At last report, approximately 8 million Iraqis chose to stare fear and intimidation directly in the face. In doing so, they took the first collective step towards taking control of the country, and their lives. The world was busy listening to biased news reports, fanatical insurgents and doubting governments. The cynics were expecting, even hoping for failure. But they forgot about the Iraqis.
The people of Iraq proved that the promise of freedom is stronger than the threat of violence. In numbers that surpassed most people's expectations, they came out to vote, proudly displaying blue index fingers. Their goals are admirable. Their courage is inspiring. Their actions are impressive. Those of us watching must respect what we have witnessed, and not fail to support them on their road to a better future.
I really hope Saddam had a TV in his cell this weekend.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Random Ramblings
So many thoughts...so little time. I frequently get writer's block, which explains my infrequent postings, but seldom do I get thinker's block. I finally decided to put these ideas down and maybe they'll spur some comments - if anyone is reading, that is. Maybe I'll work some of these into full articles someday. If not, then at least I've purged my mind and made room for the next wave of mental fodder. Since I've never done a brain dump like this yet and some of the thoughts go way back...it's likely to be the longest. Here goes...
1: On Bill Clinton's Impeachment
I didn't really care when I heard about Clinton's dalliances in the Oval office with Monica Lewinsky. I sure wasn't surprised that he fooled around. And it seemed a little premature for people to call for his removal from office at the beginning. After all, the fact that he did it just confirms that he's a philanderer. When he lied about it to the American public, that just confirmed that he was a liar.
But when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury, he became a perjurer...and he violated his oath to "support and defend the Constitution." He may as well have handed the document to Miss Lewinsky to wipe up the mess given the appalling lack of respect he showed it.
At the end of it all, it was amazing to follow the Senate proceedings. Imagine Clinton's luck; he was impeached for perjury but tried for adultery.
I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a long time!
2: On Legislative Reform
I figured out how to stop congress from tacking pork onto important legislation - it's called a relevancy law. Congress needs to adopt regulations so amendments to pending legislation must actually have something to do with the parent bill. I'm sure the various committees are supposed to see to this, but as we all know, back room dealing keeps the barrels a-rolling along. This isn't a party issue - it's endemic to politics.
So, lets create, through constitutional amendment, a new check and balance. Since we know we can't expect congress to police themselves by mandating self imposed relevancy, give the President the line item veto for the purpose of assuring relevancy. If congress challenges any line item vetoes, give the Supreme Court the task to see if the President has used it appropriately.
3: On The Electoral College and Voting Reform
The Electoral College is broken and needs to be fixed. Not abandoned...but fixed. A friend of mine said we should have one vote per state. While this goes straight to the idea of a true republic of sovereign states, it abandons any popular representation. This was the whole argument that prompted the great compromise between Hamilton and Franklin. The founders recognized that the President heads a union of states, not the people directly. But they also realized that one vote per state would be a very tough sell to the larger states. The electoral college was a clever blending of the popular and equal representation.
The problem is that back when it was created, Virginia was our most populous state and had 12 electoral votes. Delaware was the least populated and had only three. The difference of only nine electoral votes assured that the small states had some say as to the election of the president. Today, California has 55 electoral votes but Delaware still has only three. This is a disparity the founding fathers certainly did not foresee.
Today, the smaller states have less influence on the destiny of their country than they did 200 years ago. Any idea of balance in favor of the smaller states is gone. We essentially have a popular vote. Add to this the candidates' habit of ignoring the smaller states altogether (understandable but annoying) and the need for a fix is obvious. In a perfect system candidates take the time to visit all the states, and every state's votes count, and everyone votes. Oh, and a nice to have is that the electoral votes can't be arbitrarily changed by the electors. Short of that, here's my idea.
Re-apportion the electoral college as follows. Abandon the current system where the number of electors for each state equals their number of representatives plus senators. Apportion the votes based on a weighting of the states' populations on a scale using only the even numbers from 2 through 10, and give Washington DC one vote. Using this system, there can never be a tie, and the equity is finally restored along the lines the founding fathers had originally intended.
