Here was her response to me (emphasis mine):

Network neutrality is the principle that a consumer has equal access to all sites. However, the term is misleading. The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet. Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services.

Coupled with these special interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business websites, using the term “network neutrality” as the hands off approach, when in fact their changes would be the first major government regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely unlikely to use.

Rest assured, though, that as this debate continues, I will continue to monitor the issue and listen to the experts and my constituents. Should any legislation regarding network neutrality come to the floor, I will keep your comments in mind.

Congresswoman:

First, when you talk about Internet “pipelines” make sure you understand that the Internet is not a “series of tubes”. It’s also not a toilet. It won’t get clogged, by “liberal” groups or otherwise. (It’s almost as painful to see a representative using “liberal” as a derogatory term in a letter to her constituents as it is to see that she has as good a grasp of the Internet as Ted Stevens, former Rep R-AK.)

“The Internet does not work that way!”

Second. companies already pay for increased bandwith. What network neutrality protects is consumers paying different prices for how they use that bandwidth. Imagine going to any store selling office supplies and being charged different prices for the same type of printer paper based on how you plan to use it. This wouldn’t make any sense there, why does it make sense online?

Third, just like people already pay for increased bandwidth, they also already pay for performance. If I have DSL–as a web surfer or a website owner–I’ll be paying less (in theory) than the guy paying for T4 speeds. Network neutrality simply means that this will be the case, that network speeds and access to its features won’t be tampered with artificially. However if network neutrality is not upheld, then companies will be able to artificially throttle speeds based on the type of content being delivered or received, separate from the amount. This could be devastating for small business, and makes it fertile ground for monopolistic activity.

The idea that all regulation is bad regulation is a popular one among conservatives. It’s also a wrong one. I’m not saying that the idea that all regulation is good regulation is any better, what I am saying is that despite opinions to the contrary there is such thing as good regulation. This is an example. It is not onerous heavy handed regulation aimed at destroying business, it’s common sense regulation aimed at ensuring that the system is not abused and used for anti-competitive purposes.

If you’re concerned about this issue–and if you access the Internet for any reason you should be–then I urge you to contact your representative and contact your senators. Write to them, call them, and show up in their offices if you can. Tell them that network neutrality is worth defending.

• …a fight over health care tears countrymen apart in bitterness, fear, and anger.
• …protesters appear in large numbers to fight this health care reform; some use racist images.
• ….a left-leaning leader is constantly confronted for this health care proposal by opposition preferring private insurance, opposition which accuses his plans of being socialist and claiming quality of health care will be lower.
• …some doctors fear significant loss of income as well as government interference in medical care decisions due to this plan for universal medical insurance.
• …physicians vow to close their practices if and when these reforms come into being.

Welcome to Saskatchewan, 1961. It was here that Tommy Douglass, the man voted as having been the “Greatest Canadian”, introduced reforms which would bring about universal health care coverage to the Canadian province.

While I’m not suggesting here that a plan like this be introduced in the US, I wanted to point out that a very similar debate to this, with very similar tactics and arguments, has happened before.

In the end, despite the protests, including a doctors’ strike the reforms were passed. Soon thereafter the Saskatchewan plan was adopted at the federal level, and all Canadians had health coverage. Sure, their system has its problems, but they’ve managed to solve two of our biggest: first and foremost, everyone is taken care of (eventually). Second, the nation spends less per person than its neighbor to the south, all the while their citizens get longer life spans.

Recently I wrote my local House representative, Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) about health care. With all the news going on about it, I really wanted to make sure she knew what my wishes were. Maybe, just maybe, I wouldn’t be the only one and she could be persuaded to support a plan which brought about universal coverage without giving the health insurance industry a big wet kiss and a present.

Here are the points I made in my first email:

1. She should support a plan with a public option. Of course, I could understand if she was philosophically opposed to it. I respect that. In lieu of a public option she should…
2. Support a plan which regulates insurance companies more tightly, and optimally makes it illegal for primary health insurers to make a profit. (The US is the only place in the world in which it is legal or insurers to make a profit from primary health care insurance.) If the government does this it does not have to set up a mega-system. In fact, a well structured system can eliminate the need for Medicare/Medicaid and offer a cradle-to-grave care system.
3. Canada and England get talked about all the time, but they’re not the only systems out there. In fact, unlike those two, which are completely socialized, most systems are a combination of public and private plans. (I then listed examples of various capitalist democracies (just like we are) which give everyone health care and have a more private competition than we do here.)
4. We already have a great, cost-efficient and well run public system. It’s called the VA, and it has one of the best track records in the world (for everything other than mental health). If a public option is to be considered, let it be modeled after that.

I went on to explain each of these points in detail (something I may do here if called upon to do so). A few weeks later, here was her response to me:

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite [fl05ima .pub@mail.house.gov] wrote:

Dear Norbert:

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.

President Obama recently told Democrat leaders in Congress that any bill proposing reform of the health care system must include a new insurance plan run by the federal government, akin to Medicare or Medicaid. If this option is available to all, it will likely underpay physicians and hospitals the same way Medicare and Medicaid does. Therefore, it will be much less expensive than private insurance, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Americans will rush to join this new system. This will cause employer-based insurers to lose business and many will be forced out of business altogether. While President Obama has called these claims “scare tactics,” a recent report by the CBO confirmed that a government run plan will move people off private insurance and in to the government’s plan.

There is no country in the world with government-controlled health care that does not ration care. We are constantly told by President Obama that the quality of care in these countries is so much better than our own, yet he conveniently neglects to share with you any of the horror stories. Trust me, they are not to difficult to find and serve as an excellent reminder that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the street. Furthermore, Americans have become accustomed to a health care system that spares no expense even in the face of grim odds. This fact leads me to believe that Americans would have a difficult time adjusting to the inevitable rationing of health care services.

While I disagree with many of the proposals I have seen thus far, I am committed to trying to influence the final product with provisions I think are absolutely necessary. First and foremost, I believe that everyone should have access to a physician, and also have a choice in which physician to see. In England, physicians are assigned by zip code, which is just absurd. It is imperative to protect the doctor-patient relationship and not allow the government to intervene.

As your Representative, I will continue to advocate for proposals that place the choice of health care in the hands of citizens and keep the government out of your doctor’s office. One plan I greatly favor is allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines. State legislatures are responsible for determining which services insurance companies must cover, and some states have more mandates than others. For example, individual insurance plans in New Jersey cost six times as much as if the same person were to buy insurance in Kentucky. If the federal government could allow everyone to buy insurance from a different state than they reside in, the choice of plans would increase and price would decrease dramatically. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any Democrat proposal that has adopted this outlook.

Throughout my tenure in public service, I have always kept an open door and an open dialogue with my constituents. As Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and views with me. Accordingly, I encourage you to visit my Web site at http://brown-waite.house.gov to email me and find useful information about our 5th Congressional District.

It is my honor and privilege to serve the people of Florida’s 5th Congressional District and my offices and staff are here to provide you with any assistance you may need.

Sincerely,

Ginny Brown-Waite
Member of Congress

Yeah, this lady’s a partisan hack. Fear-mongering, misinformation, childish name calling… that’s exactly the kind of message you want to send your constituents! The tone is that of a person who is elected to be a representative for her party, not a representative for her district.

