Thoughts on the Inauguration

January 21st, 2009 by Brianna

It’s done. The United States has it’s first African-American president.

I’ve been slightly more excited by this whole inauguration business than I ever thought I would be. I suppose that it’s all mostly just pomp and silliness, but there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with any of that! And somehow, I really do feel hopeful – not because I think that Obama is going to somehow save the country, or singlehandedly pull us out of the recession, or even reform politics to some significant degree. I’m hopeful, more because of this.

“Most black say MLK’s vision is fulfilled”. When I first saw that statement, it bothered me somewhat. Surely, no one really thinks that everyone is being treated equally! I’m doubt that those who answered ‘yes’ on that poll really think so either. But they think that something is different. And that fact by itself will cause things to be different, to become better.

Even if that is the only impact Obama has on the world (and I doubt it will be), this alone will cause his presidency will be one of the most important in years.

Edit: Pink’s Dear Mr. President just came up on XMMS. I don’t miss Bush at all!

Economic stimulus is bad: or, why the two major parties suck

December 4th, 2008 by Brianna

As I believe I’ve said before, I support both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Here’s why:

For last week, most of the economic talk has been about either the pending auto industry bailout, or Obama’s purposed new stimulus plan. (And the fact that we are now ‘officially’ in a recession, but that’s not a policy question.) Everybody has their own opinion on these two plans. Most of the liberals say that the auto industry bailout is just the same thing that was done for the financial industry, except that the auto industry counts as ‘main street’, so now, it’s okay. The stimulus plan is supposed to have the same effect as the tax refund – increase spending, and get the economy ‘moving’. The difference? It’s supposed to be better, because the states will have more control of the money. The conservative answer to all of this? “Where’s the money going to come from.”

They’re all wrong.

Yes, I realize I simplified in the above paragraph. But here are the problems with the above plans:

The auto bailout: Cars are wasteful and horrible. The use immense amounts of resources to manufacture. They pollute the environment. They use huge amounts of energy. An electric car, which is at least not polluting directly (there is, of course, coal and nuclear pollution!) likely uses more energy than a gasoline car! Americans buy cars far more often than we need too – leading to even more waste. And cars kill a tremendous number of people during operation! We don’t need more cars. That money would be much better spent in finding way to help people avoid needing cars, not to prop up a mismanaged industry. Find some other way to help the auto employees.

Of course, we needed the wall street bailout even less than we needed this one, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

Economic Bailout. We don’t need to spend more! Spending is what got us into this mess to begin with. Americans consume more per capita than any other country, and that is:

1. Unfair and exploitive, and

2. Impossible to sustain without resorting to force, to keep the other countries giving us stuff for free.

What we need is to consume less, and keep the percentage of the population who consumes a disproportionate amount of value from doing so. More spending is not the answer!

I wish that, instead of the Democratic and Republican parties being the two major parties, that the Libertarian and Green parties were the major parties. I think that they would balance each other out nicely.

Here’s what the Libertarian Party has right:

  1. Small government. The smaller, the better.
  2. Economic theory. supply and demand really does work out. Debt is a bad thing.
  3. Military isolation. We have absolutely no business playing world policeman.

And the Green Party?

  1. Social policy. The government exist the serve the people – and especially those who are being exploited.
  2. Economic practice. Those with power (capital), abuse that power, and all the free markets in the universe can’t stop that.
  3. General foreign policy. Fair trade. The idea that the world does not revolve around the US.

I think it would be a great improvement if the power were to shift to those two parties, rather than the present state.

Update on the gun nut chick

November 15th, 2008 by Brianna

A while back, I wrote about these gun-crazy families that I know.

Today, the oldest daughter (the one who’s hot for Sarah Palin) asked me what I thought about the election results. I responded – vaguely – that I was happy about some things, and unhappy about others (I didn’t mention what I was unhappy about…)

She was obviously very unhappy about the election, and informed me that she celebrated election day by buying a Glock!

Lovely.

Now, most of the ultra right-wing conservative types I know don’t like Obama for one of two reasons. Either they don’t like his position on abortion, or they think he’s a socialist.

