Philosopher Crank

2009-06-30T11:49:00.000-07:00

sent to the whitehouse today:

Since it's in the news today, a needed reform of the transportation department is so glaringly obvioius: support our nation's train network. This is one more area where we need a *change we can believe in*, done by a popular, liberal president that can make a sweeping change in the face of gurgling right wing bluster.

I saw that on the dept of transportation's website about the budget, it says that 'the administration' wants to curb federal subsidies. Why? Why are we just feeding amtrak enough to let it limp along and fail, instead of truly getting behind a mode of transportation that can improve so much about our country, from pollution to socialization. Just look at this text from

the DOT website:

First there's what will be spent on roads:

Ensuring Solvency of Highway and Surface Transportation Programs
Fulfills the President’s multi-year commitment to invest in surface transportation without raising taxes or subsidizing transportation spending using other tax dollars. $39.4 billion for the Federal Aid Highway program.

Includes the final installment of the $286.4 billion in highway, transit, and safety program spending agreed upon in the last surface transportation reauthorization act.
Provides new flexibility to manage funds in the Highway Trust Fund so the existing tax structure can continue to support authorized spending for all surface transportation programs.

Then, what will be given to the railroads:

Taking Steps to Rationalize the Nation’s Intercity Passenger Rail System
Curtails Federal subsidies. $800 million for Amtrak, which represents a significant but necessary cut to the railroad's Federal subsidy.

Requires that Amtrak control its operating losses and focus on services that offer the most promise.

Reserves the bulk of funds for capital investment so improvements may continue along the heavily trafficked Northeast Corridor.

Reflects that Amtrak has taken few steps to align its business with the traveling public’s demand for intercity rail service and that it consequently continues to hemorrhage taxpayer funds.
***
$286.4 billion! vs $800 million. Please! There's no comparison. What should be done is to basically make riding the train so cost effective for the customer that it would be foolish to drive or fly. Currently, taking the train any real distance (in other words, taking the eastern seaboard out of the equation) it's close to three TIMES the cost to take the train than to fly... and takes twelve times as long. This makes no sense for anyone, and thus it's no surprise people think Amtrak is a joke.

It should be cheaper to take the train - and sleep on it in comfort - than driving the same distance and staying in hotels.

Further, the rule should be made to put passenger trains ahead of freight trains on schedules and tracks. It's rediculous that we put cargo ahead of people in our train schedules. Passenger trains should get there on time.

I could go on and on about how citizens mixing with one another and seeing the countryside will be better for society, but enough already.

I want to suggest that the Amtrak budget be figured out to truly provide good service to travelers, and then just pay that whole amount out of the highway budget... it'll be barely a rounding error for them.

Retiring to the truth

2007-09-12T13:52:00.000-07:00

why is it that people we have in leadership positions wait until they're on the way out to find some backbone? Retired generals, outgoing senators... how pathetic.

"I feel I have to tell the whole truth... now"

Starting over: fixing the whole system

2007-09-01T09:59:00.000-07:00

There's a lot of talk about campaign finance reform, lobby reform, etc. and I see that as simply treating the symtoms, not curing the problem. The way to solve the problem is to fundamentally change the system, so that perhaps, one day, we can have leaders who actually work for the betterment of the whole, not just themselves.

Some suggestions:

1. Change all elections to 'rank choice voting', also called 'instant run-off'. This creates more of an honest choice for people; they can actually vote for their favorite candidate first, not simply vote against the one they hate. It would also eliminate the need for these stupid primaries. (see below).

2. Rotate the 'who votes first' system. It's ridiculous that New Hampshire and Iowa are always the first to vote, and thus candidates spend huge amounts of time talking to every Iowan and NHer, while all the other states get ignored. Break the country up into 5 different groups of 10 (it's an interesting debate to decide whether to have it by region, or specifically break it up so that it's evenly distributed... I can't decide) and space those elections out by say 2 weeks. Every election, a different group of 10 would get to go first.