As an example, in the 2000 election, George Bush had ~50+% (271) of the electoral votes to Al Gore's had 49% (266). Using this new system where all states have an even number of electoral votes between 2 and 10, and DC has one, the results are conclusive. George Bush would have had 78 electoral votes, or 56% and Al Gore would have received 61 electoral votes, or 44%. No contest there.
Since we are a union and not a single country (remember - state does not equal province) it is perfectly acceptable for the president to be elected without a majority of the popular votes, as long as he wins the majority of state votes. One more thing that would also help is to prohibit reporting of official election returns until after all polling stations in the country have closed. We can't stop private polls, but given their inaccuracy in the recent election, they shouldn't cause problems. This could go quite a way to increasing voter confidence and turnout.
4: On A National Language
This one is simple...and it has nothing to do with prejudice or fair play. It is purely economic. How much extra are we paying (wasting) in infrastructure in order to support more than one language. I'll bet if someone takes the time to add it up, it's $ignificant. Any takers? We must standardize on English since most people speak it anyway...and save money.
5: On Junk Science
What happens when incomplete research meets irresponsible journalism? You get the bane of modern technological progress (and a pet peeve of mine): Junk Science. Why is there so much of it around today? It exists for one reason only - because it sells papers. All you need is some scientific research taken out of context and inappropriately apply it to the latest social concerns, and you have everything you need to stir the masses and bring progress to a screeching halt. Making matters worse is the outright stubbornness of researchers who refuse to accept their initial theories or conclusions may be in error.
The first problem is that the general public does not understand science very well. Most advances, contrary to popular misconceptions, take years of slow, methodical progress. Each step along the way brings more questions to be answered. After a time, a refinement is discovered, or sometimes, a new method is developed altogether. Along the way, however, society usually benefits from the ongoing developments. I am an engineer. Technology is tough enough without the bureaucracies of corporate America and the US Government. Progress takes time.
To paraphrase the professor for my undergraduate Aircraft Design classes, "You can't push state of the art to fast without prohibitively raising costs." And as any good capitalist knows, if no one buys an electric car or solar cells because they are too expensive, what good are they?
6: On God Given Rights
I like how southerners’ unique way with words when making a point can very often make you think, and in doing so, teach, as well as persuade. One southerner who is very good at this is a friend of mine. He is about 20 years older than me, which puts him beyond the age giving a damn if something he says doesn’t meet with popular approval. He’s done a lot, and seen more. He is also a Libertarian so when it comes to things political, he makes no pretenses. To paraphrase: “The government is here to serve us, not manage us. Get off my back and get your hands out of my wallet! I’ll take care of myself, thank you.� Hmmm…something noble in that philosophy, I think.
One day at lunch, my friend was commenting about something in the news where some group or another was complaining about unfair treatment, and saying they were being denied their “God-given rights.� With a huff and growl, he said, “Aw shoot, they want their God given rights? Fine! I’ll strip ‘em nekkid and toss ‘em in the woods to fend for themselves. That’s their God given rights. Everything else is a privilege, paid for by the blood and sweat of someone who came before them.� How incredibly profound – and completely correct. We are not as much a free nation, as we are a privileged nation.
OK, that's enough for now...more later.
1: On Bill Clinton's Impeachment
I didn't really care when I heard about Clinton's dalliances in the Oval office with Monica Lewinsky. I sure wasn't surprised that he fooled around. And it seemed a little premature for people to call for his removal from office at the beginning. After all, the fact that he did it just confirms that he's a philanderer. When he lied about it to the American public, that just confirmed that he was a liar.
But when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury, he became a perjurer...and he violated his oath to "support and defend the Constitution." He may as well have handed the document to Miss Lewinsky to wipe up the mess given the appalling lack of respect he showed it.
At the end of it all, it was amazing to follow the Senate proceedings. Imagine Clinton's luck; he was impeached for perjury but tried for adultery.
I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a long time!
2: On Legislative Reform
I figured out how to stop congress from tacking pork onto important legislation - it's called a relevancy law. Congress needs to adopt regulations so amendments to pending legislation must actually have something to do with the parent bill. I'm sure the various committees are supposed to see to this, but as we all know, back room dealing keeps the barrels a-rolling along. This isn't a party issue - it's endemic to politics.
