Markism Explored

Las Vegas the best way to save?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:24:00 +0000

I don't know how much anyone outside of Las Vegas is paying attention to the hullabaloo about a brief remark Obama made about being responsible. In case you haven't been listening to this ridiculous story, here's what Obama said, "Responsible families don't do their budgets the way the federal government does. Right? When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. It's time your government did the same."

Now, I'm not sure which part of that statement anyone takes issue with, except that it has the word Vegas in it, but generally this is a simple, true statement. now would the mayor of Las Vegas like to contend that spending ones college savings on gambling is a good plan? would he like to point out that families facing foreclosure should spend a week in a high end hotel?

The president didn't say, "Whatever you do, don't go to Vegas," or even, "There are better vacation spots than Vegas, so spend your money at those." He said that American families are expected to be smart enough not to blow their savings on ridiculous expenditures, and so should the American Government.

It's amazing to me what a politician will do for a little time in the spot light.

Why the GOP is winning

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:40:00 +0000

It's been a while since I posted, but watching the sinking liberal ship in the face of a GOP spin campaign is making me seriously reconsider taking up the keyboard again. So first let me direct you to an article that pretty much sums everything up neatly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14rich.html

Op-Ed Columnist

Palin’s Cunning Sleight of Hand

By FRANK RICH

Published: February 14, 2010

Republicans are getting away with their populist masquerade, and Democrats are not convincing the country that they offer anything better.

Fighting for the middle

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:05:00 +0000

Obama fends off Palin charge of 'socialist' tax plan - CNN.com

"That's the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can't help themselves, and in a time of crisis, to step in and do what's necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people. It wasn't Main Street America that caused this; it was Washington and Wall Street."

I always find it vaguely amusing when the right goes after the middle. They have to say just enough to make their argument seem reasonable, but not so much that it offends the base. The worst part is that independents often fall for it.

So let's go over the above statement a little more carefully. The reason Obama is a socialist and McCain is not, is that Obama wants to change the tax code so that the rich pay more in taxes and the poor pay less. In some instances working families who don't pay federal income taxes will get a check. I'd like to take a moment to point out that under McCain's health refund tax credit, working families that don't pay federal income tax would also get a check from the government.

Anyway, he terms this socialism. McCain, on the other hand, is not a socialist, becuase when he voted to turn over government money to shore up Wall Street, it was a crisis that was not the fault of the average tax payer. So apparently it doesn't count as socialism if you're dealing with a crisis.

One has to wonder whether this means that the rapidly falling value of tax payer money, or inflation, or devaluing housing markets would qualify as a crisis. In many ways the income that working families takes in has dropped dramatically due to the tax policies that McCain supports.

Personally I would call that a crisis outside the control of the average taxpayer. But as usual, McCain is not interested in helping working families, except through shoring up businesses in the hopes that they will pay better salaries. I haven't seen any evidence of this over the last eight years. Increasing the wealth of the wealthy has not enriched everyone.

I might even be willing to accept the premise if we didn't have the last eight years as a demonstration of how badly these policies fail. If, over the last eight years, the middle class had grown stronger and richer, prices had dropped, and insurance had become easier to get and less expensive, I would be voting McCain.

Unfortuntely, the opposite is true. We know without a doubt that McCain's policies will not work, because they haven't worked.

Joe the plumber can kiss my a**

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:15:00 +0000

Nobody wants to pay taxes. In an ideal world we could all go about our business and keep the fruits of our labor. Go to work, work hard, keep our profits. Unfortunately, society doesn't work that way. Someone has to pay for the military, the schools, the roads, etc.

There are in my opinion only three ways to collect that money. The first is to collect from everybody based on spending in the form of a sales tax. It can't be avoided and the more you spend the more you pay.

If we exempt some of the basic necessities like groceries, then we can keep this from being a regressive tax on the poor. Unfortunately this plan is almost universally disliked by both parties.

That leaves us with taxing the wealthy to pay the bills or taxing the poor to pay the bills. One of them has to be done. Can't be avoided. a flat tax taxes the poor more harshly, a progressive tax taxes the rich more harshly. No way around it.

The worst part is that most people don't even understand how it works. Joe the Plumber for instance. He's been working hard as a plumber. Now he wants to buy his business. Good for you Joe. It's always good to see anyone doing well under Bush economics.

So his business makes between $250 thousand and $260 thousand annually. He's worried about the stifling taxes that Obama is going to level at his company's income. Problem is that under a progressive tax you only pay more on the amount above $250 thousand. So, let's say he makes $260,000. Under Obama he pays an extra 3% on $10,000. In the meantime he's getting a tax break on his health insurance, and his customers are getting a tax break so that they can better afford his services.