3. Create a blind trust campaign finance program. Robert Reich came up with this, I think. Every candidate gets a blind trust that supporters can put money into. The candidate doesn't get to know who gave how much. Support whomever you want, but don't think it's going to buy you influence!

4. Go to public radio and public TV to create long, serious, actual debates between candidates. Don't allow them to buy commercial time, it's simply garbage anyway.

a. Have actual debates, where candidates talk until the subject is exhausted. The moderator would be there to keep it civil, and to fact check. I hate how they get to make crap up and use it in their arguments.

b. Have like a final four debate series: two candidates face off, the winner goes on to the next round...

5. Please, Please, have voting over a whole weekend. We should be able to go to the polls from Friday morning to Sunday at 9pm.

6. Skip all this money and time on electronic voting. Use an old, reliable system. Who cares if it takes 4 days to count it all? With my rotation system (#2) it'll take 10 weeks until everyone votes anyway. This way, not only do we avoid hackers, mistakes, and ill-spent money, how they voted in one state won't affect how they vote in another. Who in the world votes for someone simply because they're already winning?

I bet I can come up with more, just give me a little while.

What I want my leader to say

2007-02-04T19:36:00.000-08:00

Dear people out there, we know that you must have suffered a great deal in order to have done such a thing to us in New York. We know that you must have hated us so much that you have done such a thing to us in New York.
You may have thought that we want to destroy you as a people, as a nation, as a culture, as a religion. But really we don't have that intention. We may have done something or said something that has given you that impression, that has created so much hatred and fear and violence in you so you could have done such a thing to us.
We want to listen to you. Please tell us what is in your heart.
USING THE BOMBS IS NOT THE MOST COURAGEOUS THING
Using the bomb is not the most courageous thing. Using the bombs may show that we are afraid.
Using our intuitions, our understanding, and our compassion show that we are great, we are brave, we are courageous. And I hope that our politicians can use that kind of language.
We want to understand you. We want to understand about your suffering, your difficulties.
In fact, we want you to have safety, to live in safety, in peace, with a capacity to grow as a nation. Because we know that if you don't have safety, we won't have safety either. Because we inter-are.
We are connected to each other. If you suffer deeply there is no way we over here can be truly happy. That is the language of truth, the language of insight, the language of inter-being.

- Thich Nhat Hanh, monk

starting to blame the legislature again

2007-01-28T15:42:00.000-08:00

Having just finished the biography of John Adams, my mind turns to the pathetic nature of our current leaders in Washington again. I know that most of my rants are aimed at the media (then again, maybe I need to type more of them up) but lately I've actually started to imagine that the legislative branch could actually be doing something.

Our little shrub leader has actually said that he's looking to congress for 'better ideas' on how to 'fix the Iraq problem'. Ok, here's what I want my legislative leaders to suggest:

Stop attempting to use violence to calm the chaos. Get the military out of Iraq; get those national guardsmen and reservists back home. DO NOT *leave* Iraq, just get the people who are trained (and well trained, and dedicated, and often very effective) to hurt and kill people out of there.

Use all the money currently going towards those violent means and put the Peace Corp in charge. Seriously. Get bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young people over there *fixing* things, making friends, building stuff. Imagine the peace corp with the kind of budget of the regular military... imagine what they could do. I can't, but I know it would be better than staring at these people through a gun sight.

As we all know, we 'broke' Iraq. Some would say it needed breaking, most would say that. I would. However, after we broke the dictatorship that was so horrible, we kept stomping on the shards, and stomping, and stomping.

I don't think many of even the hardest right wing folks believe we first went into Iraq under honest circumstances. I certainly don't, but I'm not going to spend my time trying to prove that now. The only people who should care about that is the prosocutors who should someday be going after the little shrub administration... I'll watch that show with interest. Until then, we need to act on today's reality: Iraq is a violent, horrible place where hundreds die every day from disease, bigotry, and political violence. And America is to blame for that. We went in there pretending we had a solution, and we didn't. Thus, we have the responsibility to fix it.

If we took this attitude, and totally stopped using violence to solve problems, much more of the world would jump onboard, and we'd have more money, resources, and expertise to call apon.