I’m considering the following as a response, which I wrote in anger (so yes, it’s somewhat ranty.) The first letter was in email form. This would ether go via snail mail or hand delivered. Of course, I might just go into her office and see if I can meet with her (not likely).

Dear Congresswoman Brown-Waite,
After reading your response it’s hard for me to tell whether you even read what I sent you. It was obviously scanned, and the overarching subject matter addressed, but it is obvious you either didn’t read it and sent me a canned response, read it and decided to send me a canned response anyway or simply thought addressing me was beneath you and threw a party line of “Government takeover! Rationing! Democrat leader! Scary!” I’m disappointed. Not responding would have been better than what you sent.

That said, you’re my representative, and as such I will continue to make sure you know my viewpoint if you are to speak on my (along with my district’s) behalf.

Had you read my previous letter, you would have at least acknowledged that there are VARIOUS other models out there other than the NHS (which is indeed MOSTLY socialized, not totally) at work in capitalist representative democracies. In fact, most of the world has a hybrid public/private system where private insurers, hospitals and providers are allowed to operate and are able to cover everyone for far less than we do here. (A lot of that, by the way, has to do with the culture, but this isn’t something we’ll take care of in 2 or 3 years. It may take a generation.)

By the way, your gross oversimplification (and mocking demonization) of the NHS is an insult to the British, to all Americans who get health care through socialized medicine (i.e., the VA), and to anyone to whom you’ve ever sent that letter. You’ve done your country a disservice. In addition, it reveals a certain level of ignorance on your part. (You obviously don’t know that Britain actually has a very robust private insurer market. It’s not all socialized.) Please take the time to educate yourself on this very important subject, learn how other thriving capitalist republics do this health care thing, and look past the blinders of party politics and Washington spin:

Video:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p101&continuous=1

Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

Book:
http://www.amazon.com/Healing-America-Global-Better-Cheaper/dp/1594202346

(Disclosure: the aforementioned links were all created by T. R. Reid. He offers some of the most complete international health care analysis available.)

And you also talk about “horror stories.” Yes, sure they have horror stories. Everybody can dig up a horror story. But unlike those other countries, we are the richest country in the world, and have THOUSANDS of people losing their homes and going bankrupt due to health care, IN ADDITION to people who are denied care, rescissions in the middle of therapies, random rationing based on a profit motive and more! Sorry dear Congresswoman, you live in a glass house. Don’t throw stones. If we’re to compare side by side, you’ll see that socialized health care systems like the NHS tend to produce better overall health care results according to the World Health Organization. Alas, my interest is not in a socialized health care system like the NHS (although if that were on the table I would have little problem supporting it. A VA-style system for all sounds GREAT! Did you know that the VA has the highest satisfaction rating of any insurer?) My interest is in universal health care that is not subservient to corporate interests. Whether this happens with a socialized system or with a capitalist system is inconsequential. (If you could step away from the party lines, you could clearly see there are more than two sides to this debate.)

In fact, let’s look at systems which use private insurers.

Take Switzerland’s system, for example: Switzerland is a country, but it’s more like a collection of independent states than a completely coherent nation. (Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?) Because of that independence, which culturally works much like the US, a national, socialized system there does NOT make sense. In fact, until 1993/4 they ran their health care system almost exactly like that of the US. They had the same problems! Since then our paths diverged: we gave up the idea of universal health care, and instead instituted HMOs, creating a health insurance problem in the US which is costing us billions a year. The result: ~40-million uninsured. Switzerland, on the other hand, made it illegal for providers of primary care to make a profit, but made insurance compulsory. The result is that now everyone there is covered, everyone can afford insurance, and their per-capita expense is lower than ours. No socialized health care, not even socialized insurance, but a thriving health care market nevertheless.

How can that be? The fact is that insurers are not much more than a payment delivery system. Why should they be allowed to profit from primary care? They don’t produce anything, they don’t add value to anything. All they do is get money from point A to point B. This is all they do and for this they charge a 30% overhead (and more), which is why they’re able to pay their CEOs millions. Think about it this way: Imagine that your bank account charged you an extra 30% every time you used your debit card. That would be criminal, and congress would be in session until something was done about it! Yet this is exactly what’s happening now with health insurance.

As for-profit entities, health insurance companies’ primary responsibility is NOT to deliver or ensure service, but rather to make a profit. How do they make profits? By increasing costs and denying care. (By the way, my insurance rates went up 30% this past year. They went up 50% the 2 years prior, and 45% the year before that. Even Zimbabwe laughs at that level of inflation.) Their main goal can either be providing care or making a profit, but not both. Frankly, if they are allowed to continue making a profit, then I beg to be put into a non-profit public option. At least then I know my costs are going to care rather than bonuses.

Now, before you scoff at this as a crazy idea, know this: THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE WORLD WHERE HEALTH INSURERS ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE A PROFIT FROM PRIMARY HEALTH CARE INSURANCE. Keep in mind the world PRIMARY. Humana and UnitedHealth and Aetna would still be able to make a profit from secondary care insurance–breast implants, cosmetic reconstruction, gastric bypasses, gender reassignment, skin removal, etc–but payment for primary care, the kind of care you can’t opt-out of by virtue of wanting to live, should NOT be a secondary consideration to profits.

Let’s take another example: Japan. Again, there is no “public option” there, no socialized medicine. In fact, 80% of the hospitals there are privately owned: even more than in the US! There, however, the government imposes very strict pricing controls on doctors and hospitals. This has given them an impetus to create cheaper machines and deliver cheaper care. Did you know that while an MRI in the US can run from $1200 to $1500, in Japan it’s $90? Also, they have private insurers. For people who can’t afford insurance (if out of a job, for example), they are provided with social care (much like our medicaid). This is very much like what’s being proposed now with one exception: PRIMARY HEALTH INSURERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A PROFIT. As one government official in the film to which I link says, “It is forbidden.” Let me say again that the United States is the ONLY place in the world where insurers are allowed to make a profit. For the record, Japan spends 1/2 what we do on health care and live longer. And something you might not know: they don’t have waiting times! You can walk to see your doctor at just about any time. Me? I have to wait 2 months to see my primary care physician. (By the way, I bet you didn’t know that Europe has twice as many primary care physicians as the US per capita. If you actually read this and care to ask me why I will happily explain how.)

That reminds me, since we’re talking about my PCP having to ration time, let’s talk about that subject. Here’s what you said:

“There is no country in the world with government-controlled health care that does not ration care.”

(Then you continue on about horror stories, something I’d expect from attention whoring troglodytes like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. I expected far better from you, Congresswoman.)

Here’s a hint: THERE’S RATIONING RIGHT NOW WITH PRIVATE INSURERS! If you honestly believe there isn’t then you don’t understand economics and should resign your seat immediately. If you understand economics then you just lied to me or haven’t taken the time to actually think things through. (Based on your email, I fear the later, though hope for the former, which would at least make you competent.) Here’s an example of very real rationing going on right now: on my health insurance receipts it states very clearly: “Lifetime maximum: $2.000,000.” That, by the way, is for me and my family. Suppose my wife gets pregnant and has a complicated pregnancy. She gets preeclampsia. Baby has to come out early because my wife’s life is in danger. Now I have a wife in the hospital with an emergency procedure and a baby on life support. How long will that $2,000,000 last me? Realistically about a month and a half.