McCain, of course, wants to cut taxes. But only on the wealthy. So Joe would save a bit on the extra $10,000, but where do we get the money to pay for everything? Surely McCain isn't under the impression that we already take in enough money to pay the bills?

Doesn't matter. What's important to McCain is that the wealthy have more wealth. He believes in the trickle down economics of Reagan. Unfortunately it never seems to trickle down. Trickle down only works if the people at the top aren't keeping all the money.

Unfortunately Joe finds himself in the middle ground. If he buys the company he crosses into a line that makes him a different income class. He's part of a group that comprises less than 5% of the American populace. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

And let's be clear that this tax question is about the revenue of Joe's company. Presumably Joe will be taking a salary from the company and not draining it's revenue directly. So Joe actually stays in the lower tax bracket. There's a pretty good chance Joe himself will be getting a tax cut. That means lower tax responsibility for the business as well.

Don't forget that the company has to pay out a percentage of each employees income based on their tax rate. Lower tax rates mean lower tax rates for the company as well. Joe only loses if he's planning on keeping all the money, firing most of his workforce, and refusing health care coverage to the rest. And if that's the case, I can't feel too bad for him.

And finally, let's not forget that studies have demonstrated that the economic policies of democratic presidents have almost universally created stronger economies. Don't believe me? Read this

FACT CHECK

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:22:00 +0000

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fact Check: Did Obama vote 94 times for higher taxes? « - Blogs from CNN.com

The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument.

There are few things I enjoy more than when the media actually calls bullshit. Why do people trust McCain to lead America? Got me.

Republican consistency

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:36:00 +0000

I have to admit, it's the consistency of their positions that really endears me to Republicans.

Who's really better for the economy

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:08:00 +0000

Is A Republican President Really Better For The Economy? | Boom2Bust.com

The University of Nevada-Reno economics professor also uncovered the following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

I've always respected fiscal Republicans. Mostly because I feel most Americans will vote in a way that they think will make them richer and lower their taxes. I still have very little respect for social Republicans, but now I'm not sure I have the same respect for fiscal Republicans.

It turns out, that when you look at it, even with a Republican eye, the Democrats have historically and consistently performed better on the economy. No way around it. This isn't a study of opinion, but math, and we all know that math don't lie.

So here it is in black and white. Democrats create stronger economies, richer citizens, and more jobs. Even corporate profits go up more under Democrats. I think this is the sort of thing we should spread around a little more.

Without the fiscal conservatives, I'm not sure the Republicans can keep their party together.

Watching the news

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:00:00 +0000

I was wathcing the morning shows this morning (I can do that now that I'm back in the States), and I came to a few interesting conclusions.

First is that George Stephanapolous is a terrible interviewer. I watched him spend more than ten minutes on a a single questioned asked, answered and re-asked trying to force that answer that he wanted to hear. Instead of covering the depth and breadth of the issues facing our nation, he was busy trying to trick Nancy Pelosi into saying something she clearly didn't mean to say.

The Second is that Republicans are still incredibly skilled at political spin. I often wonder if they all go to some kind of political spin school. When asked how McCain can attack Obama on his cap and trade system, when his is almost identical, Tom Ridge avoided the question with such grace and skill, even I almost missed it.

The third is that this year the polling system as a whole is almost entirely unreliable. No one has any real idea who's going to show up for the polls in November. I have a feeling I will get no sleep at all on election night.

Why didn't I think of that?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:48:00 +0000

How gun makers can help us - Los Angeles Times

How would gun companies go about reducing gun deaths? The main thing to emphasize is that this approach relies on the nimbleness, innovation and experimentation that come from private competition -- rather than on the heavy-handed power of governmental regulation. Gun makers might decide to add trigger locks to their guns, or to work only with dealers who meet certain standards of responsibility. They might withdraw their semiautomatic weapons from the consumer market, or even work hand in hand with local officials to fight gangs and increase youth employment opportunities. Surely they will think up new strategies once they have a legal obligation and financial incentive to take responsibility for the harm their products cause.

Here's a novel thought: Why not put gun makers in charge of reducing gun violence? I love the idea. Certainly gun manufacturers and dealers know better than anyone exactly how to make their guns safer. I'd be willing to bet that gun lobbies also know all the best ways to increase regulation, because they have to know in order to fight against them.

In fact I would be willing to gamble that gun control opponents probably know better than gun control advocates. So let's let them have a go at it. Anyone who's read through my blog knows that I'm generally opposed to guns. However, as I responded to a commenter, my opposition isn't to guns themselves, but to the violence that they engender.

So fine, keep your guns. Keep making them, maybe new gun jobs can save the American economy. I'm all for it. But, and this is a big but, take some responsibility for the violence caused by your product. Let's get the law abiding citizens and the hunters out of the debate.