"That's not Walmart's Fault"

2007-01-28T15:07:00.000-08:00

I just heard a pathetic debate about whether and how the Walmart corporation is hurting this country. Every time a point came up about job loss through outsourcing, paving over the countryside on the edge of town, loss of small town downtowns, the Walmart defender would use the same basic response, "that's not Walmart's fault". As in, "if people are willing to take low paying jobs just to work at Walmart, "that's not Walmart's fault", or people are shopping there instead of downtown, so "that's not Walmart's fault".

He's right, of course. Walmart doesn't actually do anything illegal. Just slimy.

I kept thinking about how it sounds exactly like drug dealers rationalization. 'I just sell them the drugs, I don't force them to take them.'

So much of our society is hooked on the pathetic high of low cost crap.

http://www.talkingtothewall.com/pages/nsindex.html

what does the government do anyway?

2006-05-08T12:00:00.000-07:00

In light of the ongoing blindness to rational thought, public opinion, or expert advice in Iraq, I'm struggling to think of what exactly I do get out of the federal government... when I read that in the administration's 'Pandemic Influenza' plan, they won't:

- help fund local hospitals to help with further care
- help out law enforcement in any way
- pay for more drug stockpiling than the 25% funding they already do
- fund any of the planning at the local level.

Great.

why I think we're in so much trouble

2006-03-13T10:15:00.000-08:00

I haven't yet sent this to my republican friends... but I wish I could get them to listen to it.

The best radio... perhaps the best entertainment, period, is the radio program "This American Life". You can listen to all their programs at www.thislife.org

and, specifically, this brodcast: Habeas Schmabeas about prisoners in Guatanomo Bay.

it's so, so sad.

How to be a great Liberal leader

2006-03-02T09:50:00.000-08:00

Here's what I want from my national political leader:

- stop the war on an emotion: terror.
- Fight the crime of planning and carrying out bombing attacks, don't attempt to remove an emotion from the world.
- Figure out how to change the perspectives of people who think hurting US interests is a good idea. and, fyi, trying to kill them won't do it.

- stop the war on drugs
- a ridiculous idea also. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent fighting the wrong thing. sounds familiar. Check out Walter Cronkite's essay
- make Marijuana legal

- (as I've said here before) put the right to abortion up for a popular vote, and frame the question in such a way that wins.

- Double federal and state education funding, focusing on teacher salaries

- increase foreign student grants, get young people from other countries to go to Universities here!

- Propose real tax reform: don't let corporations hide their money in off-shore accounts

- Fix elections: lose the electoral college, redo the redistricting process, create severe campaign finance reform.

- promise to *not* run fpr re-election. Yes, you can be on the ballot again, but don't spend a dime on a campaign.

Breakfast

2006-02-09T08:46:00.000-08:00

This in from my Red State Friends. Funny.

One morning Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were having breakfast in the White House Dining Room.

The attractive waitress asks Cheney what he would like, and he replies, "I'll have a bowl of oatmeal and some fruit."

"And what can I get for you, sir?" she asks George W. He replies, "How about a quickie?"

"Why, Mr. President," the waitress says, "How rude. You're starting to act like Mr. Clinton and you have only been in office for your second term for only a year now.

As the waitress storms away, Cheney leans over to Bush and whispers,"It's pronounced 'quiche.'

...if only that was the problem.

Edit: I posted this on the day I heard about W 'reporting' on the plot to fly a plane into the "Liberty Tower" in LA... it's known as the "Library" tower. Funny.

We need to stop this foolish reliance on Roe v Wade

2006-02-06T18:30:00.000-08:00

Thinking about an abortion is a horrible sadness; a tradegy that will forever mar the two people who were involved, whether they realize it or not.

However, a child brought into a world where they are not wanted, not cared for, not able to be rejoiced every moment is even worse, for that child may -in fact, will most probably- grow up and create more negativity in the world. Especially our current American world, because we have not created the needed buffers and safety nets in our society to catch and save those lost childeren when their parents fail them... as they almost always do.

