not listening to anyone who might try to talk him out of a war with Iran, he must have already made up his mind about it to be listening to people who think that's what we should be doing. And what excuse do you think he's going to use? How true are his reasons going to be and, more importantly, will the true statements be justification for war? Remember everything they said about Iraq and Saddam Hussein? (If you don't, just listen to what's being said about Iran. It's very similar.) As time went on, one thing about those statements became clear: Everything that was a justification for war turned out not to be true, and everything that turned out to be true was not a justification for war. The rhetoric from this administration toward Iran is following that same path. Given the number of times that they have lied to the Congress and the American people, why on earth would you ever consider giving them the chance to resolve our differences peacefully with the rest of the world? I beg you to tell me what it is in their history that makes you think he will only go to war with Iran "as a last resort"? Why do you even accept the premise that any war with Iran is necessary in the first place? In all the intelligence estimates that you have been granted access to, have any reported on how many good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranians alike will die in a war of choice with Iran?

Madame Speaker, the ONLY way to ensure that President Bush and Vice President Cheney will not lie this country into another war of choice is if they are no longer in a position to do so. They are not going to stop themselves. The American people are counting on you to do that. You have the authority. You have the capability. You have the responsibility. Impeach them both for ignoring their oaths of office. To do otherwise is to ignore your own oath. How many good men and women of our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will have to die because you put loyalty to your political party ahead of loyalty to your Constitution?

Sincerely,
Wayne A. Schneider