Again Actually

There are very few topics which I write about in mutliple posts. Most of those topics are ones which I'm passionate (or dispassionate) about - politics, certain multi-level marketing schemes, etc. But movies? Nah, there's usually no point in writing about a movie more than once. Especially when it's been a year since writing about the film. Especially when it's a sappy romantic comedy.

But here I am writing about Love Actually....again. HBO has been showing this movie beginning this week and I can't help but watch it. About a year ago, I wrote about how the music in this film really did it for me. The eclectic mix of artists really fills in the gaps between story lines and adds to the feeling one is supposed to get when watching a romantic comedy (and that's still true about this movie). You know what I'm talking about...it's that sappy feeling you get when you can't help but smile at the situation on screen even though you're sort of ashamed to be enjoying it.

So anyways, as I'm watching this film again, I realize that there are a couple of things about it that draw me to it more than the regular sappy romantic comedy. Primarily, it's the fact that the general Christmas cheer is the backdrop to situations which are very realistic and varied. Most Christmas movies begin with the premise that the season is a time to smile and love and be merry. This movie certainly starts off with a similar premise. In fact, Hugh Grant begins with narration which says as much. But it proceeds to forget about that and present situations where people just like us find the Christmas love and can't help but smile and enjoy. And most of all, it doesn't seem contrived, it feels genuine. Even with all the sub-plots going on, it still comes off as genuine. Tell me the last time you thought any movie was genuine.

So rather than being left with a "Ya right!" feeling, we're left with a "Ya, totally!" feeling. Ok, so I'm even more sappy about this damned movie the second time around than the first. But what can I say? It's the Christmas season and I've realized that it's not just the music, but it's the story that catches me on this one.

So anyways, the second thing that drag me into this nonsense is the Brits. Sure, I grew up trying to catch late night Benny Hill for all its bawdiness, but now that I'm grown up, I've found British sensibilities to be quite enagaging (even if there aren't half naked chicks running around to sillyu music). Not only are the people warm and friendly, the comedy they put together goes beyond what most American comedies can hope for. Bawdy, aloof, ridiculous, silly, charming, genuine...it's all part of what I find interesting and engaging about this movie.

So there it is. I've written twice about something that I actually enjoy and exposes me...yet again...for the hopeless sap that I am. It could be the Gordon Biersch I drank earlier this evening, or it could just be Kiera Knightly and her smile throughout this movie, but let's just say it's the stuff I just mentioned above :)

Now, make sure you watch this movie...or at least go out and rent the new Benny Hill DVD.

A Holistic Approach to the AIDS Epidemic

If you don't know, December 1st is World AIDS Days. I have to admit, I don't think so much about this epidemic throughout the year, but I have been keeping track of some major occurances relative to fighting the disease. With almost 38 million people living with HIV and AIDS, it's difficult sometimes, to imagine how to tackle such a big problem, but there are certainly some significant things which have been accomplished and which will hopefully slow down the progression of this disease.

Here's just one development in Brazil involving drug production. It was big news last year when Indian firms began producing generic AIDS drugs for use in countries like South Africa. The Brazillian news is important because Brazil is actually part of the WTO and is legally breaking patents on these AIDS drugs because it is a national emergency. Right now, Indian firms don't have to deal with that, but Brazil's steps are good news in a world when multi-nationals often have more control over the lives of people than their governments do.

But the fight against AIDS isn't just about producing drugs. Afterall, those drugs need to get into the hands of the right people, at the right time, on a frequent enough basis to really make a difference. Moreover, fighting AIDS isn't just about treating people currently afflicted with HIV/AIDS, the true fight requires a much more holistic approach. In fact, Brazil and Thailand are at the leading edge of fighting the disease. Thailand has used somewhat draconian laws and strict enforcement to fight the disease. Perhaps not the most "free" way of going about things, but lessons can certainly be learned.

You can read about some of the challenges faced in India as the country is just coming to grips with the enormity of the task and the size of the potential problem. India is second only to South Africa in terms of reported cases of infection (5.3 million in India vs. 5.6 million in South Africa), but those numbers are really just the tip of the iceberg. More likely, there are many, many more infected but not reported. Also, with a population as large as India's, this is a disease which can spread very fast and quickly infect more people than malaria.

