My vote

I thought for weeks, and wrote page upon page that I am not going to get around to publishing, about McCain, Obama, Nader, McKinney, Barr, and Baldwin.

I am, on the whole, glad the primary season for the major parties went down as it did.

Ron Paul knocked out the rabid Rudy Guilani, that plastic faced Mormon car salesman excluded agnostics from his tent and went down in flames, and I forget the rest of the Republican field, thank god.

The underqualified Clinton got beat by a guy that had made it on his own. I'm happy about that, too. I loathe the idea of a hereditary aristocracy.

I was sorry that Ron Paul didn't do better. I'd like to see the federal government stripped of all but its constitutional powers by design, rather than bankruptcy.

It was good to see libertarians co-operate on his campaign. Nice change, too bad it didn't last.

When the media was betting on Guilani - Clinton as the final candidates (funny how wrong they were!), I was getting ready to emigrate and utterly fed up with the endless battle over Vietnam and Woodstock.

My generation has to clean up that worldwide mess, as do multiple generations afterwards. So shut up about it, retire already, and get on the golf course.

I've already written elsewhere about how I'd like to vote, and my unresolved issues, and here's the short version of why I voted as I just did:

McCain: Eisenhower was a successful general and a war hero. So was Andrew Jackson, and for that matter, George Washington. McCain was a flyboy with no responsibility for tens of thousands of men and a POW. Neither of these characteristics make for great leaders of men.

Palin: Although I share some of her husband's seccessionist sympathies, I can't embrace ignorance. Lately, her campaign rhetoric has been full of the "Joe the Plumber" references, trying to capture the hearts and minds of the remaining middle class - the ones who don't have to cope with H1B visas or overseas competition.

Hey Palin: What about "Eric, the engineer", "Al the Artist", "Mike the musician", and "Paul the programmer"? What about "Wendy, the writer", or "Sal, the sysadmin"?

:sound of crickets:

Obama: Great speaker, with a speech in hand. Off the cuff. His speech. Reminds me. Of. William Shatner's. Delivery. Maybe. He can. Heal. Part of. The Country. By making it. Even more. A centralized State. But the. Republicans. Have looted. The treasury. Making it impossible. For him. To cope with. New crises.

Biden: Biden is one of the poorest members of congress. Whether this is due to honesty or lack of financial acumen remains to be seen.

Nader: In 2000, Nader was the one person I felt confident that was on the side of the people. Too bad he's now too old and too marginalized, and has no military experience.

Barr: How I feel about Barr is unprintable. His oh-too-recent conversion to libertarianism, arrogance, and uncooperation with the other third parties, cost him my vote, and the LP the chance of a lifetime. His VP is an ass, too.

McKinney: I kept wondering when the popular press would evaluate McKinney vs Palin, or, for that matter, Clinton. It never happened, I guess because McKinney would have come across as so much saner and more experienced in comparison. I do look forward to seeing the 9/11 records unsealed on Jan 3rd.

Baldwin: I'm not huge on pastors as presidents. Even ones that are willing to allow agnostics in their tent. I would like more people to pay attention to him, he writes well.

After eliminating each of these choices, I finally realized that I'd already voted... with my feet.

I'd decided, 18 months ago, that I'd rather live under a weak and socialistic government than under an all-powerful one of any stripe.

I still have to pay attention to the elephant in the room, but I intend to arrange my life so that what happens in the world matters to me as little as possible.

I hope you can live with your choices. I can live with mine.

Labels: Barack Obama, chuck baldwin, democrats, election 2008, green party, hillary clinton, republicans, Ron Paul

  ¶ 10:06 AM 1 comments

  Fact checking the Toast's fact checker

Yesterday, the Left's wonkette joined forces with the Right's redstate to march Paulites off the field, and gathered together to celebrate their mutual victory in banishing the opposition.

Frankly, after that, and after the greenwald/neiwert discussion turned toxic, I had to take a break.

This morning the Toast's fact checker posted a an article analyzing the effect of eliminating the income tax. I was overjoyed! Yea! Someone in the MSM actually bothered to look more deeply into the financial issues that concern us all...