I don't really object to a guy keeping a hunting rifle under lock and key in his own home, and I have generally lukewarm objections to licensed conceal and carry. So let's take the advice of Mr.'s Fagan and Sugarman, and stop trying so hard to regulate the guns via legislation. Just tell the gun makers to find a way to reduce violence. Can't do it? Fine, pay higher taxes.

I'm guessing that hunting rifles are generally used very rarely in inner city violence, so probably their prices would change very minimally. In fact, under this plan, their prices might even go down. Really feel the need to own an assault rifle? Do you really care if the price is a little higher? I doubt it.

Now, I'm almost certain that the gun control opponents will object to this very concept, because they much prefer the idea that they can pretend to be legislative victims and constitutional defenders. Still it's worth hoping for.

Don't buy it

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:16:00 +0000

With High Gasoline Prices, Offshore Drilling Is Gaining Favor - NYTimes.com

Several elected and appointed Florida Republicans have publicly shifted their positions in the past week. Senator Mel Martinez said Tuesday that he would consider drilling as long as it is at least 50 miles off the coast. Nicki Grossman, vice chairwoman of the Florida Tourism Commission, said Wednesday that the high price of gasoline might be more of a threat than drilling.

Mr. Saunders, a Republican from Naples, said his opinion started to change after oil rigs near Louisiana survived Hurricane Katrina without major spills that reached the shore.

He did not mention that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did cause 124 smaller spills that released more than 700,000 gallons of petroleum products, according to Coast Guard estimates.

If we let them convince us to open up our coasts and national parks we lose more than we gain. Every expert out there will tell you that even if there was enough oil there to provide temporary energy independence, it will take years to develop.

Once we have it, prices might drop back to where they were before our recent run up, but what then? In another few years the low cost oil will start to wain again, and we're right back to where we are today. In fact we are worse off, because we will have perhaps more than a decade of cheap oil pressuring further demand behind us.

So now we have no oil, more demand, and we will have made virtually no progress in alternative energy sources. This is a political magic show. In one hand they show us energy independence and in the other they show us the democrats who won't let you have it. After the elections, poof, the energy independence disappears.

There is no quick fix to the oil problem. We have to let it shake itself out. With China dropping their government subsidies, we are already seeing what will happen as oil stabilizes. Americans are already finding ways to use less oil. We just have to be patient. As long as oil prices remain high, there is incentive to fix the problem for the long run. Don't believe the hype about new drilling.

And just to prove my point:

Dearth of Deep-Sea Drilling Ships Hinders Offshore Oil Search - NYTimes.com

Mr. Bush called on Congress Wednesday to end a longstanding federal ban on offshore drilling and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, arguing that the steps were needed to lower gasoline prices and bolster national security. But even as oil trades at more than $135 a barrel — up from $68 a year ago — the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years. Some oil companies have been forced to postpone exploration while waiting for a drilling rig, executives and analysts said.

So realistically, even if we drop the ban, there's simply no way to produce that oil quickly. There aren't enough boats. It' just another gimmick to prey on the fears of Americans who are truly struggling to pay these high gas prices. If I thought it would work, I'd be selling it. It won't work.

McCain's sleight of hand

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:49:00 +0000

McCain on Iran: Bush all over again | Salon

The problem with McCain's alarmist rhetoric throughout the presidential primaries and now in the general campaign is that he's got the Iran problem almost entirely wrong. Notwithstanding his deep résumé on national security matters, his statements seem to reflect little understanding of the realities America faces in terms of dealing with Iran. Moreover, despite how highly he rates the problem, and his own foreign policy credentials, McCain seems to have no clear plan for actually dealing with Iran.

Ever since 9/11 the Republican party has been using terrorism like a blunt instrument to beat the American electorate into submission. In every argument and every debate, they remind the world that they are, for whatever reason, the party that has claimed the title of terrorist hunter-killer.

The worst part is that the American electorate has taken the bait every single time. But for the first time the Democrats have a candidate who is willing to stand up and say, "No. I do not concede your superiority on this issue." In fact Obama has managed with some success to point out how the Republican party has in fact made things worse.

So now McCain is doing it again. Accusing Obama of being naive because he wants to sit down and talk with Iran. McCain, not surprisingly, wants to continue the Bush plan of pretending it will go away if we just don't look at it. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to list all the countries we have successfully defeated regimes in without any formal negotiations:

1.

So there you have it. The writer of this article has it right. Talk or fight. Our only two options to achieve change. McCain might not be willing to do either, so he may actually continue making things worse. Is that really what we want? I think not.

Fight the smears

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:56:00 +0000

I'm not entirely sure it's in the best interests of a candidate for the US Presidency to create a webpage outlining all the lies and smears that his opponents have created. On the other hand, perhaps it is in fact the best way to diffuse the situation.