We always hear about the slow response to fighting AIDS, but some folks interviewed in this article make some great points about fighting AIDS:

• Government may fund and support AIDS treatment, but they usually crimalize the activities which are associated with the spread of AIDS such as prostitution and gay sex. The interviewees don't advocate legalizing prostituion, but they argue that simply tearing down brothels won't make the problem go away. In fact, it may encourage the spread of the disease. So before legislating such things, they state that the entire picture of prevention and treatment needs to be taken into account.
• Various Ministries need to be involved in a concerted effort since AIDS is not just a health problems. As quoted in the article, the World Bank's Shanta Devarajan states

“India was going through a similar phenomenon to southern Africa — of thinking of HIV/AIDS as mainly a health problem, for the Health Ministry to handle,” he says. But, he adds, Africa has shown that an effective fight against the disease requires the will of the whole government. At minimum, the finance minister has to be involved, because of allocation of resources (involved in) mitigating disease and caring for the ill," says Devarajan. "If trucking is how (the disease) is transmitted, you want the Transportation Ministry involved. The Education Ministry (should also be involved) since the schools can be a major opportunity for teaching children.”

So what can we do? Well, obviously there are so many non-profits out there which are doing great work. Just like so many other great causes, you can donate your time or money. At the least, read up. Knowing about this fight can only help.

Sparkling Tower

As can be surmised from the infrequent posting on here, I haven't had much time (or energy) to post much. So here's more filler for ya :)

This shot is obviously of the Eiffel Tower (the real one, not the one in Vegas). We took a short trip there last December and this is one of my favorite shots from our few days in Paris...it pays off to have a pocket tripod even when you're too cold to really setup equipment! The lights are actually strobe lights which flash on the hour during the evenings. I don't know if they're on throughout the year or just during the holidays, but they're quite a sight, near or far. This is a time lapse shot of 1/2 second.

Anyways, enjoy this until I can find time to write something insightful :)

Place in History

For all of us Seinfeld fans, here's a reason to go the Smithsonian.

That is all.

Oh...I know I've been relatively quiet (except for my outburst of earlier this week) since before the election. I've actually been rather consumed with work and an elections analysis which Young India is going to be publishing in the near future. Too late for an elections analysis, you say? Well, safe to say that most of the publication does not focus on the election results themsleves, rather it is focused on where to go from here. This is just a teaser, I'll provide links to the online version of the publication once it's ready for public consumption.

Walk quickly and look away

Ok, so I vowed not to write about Quixtar and multi-level marketing any more, but you know what?

Fuck 'em!

Fuck 'em all!

Before I move on, let me just say that I'm rarely driven to ranting in this space. Also, I never thought I'd see the day where I wish that Indians I walk by would just walk quickly and look away from me. But fuck it. All this desi-pride? Fuck it.

My wife and I were at Wal-mart last night (again). We've found it's just simpler to go later since it's less crowded and generally less insane. So cut to the repeated possibility/fear/annoyance of being accosted by the lame networking of Quixtar wanna-be's.

Since I last wrote about this subject, I've had near-accostings (yes, I can make up words, thank you). I'll be looking at something simple like light bulbs and some random Indian dude will ask me which bulb is good. Huh? Which bulb is good?!? The one that should fucking go off in your head every time you ask dumbfuck questions trying to get a conversation going! Or I'll be looking at shampoo and another Indian dumbass will ask me what type of shampoo I'm looking for. The one I can squeeze in your eyes to make you cry while I yell at you fool! Or I'll just be standing around and somebody walks by, slows down, and says Hi from 20 feet away.

If you haven't surmised yet, we had another encounter last night. This time, my wife had to deal with the pain of shooing these gnats away. Every technique one can use to nicely indicate to someone that you're not interested was used. None of them worked. None. My wife only got away from this woman by giving her email address. Even then, the woman and her husband started following up and "shopping" in the same areas that we were. And now I'm sure she'll have to deal with multiple emails from this woman asking to meet up for coffee, chai, chaat, gup-shup, whatever. But it has to be at our house and only for 15 minutes. Thank God (err Yahoo!) for "Block"

By the way, this is not a comment about Quixtar the company. I personally believe it's all a sham, but this rant isn't about the company or the likelihood of making money. It's about the "networking" that goes on in the attempts to drum up business and downstream sign-ups. I don't know if the Quixtar materials recommend this sort of annoying behavior or if it's just something bred into brown people in the Bay Area...all I know is that it ain't helping the cause. More saddening is that I'm unwilling to even smile at another Indian while shopping.