As usual, the article itself is so-so, but the comments are mostly excellent, and informative. Great questions were asked, as well as some answers provided. Read on. I look forward to deeper analysis by all sides interested in these issues.

Labels: democrats, election 2008, msm, republicans, Ron Paul

  ¶ 10:32 AM 0 comments

  End the war on sense!

"Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages."
Samuel Johnson - 1758

America has been in a war of some kind or another for my entire life.

I see a callous and venal disregard for truth on all sides of every debate between everyone in America. This intellectual poverty astounds everyone I've met from outside the states.

I wish I knew a way out of this mess. I saw a ray of hope the other day - and oh! the irony! The Washington Post's On Faith blog called for a national debate on science policy. In a campaign thus far dominated by moral issues this would come as a welcome relief. Science - the quest for fundamental truths - could use a day in the sun. I'd love to know which national politicians could distinguish their ass from an asteroid.

It's not just truth that people try to sidestep, the framing of opinion around opinion, otherwise known as "guilt by association" gets to me. I'm more aware of it than most, as I use privoxy to eliminate web ads and translate common phrases into their logical equivalent (example - phrases like "cut taxes" gets replaced by "increase deficit spending") Unfortunately filters like this don't work on TV, and I've consumed far too much of that lately.

Ron Paul just got his 9 and a half minutes of screen time on Jay Leno, bracketed by an actor most famous for the Mission Impossible movies and his fringe religion, and a British punk band that never had a hit in the USA.

The youtubers were happy... Yea! We're on Jay Leno! Check out the video!

Most of the people in the audience weren't even born before the Police broke out of the punk sump.

But everybody else - the 10.5 million non-youtubers in middle America who actually watched the whole show - got an ear and eyeful.

As I cringed away from Johnny Rotten's harsh, atonal voice, I could imagine what middle America was feeling. People with mortgages and children in school generally don't dig the idea of anarchy, or revolution. Christians aren't particularly fond of Scientology... or the Sex Pistols for that matter.

Contrast Paul's appearance on Jay Leno with Barack Obama's. Obama got to express far more than his views on the economy - in his 15.5 minutes of screen time - and was bracketed by a pair of saner guests.

My score on Paul's Jay Leno appearance: MSM 20, Ron Paul 1.

Broadcast television has never had a good feedback mechanism. Yelling back at the television accomplishes nothing. Yelling back on youtube or in a blog feels good, but does little. Calling out all sides for reporting on events like this... well... it doesn't even feel good.

---

Time magazine just published a decent piece on Ron Paul. I wished they'd drop a few adverbs and adjectives, and spent the whole second page on real issues, but hey, it was Time magazine - I had low expectations and they exceeded them. I still had a quibble:

Their characterization of many Ron Paul supporters as nerds is um, er, far more accurate than some other things they've been called. They pegged me - though I'd prefer to call myself a software engineer.

Time doesn't allow open comments on their web pages. Boy, would I love to comment further on that piece.

All the major publications and news media would be far more credible to me if they always linked back to their sources and allowed open comments.

Later, seeing a pundit and Joel Stein, the author of that Time article, making judgements on monetary policy and Paul based on their fashion sense finally did do me in. I lost it entirely. These are the people calling the shots on the economy, showing up on television and writing for the popular press?

---

Wired published a piece about a botnet that was sending Ron Paul related spam. And - worst of all - the article didn't link directly back to its source.

My blood boiled. Wired: Show us the spam mail, including the headers. Show us the server logs. Tell us about your email setup. Show me the code - I said.

Note: I'd be pissed off if ANY candidate was using botnets, ok? I've been mad about the misuse of the Internet and the insecurity of Microsoft products for over a decade. I loathe spam and spammers. I have lost more time and work and energy to fighting off crackers, worms, and viruses than I care to think about.

So I did a little digging.

It turns out that the original researcher, Gary Warner, had posted the details from which that Wired story sprang on his
First Campaign spamming virus blog posting.