The chilling facts -- and only facts!-- pointed out in the book Freakonomics
of how crime stats fall in direct proportion to 16 years after Roe v Wade was implemented are a stark, depressing reminder of the pain in this situation.

And with all the possible things to be concerned with in our society, all the unbelievably important things we should be making decisions about, discussing, debating... we spend time going over and over this 1973 five to four surpreme court decision based on a tenuous legal notion.

They say the polls indicate that 60% of Americans support the legal availability of abortions. Some might say it's only a poll, and if the propoganda machines cranked up, those numbers might change, but I say we need to decide this and move on. We need a public vote. Either in the congress, via referrendum, or something. We need to get this silly debate over with.

I of course, would support it. But if we're going to play this democracy game, let's play it, and live with consequences.

mobile phone talkers

2006-02-06T18:24:00.000-08:00

I say we all start chiming into conversations in public places that are held by people talking too loudly on their mobile phones.

When defending talking too loudly, people will say, "well, if my friend were standing right here, this is how loud I'd talk to them, so it's not any different"

well, if someone were having annoying conversations near me --in person-- I'd feel pretty comfortable chiming in and saying something. Remember Woody Allen in the movie theater line in Annie Hall? Where he just reached over and grabbed the actual film director the ass was talking about in line?

A bit like that.

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

2006-02-03T09:47:00.000-08:00

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes.Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. The above is a summery of the more detailed original article "Fascism Anyone?" first published in Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry
-

Why the 4th Estate continues to let us down

2006-01-12T14:32:00.000-08:00

Over and over we read editors and writers aghast at writers and editors, and at law makers, that journalists are under fire. Worse, there are those in the press who are "stunned" to find hacks in their midst.

Why is this? It's harder to get a dog license than it is to call oneself a journalist. Yes, some go to school for it, and supposedly graduate with a degree of some sort or another. While that might mean they know how to spell, how to research, even how to write in sentences, that doesn't mean they'll be honest, or even accurate.

Reading the latest New Yorker article http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060116fa_fact about how journalists are being dragged into court to reveal their sources, I'm strict by how the writer, and it would seem all writers (witness the constant wringing of hands at www.huffingtonpost.com ) are

1. Worried about how the subpoenaed writer will lose their credibility with secret sources
--which is true, and a bad thing, granted.

2. NOT focusing on what the source revealed, leaving us with the classic 'it's not the crime, it's the cover-up'

3. Surprised when a writer succumbs to whatever failing and doesn't print the truth.
Hello? These are just people with at best, fedoras and a little press card in the band. They don't take an oath, or pass a test, or even get any sort of peer review process...

If writers want special privileges of privacy and protection, they need to step up and get serious about their credentials. Doctors and Lawyers have client privileges because they do that -- take oaths and pass tests... and get sued if they get it wrong.

What's really horrible is that our country is pretty much founded on the idea that the press will do the job in the way that we've glorified it in our minds... The first amendment gives freedom of speech and freedom of the press but doesn't give us a way to hold the operators of the press to any particular standard.

We Americans have either been just extremely lucky that reporters in the past took their jobs seriously, or (more probably) have always been having the wool dragged over our eyes. We're just sort of figuring this stuff out now.

the lack of integrity in political leaders

2006-01-12T09:20:00.000-08:00

I'm amazed that our leaders in Washington, with a straight face, give the excuse of 'it was for political reasons' for improper statements.

The current 'show' of confirmation hearings of Judge Alito continue to dismay. In 1985, when he was applying for a job in the Reagan administration, his job app bristles with bigotry and bragging about being in a Princton club that was set up to worry about minorities and women getting more rights on campus. Asked about it yesterday, he alternated between not remembering being in the club (come on!) and saying that the app was written to get a political job, therefore the statements in it weren't really how I feel, just what I said to get the job. AND the senators don't call him on it!

Judge, were you lying then, or now?

In other words, in DC, it's ok to lie for poticial advancement. Surprise. It's just a shame it's such an accepted excuse.