White? You get a smile. Black? You get a smile. Filipino? You get a smile. Hispanic? You get a smile. Indian which a child a tow? You get a smile and your child gets a silly face.

Mid-to-Late 30's Indian either alone or with your wife looking around for the next gullible desi? As Tupac would say...Fuck you and yo muthfuckin mama!

Call me a racist, if you will, but this is what it's come to! I'm sick and tired of having to deal with this shit every time I need socks or soap!

So here are some tips to all of you Quixtar/BWW folks when stalking the over-crowded paths at Wal-mart. And no, I'm not just mad at the idea of Quixtar and people running their own business. I'm mad at them thinking that every person needs to be saved with the Quixtar method of getting rich and moreover, saved in the most conniving, annoying, foolhardy way possible:

1. If you see a desi walking nearby, the chances are highly likely that he or she is already part of Quixtar, is in the process of becoming a Quixtar-ian, or much more likely, has been propositioned/confronted and has run out of ways to say "not interested" in a nice way. Given these facts...just keep walking.
2. Don't try to break the ice by mentioning how nice my wife's "Hair Lights" look or how I have a British accent. Understand this: They're Highlights and I'm not British. Just keep walking.
3. Just because I answer your dumb question about whatever I'm looking at, doesn't mean I want to talk to you. Yes, I like to be nice and I try to be nice, but here's a hint...anytime you get one word answers, that's an indication that the person doesn't care to talk more. Another hint: Any time someone looks away while giving one word answers, that's an indication that the person is ready to grab the nearest item and bash you on the head with it. Given these actions, just keep walking.
4. If someone you're talking to says "Sorry, I'm not interested" it means just that. I don't care to learn more. I don't care to meet up for coffee. I don't care to talk about a great business opportunity. I don't care! Just keep walking.
5. If I make up some lame story about why I don't have a phone number, just walk away. I'm doing it to try and be nice. I'd really just love to wear a t-shirt that says "Fuck Quixtar-ians", but I'd get thrown out of Wal-mart. Instead, I have to make up lame excuses about why I don't want to meet up with you. Just deal with it and keep walking.

I could go on and on with this, but I think you all get the idea. Please, just move on and let us live in peace. I don't want to save 30% on my toiletries. I don't want to make my money work for me. I don't want to sign up for a business where I need to stalk shoppers at the local discount store just to ring up some business.

I just want socks.

Please, let me buy my socks in peace.

More importantly, please let me feel comfortable smiling at desis I pass in the store. I don't like walking quickly and looking away. I did enough of that in college when I didn't want to associate with the Indians on campus. I'm past that stage in life and am happy to have friends both Indian and non-Indian. It's as simple as that. Can you please help me out?

Please?

Good. Now go fuck off!!

Tempering the arugment

After my flurry of posts leading up the election it's been almost a week since the eventful day and this is my first post since then! Rather than just rant or speculate I wanted to give the results some time to sink in before saying anything. Why? Mainly because I wasn't really sure what to think. But the thing is, I still don't know what to think. But in the past week, I must say that I've been tempering my concerns, mainly because I think the power of democracy, freely available information, and a robust political dialogue will prevent the nation from lurching far to the right like many people fear.

So let's leave the discussion about the nation moving right and evangelicals taking over. For right now, the fundamental hope I have is that parties demostrate to the public why they exist. Specifically for the Democratic Party, the leadership needs to communicate to the nation as whole (not just it's "base") what they stand for and where they will lead the nation. The argument that they must counter the GOP is not good enough to regain or maintain leadership positions.

Half of the argument for voting for Kerry was that he's not Bush. Well, it clearly wasn't enough. And the argument cannot come down to a single candidate. The argument must be focused on the party as a whole. Afterall, if people cannot believe in the fundamental platform, why should thye believe in candidates who come and go? The GOP is setting itself up for long term leadership and the Democratic Party should do the same. True, one should not simply vote by party affiliation, but I think a lot of voting comes down to believing in the overall set of ideas a party brings to the table. The specific candidate must then show what more he or she brings to the table to enhace that platform and policy ideas of the party in general.