I would have been a lot less ticked off at Wired if they had bothered to publish that link.

The evidence posted there is pretty compelling that someone used a small botnet to send out some Ron Paul related spam. There's zero evidence that it was supported by the Paul campaign. I still resent the slant of the Wired piece
and would like independent verification of the virus/bot's existence. (update - independent verification now exists, and Gary Warner published a nice piece explaining his take on the whole brouhahah and making clear his opinion as to who was behind the botnet)

I asked a few sysadmins of much larger sites than mine to scan their spamboxes for this spam, too, just to see if we can independently verify Warner's results. It really would be news if finally the botnet operators had turned their interests away from sex and scams to politics.

I also sent Mr Warner an email requesting they publish some information about their setup while I did a little more digging on my own servers.

Of 3 email addresses of mine that were once widely published, each still collecting 70+ spams a day - not one has ever had a Ron Paul spam - not before, during, or after any debates. My primary email address (published widely for 5 years now) on gmail has an excellent spam filter, yet there was no political spam in my spam or inbox.

That's just the data I have. The sites that collect this spam for me do do some basic filtering before they hit spamassassin - I subscribe to a realtime blackhole list as one example. I look forward to more results, whatever they may be.

Sure wish Wired had a comments page, too. They've already had to revise that article once.

---

After that Wired piece appeared, this video alleged - with what appears to be actual links, and screenshots of an actual set of web sites - that a Rudy Guillani supporter paid writer Sarah Lai Stirland to slant that piece on Paul. There's some dodgy looking
pages in there, a real possibility of the video being faked - but perhaps there's a responsible sysadmin out there with a backup handy that can prove one way or the other - that the postings existed, or not. I wish archive.org captured history on a more frequent basis, and I sure hope somebody at wired... or in the MSM... or the government... investigates this claim. On one side or the other someone is due criminal proceedings.

---

I don't know what to think anymore.

I'm back to the same conclusion I came to earlier this year.

The only way to win is not to play.

I've had to battle with myself to not sink to the level of all sides in election 2008. I've had to delete all kinds of expletives and adverbs and adjectives that didn't add to the facts. (I kind of let myself go on this one, apologies).

I've used links to as many original sources I could find, on all sides, no matter what I thought. I've dug as deep as I care to go. It's been painful, and I don't want to do it anymore. I'm not cut out to be a journalist, and filtering out the effect of television, even in the small dosages I can stand, takes too much effort and energy.

I'm going to delete the flash player from my machine, logout for a good long while, and do something constructive.

See ya.

Labels: citizen revolt, democrats, election 2008, msm, national debt, red state, republicans, Ron Paul

  ¶ 1:50 PM 0 comments

  Getting confrontational, remaining deadly serious about debt

Ordinarily I'm a quiet, unassuming guy. Really. My current outbursts are caused purely by a lack of surf to take out my aggressions on. I prefer to work together with people on a common quest for understanding.

I just asked a simple question of the right, in their own forum, redstate, About deficit spending.

And just to keep matters evenhanded, I'll ask the same question of the left, as soon as I find a suitable forum.

I look forward to any good explanations offered, because, frankly, I haven't a clear idea of why deficit spending is preferable to higher taxes.

Sure wish I could get my other questions answered by anyone in the race.

Labels: democrats, hillary clinton, Mitt Romney, national debt, republicans, Ron Paul, Rudy Giulliani

  ¶ 10:30 PM 0 comments

  Trying to find a way to be fair

In the course of writing over 700 blog entries with well over 100,000 reads to date, only once has a reader acknowledged me changing his mind... so I am under no delusion that writing in my blog is going to change minds.

... but if I didn't vent, I'd explode, and - as an engineer - I like to find constructive solutions to the problems the mainstream media has in reporting fairly on the issues, so here goes.

Update: I found a site that did a simple, scientific analysis of the recent debate, counting the words each candidate was allowed to say. It's rather revealing, but I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

Open letter to the mainstream media, particularly CNBC

Your credibility is in the toilet.