Not gun-nut-chick! She doesn’t like Obama because she thinks that he’s going to take everyone’s guns away. Of course, Obama doesn’t really think that, but try to tell that to her! She ended up asking me what I thought about gun control, and I replied that I thought it was okay if people owned guns for hunting and self-defense (properly licensed, of course), but that it really didn’t affect me personally, because I didn’t feel like I could ever take a human life, even in self-defense.

And she came completely unglued! She just couldn’t believe that anyone could possibly not want to defend herself with lethal force. She couldn’t fathom the idea, that perhaps her life is no more or less valuable than someone else’s! And she can’t even began to understand the complexities of real self-defense. (Trying to explain to her that most sexual assaults are committed by someone known by the victim, for example, only leads to angry denial or blank stares!)

So, now, she’s mad at me – because I don’t want to kill someone!

Sigh…

Concerning the Dishonest Vote…

November 4th, 2008 by Brianna

Well, I guess I’ll be voting dishonestly this year! If I could instantly elect anybody I wanted to, it would probably be Cynthia McKinney. Her views are much closer to mine than any other candidate. But I’ll be voting for Obama, because McKinney (or any other third party candidate, for that matter) doesn’t even have a trillionth of a chance. It’s not ‘voting for the lesser of two evils’ – I like Obama, don’t get me wrong – but I wish I could, in good conscience, vote for the candidate that best represents my views.

Voting is a funny thing. As it turns out, it is impossible that a vote for more than two candidates be fair. (Consult any political science text for an explanation of this, if you are curious). In the case of our system, where the candidate with the most votes wins, the unfairness is, that a candidate could be elected of whom the majority actually disapproves of! So we rectify this by voting for the candidate for one of the tow big parties that is closest to are views. And, thus our two party system continues, without even a minor challenge to it’s dominance.

I really don’t like this. I feel bad about not supporting the candidate that I really like the most, but I don’t know what else to do! I think the situation might improve if we had runoff elections. (A runoff is a second vote for only the two most popular candidates). I know, I know, runoff elections have their own problems – particularly when one group votes for a candidate that everybody hates in order to ensure their victory, but I feel that it takes more thought, more of a conspiracy to cause unfair results in a runoff election.

Perhaps the best solution would be to change voting systems every other year, but I guess that would just confuse people.

In any case, I’ll be glad when I’m done with the candidate portion of the ballot tomorrow – and voting for the amendments and propositions and questions is fun! It’s just YES or NO. No chance for dishonesty there.

Everybody VOTE!

Some Disconnected Thoughts on the US Economy

November 1st, 2008 by Brianna
  1. The economy is not really about money. Or jobs. Or Banks. It’s about the distribution of goods and services.
  2. Americans have been receiving an unfair share of those goods. We have been for quite some time. We’re exploiting the rest of the world. This is going to have to be fixed.
  3. The federal debt continues to increase. That can’t continue forever.
  4. The current federal debt is enormous. The current consumer debt is obscene, too. That can’t be fixed overnight.
  5. We can talk all day about reducing spending, cutting or raising taxes, etc., but the reality is, money itself is worthless – it’s what it buys that counts.
  6. X goods are produced. The fairest distribution is X/Population.
  7. If a good or service is being produced, and it causes greater unhappiness than it creates happiness, the effort spent creating it is completely wasted. The prime example? War.
  8. Broken Window Fallacy. Broken Window Fallacy. Broken Window Fallacy!
  9. Americans aren’t more important than other people. We are just going to have to get used to a lower standard of living.
  10. It’s possible that some people might not be able to be employed at some point – thanks to machines, there may someday be fewer jobs available than workers. This may happen sooner than later – and would create an partial economy of abundance. So, we really do need to think about providing basic needs for everyone.
  11. It is impossible to drastically cut government spending without negatively impacting many, many people. It is impossible to quickly create new programs to replace old ones without negatively impacting many, many people. So, we must ignore any sweeping claims made by anybody.
  12. Usually, politics trump economics.
  13. Economic change doesn’t happen overnight – the stock market notwithstanding. The current situation is not Bush’s fault. It’s not Clinton’s fault. It’s not Reagen’s fault. One could even argue that it’s even FDR or Lincoln’s fault, but it’s not anyone’s fault. It’s a collective problem of society.