Anyways, it's a tough task. Just ask leaders of the Indian National Congress. The Democratic Party is in a similar situation to that which the INC found itself after a resounding loss to the BJP in the 90's. It took the INC a decade to recover from that and communicate its identity in a believable manner. The INC chose to stay ground on its platform (which I believe was the right way to go), but it still took a long time to find the right way to relay that platform message.

I'm interested to see where the Democratic Party goes from here. I believe they should stand firm on overall principles, but in doing so, they must demostrate that those principals are closer to the heart of the American public and the concerns of every person. The GOP has taken to that role and message quite well, and it will be a challenge to take that back.

More soon...

The WHOLE story and nothing but...

The media are many times questioned for intent in publishing certain articles, of being liberal or conservative, of being sensationalistic, and many other things. Rarely does it seem that members of the media publicly keep each other in check.

As you may have guessed by now, I'm an avid reader of Slate.com. [Yes, I know the contributors and staff of Slate is generally quite liberal, but I find the selection of content so varied and the point of view quite interesting (and silly titles to boot).] Anyways, here's an instance where the Slate editor-at-large has helped me to put a hot news item in a bit of perspective and hopefully, helps media outlets maintain (or build up) their reporting credibility.

The disappearance of 380 tons of arms from Al-Qaqaa, Iraq is being hyped up by the Kerry campaign. I completely agree with the Kerry campaign on the questions this should bring up in one's mind about Iraq war planning. But what Jack Shafer has written here is really interesting in that it calls into question not only the Bush admin, but the IAEA for their methods considering they didn't trust Saddam to begin with. A quick example from Mr. Shafer's piece:

The Times explains that HMX and RDX can be disguised as "harmless goods, easily slipped across borders." I'd like to hear the IAEA explain what logic it used in deciding that hundreds of tons of high explosives could be trusted to the custodianship of Saddam Hussein.

It also calls to task the additional work the NY Times should do to put things into perspective by, among other things, telling us about how many other explosives might be there:

Congratulations to the New York Times for breaking this story, but I'd still like to see it placed in context. For instance, Al-Qaqaa was one of the CIA's 500 "medium priority" weapons sites: How many of those sites were searched and secured? Are other dangerous caches missing? Was Al-Qaqaa the only HMX, RDX, and PETN depot in Iraq? Did U.N. inspectors allow the Iraqis to hoard other dangerous munitions?

There are actually a lot of other interesting things brought up in this specific article. In general, I think it's good for all us to consider what the whole story might be for anything we read. Of course, we can't always count on our favorite newspapers to provide the whole story, but I'm sure the blogosphere can do a good job at proving other perspectives on the stories and helping to fill in gaps where they may be. If nothing else, simply keeping this all in mind will help us all put things in perspective and be the skeptics that we all should be. Keep that in mind the next time you read your morning paper.

The Fundamental Problem with the American Elections System

Yesterday, I got quite wordy and noted that I would follow-up with a discussion about the more fundamental problem with our voting system here. Well, I actually decided to make that post on Samvaad, the blog for the non-profit who's board I'm on. You can read the full text of that posting here.

I've condensed that post slightly for this blog:
Whatever one's opinion is on the Supreme Court decision, the fact that such a controversy erupted highlights a much more fundamental problem in the way that federal elections are conducted in the United States. The reality is voting in the United States is that basically the only thing which the federal government guarantees is that every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote (except for a few exceptions such as for felons). Other aspects of voting is left up to the individual states and counties. This had not really been a national issue before the 2000 election, but since then, this has become an increasingly worrying situation.

We're not talking about voter intimidation or illegal tactics (although those are a concern, they can be addressed through better enforcement of existing laws). The worrying situation is that in federal elections such as those for President or Congress, the federal government doesn't require any minimum "quality" for polling locations or for the process which states and counties use to run elections and count votes.