The Obama camp has created a site that details the smears, and rebuts them with truth. I read through it, and was both surprised at the absurdity of some of the lies, but also impressed with how easily they are dispelled.

For those who support Obama I recommend keeping a link to this site readily at hand to combat any forwards or statements from people you know. Send it out in bulk or just send it to those who have something to say, but read it yourselves so that you will know the truth.

www.fightthesmears.com

It's the economy stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:18:00 +0000

McCain, Obama present different views on taxes | Reuters

"We're going to scrub every agency of government and we're going to make them justify their existence. And if they can't, they're going to go out of existence," he said on CNBC.

Democrats argue not enough cuts could be made in the federal budget to pay for McCain's tax cuts, which Obama said would total $300 billion.

So here we are in the race for the national election. Obama is keeping the argument about the economy, which I think is wise. I still believe most Americans would come down on his side if the race were about national security, but his footing is less sure.

So instead the race is about whether the rich or the poor should carry the tax burden for our country. Historically the rich have always paid the bulk in dollars, and like to use those numbers to justify cuts, while the less money you have means that more of your dollars are needed to live.

I'm not in favor of trying to cripple corporations, or overburden the rich, but over the last seven years the rich have gotten richer, but our economy has weakened. The middle class and the poor have seen the power of their money erode and have found it more difficult to survive on the the same amount of money.

Too me this proves a failure in the idea that lower taxes for the rich stimulates the economy by definition. In reality, lower taxes for the rich simply creates more wealth for the rich. We are living in a global economy now, so lowering taxes for corporations doesn't by it's nature create jobs.

It's become to easy for a corporation to have a headquarters in the US where they can fight for their tax breaks while moving their labor force to a country that has lower wages. Why support that. If lowering corporate taxes actually generated vastly more jobs, I'd be all over it. However that's no longer the case.

We have to put more money into the pockets of the middle class. We have to have the rich share an equal percentage of the burden. Why is there a cap on the income that gets taxed for Social Security? If you have so much money that you don't feel you should have to give a piece of it like everybody else, then I suggest you remove yourself from the roles of people who will get Social Security.

McCain is claiming that Obama doesn't understand the American economy. I think it's the other way around. In reality Republicans play to their strengths. They get the religious right by promising judges that favor an overturn of Roe. They get the fiscal right by promising to keep the rich rich. They get the middle by talking national security.

I'm hoping that this year, it won't work. McCain is already trying to play to Obama's strengths, which means he's running a little scared. Obama needs to keep filling stadiums, driving into the Republican strongholds, force McCain either to far to the center to keep the right, or too far to the right to keep the center.

The death of the Neocon?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:51:00 +0000

Relax, liberals. You've already won | Salon

For 40 years, the radical right tried to destroy the domestic and international order that American liberals created in the central decades of the 20th century. The people who are known today as "conservatives" are better described as "counterrevolutionaries." The goal of Barry Goldwater and the intellectuals clustered around William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review was not a slightly more conservative version of the New Deal or the U.N. system. They were reactionary radicals who dreamed of a counterrevolution. They didn't just want to stop the clock. They wanted to turn it back.

Living in Europe gives one a strange perspective on the changes and public opinions of the US. Obviously I am far removed from the everyday conversations, and the nights out at the Pub (I even use the term Pub) that would help me define my view of America today.

What I do see is an America in crisis. An America that is awaking from what seems a dream of the world W Bush sold them after 9/11. Our foreign policy is an abomination, our economy is collapsing, our dependence on oil is as bad as it was when he set out, our ground forces are stretched to thin to be of much use, and to top it all off his lapdog McCain is trying to become president.

There is a bright side. Both houses of congress have been retaken, and seem to be getting stronger, and as this article points out, in the weakest decades of liberal power and thought, the liberal agenda has stood firm, and in some areas moved forward. I enjoyed this article, so I won't go into more depth. Read it.

Wouldn't it be nice?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:48:00 +0000

Why the oil boom will eventually bust - Jun. 6, 2008

The oil bulls are correct in their explanations of why prices have jumped. It's indisputable that worldwide demand has surged, chiefly driven by strong growth in China, India and the Middle East. It's also true that most of the world's reserves are controlled by governments in places like Russia and Venezuela that mismanage production, thus curtailing supply growth.

But rather than forming a permanent new plateau for prices - as the bulls contend - those forces are causing a classically unstable market that's destined for a steep fall.

Tully makes a reasonable sounding argument that high oil prices are only here temporarily, and that a shakeout is inevitable. He compares the run-up of oil to the recent housing market crash, the tech boom of the late 90's, and the silver market of the 80's. Sure sounds like there's a lot of history saying he's right.