So in reference to the election, I think that voting for a candidate based on their economic policy is pointless at best, and idiotic at worst. The same things are going to happen, regardless. Instead, vote for the candidate with whom you agree on social, foreign, energy, or any other criteria, because the economy is an enormous, long term mess.

Write to Marry Day: also for the anti-gay!

October 30th, 2008 by Brianna

Write to marry day logo

Here’s a fun blog game that’s actually worth while! Write to marry day.

Now, I believe that I’ve already given my opinion on marriage in general – I think that the government should stay out of it, and leave it as a personal or religious statement. But here’s the thing – if the government is going to define and regulate marriage, it must be available for gay people.

It’s not a moral issue.

It’s not an ethics issue.

It’s not going to ‘undermine the family and hurt the children’ – even if gay marriage were somehow magically detrimental to the family, around half of all people are divorced! The family is already dead.

Now, I’m sure that those of us who are gay, gay-friendly, etc. already know this; we’re already voting no on the appropriate issue. So here’s something for anyone who might read this who might think that being gay is unnatural or morally wrong:

If you think that being gay is wrong, you probably think that adultery and fornication is morally wrong. Are those illegal? (Adultery is grounds for divorce – but little else) Should they be? No, they shouldn’t – we don’t like it when the government legislates morality! How is gay marriage different? Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of your own sex. Your life will not be affected. But think about this: There are thousands of people out there who aren’t allowed to receive benefits on their partner’s medical plans, who should. They are denied the right to be a part of a dying loved one’s care. They are denied tax benefits that others receive. The list could go on and on.

By not allowing gay marriage, the government is saying, “Look, there is something wrong with that group of people!” The government is telling people what is right and wrong. There is not obvious consensus, like there is with, say, murder. Do you want the government doing this. Next, it will be saying that something you do is wrong. Go ahead and believe, preach, try to convince people whatever you want to about gay marriage. But please don’t vote to have the government force people to behave a certain way.

Vote no on 8, 102, and whatever other amendments!

Random Libertarian Thoughts: I hate this country!

October 28th, 2008 by Brianna

I consider myself a libertarian. I’m pro-free market, as long as it’s really fair and is working, I’m very anti big government, and I’m socially liberal. But after I went through the candidates on the sample ballot yesterday, I’m now quite angry at the libertarian party. Or, maybe not the party per se, but at least with all of the members of the party who are running for office in my area!

Here are my problems:

  1. Abortion. I was under the impression that the libertarian position was, “It’s morally ambiguous, so the government should let everyone make their own decision.” Apparently, the local candidates never thought about it that way. Every. Last. One. is pro-life!
  2. Gay Marriage. Okay – I’d much rather be working to abolish all government recognition of marriage, but if we’re going to have it at all, gay people must absolutely have it too. Guess what the candidates say? They’re in favor of a federal marriage amendment! Legislating by Constitution! That’s about as un-libertarian as you can get.
  3. ‘Family/Moral Values’ This isn’t really am issue, just something they like to blab about. Morality is yet another subject that I thought libertarians believed should be left to the individual. Not these guys. It’s like they actually meant to run for the Constitution Party, or something!
  4. Economics. Some of the local candidates are pretty much clones of the GOP here. (WTF are they even doing in this party anyway?). The others are old-school hard core libertarians. They’re completely Laissez Fair, etc. Now, I respect that position, but I don’t think it’s practical. So, why aren’t there any candidates who hold a more moderate view?
  5. Illegal immigration. They’re all against it. Libertarians should be pro-immigration. I would understand if the more isolationist ones were, well, isolationist, but why all of them?

In the end, I think that the only issue I agreed with most of them on, was the war in Iraq! (The policy is get out as fast as possible, if you didn’t know).

That was it! I think that this is really horrible. What on earth happened to the old Libertarian Party, anyway?

So as far as I can tell, the only party left with any sense is the Green Party (Yes, I’m a Classical Liberal who likes the Green Party. This is a contradiction. I’ll explain some other time!)

Therefore, this country sucks.