What this means is that there are various ways in which people submit their votes - the traditional paper ballots, optical scanning machines where tick marks are read by scanner, and the new touch screen machines are just a few examples. There is certainly controversy around the touch screen machines because, depending on the type of machine, there is no receipt or secondary method to confirm the vote. This is one area of where it would make sense for the Federal Elections Commission to weigh in with standard for the types of voting machines which can be used in federal elections and the ways in which elections officials should maintain these machines to ensure proper functioning. Unfortunately, the FEC only seems to concern itself over campaign financing.

If you've read deep into the NY Times article linkd to above, you'll notice that the actual court case brought before the Supreme Court was regarding the recounting of questionable ballots. The decision made was based partly on the ability of Florida election officials to recount ballots quickly enough with certainty. This highlights another area of grave concern over the American elections process. There is no federal standard for counting or recounting ballots in the case on controversy, mistakes, or questions. Each state has different standards on when a recount should be conducted - many require a recount when the vote is within 1/2%, but it varies.¶So after the controversy around the 2000 election, one would expect the federal government to weigh in on this and publish standards for counting and recounting ballots in federal elections. Again, this would be perfect for the FEC to pick up, but again, they do not oversee this area.

There are certainly other areas of concern with the process of voting in the United States. This piece has only touched upon some procedural areas, but there are many more issues around enforcement of elegibility rules, voter intimidation, and access to polling locations. All of these issues concern us about the quality of the elections process here. One can cynically question the legitimacy of President Bush's term because of problems in Florida, but safe to say that these issues were not in the public's eye then. In the four years since then, Florida has made strides to improve upon their elections process, but why not the federal government?

For the elections coming on November 2nd, it would not be surprising if various lawsuits are brought on the grounds of procedural errors. If the campaigns are ready to pursue these issues in a court of law, why isn't the federal government doing anything to discount the need for such lawsuits. Any time a material change in the results of an election could occur on the basis of these procedural failures and subsequent lawsuits, one has to wonder why there is not a larger uproar. Until there are federal standards for the election of federal officials, the legitimacy of every winner could be questioned.

Equal Protection and the 2004 Presidential Election

Let's go back to November and December 2000. There was a huge controversy over the presidential election results in Florida since some ballots had "hanging chads". As you likely know, this situation was litigated directly to the Supreme Court with a decision coming down on Dec 12, 2000. The summary of this is that recount underway in Florida was stopped since it could not be finished in time for the December 18th meeting of the Electoral College. To refresh your memory, here's a New York Times article from Dec. 13th, 2000. The main reason I chose this article is that it goes into the many attached opinions on the Supreme Court decision. While I'm sure the NY Times editorial board was against the decision at the time, I think it's valuable to understand the internal struggles that the Court went through in making such an important decision. The NY Times provides good insight into that with the details from the separate opinions (which were attached to the majority opinion). If you haven't gotten it yet, I'm sort of a Supreme Court junkie :)

Whether or not you like the results of this, it seems like a good number of people believe the 2004 election will be decided in the courts again. I'll get to the likelihood of that in a bit, but first, let's look at the specific reasons given for stopping the recount in Florida. Bear with me for a bit....Above all, the Court said that Equal Protection in voting was a foundation of the decision. Equal protection in knowing the intent of the voter. At the time, the Court was referring to equal treatment of any recount of questionable ballots. The Court decided that a recount could not be completed with necessary equality and fairness by the December 18th cut-off date. Of course, there's a lot more depth to the decision, so please read the above article for all the nuances. But that's really what it came down to.

Now, the interesting thing about this is that Equal Protection had never before been brought up in the context of an election. But now that it has been brought up, I think it's a big Pandora's Box which will be duly ripped apart in the next week. At the time, the Court said that the deicision was limited ONLY to the Bush v. Gore decision, but realistically, precedent has been set and in the judicial system, precedent is very important for any subsequent cases. Now the other thing is that the Court referred to equal protection in knowing the intent of the voter after the fact. They didn't consider equal protection in the sense of polling places using the same methods for voting and vote counters using the same methods for counting votes.

So here's where I think we'll run into trouble with next week's elections. There are loads of people just ready to jump an any instance of possible unfairness or inequality and then bring the case to court under the equal protection clause. Now, a person might bring a case if they are handicapped and no adequate polling location was available to them. However, I think the bulk of the cases brought up will be with purely political intent and not any intent to uphold any sense of fairness.