Problem is that oil is more complex than these problems. I do believe that the price of oil is overinflated. There's no reason to be paying $130 a barrel. This number has been artificially inflated by things like panic, speculation, and strangely high oil prices.

However the belief that oil prices will return to their former glory, especially in the US, is a little naive. First and foremost one has to realize that the US is not driving consumption anymore. When our country was the one using all the oil, we could affect prices more directly.

Now the people using all the oil are in China, India, and other developing nations. Those people are not only using the majority of the oil, but their demand is growing rapidly as supplies diminish. Certainly more supplies will be found, but so far no one has been able to demonstrate that new supplies can be found to replace the ones we have at dramatically lower prices and in equal amounts.

So far new oil supplies will cost more and produce less than anything out there. Demand in the US will go down, that's already been proven, but as long as demand continues to increase in the developing world, there's no incentive for oil prices to drop.

The best solution is to simply plan on high prices. In theory prices might go back to $3 a gallon, but I think that's some time off. In the meantime we need to be developing alternatives. Solar thermal, wind, low carbon coal, even gas additives like ethanol.

As long as we continue to believe that the overly cheap gasoline of our past will return, we hesitate to do what we must to free ourselves from the prison of oil dependency. Regardless of the truth of "peak oil" we should act as though it's true, and that it's happening right now.

Our country gains nothing from continued oil dependency. What we could gain from freeing ourselves is impossible to see fully. However, we certainly gain a lead in world technology, new high tech jobs, an improved more stable economy, and more US money being spent in the US. I think it's worth the pain now.

Oh for f**k's sake

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:41:00 +0000

Philip Pullman leads author revolt against age banding for children's books - Telegraph

Mr Pullman told The Daily Telegraph: "I don't mind anybody having an opinion about my books. I don't mind a bookseller deciding they are for this age group or that, or a teacher giving one of my books to a child because they think it is appropriate.

"But I don't want to see the book itself declaring officially, as if with my approval, that it is for readers of 11 and upwards or whatever. I write books for whoever is interested. When I write a book I don't have an age group in mind.

Here's a brilliant plan: we're facing a time in the US where our understanding of literacy has gone up dramatically, but our ability to teach it has not. We have forced many schools to make literacy the primary focus of education (which I generally think is OK in the younger years), so how about we print children's books with a "do not read me" sticker on the front.

Age banding. What a moronic thing to do. Try to imagine a struggling young 10 year old going to the store and walking out with a book that says 7+ on it. Or carrying that book to school. With a great deal of luck that kid might enjoy the book, and profit from having read it, but I think it's incredibly unlikely that he/she will ever read it at all.

Reading is not a natural phenomenon. By which I mean people don't pick it up through exposure like speaking. It has to be taught. Teaching reading ain't easy. There are dozens of factors that go into it before kids even reach school, at which time our over worked and under payed teachers are too often ill equipped to teach reading properly.

So kids need every advantage we can give them, and certainly don't need any outside discouragement. Anything that might make it harder for children to enjoy reading is, in my opinion, wrong in basic concept.

What's amazing is that people don't see it

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:53:00 +0000

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too | Threat Level from Wired.com

McCain's new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush's five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is," McCain said.

The continued popularity or John McCain is somewhat astonishing to me. Exactly how do you support a politician that doesn't have a position on anything. I guess you go by his voting record. In that case John McCain is not a centrist.

In any case he has decided that it's entirely OK for the President to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant. Of course, earlier when that was controversial and before he was the Republican nominee, he opposed it.

Now that he's wooing the right, he favors it again. As with most of Bush's policies, McCain disavows them when necessary, but supports them regardless.

I was reading today that some of Clinton's angry, and in my opinion stupid, supporters have started a new organization to support McCain. How is that possible? How can democrats support this man? Can they really be so bitter about Clinton that they would punish the whole country?

McCain will lead us down a dark and unsteady path. The rich will continue to get richer, our enemies will continue to get stronger, gays and lesbians will be persecuted, roe vs wade will almost surely be overturned. How can democrats support this man?

Gay marriage battle

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:38:00 +0000

California set for gay marriage ballot showdown | Politics | Reuters

"Values voters have even more reason to go to the polls in 2008," said Tony Perkins, a leading religious conservative who is president of the Family Research Council.

Initiatives to ban gay marriage played a role in President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election as they propelled the Republican Party's conservative Christian base to the polls.

Not that many months ago I read Barack Obama's last book. My girlfriend was trying to get me to understand him better as his campaign warmed up in the fall. It worked. Generally, I supported him somewhat before I read the book, but I threw al my support behind him after I read it.