This is rationing, plain and simple, rationing which A FOR-PROFIT SYSTEM ENCOURAGES BECAUSE THE DELIVERY OF CARE IS A LIABILITY, AND THEREFORE AGAINST THEIR PRIMARY PURPOSE OF PROFIT. Here’s what you said:

“Americans have become accustomed to a health care system that spares no expense even in the face of grim odds.”

This is patently false, and if you truly believe this, you haven’t been paying attention.

I’ll use a final example, Germany, the birth place of the employer-based insurance system most working Americans are participating in today. Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance. Germans are offered three mandatory health benefits, which are co-financed by employer and employee: health insurance, accident insurance, and long-term care insurance.

- Accident insurance (Unfallversicherung) is covered by the employer and basically covers all risks for commuting to work and at the workplace.

- Long term care (Pflegeversicherung) is covered half and half by employer and employee and covers cases in which a person is not able to manage his or her daily routine (provision of food, cleaning of apartment, personal hygiene, etc.). It is about 2% of a yearly salaried income or pension, with employers matching the contribution of the employee.

- The third is the health insurance system. There are two separate systems of health insurance: public health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) and private insurance (Private Krankenversicherung). Both systems struggle with the increasing cost of medical treatment and the changing demography. About 87.5% of the persons with health insurance are members of the public system, while 12.5% are covered by private insurance (as of 2006).

(Source: Wikipedia)

Now, this brings up something very important with both their system and ours. Under their system the top 12% of earners can completely opt out of paying for the universal insurance. This creates a situation in which some doctors are underpaid. Sound familiar? That’s because in the US we have a similar problem with Medicare. Currently, Medicare gets stuck with the sickest of the sick. The for-profit health insurer can cherry-pick all the healthiest individuals and dump the rest on the public system. At 65, when people start their decline in health and are retired (and therefore not paying into the system), people are dumped off onto the Medicare.

Think about it: those who cost more are dumped by the health insurance companies (some of which simply will NOT cover you if you’re over 65) who let the public foot the bill. The health insurance companies take all the profit from all the years of health insurance premiums when they’re young and healthy, and we get stuck with the bill. This is a big reason for the cost of Medicare. Removing the profit incentive from health insurance companies (and regulating them along the lines already being proposed) would mean that if a company wanted to make money they would continue supplying care. We could create a situation like Germany’s, where people are covered by the same company from womb to tomb. That would certainly alleviate some of the stress under which Medicare finds itself.

I could continue this with country after country: Taiwan, France, Italy, Canada, Australia, Denmark… they all insure health care differently. They all have different solutions. And unlike the US, they all cover everybody, pay less than we do, and live longer. Oh, and in none of these do you have a government bureaucrat sitting between you and your doctor, like what you suggest. Unlike now, of course, where I almost literally have a businessman sitting between my doctor and I. (It’s why they always have to ask permission for procedures, to “clear it with the insurance company first.”)

The American health care system is great in many ways. Our cancer survival rate is the envy of the world. Our hospitals are in many ways what the world strives for. Wonderful. And the health care system really has the potential of being the best in the world, as it once was. But the American health insurance industry is hampering those efforts due to profit. By keeping with the party line as you have, by fear mongering and by making arguments which have shown time and time again to be false, you are part of the problem. Either begin to fix it or do your country a favor and resign.

I look forward to hearing your reply. However, if it’s not going to be well thought out, if it’s going to be another couple of paragraphs of fear mongering and party lines, then don’t waste your time or mine. And for the love of your self respect, stop with the fear mongering: it just lumps you in with the extremists.

P.S.
“Democrat Leaders”? You mean “Democratic”. If this was a mistake, then please correct it. If it wasn’t then please stop with the childish political games. All it does is alienate constituents and cast you as an ignoramus.

Thank you for your time,
Norbert Cartagena

Angry, I know. I shouldn’t be this angry over a form letter, but it’s disrespectful and dishonest, and so I am. Still, before sending it, I’ll cool down some.

[Edit] Upon review, I think that there’s simply too much information here. My mistake is in trying to be completely transparent with my thought process and intellectually honest. Maybe if I could some how fit this all in a bumper sticker. What do you think, “Womb to Tomb: Health Care for All”? “Socialism: Not Europe’s only export”? I don’t know, I’ll play around with this.

“There’s a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country? We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can’t see this is probably hoping it isn’t true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation.”

Sadly, this is a theme I’ve heard far too many times, particularly over the past 9 years, when it has become somewhat mainstream in certain circles, circles which can now grow very easily and aren’t limited to small, unorganized militias. In fact, a Russian academic, Igor Panarin, has been suggesting that the US would disintegrate in 2010.

I wouldn’t be surprised, actually, if there was a major disturbance at that time. Disintegration? I’m not sure, but a civil war isn’t entirely out of the question. (Honestly, in the US, has it ever been?) Jefferson’s thoughts on “the tree of liberty” comes to mind. All this said, I can’t help but wonder why people feel this way, and what has led us to this point. Here’s my take:

If another civil war were to be brewing, it would not be caused by Obama. It may ignite under Obama, but the fuel would have had to be in place long before. In fact, I venture to say that it would have really picked up steam during the Bush years, since it was during that time that political partisanship skyrocketed to levels unheard of throughout most of American history. But of course, the seeds of that go even further, to Nixon, and the betrayal of the American people, after which point people stopped trusting their government. (Polls indicated that pre-Nixon, ~70% of people trusted the government to do the right thing. Post Nixon that number dropped to ~30%.) A little of this steam was let off when Reagan was elected under the “let’s drown government in a bathtub” banner, giving the feeling that “One of us” was in charge. Of course, the lines were being quickly defined here. Then some more steam was let out when Clinton was impeached over a clearly partisan witch hunt, another event which made some people feel vindicated over their mistrust of government. Whatever feeling faded, however, returned with the 2000 election, when trust in our electoral systems were shaken. Evidence has come out to the effect that indeed some manipulation, at least of the also-contested 2004 election, did indeed go on, as admitted by Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security, who “was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.”

The lines were drawn even deeper when Congress became implicated in the criminal activities of the Bush administration (pretty much everything done under the mantle of “Protecting the country from terrorists”). While some attempt to excuse themselves by saying “we didn’t know”, the fact that the leadership of both parties in power refused to investigate allegations and push “impeachment off the table” means that they were both implicated. That’s because the Bush doctrine very clearly drew a line, explaining it (as they did so many times) in Biblical ways: “You are either with me or against me,” or more specifically, “you are with us or you are with the terrorists,” the crux of the Bush doctrine. Another perfect example of that was the more common “America: Love It or Leave It”, featured in bumper stickers everywhere, usually on the back of a pickup truck.