Some examples: A voter did not originally register correctly and was still able to vote. This could be perceived as being unfair to the voters who did indeed register correctly. How about a voter who did not bring proper identification to the polling location? That could be unfair.

The idea here is that procedural unfairness will be used as a tool to invalidate votes. Any action which results in some sort of unfairness to other voters or where the intent of the voter may not be clear could potentially be brought to court. We could be dealing with nitpicking, but I believe we will be dealing with people intent on "nitpicking" only portions of the population that tend to vote for the other candidates. Republicans challenging voters at locations which are predominantly Democratic voting. Democrats challenging voters at locations which are predominantly Republican voting. And then we'll deal with countersuits against the challengers. The act of challenging only some voters could be perceived as unfair itself!

In short, I believe this will lead to a quagmire. All of this because the Supreme Court opened up this Pandora's box of Equal Protection.

By the way, I don't know if all of these suits will end up at the Supreme Court. I have a feeling that if there is enough litigation, it would make sense for the Court to step in just to stop the madness. Here are a couple of opposite opinions on that matter:

• Yes, this will end up at the Supreme Court
• No, this will not end up at the Supreme Court (I've referred to scenarios 1 and 2 above)

This had become quite the long post, so I'll leave it as-is right now. I'll shortly post my thoughts on the fundamental problem here.

Horse race

Back in the early summer a friend and I were lamenting how the presidential race was all but decided already. Now, here we are 6 days before the election and it's a horse race. We're tracking close states and what the likelihood of either candidate winning various states. There are a few very interesting spots to get a bead on state by state polls and add it up for electoral college results:

• The LA Times has a pretty straight forward map representing the numbers based on "locked up" states where there is no real challenge. It doesn't make guesses about states where the polls are too close to call. Here, the white states are the ones too close to call.
• Slate has a much more in depth analysis which includes numbers from various polls. This tracker not only adds up "locked up" states, but also includes iffy states where polls are close, but using various methods, can be predicted to go one way or the other. In this one, the white states are "locked up" and the red or blue states are varying certainty.

Of course, it's dangerous to make predictions. Afterall, I still remember going out on election evening in 2000 thinking that Gore had won only to learn it had gone the other way by the end of the night. But these scorecards are interesting alongside reports about campaigning. It's interesting to see campaign strategies changing based on whether a state is locked up or not. In fact, Hawaii, Arkansas, and West Virginia are in play again and the campaigns are taking note.

In any case, I'll soon post my feeling on how this election is going to run. I highly doubt we'll know the winner next Wednesday because of litigation. And even after litigation is settled, I think people will really be in doubt about the winner's legitimacy - mainly because of questions about election day voting locations. Come back soon for the skinny!

Bash 'em!

Nothing enrages me more than bashing the citizens of other countries! Stop the xenophobia! So in that light, I provide you a link to a funny table to help us figure out who's worse: The Saudis or the French?

Ok, it's not laugh-out-loud funny, but it put a smile on my face on a rather dull day. Damn those foreigners! Damn them I say!

In other news, maybe we'll finally stop hearing from Red Sox fans about their lot in life. Err, wait a second, you can't be a Sox fan if you don't have a sense of impending doom. Seriously though, I think most of the country is pulling for the Sox. And with good reason. Boston is truly a baseball town even though their football and basketball teams have had much more success. I'm not a huge baseball fan, but you can't help but pull for them too. So what happens if the Cards win? Umm, let's not talk about that.

Plan to Rebuild: To Be Provided

So this may just be piling it on at this point, but I read a couple of interesting articles this morning about the plan for "winning the peace" in Iraq after the initial defeat of Saddam. Sen. Kerry's been hitting Pres. Bush pretty hard on this for a while now and the Philly Inquirer has a report about one of the final planning meetings before invasion in Spring 2003 (I actually read it originally at Slate Magazine in this Op/Ed which discusses not just this meeting, but also Secy Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military and his progress to date.):

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason. The slide said: "To Be Provided." [Emphasis added]

When I first read this, I could do nothing but stare in disbelief. Are you kidding me??