One area that has led to repeated conversations with my girlfriend and with others down the pub has been gay marriage. Obama supports civil unions, and basically believes that gays should have the same legal rights as everyone else. He doesn't however support legalizing gay marriage.

This get a little tricky because religion and law have gotten so tangled when it comes to marriage. It's not that Obama doesn't think gays should be allowed to marry, he opposes the government forcing churches to do anything. And at least in that respect I agree.

So here's my proposal (largely worked out with or stolen directly from my girlfriend). Let's take marriage out of the law altogether. Let's leave marriage to the the churches. They can have it. It's a largely symbolic act anyway.

Let's remove any legal consequence of marriage. No tax implications, no survivor implications, no insurance implications. Let whoever wants to get married get married. If the churches as a whole want to refuse to marry gays, then fine. Gays can certainly still hold the same kinds of ceremonies, because I'm guessing that a few people out there are wise enough to recognize that love has nothing to do with gender.

Now, how do we handle all that legal stuff we left behind? My feeling is some of it can be dealt with easily. My feeling is that a person should be able to select who gets their survivor benefits regardless of their marital status. However I know that that would be controversial for some.

So how bout creating a civil union that works for anyone. Create a divide between ceremonial marriage and legal union. Two wholly separate entities. The more closed minded religious folks are afraid that gay marriage will somehow destroy the traditional family, but the traditional family is already dying.

It has been since women started looking for equal rights. Most marriages end in divorce and the dysfunctional family has become the norm. I say anyone capable of creating a home of love and happiness ought to be given a shot at it.

November is the battleground. I'm afraid Florida might be a lost cost in this as is so many things, but California is moving in the right direction. If we can block this. Keep this from happening, it proves that people are waking up to a newer for forward looking, open minded world.

It's over

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:53:00 +0000

So the final votes have been cast, and I have the advantage of being awake six hours before the East Coast. The last two primaries went as expected as Obama took Montana, and Clinton took South Dakota. The counts of delegates I've read show Obama with enough to clinch the nomination.

Now Clinton could argue that Obama only has enough when you count his super delegates, and that they can still change their minds, but I hope she won't. It is really and truly time to call it a day. Time to do what she said she would do and get out there and rally the troops for Obama.

I think the US has the best opportunity it's had in many years to really shake up Washington. Democrats could take a larger majority of Congress, and we could have a Democratic president, and maybe, just maybe we could get some things done.

But McCain will not be easy to beat. He is quick on his feet and changes his political position based on who he's talking to. When he speaks, most people hear what they want to hear. This is evidenced by the fact that some democrats still see him as a viable candidate.

So we need every gun in the arsenal firing. It's time for Clinton to admit that her campaign is over and that what's best for the party is her campaigning for the party. We need to get Obama a running mate, and get him full force into the field. He's got to shore up support in key democratic strongholds, and then get out there and destroy the republican ones.

It's game time.

Sad state of affairs

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:34:00 +0000

BBC NEWS | Americas | Medical charity helping US poor

Some 60% of RAM's work is now carried out in the United States.

On a wet, spring weekend he lands his vintage World War II aircraft - once used to drop American troops on D-Day - in Lafayette, Tennessee.

He bought the plane to parachute medics into the jungle.

Today he is unloading dentists' chairs from the plane into a pickup truck.

It bothers me to read this kind of story. It makes me ashamed to be an American. I think it's awful that a charity set up to help the third world spends most of it's time on US soil helping Americans. What's worse is that so many Americans still don't want to fix the problem.

The issue of making health care available to everyone shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't even be debatable. The only debate should be how and how quickly. Instead we're wrapped up in illogical fears of universal health care.

Can someone please explain why universal health care would be so awful. How does having the richest medical establishment in the world help us when almost 50 million of us can't get basic health services? It's infuriating. This election cycle might finally be the key.

We have to help the democrats hold Congress, and we have to put Obama in the big chair. It's time to rebuild America.

Election Year

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:01:00 +0000

Senate Opens Debate on Politically Risky Bill Addressing Global Warming - NYTimes.com

“There’s a great feeling all across America by people in small villages and towns to large cities to state legislatures and others: we must move and move now,” Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and a co-sponsor of the bill, said as debate opened on the floor. “Do something. Doing nothing is not an option. Let us do something.”

I Have to admit that I'm glad to see the Senate stepping up. Perhaps it's because the president's numbers are in the toilet, or perhaps it's because it's an election year, but I'm glad to see them doing something.

I'd really like to see more details on the bill. I'm a big fan of cap-and-trade programs for carbon emissions. It gives high carbon producers both a way to stay in the business, but also incentive to change. It also provides money for reinvestment in alternative energy programs.

I'm a little curious about the treatment of foreign countries. I like the idea of forcing them to comply with emissions guidelines, but I'm afraid we may be shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. I'd need to hear the details.