Now, how does Obama fit into all this? The lines were clearly drawn, left vs. right. As a perceived member of the left, Obama has become a lightning rod for all of this, particularly during this time of economic upheaval, when the very worst fears of many, the fear of a socialist oligarchy, in which only a select few are the social beneficiaries, have become manifest. Obama is way for some to focus and embody their fears. The fact that we have a Democratically controlled Congress means that some conservatives, the group most likely to mistrust the government (considering Nixon and Bush, the irony here is dripping, isn’t it?) feel “trapped”. Entertainment media feeding that fear will help create a feedback loop of fear which would make this the most likely group to start striking out. This, of course, is a natural reaction to feeling trapped and powerless. (All the times in my life I’ve struck out in anger have been times when I felt there was no other recourse available to me. In other words, I felt powerless to stop whatever external force was creating that sense of powerlessness within me.) The Tea Bag parties are a perfect example of this, and as we’ve seen, the health care debate is its extension: generalized fear over the loss of control. (Again, a feeling perpetuated not by any actions we can see around us, but by some media outlets telling us that we’re seeing all that around us right now. The fact that it’s now so easily to talk exclusively to people who feel exactly like us makes that cycle all the more pervasive.) For people who believe that any government action is aimed at exactly that, removing personal control, and for which that can be its only aim, then any action taken by the government which is not retreat into seclusion is a threat to them. And once you feel under threat and out of control on all sides, what do you do? The only logical choice: you strike out.

Obama’s no more the cause of this civil war than the sky is the cause of the color blue, but because he’s in power, and because there is a large group of people who oppose everything they think he and his kin stand for, he gets blamed for things like dividing the country to a civil war.

Remember the story of Moses, when he parted the Red sea. He may have been in charge, but he didn’t part the sea: a force far greater than him parted it. He could wave his hands around all day long and that water wouldn’t have done a thing if there wasn’t a force greater than him at work. In Obama’s case, there are very few things he can actually do to divide people more than they are. Historical forces are already doing all that work for him, whether he likes it or, as I suspect, not.

What follows is the Obama victory speech. You can watch it here

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

Its the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

Its the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

Its the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

Its been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and hes fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nations promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nations next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy thats coming with us to the White House. And while shes no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics – you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what youve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to – it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didnt start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington – it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generations apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didnt do this just to win an election and I know you didnt do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how theyll make the mortgage, or pay their doctors bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, its that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if Americas beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America – that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one thats on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. Shes a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing – Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldnt vote for two reasons – because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that shes seen throughout her century in America – the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we cant, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when womens voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we cant, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

I’m one of those members. I’m a Republican for Obama. And if you’re one of the vast numbers of still un-sure individuals, most of which I’m betting lean to the right more often than not, then you’ll want to continue reading, and watch these videos. They might not sway you one way or the other, but they’ll help put a few things in perspective.

Mind you, I’m an unapologetic centrist, not because I can’t make up my mind, but because I can; Not because I believe that if you have two extremes to an argument then the center must necessarily be the right answer, but because I know that whenever you are too extreme in any direction you become blinded to issues in the distance, a sort of issue myopia; Because I believe that people will get the government they deserve, one way or another, I believe it is my duty to keep watch for those times when the pendulums of power and opinion have swung dangerously far in one direction, and to do what I can to bring things back towards the center. Too often, that has earned me the title of both “liberal” from fellow conservatives, and “libertarian” from fellow liberals. I’ll gladly call myself both, but you may also want add “responsible socialist” to that pile of names. After all, I do support a system of universal health care, once voted for Nader, and don’t believe all socialism nor all government interference is bad. Just a large part of it.

I am still a registered Republican, mostly because I tend to be more in line with their traditional economic views of fiscal responsibility with the lowest possible burden on the individual. Yet in the past few years this became impossible to justify, since the party–both parties, in fact, have been so willing to mortgage my future and that of my unborn children for the wastes of today, such as unnecessary wars, and the socializing of corporate risk while ensuring the privatization of reward. It is this last one which has threatened to turn the free enterprise system into the privileged enterprise system, where you only have the right to fail if you’re not rich enough. (Also, in Florida you can only be an “R”, “D”, or “I”, and I wish to be able to vote in primaries. But I still want the ability to vote in primaries, and I’d rather vote in Republican primaries.)

I’ve made it no secret that I am supporting Barack Obama as President. My reasons are many, but I think the views can be well expressed (without getting into too many particulars) by the following videos. The first I found in a story from the Huffington Post, and the second is the now (in)famous endorsement from Colin Powell, which is by far the most eloquent, well thought out endorsement I have ever heard. If you haven’t heard it, and if you’re on the fence, take about 12 minutes to listen to it. I think you’ll appreciate what you hear, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not.

As Powell points out, the question isn’t whether McCain or Obama make for good Presidents: they both are fine men capable of doing the job. But the question is who would make the best President that we need now. And that’s Obama.

And if you’re wondering why I’m not voting for McCain, here are a few of the reasons:

1. Sara Palin: This woman is in no way, shape or form ready or capable of being President. Should something happen to McCain (and almost a third of all Vice Presidents have taken the Presidential office, the last being Lyndon Johnson), Gov. Palin would need to step in. I believe this selection showed a lack of judgment, though I also suspect her selection had more to do with party pressure than anything else. Joe Biden is no prize himself, but he’s certainly ready to do the job. And let us not forget that when you vote for the President you’re also casting a vote for the Vice President.
2. Health Care Plan: McCain health care plan calls for a $5000 tax credit to be used towards medical expenses. The problem is that this still doesn’t do anything address the real problems. Half of all bankruptcies happen because of medical issues, and more than half of those happen to people WITH health insurance. How? Because healthcare companies are allowed to deny coverage under the guise of “pre-existing condition”. And if you’re shopping around for insurance and have a pre-existing condition such as type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, idiopathic gastroparesis, autonomic or peripheral neuropathy, a history of cancer, or any of the plethora of conditions which aren’t really preventable, then you’re not very likely to find insurance for even one person for under $5000 per year. (When you take into consideration deductibles then this number becomes laughable.) Obama’s plan, while not what I want–total universal health care like they have in France, Germany, Denmark, etc.–is a step in the right direction.
3. Tax Plan: I love–LOVE–the idea of everyone paying less in taxes, even the very rich. But over the past eight years the vast number of tax breaks have gone to the upper 5%, and especially the upper 1%. With a continuing war to pay for and a $10-trillion dollar national deficit being added to by half-trillion dollar budget deficits, I don’t believe now is the time to continue that set of policies, as McCain advocates. I say let the tax cuts expire. We can bring them back when the government shows some fiscal responsibility, when we’re no longer in a trillion dollar quagmire over in the middle east (or anywhere else, for that matter), and when the deficit clock is 13-digits long instead of 14. Let us not forget that the last time we had a budget surplus, the last time the debt clock actually went down instead of up, was during the Bill Clinton administration.

There are many more points, but those are three big ones I’m sure most reading this can relate with. but don’t get me wrong, it’s not all roses. There are things which have made me very unhappy about Obama:

1. He voted for the telecom immunity from civil lawsuits because of their involvement in giving information to the government without a subpoena.
2. He voted for the $700-billion bail out of wall street moguls who had made bad investing decisions. (I can only hope this money is being invested wisely, and that the tax payers of the US will actually make instead of lose money on these deals. The government now, after all, is the world’s largest insurer, mortgage holder, and one of the world’s biggest banking entities.)
3. He advocated the idea of giving illegal aliens drivers licenses.