Far be it for me to know what exactly is needed to rebuild Iraq. I claim no expertise. But judging from the Inquirer report, it's pretty clear that most military minds saw a gaping hole in the war planning. This just adds more weight to argument that the administration went into this with full momentum and didn't really want to hear dissenting voices. It's clear that the top level was giving Pres. Bush what he wanted to hear (thus when Bush says that the military said they were comfortable with the Iraq war plans, he's being technically correct), but any meaningful dissent was filtered out to ensure the momentum would not be affected.

Call it blinders, call it willful ignorance, call sheer stupidity, either way, it has put us in a situation that probably could have been prevented (or at least lessened). Of course we can improve the situation, but seriously, how much more of this should we have to take? I'm annoyed enough when such willful disregard happens are work, shouldn't we be fucking sick of it when it comes to the leaders of our country?

One last rant: The argument about whether or not we should have gone to war is a completely separate one. There are wide opinions and reasonings about the worth of going to war in Iraq and I'm happy to discuss them, but I don't think any argument can be made about the prosecution of this war and the incompetence which has lead to the current situation in Iraq.

Nuff Said.

Save the kids, tax the Rich!

Now, I'm one for taxing the more wealthy amongst us to help society overall. The extra tax hit on these folks isn't as big as the hit would be on someone who is just making ends meet. Afterall, the working class person's taxes come straight from wages (assuming they don't save very much). The wealthier person most likely has a nest egg which provides a buffer from any big expenses (like a new convertible).

Okay, so I'm not trying to convince you about taxing the rich here. This post is specifically about NOT taxing the rich just because they are an "evil" target. I should also note that I don't consider my wife and I to be rich, but I do believe we're wealthy in the sense that we have savings and if either one of us lost our jobs we'd still be able to stitch together a life without landing in poverty. Besides, we have the buffer of our families...who would sacrifice life and limb to ensure that we don't end up destitute. Anyways, that's another story for another day.

The real story today is about Proposition 63 which is on the November ballot here in California. If you're a voter in California you really should read the entire link. It's pretty comprehensive and summarizes the facts as well as both sides of the argument. If you're not a Cali voter, then I'll save you the time and give you the one liner:

This proposition establishes a state personal income tax surcharge of 1 percent on taxpayers with annual taxable incomes of more than $1 million. Funds resulting from the surcharge would be used to expand county mental health programs

Seem simple enough? Well, as a one liner...err two sentencer...it seems like a no brainer. Let's help fund county mental health programs with money which comes from people that don't really need it. Ok, so while in many case, I think it's appropriate to be Robin Hood, in this case, I think it's just social services gone wrong. Why? Because there doesn't seem to be any connection here.

Of course mental health programs are needed and it's a great cause. And this tax payer funding would apparently save the state $100 million annually across various areas (according to non-partisan state analysis). Additionally, the tax would be deductible from federal taxes, so the wealthy wouldn't feel the pinch.

While I agree the rich wouldn't really feel the pinch on this, I think the proposition just provides fodder to folks who believe "tax and spend" is just wrong. The supply siders in the house would argue that it's better to keep the money in the hands of the wealthy so they can invest it in businesses, yada yada. Okay, the standard supply side argument is nonsense, but I'm on the same side as them in this case.

The wealthy have targeted here for no other reason than the fact they have money. The authors of the proposition haven't really thought this through to provide a good argument as to why these wealthy people should be made to pay for county mental health services. Generally, state level tax proposals are tied together decently. An example would be to tax drivers to pay for road maintenance and public transport projects. Now, the projects may not be thought through well, but at least you can make the connection between drivers and roads and transportaion.

But the wealthy and mental health?

The other thing about this is that a very specific area of health care has been chosen here. I'm not sure why some other area of state funded health care wasn't chosen. Why not emergency rooms? Why not long term preventative care for heart disease? I wouldn't be surprised if there are new propositions in the next election cycle to fund those programs.

And that's where you start losing the argument about spreading the wealth. I can see why supply siders are tired of "more and more taxes". It's because they aren't convinced about the worth. Now, they may never be totally convinced, but there should not be such huge gaps in logic here.