Also I'm not so sure I like the idea of American carbon producers being able to buy offsets overseas. Why not force them to buy offsets in the US. One of the main objectives here is to reduce our own carbon emissions, while creating new world jobs. Why in God's name would we want to send more money and jobs overseas?

Still I think the bill is on the right track. And the senators are right, at some point you just have to get started, or nothing ever happens.

Beaming power from space

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 06:48:00 +0000

How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space! - CNN.com

"A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today," the report said.

The study also concluded that solar energy from satellites could provide power for global U.S. military operations and deliver energy to disaster areas and developing nations.

"The country that takes the lead on space solar power will be the energy-exporting country for the entire planet for the next few hundred years," Miller said.

I've been reading more and more lately about some really unconventional means of generating power. The growth in solar thermal for instance seems very practical, and has the added benefit of already being available.

The idea of sending solar satellites up is one I love to imagine working. It's an area that the US has a limited window to take the lead on, and should have done so decades ago. Much like so much of the new technologies of today, if we don't take action another nation will.

I would like to see the US pioneer this, or at least set up a multi-nation group to get this moving. Getting even a portion of an orbiting power system in place allows for the considering of many options. These panels can generate vast amounts of power, so that each one could significantly reduce a nation's dependence on oil or coal.

We would have to make sure that we also don't become entirely dependent on these satellites, however, as the slow race to militarize space starts to pick up pace. With China proving it can knock satellites out of orbit, we don't want to give them the power to obliterate an entire power structure.

Still the concept has a great deal of promise, and I wouldn't mind seeing more about it. I'd love to see some talk about power stations on the Moon as well. In any case, I'll be keeping watch on this story to develop.

I'm not really sure

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Fri, 30 May 2008 07:01:00 +0000

Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign - CNN.com

"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice."

Obama's challenge was perfectly legal, said Jay Stewart of the Chicago's Better Government Association. Although records of the challenges are no longer on file for review with the election board, Stewart said Obama is not the only politician to resort to petition challenges to eliminate the competition.

After reading this article you might ask me, "Mark, what exactly is that article about?" Unfortunately I'm not really sure. It seems to be about the DNC meeting this weekend to decide what to do about Florida and Michigan. My feeling is that this shouldn't even be an issue on the table, but I understand the reality of politics.

But instead of actually writing a story about the meeting, this is a story about an election campaign Obama ran a little over a decade ago. In that campaign he used a rule, that by all accounts is regularly used, to remove his competition.

The writers of the article have trouble finding anyone who will criticize Obama for the use of this tactic. In fact most people quoted in the article seem to be trying to make it clear that this is a non-story, especially in Chicago politics.

Still the writers use fun language tricks to make it seem like there are contradictions where none exist. Let me give you an example:

Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign - CNN.com

"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," the senator is quoted as saying in the Tribune. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

But in that same newspaper story, Obama praised Palmer.

"I thought she was a good public servant," he said.

See that fun "But" in the middle there. It's supposed to indicate that the following lines demonstrate a contradiction in Obama's story, and make him look shady. In fact what Obama said is that if you can't keep your campaign in order, maybe your not the best choice as our representative, but that doesn't change the fact that she was a good public servant.

It seems clear this article was written by folks who don't really like Obama that much, and are trying to find something, anything, to write about him in a negative way. Perhaps their deadline approached to quickly, but I find it to be ill researched.

What's worse is that the article tries to draw a parallel with what happened in 1996 and what is happening in Florida and Michigan. But the two are completely unrelated. Obama didn't ask for these states to be removed from the process. He didn't lobby them to move their Primary.

Obama simply followed the rules as given to him by the DNC. He didn't campaign, and he had his name removed from the ballot in Michigan. Now 5 months later, Clinton wants them back on the roles, because she's about to lose the race. How is it fair to Obama that Clinton get states granted to her that he wasn't allowed to campaign in?

And let's be honest. Being the first two races, and without any campaigning Obama managed to pull in over 30% of the vote in Michigan from write ins. How might he have faired if he had been allowed to campaign. This race might have been over months ago. Either way, Obama didn't create this problem, the DNC created this problem.

More about gas prices

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Thu, 29 May 2008 07:24:00 +0000

Gasoline prices | Salon Technology

Even the people who have spent their entire lives studying the price of oil don't know for sure how to weigh each factor for responsibility in the total equation. Perhaps the safest thing to say is that it's all in there, in my $65 receipt. Kidnappings of oil executives in Nigeria and the nationalization of Exxon-operated facilities in Venezuela. Chinese economic growth and hedge fund manipulation. ANWR and air quality. The price of gas in the United States is a consequence of global economic growth, rising standards of living, greed, politics and the stresses induced by 6.5 billion people going about their business on a planet with limited resources.