However, there is no such thing as a 100% agreement with all of anyone’s position, particularly with someone whose main function is so dependent upon compromise. With that in mind, and after taking into consideration that under the current system no third party candidate without billions in personal funding, no matter how well qualified, would be able to break through the two-party duopoly, I have to give my support for a candidate that is not only somewhat likely to be elected, but who has the ability and support to begin moving the nation in a direction for improvement.

Browncoat: Name three things the federal government does efficiently and without problems. Anyone?

dragonchild: Federal Aviation Administration, NOAA National Weather Service, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Off the top of my head. In five seconds.

Zero flight fatalities since 9/11/2001, and even then, cars killed more than 10x as many people as planes that year. It’s about as trouble-free as any system gets (and Bush is trying to privatize it).

Weather reports everyone — everyone relies on, including the FAA and the Weather Channel, for free. And they were the ones screaming about Katrina while FEMA did nothing. And Bush is trying to privatize it.

Your savings accounts are insured to $100k — guaranteed. Bush is trying to gut it.

Anti-government right-wing lunatics rely way more on the government than they’d ever admit. If you’ve been on an airplane even once in your life, you literally depended on the federal government to protect your life.

Bravo.

This isn’t to say that the government won’t screw up one, two, or three thousand things. However, it goes to show that government control of certain industries vital to infrastructure isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Okay, politics time.

I’m a political junkie, but I’ve largely kept that out of xkcd (other than occasional cracks about science and net-related issues). So this will be a one-time thing — after this post, you’ll hear no more political advocacy on this site for the rest of the election. But I think we’re at a balance point, where a few words between friends who are generally in agreement might make a difference, so here goes.

Please support Barack Obama.

I want, for once, someone I can vote for not because I dislike the other candidate, but because I’m proud of mine. Obama is the real thing.

You can read the entire post here. Trust me, it’s worth it. Better than anything I could write. Seriously, it’s a thing of beauty.

Let me get something straight here: I’m a registered Republican. For a while now, I’ve considered changing my party affiliation, mostly because I’ve been utterly disgusted with what the party members have been doing recently, although I still agree with most of the tenets of the party. I didn’t however, because of two issues:

First, because there is still one Republican out there running for President which I actually agree with on a number of issues. Not all, mind you, but I don’t mind voting for someone who I disagree with if I believe them to be capable of handling the big things as I think they should be handled. That Republican is Ron Paul, and this is who I voted for (via early voting) in the Florida Republican primary.

Second, because the Democrats have, stupidly, and onerously, denied the Florida Democratic delegates a voice in the selection of a candidate. Why did they do this? Because the Republican-controlled Florida legislature, in a drive to emphasize to the country their self-importance, voted to move the primary to January 29th. The Democratic National Committee gave the Florida Democrats a choice: have the primary when we tell you to, and therefore violate Florida law, or acquiesce to the law but don’t have your delegates counted. The Floridians chose to not violate the rule of law.

They should have never been forced to make that choice.

As such, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls were asked to make a pledge, not to campaign in Florida. They all did, except now the Clinton campaign is violating that pledge. From an article in The Nation:

The truth of the Clinton strategy was writ large in a memo from top strategist Howard Wolfson, who announced on the day of the campaign’s dismal showing in South Carolina that, “Regardless of today’s outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday. Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5.”

“Efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians”?

Obama’s just abiding by the pledge. Admittedly, it’s a foolish pledge. None of the campaigns should have taken it, and they all should have agreed to drop it. But in the absence of such an agreement, Obama is not ignoring Floridians. He is remaining true to his word.

Of course, Obama is surging, while Clinton is desperate.

So on one hand we have a candidate who wishes to abide by the rules, and keep his promises. On the other we have a candidate who will break pledges and violate rules in order to gain political advantage.

Hmm.

As I said before, I’m not a registered Democrat. Being in Florida, a closed primary state, I can only vote within my own party. But if you’re a Democrat, in Florida or anywhere else, or if your state has an open primary, do yourself and your country a favor and, please, vote for Barack Obama. Now, I wouldn’t advocate voting for one candidate simply because I want to vote against another. I don’t operate that way. I vote for who I feel can do the best job, not for who I feel can win, nor against someone else. “Vote your hopes, not your fears,” is my modus operandi when it comes to elections. I advocate voting for Obama not because I desire for you to vote against HIllary, but because I believe he can do the best job at doing what this country needs most: unification. Never since the Civil War has America been so divided among ideological lines, and it will take someone who is truly a uniter — not someone who only pretends to be — to get this country back to a place of respectability among its denizens and throughout the world.

Should he get the nomination he will have my vote. Should Clinton get the nomination, then I doubt very much I’ll be voting for a Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election. While I don’t disagree with many of Hillary Clinton’s politics, it is the Clintons’ apparent willingness to do anything for political power and prestige which makes me leery.

So there it is. If you were looking for an endorsement from me in order to decide who you should vote for, you got it. Vote Barack Obama for President. He may not be the most experienced, but he has something none of the other Presidential hopefuls do: the ability to unite. To quote Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F. Kennedy: “Over the years I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.”

The following story from ZDNet caught my eye today:

The New Zealand secret service has suggested the Chinese government was behind attacks on the country’s networks…The allegations come only a week after the Chinese foreign ministry denied that the Chinese government had endorsed attacks on the computer networks of Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom.

“Any accusation of Chinese military force attacking computer systems of foreign governments is groundless, irresponsible and out of ulterior motives,” Chinese foreign-ministry representative Jiang Yu said in a recent press conference.

So the US, Canada, the UK, Germany and New Zealand are all claiming that the Chinese are engaged in heavy cyber-spying operations within each of their systems. A few years back we also had the whole Titan Rain incident, and there have been other allegations since.

Additionally, we have reports of Russian planes having to be turned away from NATO airspace by the RAF and the Norwegians, and Putin’s showing of his shiny new bombs.

Finally we have a building political block between Russia and China which is not only increasingly hostile against US foreign policy (understandably so, since US policy has gotten so horribly forceful since 2001), but also increasingly outspoken in rhetoric against NATO.

China and Russia are on the move, and not in the good way. Russia’s been itching to get back into World Superpower status, and general consensus seems to be that the 21st century will be “The Chinese Century” (in like manner to the 20th century being often referred to as “The American Century”). In the informational front, China’s been making a lot of moves, as the quoted article above tells. In the military front, Russia’s been starting to make waves again, but they’re not the only ones: by some accounts, China has greatly increased their military spending, while underreporting what they’re spending. (This, of course, is disputed, and countered with the fact that the US spends at least 5 times more than China, including a larger portion of its GDP in military spending.)

With a weakening US, drained by years of wasteful wars, horrific economic management, and deficit-spending (debt which was bought by China), the two may be poising themselves to capitalize on the US’s seeming economic (and politically influential) demise, especially since China now pulls so many of the economic strings. In fact, economics is their third game. When you consider the facts — that China owns now over $1-trillion of US debt, that it has just bought a major stake in Barclay (a major world bank), and that within the next ten years it will have finally caught up with the economic management of the West (currently, the Chinese don’t have the knowledge to compete with Western banking systems, but they’re quickly catching up) — a picture starts to come together which puts China, and a quickly re-emerging Russian political system, which is quickly returning to its Soviet roots, along with an economy beginning to model itself on the new Chinese mixed economic model, in the forefront of US opposition.