So, lets create, through constitutional amendment, a new check and balance. Since we know we can't expect congress to police themselves by mandating self imposed relevancy, give the President the line item veto for the purpose of assuring relevancy. If congress challenges any line item vetoes, give the Supreme Court the task to see if the President has used it appropriately.
3: On The Electoral College and Voting Reform
The Electoral College is broken and needs to be fixed. Not abandoned...but fixed. A friend of mine said we should have one vote per state. While this goes straight to the idea of a true republic of sovereign states, it abandons any popular representation. This was the whole argument that prompted the great compromise between Hamilton and Franklin. The founders recognized that the President heads a union of states, not the people directly. But they also realized that one vote per state would be a very tough sell to the larger states. The electoral college was a clever blending of the popular and equal representation.
The problem is that back when it was created, Virginia was our most populous state and had 12 electoral votes. Delaware was the least populated and had only three. The difference of only nine electoral votes assured that the small states had some say as to the election of the president. Today, California has 55 electoral votes but Delaware still has only three. This is a disparity the founding fathers certainly did not foresee.
Today, the smaller states have less influence on the destiny of their country than they did 200 years ago. Any idea of balance in favor of the smaller states is gone. We essentially have a popular vote. Add to this the candidates' habit of ignoring the smaller states altogether (understandable but annoying) and the need for a fix is obvious. In a perfect system candidates take the time to visit all the states, and every state's votes count, and everyone votes. Oh, and a nice to have is that the electoral votes can't be arbitrarily changed by the electors. Short of that, here's my idea.
Re-apportion the electoral college as follows. Abandon the current system where the number of electors for each state equals their number of representatives plus senators. Apportion the votes based on a weighting of the states' populations on a scale using only the even numbers from 2 through 10, and give Washington DC one vote. Using this system, there can never be a tie, and the equity is finally restored along the lines the founding fathers had originally intended.
As an example, in the 2000 election, George Bush had ~50+% (271) of the electoral votes to Al Gore's had 49% (266). Using this new system where all states have an even number of electoral votes between 2 and 10, and DC has one, the results are conclusive. George Bush would have had 78 electoral votes, or 56% and Al Gore would have received 61 electoral votes, or 44%. No contest there.
Since we are a union and not a single country (remember - state does not equal province) it is perfectly acceptable for the president to be elected without a majority of the popular votes, as long as he wins the majority of state votes. One more thing that would also help is to prohibit reporting of official election returns until after all polling stations in the country have closed. We can't stop private polls, but given their inaccuracy in the recent election, they shouldn't cause problems. This could go quite a way to increasing voter confidence and turnout.
4: On A National Language
This one is simple...and it has nothing to do with prejudice or fair play. It is purely economic. How much extra are we paying (wasting) in infrastructure in order to support more than one language. I'll bet if someone takes the time to add it up, it's $ignificant. Any takers? We must standardize on English since most people speak it anyway...and save money.
5: On Junk Science
What happens when incomplete research meets irresponsible journalism? You get the bane of modern technological progress (and a pet peeve of mine): Junk Science. Why is there so much of it around today? It exists for one reason only - because it sells papers. All you need is some scientific research taken out of context and inappropriately apply it to the latest social concerns, and you have everything you need to stir the masses and bring progress to a screeching halt. Making matters worse is the outright stubbornness of researchers who refuse to accept their initial theories or conclusions may be in error.
The first problem is that the general public does not understand science very well. Most advances, contrary to popular misconceptions, take years of slow, methodical progress. Each step along the way brings more questions to be answered. After a time, a refinement is discovered, or sometimes, a new method is developed altogether. Along the way, however, society usually benefits from the ongoing developments. I am an engineer. Technology is tough enough without the bureaucracies of corporate America and the US Government. Progress takes time.
To paraphrase the professor for my undergraduate Aircraft Design classes, "You can't push state of the art to fast without prohibitively raising costs." And as any good capitalist knows, if no one buys an electric car or solar cells because they are too expensive, what good are they?
6: On God Given Rights
I like how southerners’ unique way with words when making a point can very often make you think, and in doing so, teach, as well as persuade. One southerner who is very good at this is a friend of mine. He is about 20 years older than me, which puts him beyond the age giving a damn if something he says doesn’t meet with popular approval. He’s done a lot, and seen more. He is also a Libertarian so when it comes to things political, he makes no pretenses. To paraphrase: “The government is here to serve us, not manage us. Get off my back and get your hands out of my wallet! I’ll take care of myself, thank you.� Hmmm…something noble in that philosophy, I think.