Gas prices continue to break records every day. As I continue along the road to planning my return to the States, even I have begun to get a little nervous about paying to fill the tank. My overall plan involves living where I have to drive less, and eventually using more fuel efficient transportation, but that won't be the case from day 1, unfortunately.

So like everyone else, I'd like to know the full story. The article above gives a pretty good overview of exactly why the price of gasoline continues to skyrocket. I still maintain that high prices are good for America over the long term.

This process was inevitable. There was no way to avoid it. Drilling for more oil might have delayed the inevitable for a few years, but considering the incredible growth in demand in the east, I doubt it would have helped much. Eventually, no matter what, the world will have to switch from a global oil economy to something else.

The truth is that making that switch was never likely to be a slow easy process. Realistically, people don't start really making changes in their lives unless forced to. So gas prices had to reach a point that they simply could no longer be afforded, and then people would start making changes.

From here, we have to try to make this transition as easy as possible, and I would like to see some ideas on at least halting the rise of gasoline. Better regulations on trade, as mentioned in the article, seem like a good start.

It's funny in a sad sort of way that the US government, under the Republicans, has been dragging it's feet over increasing fuel economy in cars for most of the last decade. I guess the market forces finally did the work for them.

On the elections

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wright) — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:10:00 +0000

So the primary season is drawing to a close. The final week is FINALLY here. What does that mean exactly? Well, Hillary is still putting up the good fight, and if it weren't for her less than honest tactics I might even be rooting for her at this point.

Unfortunately, she's out there fighting for bringing back Florida and Michigan, which she opposed until she needed the votes, and now her husband is on the campaign train talking about a conspiracy to keep her from winning.

Bill Clinton: 'Coverup' hiding Hillary Clinton's chances - CNN.com

The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate.

"She is winning the general election today, and he is not, according to all the evidence," Clinton said. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.

"Her only position was, 'Look, if I lose, I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win, but let's let everybody vote and count every vote,' " he said.

The former president suggested that if the New York senator ended the primary season with an edge in the popular vote, it would be a significant development.

I can understand there being some hard feelings, but I'm not sure that a general conspiracy to knock her out of the race exists. I think believing that the DNC could get together with the press and somehow create a strategy for electing Obama, who Bill claims is the weaker candidate has the feeling of a last desperate act.

But it doesn't stop there. Hillary invoked slavery in her argument about adding back Florida's votes, and not only that, but she's admitted that the strength of the party comes second to her own ambition. I'm not sure she's ready to drop out at the end of this week. She's still got few rocks to throw.

Commentary: No graceful bow-out for Clinton - CNN.com

In the past few days, her surrogates, and even Clinton herself, have ramped up the talk about sexism. There is little doubt that she is trying to stir the ire of her female base and push them to demand that she either be the nominee or be given the vice president slot. But it's really about the former rather than the latter.

In Florida on Wednesday, she invoked slavery and the epic civil rights battle against Jim Crow in her quest to count the vote in Florida as-is.

Forget the fact that she once said the states wouldn't matter because they broke the rules.

On the bright side, Obama has decided to turn his attention to the general election, and stop allowing McCain a free ride into November. McCain who was clearly still gearing up for the fight, has hit a few snags, that he might have been able to get through quietly, but Obama was there to shine the light.

McCain attempted to clear his campaign of all the professional lobbyists before that question arose in the general, but I'm not sure he expected every media outlet in the country to start looking at what kind of person was on his staff. So now his campaign is in a little disarray, and he will have to pull it together to get back in the race.

But in the meantime, he's got our beloved president out raising cash. Now McCain doesn't want to get too close, so they've mostly avoided the media, but Bush is still friends with the richest people in America, so I'm sure McCain will happily take the money. It's best he does it now in the early stages of the race, so he can further distance himself from Bush Later.

Bush put it best when he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that if supporting McCain won the election he would support McCain, but if being against McCain won him the election he'd be against him, he just wanted McCain to win. Nice.

Obama was smart enough to be paying attention.

McCain does tricky dance with unpopular Bush - CNN.com

During a campaign stop in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama knocked him for holding the fundraiser in private.

"Today, John McCain is having a different kind of meeting. He's holding a fundraiser with George Bush behind closed doors in Arizona. No cameras. No reporters. And we all know why," Obama said. "Sen. McCain doesn't want to be seen, hat in hand, with the president whose failed policies he promises to continue for another four years.

"But the question for the American people is: Do we want to continue George Bush's policies?" he said.

I do get a certain amount of satisfaction from the fact that they seem to have had trouble selling enough tickets to the event. Good on you America, for finally standing up to Bush.