Now, I’m not much for political and historical analysis– Alright, that’s a lie. I am, so here’s some Tom Clancy-like speculation:

On one side we have US and its allies: NATO, which is starting to split over various issues so that the EU is on one side of things and the US, Canada, and England on the other; and Australia. On the other side we have Russia and China, who are building major economic bridges all over the place, especially in Africa and Central/South America. (If you didn’t know, the Chinese have been building schools to teach people Chinese for free in many of the Caribbean and Central American countries, as well as helping the governments build infrastructure.)

What’s interesting is how all of these economic blocks are being put together. And note that they are economic blocks, and not necessarily political ones. This may be the thing which stops all out war, and may be the reason why China has taken to cyber-espionage. What interest would they have in harming any of their major economic partners, at least just yet?

Now, this is important, take note at the wild cards in all of this: South Korea and Japan, both of which own hundreds of billions in US debt, both of which are US allies; and the sleeping cultural and economic giant that is India.

Putting this picture together doesn’t necessarily spell doom for any side. Indeed, it may be a hopeful sign, than free enterprise can rising wave towards war, like it did during the India/Pakistan nuclear crisis. But from the looks of it, China’s looking for their place in the sun, and they’re doing a hell of a lot of maneuvering — through Russia, Latin-America, Africa, computer networks and via the banking system — to make sure it happens.

Students of eschatology must be loving this.

The press — newspapers, reporters, investigators, and yes, even blogs (well, some of them) — is, collectively, like the “Maintenance Required” light on your car.

Once in a while — for what reason no one can really determine except to say that it varies from occasion to occasion — the maintenance light on your car’s dashboard lights up. When this happens, there are two courses of actions which one may take. The first, and most prudent, is to pay attention to it, to take the car to a mechanic or someone who truly knows how to work with the car, and ask them what may be wrong. It may simply be that the light went on for some formulaic reason, some pre-programmed time in which maintenance is required. At other times, the light may simply go on accidentally, not really indicating that there is anything wrong other than the maintenance light itself requiring attention. Finally, there are those situations in which there is something actually wrong with the engine, requiring immediate intervention by an experienced mechanic. It is during these times that the light “earns its keep,” to use an old adage. Of course, there are times when there is something wrong with the car which requires immediate attention which is not reported by the check engine light, perhaps due to a malfunctioning of the light itself, or more commonly, because it is outside the scope of the maintenance checking system which activates the light. In these cases, only after the problem has arisen will the problem be known to exist, and only afterward can it be addressed.

The second course of action involves gambling by inaction, when the light, instead of being heeded, is ignored. At these times, the light is treated only as a bothersome cricket chirping away as as your retina listens, with no actual purpose to its existence other than to annoy. While it may be that the driver by ignoring the light is taking the correct course of action — that the light is merely on because it is malfunctioning, or because it is flagging something so small as to be inconsequential to the functioning of the vehicle — to do so is nothing short of a high stakes gamble. After all, if there is something actually wrong with the vehicle then ignoring the light is no wiser than putting a sticker over it or smashing it with a hammer in order to make it go away. If left unheeded too long, may cause the engine to be damaged, sometime irreparably, leaving the car usable again only after the replacement thereof. To ignore the system when it indicates that there is something wrong is to invite disaster, in the same way disaster is invited when the driver hears an unfamiliar sound emanating from the vehicle, and instead of taking it to a mechanic, decides to turn up the radio so that the sound is drowned out. The radio can only play so loudly before the driver notices that the car has stopped, and by this time it is too late: the car will need major repairs.

The lesson of all this, of course, is to pay attention to your car’s maintenance warning signals by inspecting the vehicle whenever an issue arises. This ensures the longevity of our vehicle. Of course, the question remains as to what this has to do with the free press. I will explain:

The free press, for all intents and purposes, serves as the vehicle’s engine checking system for a government of free peoples. When it is working properly, the function of the press is to oversee the government’s actions and delve deeper into anything which may be cause for concern, raising a red flag if necessary. Some times — many times — some ambitious, young investigative reporter will uncover what he believes to be government corruption at all levels, his only evidence being that the town’s elected dog catcher has just added shrubbery to the dog park next to his house with funds intended for the welfare of dogs. (It could be argued that the actions are related, but I digress.) While serious enough that the issue should be investigated, the issue can probably be safely ignored, with no serious long-term harm done to the system.

If, on the other hand, that ambitious, young reporter discovers that the government has been using funds intended for the welfare of the public as a no-interest loan to a multinational corporation, or using the funds to give himself and a select few some “bonus” money, or found that the government has been fabricating evidence in order to propagate the idea that an unnecessary war is actually necessary, then it is the responsibility of the people to press on and investigate the issue more closely, by taking it to the vanguard of our constitutional republic itself: the system of checks and balances. If that system is not properly working, then it is the responsibility of the people to find a way in which to properly investigate possible improprieties and determine whether or not there really is something wrong, usually by firing the members of the group that isn’t working and bringing in new members who will perform the duty asked of them, like one would fire a mechanic who was looking at the engine and insisting nothing was wrong and to ignore the light, only to have the car breakdown a day later. A good mechanic would make sure to look through the car with a careful eye, performing tests which will tell conclusively whether there really is something wrong with the vehicle. Likewise, good public servants would investigate their own in order to ensure that the governmental vehicle is functioning properly. To do otherwise would be to invite disaster.

Currently, there are a number of investigations going on involving possible corruption by people in the highest levels of our government. Many are calling these witch hunts, and calling for the press to discontinue their relentless investigating of these officials, even if the answers for their actions are antithetical to the spirit of the law. These who call these investigations witch hunts would do well to remember that it is the job of the press to not only make sure everything is running as it should be, but also to report on and flag situations where not all is quite as it seems, and that it is the job of the different branches of government to find out why the maintenance light on the government’s vehicle is on. To do otherwise would be to invite disaster, and eventually lose the vehicle.

Freedom loving peoples all over the world will forever know intrinsically that it is the job of their press to flag even the smallest impropriety for further investigation, to be the maintenance light in the vehicle of their system of government. If this press is instead found to be serving as an arm of the government, to work only at the beckoning of the mechanic, then the people must realize that it is no longer of any real use and must be discarded, as must the system of government itself.

I am thankful every day that we live in a society in which free press still exists, where reporters write not propaganda for the government, or even one political party — at least not on the whole, despite what some who follow political parties blindly believe — but instead write what they see. It is the job of our elected officials, like our mechanics, to ensure that the vehicle is working properly, and that any issues be addressed immediately if necessary. And it is our job as a people to be the ultimate check and balance, to ensure that our vehicle runs at optimal performance, and to verify that the mechanic is really doing his job. If either the maintenance checking systems on the vehicle or the mechanics are not doing their job, then it is our job to fire the mechanic, replace the maintenance requirement checking system, and if necessary discard the vehicle (and the mechanic) and acquire another more suited for our needs.

• No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.
• The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.
• Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.
• I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.

All of these are quotes by one of history’s most ardent supporter of the free press: Thomas Jefferson, a man who thought far ahead of his own time. You can read more of Jefferson’s quotes, including those involving the responsibilities of the press and his criticisms of it, online. The lesson here is that no one side has a lock on fairness, not even the press itself, and it is ultimately the job of the people to ensure that their freedom is protected by protecting their vehicles, and taking action as necessary in order to ensure that their needs and wants are met.