One day at lunch, my friend was commenting about something in the news where some group or another was complaining about unfair treatment, and saying they were being denied their “God-given rights.� With a huff and growl, he said, “Aw shoot, they want their God given rights? Fine! I’ll strip ‘em nekkid and toss ‘em in the woods to fend for themselves. That’s their God given rights. Everything else is a privilege, paid for by the blood and sweat of someone who came before them.� How incredibly profound – and completely correct. We are not as much a free nation, as we are a privileged nation.
OK, that's enough for now...more later.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Condoleezza Rice Confirmed
Congratulations to Dr. Condoleezza Rice on her confirmation as our new Secretary of State. Though the 13 "no" votes was one of the largest oppositions to any Secretary of State nomination, her final approval from 85 senators was overwhelmingly positive. In the end, law makers on both sides of the aisle put her qualifications over party politics.
Dr. Rice will have to confront many issues at the beginning of her tenure: the election in Iraq, phasing out coalition involvement, rebuilding strained U.S. relations abroad. I share the president's confidence that she is more than up to the task. The issue the press may force her to address first, however, is the fact that she is the first African American woman to hold the position. In my opinion...who cares? She's a great choice for the job...with a resume most people could only dream of. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. But the media will describe her from that point of view for a while, just as they did for Colin Powell at the beginning. Here's a sampling.
Associated Press: 5th Paragraph (used also by CNN, NY Post, MSNBC, ABC News, et al)
Fox News: 3rd Paragraph
Washington Times: 2nd Paragraph
BBC World News: 7th Paragraph
Interestingly enough, this appears under the interim heading "Ability and Experience"
Yes, it is meaningful and noteworthy because it is a social and cultural milestone. And I'm sure that to some extent, private to her, she is rightfully proud of it. But, I am willing to bet that Dr. Rice would much rather be remembered for doing a great job rather than for just the fact that she got the job. I know it has been, and will continue to be, the same for other first time minority nominees to high profile positions. It's just a shame, that's all.
Why can't the press say "She's a highly qualified person" without all the racial, religious or gender based descriptions. It's as though the media feels minorities aren't qualified to be judged on the same scale as everyone else. We spend way too much time in this country focusing on how we are different, and not enough time focusing on how we are the same. Perhaps the words of USMC Aviator and Lieutenant General Frank Peterson best express my feelings:
Dr. Rice will have to confront many issues at the beginning of her tenure: the election in Iraq, phasing out coalition involvement, rebuilding strained U.S. relations abroad. I share the president's confidence that she is more than up to the task. The issue the press may force her to address first, however, is the fact that she is the first African American woman to hold the position. In my opinion...who cares? She's a great choice for the job...with a resume most people could only dream of. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. But the media will describe her from that point of view for a while, just as they did for Colin Powell at the beginning. Here's a sampling.
Associated Press: 5th Paragraph (used also by CNN, NY Post, MSNBC, ABC News, et al)
Fox News: 3rd Paragraph
Washington Times: 2nd Paragraph
BBC World News: 7th Paragraph
Interestingly enough, this appears under the interim heading "Ability and Experience"
Yes, it is meaningful and noteworthy because it is a social and cultural milestone. And I'm sure that to some extent, private to her, she is rightfully proud of it. But, I am willing to bet that Dr. Rice would much rather be remembered for doing a great job rather than for just the fact that she got the job. I know it has been, and will continue to be, the same for other first time minority nominees to high profile positions. It's just a shame, that's all.
Why can't the press say "She's a highly qualified person" without all the racial, religious or gender based descriptions. It's as though the media feels minorities aren't qualified to be judged on the same scale as everyone else. We spend way too much time in this country focusing on how we are different, and not enough time focusing on how we are the same. Perhaps the words of USMC Aviator and Lieutenant General Frank Peterson best express my feelings:
"Achieving the first black/only black is a status, but is also
a double-edged sword. Because it says if this is still important,
we still have a long way to go."
a double-edged sword. Because it says if this is still important,
we still have a long way to go."