And finally, this proposition apparently has wide support. Last I heard, people are in favor of it 2-to-1 (66 yes-33 no). Who knows if it'll pass, but I know I'll be voting against it. In county and state elections I've been for funding good public services which are connected tightly to the source of funding, but I've been very much against vague plans to improve "things" with new bonds or taxes. Even Bay Area transportation plans have been filled with holes or filled with tertiary projects and so I've voted against them. So I'll be voting against this one. If you're a voter in Cali, I suggest you read up on this one and think seriously about where this one will lead us.

Let's go to the analysis (take 2)

As expected, there has been a ton said about Presidential Debate #2 since the weekend. Most of it has been partisan, which is okay when it's in Op/Ed form. But impartial analysis of the "end game" of each candidate has been a bit difficult to find. Most of the impartial "analysis" has just been a recounting of what actually occured...sort of a a highlight summary of the 90 minutes. However, Ronald Brownstein of the LA Times has a pretty interesting take which I daresay is truly analysis! Yay!

In short, the analysis seeks to connect the candidates' content and demeanor with the overall goals of the campaigns and the targets of various pieces. This goes beyond saying that Bush got better as the debate went on, but actually provides commentary on why (perhaps) the candidates said certain things.

To be sure, there are useless comments such as this:

Democrats saw nothing in the evening that would slow the momentum Kerry
gained after the first debate. Republicans were generally pleased that Bush delivered a steadier performance likely to remind his base why they support him.

But gladly, that is used more to comment on the general partisan feelings about the debate and is not the focus of the analysis. Holla if ya hear me, Larry!

In addition, Brownstein comments on the quality of the questions asked of the candidates, comparing them to previous town hall forums. Several other editorials comments on this as well. And I think that's important. Going into this debate (as well as the other ones), I feel like the general mood was that the rules around the debate would limit any real engagement and that pre-screened questions would be useless. In fact, the St. Louis audience provided some very direct questions, which the candidates tried to answer...not as directly as possible, but Charlie Gibson tried to pen in the candidates at some points (without too much success).

The most interesting thing I find is that the only places where any of this type of analysis is available is in the blogosphere. The blogs may belong to paid journalists, but it's very interesting to note that the most insightful commentary is being provided through a medium which allows for the most flexibility. I would be interested to see what these paid bloggers would be like if they were reporters being paid by CNN and such. Most likely, they wouldn't even make it through the ranks to get on TV, but that's a whole different story.

Let's go to the analysis

So I've been watching the presidential debates with passion. In fact, I've been watching them sort of like a sporting event - sitting on the edge of my seat and clapping or making "crowd" noises when there's a good or interesting or killer statement. I've mainly been cheering for Kerry, but I'll admit there have been some commetns from Bush where I could help but saying "oooh".

Anyways, the general consensus is that Kerry whooped Bush's ass in the first debate. The second debate seems to be a draw, although I'm sure more opinions will come out over the next few days. Speaking of opinions, I can only laugh at the TV news media when watching their post-debate coverage. Why?

Well, folks at CNN and the like are paid for their analysis and opinions on what has just occurred. But what do we get? Interviews with campaign spokepeople. And what do they give us? Our man won. What do you expect from the campaign? That's what they're paid for. At least they're doing what they're paid for. It may not be connected to reality, but at least they're doing what's expected of them.

I had to change the channel immediately when Larry King laughed at the fact that campaign spokespeople were just giving a one-sided story. HA! I could only laugh that the people who purport to know something about political campaigns simnply rely on interviews with partisan representatives. They don't have the ability to provide any real analysis to give viewers some "professional" insight into the debates. Instead we're left with these idiots laughing with each other.

Now, I can speculate why these folks won't give us a real opinion. It could be that they don't want to express an opinion and then be proven wrong or stupid later on. Perhaps. It could be that the campaigns know how to work these idiots so well that there's not much left to do. I'd like to think it's more about the networks want to give us: Quick soundbites that we can use at the watercooler along with "I heard it on CNN/MSNBC/FOX/etc"

Come Monday morning, I'll be telling my co-workers I heard Larry King laugh like an idiot and had nothing better to say except ask a partisan guest his or her opinion (cue Hillary Clinton, Karen Hughes, yada yada).

Man, I'm glad that I've been watching these debates on CSPAN. I'm just sorry I turned over to CNN afterwards to hear "analysis". You can bet I won't be doing that after the next debate. God forbid election night...I'm not sure where to turn for decent news about election results.