Iacocca: An Autobiography

For the record, if you’re too young to know who Iacocca is, check out his Wikipedia page, then go and get his biography. In short, he’s one of the most respected business leaders in American history.

The first item is a video from Fortune by way of CNN.com in which he analyzes the current situation in Detroit, especially the bonuses for company CEOs, which are now in the hundreds of millions. (Don’t forget that Iacocca took a $1 a year salary while in Chrysler and based his salary on the performance of the company.) You can find the video here: Lee Iacocca Fortune Interview (About 4 minutes long).

The second item comes by way of his new book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?, in which he goes for the jugular against corrupt politicians and the lack of good leadership today from business leaders and politicians. Here’s an excerpt:

A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of the “Yes, sir” crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place … If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn’t put his beliefs to the test, how does he know he’s right? The inability to listen is a form of arrogance. It means either you think you already know it all, or you just don’t care.

A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different. You know, think outside the box … Leadership is all about managing change—whether you’re leading a company or leading a country. Things change, and you get creative. You adapt.

A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER. That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing. Abraham Lincoln once said, “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

A leader must have COURAGE. I’m talking about balls. (That even goes for female leaders.) Swagger isn’t courage. Tough talk isn’t courage … Courage in the twenty-first century doesn’t mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.

You can read the complete excerpt at the Borders website. Obviously, there’s a LOT more — and it’s ALL great. Make sure you read it. If you don’t plan to buy the book, at least save that page to your hard drive and read it, over and over again.

A note to anyone going to read the rest of the excerpt: it’s political. Highly so. If you’re a fan of the Bush administration or are easily offended by criticism of the president or his administration, do yourself a favor and ignore the link. In fact, here’s a taste, though you should feel free to skip it if you’re easily offended read it anyway:

Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”

Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I’m getting senile, that I’ve gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don’t need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That’s not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I’ve had enough. How about you?

I’ll go a step further. You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have.

My friends tell me to calm down. They say, “Lee, you’re eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people.” I’d love to—as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I’m going to speak up because it’s my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I’ll tell you how I see it, and it’s not pretty, but at least it’s real. I’m hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don’t vote because they don’t trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us.

Before you decide that the link isn’t (or is) for you, remember one thing: it’s not a Republican/Democrat thing. In fact, to once again quote Iacocca, “don’t tell me it’s all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That’s an intellectually lazy argument, and it’s part of the reason we’re in this stew. We’re not just a nation of factions. We’re a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.”

Enjoy the reading.

Business School Podcast for Free: America’s leading business schools — Wharton, Duke’s Fuqua School, Harvard — are all making courses available for download via iTunes. (If you expect me to tell you why this is good, you’re wasting your time. Go check it out now.)

The Perfect Mark: Ever wonder if anyone actually ever falls for those emails we all get promising to make you rich if you help out some Nigerian widow stash US$45-million in your bank account? Wonder no more: the answer is yes, and who they ensnare might surprise you. This New Yorker piece is an actual story about a guy who, in his greed and pride, fell victim to these scammers and ended up in jail for it. [Source: Black Marks on Wood Pulp. Also, reminds me of this previous Gnorb.NET piece on avoiding CraigsList scammers.]

Becoming Human: So, how did we get from where we were 4,000,000 years ago as simple, knuckle-dragging Australopithecines to the current state of Homo Sapiens? This very interesting Flash video shows you where we came from and how we got here.

Washington’s Farewell Address Translated into Modern English: In the course of human history, not many have had quite as strong an impact as General George Washington, the first President of the United States. His farewell address is agreed upon by historians to be one of the finest in all American politics, since it deals with issues we struggle with even unto this day. The problem is that since it is written in 1790’s English, most people today can’t really understand it, which is why xkcd undertook the task of translating the piece into modern English. One his commenters upped the ante, reposting a modern day translation of the American Declaration of Independence.

The Height of Hubris? Ever seen the movie Gattaca? In it, the main protagonist is a lowly, genetically inferior human trying to get to space. In the process, he begins transforming his body, one of the ways being limb-lengthening surgery. In this BetterHumans piece, Simon asks whether his personal desire for such a surgery (available from a reputable source for as low as US$20,000 in China) is hubris, or whether he really is justified in wanting to make himself taller. After all, “The majority of CEOs are over six foot, the taller US presidential candidate tends to win the election, and people earn more money, on average, with each extra inch of height.” Here, he outlines reasons for and against the surgery. A very interesting read, especially for those interested in Transhumanist topics and cosmetic surgery.

The Last Question: So, we’ve seen where humans came from and where we are. Now, where are we going? Sci-Fi legend Isaac Asimov tells a short, trillion-year tale of how this whole human experience might end, and maybe how it began. “The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on May 21, 2061, at a time when humanity first stepped into the light. The question came about as a result of a five-dollar bet over highballs, and it happened this way…”

Multi-Touch Monitors: This is seriously cool. In this video, Jeff Han and Phil Davidson demonstrate how a multi-touch driven computer screen will change the way we work and play.

Holy Crap! Is This Real?! And now, for something totally different.

Online Game: Dodge: Simple and Addictive: Does it get any better than that? It’s the kind of game that keeps you as entertained as a stoner watching a side-loaded washing machine. Whoooa…. hey, nachos!

Well, that does it for this week. You can check out the previous episodes in the Le Linkage category of Gnorb.NET.

Matt, an old friend of mine, has an ability to pick out social issues and put forth points so convincingly that there is little middle ground left to be in. You either agree with him or you don’t. More often than not, I get trapped into posting incredibly long replies to his posts — often longer than the posts themselves — and with his last post, it was no different. Basically, the post argues that we should de-emphasize government funded space exploration and instead take on more planetary issues, like child hunger. What follows is my response to his post. (I figure that if I spent a good chunk of time posting it there I might as well post it here, too.) If you’re interested in this issue, drop me a line here, or better yet, drop by Matt’s blog and share your thoughts.

This is a particularly interesting issue for me because of recent developments within the business community regarding space exploration.

On one hand, I am of the opinion that both space exploration and colonization are moral imperatives. These are missions which we as a people have a moral obligation to pursue and complete. With our level of advancement, it would be not only illogical but also deeply immoral to future generations for us not to continue on this pursuit. Contrary to your statement, space stations on the Moon and manned missions to Mars are not only reasonable, practical, and achievable, they are a mandate upon our generation from future generations.

Like you, however, I find that the weaponization of space, while understandable, is neither desirable nor logical at this time. Nevertheless, it seems as if human history is littered with examples of advancement through weaponization, and this may be no different.

That said, I also find that the current status of space exploration is deplorable at best. We are currently talking about going back to the moon like it is a much more monumental task than it was in 1969, when computers at NASA were much less powerful than the PC I’m currently using to type this message. There has been almost no advancement in the human space exploration program within the past 40 years, save for the pressure now being laid upon us by the Indians and the Chinese. The Russians are doing the right thing by transforming themselves into the first commercial space agency, and it is time that we do the same. The example of Burt Rutan and Richard Branson, where they’re basically laying in the groundwork for commercial space exploration should be followed. Whereas we’re currently spending billions for one flight at taxpayer costs, Americans can get 10 times the value for the dollar by letting the private sector do this. A profit motive will always bring out the genius of men to a greater good, if their profiting depends on the greater good. Nevertheless, NASA won’t see it this way, since it is usually hard to get people to understand a matter if their paycheck depends upon their not understanding it.