QED

The US contains Great Insanity: Militants

October 11th, 2008 by Brianna

Most people have heard about paranoid, fundamentalist, my-home-is-my-castle militant people. You know, the type that lives on a farm and stockpiles food and ammunition. Some of them are insane anarchists, some are just afraid of the government or Y2K, and some are actually cult members. Some of them are just individual families, and some are entire groups. But there aren’t very many of them, and they’re pretty crazy. They shouldn’t be hard to recognize. They’re certainly not something that most people should have to worry about.

Right?

Right?

Wrong.

Now, I live in the Midwest. I have talked to a few number of people from the coasts who seem to think that the Midwest is full of crazy, gun-toting idiots, but I can assure you that this is not the case. Sure, people here are a bit more conservative than elsewhere (well, much more in some areas..), but are generally quite sane and reasonable. Or so I thought…

Earlier today, I was conversing with some friends. They’re quite typical evangelicalish Christians – pretty much par for the sort. I had thought that the oldest daughter of one family was even rather feminist leaning – in any other family she would certainly have been an activist type. And all of them are intelligent, not bigoted, not obsessed with silly obsolete church rules. Fairly reasonable people, I had thought.

During the course of the conversation, she (the daughter) was telling a funny story, and casually mentioned that they were carrying pistols at the time. I thought that this seemed odd, and asked, if they were hunting at the time. She responded that they always carried pistols – it was part of their ‘family security’.

I was rather… taken aback, to say the least. It wasn’t just her family, either. On asking more questions, the situation became clear: It seems that after 9/11, a large number of otherwise normal conservative families became scared for their safety. Rather than cowering in fear and voting for Bush, they bought guns for every person, and started acting like insane anarchist militants (And they still voted for Bush, too…)

They call it ‘tactical living’, I believe. This ‘tactical living’ includes training every member of the family to use a pistol, running an endless variety of emergency drills, creating protocols for every situation to ensure security, and generally assuming that people are always trying to kill them, and making sure that they shoot them first.

Sooner or later, someone’s going to get shot. And it won’t be a terrorist.

Now, I’m actually in favor of private ownership of weapons (with limitations, of course), but these people are utterly insane. The strangest part, though, is that they are not like the stereotype of insane militants. They’re just ordinary families who have reacted to the post 9/11 world by arming themselves. It’s not just an isolated case, either – it’s a growing movement, according to my friend.

I don’t really have an overall point to this – don’t trespass, I suppose – but mostly I was just surprised and shocked at all of these people, who are so prepared to kill for whatever reason.

An Aside:

They all just love Sarah Palin. I suspect that her penchant for hunting is the overriding consideration. The aforementioned daughter, particularly, has a rather obvious repressed-lesbian crush on her. It’s quite frightening, really.

What’s up with speeches these days?

October 8th, 2008 by Brianna

I just finished taking the stupidest test I have ever taken. It was for a public speaking class – and rather than have any thing to do with public speaking, the test was over a bunch of arbitrary concepts like “What are the differences between beliefs, values, standpoints, and attitudes.” and “What are the different ‘levels’ of communication” I know, I know, nobody cares, including me.

But being angry about this stupid (required) class and its stupid picky rules caused me to think about real public speaking – especially politicians.

So: Random Opinions on Public Communication

Read full post »

Random thoughts on the debate:

October 4th, 2008 by Brianna

Debates are slow; I only read the transcript afterwerds.

Gwen Ifill would probably make a better VP than either of these two.

Why is Palin so casual? “Can I call you Joe?”

I wish that politicians would actually answer the questions they are asked.

Palin rambles. And why is she still saying ‘hockey mom’? It’s getting old.

Why does it matter whether Global Warming is artificially produced or not? If it’s bad, we still ought to fix it.

Why doesn’t anybody get offended when people say ‘man-made’? Is it because ‘man-made’ has a negative connotation?

Everybody’s foreign policy sucks.

Israel is our best ally in the Middle East… because we put them there!! *Sigh*

Is there anybody who doesn’t want change? No? I thought not. So, can we stop talking about it already?

Biden played the ‘When I was growing up, America was a wonderful place. Now, it’s eeevvvil” card. Bah

I hate politics.