Regarding feeding starving children: this is a sticky subject for me. While I could understand that doing this would be a good thing, generally speaking, foreign aid of any sort weakens a population’s political will, thereby separating them from their government, thereby creating a status quo in which the government does not respond to their populace, since the populace doesn’t demand change. It was this demand for change that created the governments of today, transforming Europes monarchies into modern day democracies (starting with the US, then continuing on in France and South America). Yet, by taking that opportunity away from a people, we condemn them to a corrupt and lazy government. Unfortunately, countries which find themselves to be oil rich also tend to follow this pattern, where the government holds on to its power simply because of the level of money being poured into it. As harsh and evil as this may seem, the question is what’s in it for the American tax payer? After all, if he’s footing the bill for feeding a starving kid somewhere in Africa, where’s the return on investment?

Personally, I don’t believe there needs to be a return on investment, that life itself is to sacred to even look at such a thing. But while the person may believe that, the populace as a whole may not, since they may not agree as to which causes are worthy our tax money. So again I ask, where’s the ROI? After all, helping starving kids in the middle east hasn’t helped us much (except in Iran, oddly enough, where the younger generation would welcome relations with the US in a second, as would the younger generation here welcome relations with Iran in a second, if the elder generation wouldn’t keep getting in the way) and in both Asia and Africa, it has created a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. Why should a government of one nation take care of the people of another? This should be left to individuals.

As a government, I support the investment of economic infrastructure in order to empower people (and not their governments), since this will lead to the rise in the power and clout of the individual, and it will also lead to better relation with that government — more trade means more economic opportunity, which leads to more unity among the countries’ populaces. As for humanitarian aid, I’m firm in the belief that private organizations should engage in this, and that governments should not worry about taking care but for their own people. (Even then, the help offered to people should be limited, based on their ability to build a future: an elderly man would need much more help than a 30-year old homeless man, since the younger of the two can still do something with his life, but I digress…)

In the end, Matt, while I do agree with both of your issues, the correlation between the two is a weak one. A stronger case can be made that we should be creating more economic opportunity in the space arena and allow federal agencies to benefit from private industry’s developments. That would not only make the government smaller (and more dependant on its people, instead of the other way around), it would also make the new technologies much more accessible to developing nations, thereby strengthening their own economic infrastructures and allowing them to take care of themselves (with maybe a little nudge in the right direction from investment and humanitarian programs.)

I’ve been thinking about this for a while now and have decided that now is the best time for this. As you’ve noticed, I like politics. Not because I like politicians, but rather because political discourse is the foundation of all true governance of the people, by the people. However, I realize that not everyone may be as passionate about the political system as I am. In fact, I’m fairly certain most people are not, and while some people truly do love reading about and understanding the topics of the day, I’m pretty sure that most don’t care to hear more than they get during the 6 o’clock news. This is why I’ve decided to create a new politics/social issues only site and for the most part close shop on the Gnorb.NET politics section.

I originally formed this blog as a way to write about what I wanted to write about. Mostly, it was a way to get my non-technical thoughts out, specifically my cartoon/comic book/sci-fi/fantasy geek side out, along with some theology and anything else which might be of interest to me and which might somehow, someway help some passerby in the future. (What can I say, love to teach!) Over time, this simple formula has attracted a good number of people: not as many as my showman/entertainer side would want, but a fairly large crowd, nevertheless. Over the past year, I’ve slowly come to the realization that people are here for vastly different reasons. While I knew from the start that people wouldn’t read this site because I’m “me” (I have to be someone like Wil Wheaton for that), I realized people found me because of something I wrote which at one point or another caught their interest, and stuck around to see if I would put out some more. Given my transient and eclectic nature, however, most of those people realized that I stuck to topics like duct tape sticks to anything but itself: it doesn’t. The only topic I consistently wrote about — 61 articles in all — was politics.

Due to the polarizing nature of politics, however, many of those readers who came here for entertainment, philosophy, life stories, or personal development information have been pushed away because of my political content. This is something I’ve been keeping an eye on for the past year or so. In light of all this, I’ve decided to move the political content to its own site. While the Politics section will stay in place (at least for the foreseeable future), all future political observation, news, and opinion will be featured almost exclusively on Orange Politics (http://OrangePolitics.Gnorb.net). I say “almost” because if something absurdly huge happens, then there’s a fair chance I’ll mention it here, even if it’s only to tip the hat of Orange Politics. I’ll also keep some of the political satire going.

For the record, no, I haven’t noticed a sudden dip in the readership. While this has happened in the past, this isn’t even the biggest reason I’m doing this. When I started this site I never intended to take it the all-too-well traveled political route. (In fact, if you were to take a snapshot of blogs you’d likely determine that there were only two categories: politics and everything else.) Because of my passion for politics, however, it started becoming that. This hampered my personal style: I even started feeling constrained, both on the politics side and the personal. I therefore decided that Gnorb.NET is here for two reasons: to entertain and educate, by writing the kind of articles and stories I would like to read more of. My growing focus on politics was getting in the way of that, which is why I decided to spin it out and create Orange Politics.

While I am aware that there is a progressive site called OrangePolitics.org (also .com), the reason for the name has to do entirely with the fact that I live in Florida, a state commonly associated with Oranges (among other things). Since I tend to focus on Florida issues and Florida politics, I figured the name “Orange” politics was fitting. (I also considered “Sunshine Politics”, but that has a bit too much of a Dora-meets-Big-Bird feel to it.)

If you’re interested in politics, then head on down to Orange Politics and add it to your RSS reader. Because of its narrow scope, I’ll likely be able to post a larger number of political articles a day, as well as write more in-depth analysis than what I feel can honestly do on this site. (If you’re here for the political content, then the other stuff won’t be polluting your RSS feed, and vice versa.) Hopefully I’ll be able to keep those of you looking for political content informed, or at the very least entertained, since the later is one of the things I most love doing: I’m an entertainer at heart.

Finally, I’ll probably be looking for guest authors to help me out with Orange Politics, so if you’re interested in politics and would like to try your hand at writing, but have been afraid to do so, or don’t feel you have enough to say to create a blog, feel free to drop me a line at OrangePolitics@gnorb.net. I’m a firm believer that all points of view should be heard and decided upon, so don’t be afraid to write something up, even if you think I’m a liberal godless communist or a ultra right-wing fundamentalist nut-job. While I may not agree with a word you say, not only will I defend your right to say it, I’ll also help you publish it.

So to recap:

• Gnorb.NET — Education and entertainment for Gen X and Y’ers with an uplifting message.
• Orange Politics — I’d call it the No Spin Zone, but I don’t have enough money to hire lawers to fight O’Reily for that one. I might call it the Not-All-That-Much Spin Zone.

With that I hope you enjoy reading. If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, drop me a line and tell me what you think about the change, especially if you’ve never commented before. If you can also tell me what got you here in the first place (and why you decided to stay) I’d be even more thankful. As always, thank you for your time.