Here are some some ways to have fairer reporting on electoral candidates.

0) Install an applause-meter at the debates. Show it, live, during the debates. Report on this measurable statistic for, say, the top 20 statements made by the candidates.

1) Track and report on the screen time given the candidates as well. Obviously this measurable statistic affects the statistic above... The combination of these two factors, displayed on screen in a NFL-sports style, would actually be pretty interesting, and revealing, I think. I'd be glad to help you program it.

If you don't do this, I figure somebody on youtube, will. It's easy enough to analyze the volume of sound coming from the recordings after all - 'course, MSM, you could always hire someone to ride the gain when things you disagree with are said... perhaps an applause meter needs to be wielded by an independent organisation, like the UN....

2) Require logins on your online polls. It does sacrifice anonymity somewhat, but would increase fairness.

3) Accept that the internet population is different from the population that answers the phone in your so-called 'scientific' polls, as is the population that knows enough about cell phones to send text messages. Report on all of it... do some real investigative journalism on who is voting online, cell, and phone - and publish that. PLEASE.


side note: I really like the innovative way MSNBC is polling across the candidates' positions in a matrix format. Probably my biggest issue with the phone polls is that they are very dependent on name recognition. This particular poll both informs and polls, and I like that, a lot. It also tracks who's voting and prevents voting twice on an issue+candidate, so it appears (at least at first glance) to be fairly fair....


4) Collect statistics on what sort of web browser and OS your online pollers are using. Hell, feel free to publish the geographic distributions of the ip addresses and cell phone numbers you are collecting as part of the polling process. At one level this is spam protection - at another level it would give the electorate a glimpse at what places are internet or cell phone strongholds for the candidates.

Now I realize that implementing these suggestions would take resources away from other tasks you have, like advertising, and live coverage, and punditry and spin... so here's a few ways to save some money on your coverage, and also improve accuracy.

5) Kill off 90% of your talking heads. When I see the hours and hours of analysis and false controversy created by your tacky network appointed pundits I can't help but think that the American people would be better served by you merely assembling footage of what each candidate actually said, and redisplaying it. I note that youtube users are already doing this - for free - and it's wonderful. I've now seen hours and hours and hours of footage of most of the major candidates, and have made my decision on who to support largely based on that.

(note to your execs - your coverage would then be cheaper, too)

6) Stop paying attention to candidate funding - entirely. If you've forgotten, America was a democracy, not a plutocracy, last I looked. Or maybe I missed the memo?

That's all I can think of for now. Thanks for listening.

---

Labels: clinton, cnbc, debates, election 2008, fairness, fox news, mainstream media, msm, msnbc, republicans, Ron Paul

  ¶ 8:13 AM 7 comments

  The 97% solution

"People don't want war...but [they] can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, 1946 (German General of Aircraft, morphine addict)

Ever since 9/11, we have been a nation divided by fear. After 9/11, I turned my television off, permanently, and stopped being bombarded by broadcast political rhetoric. Instead, I drove past Mark Bingham's parents' house every day, and reflected, in silence, on what it truly meant to be human.

If it were up to me, I'd have bade that every American on a plane with a cell phone and a sharp object to keep them ready: to defend our rights, and liberty, and freedom; if necessary, to die to preserve those things.

That's this American's response to terrorism. I'm not afraid of Bin Laden - and because I love freedom - I'm willing to read the complete text of what he just said as I know I'd stand my ground, and give my life for freedom, if I had to.

Now: Normally, I'm a green leaning libertarian. I registered democratic last year to vote against (D) Mike Honda in the primary... and I later learnt I was no longer in his district. Gerrymandering in the age of computerisation has reached an obscene low - and that's why I favor proportional voting - not that either party favors it.

Bush is too far right - Kerry too far left... and neither has bothered to have a coherent thought about the three issues I care about most - Asteroid exploration, digital rights and copyright reform.

When I see the national review advocating a single party state, my blood boils. When I see Democrats tearing down the lawn signs of Republicans, my hope for sanity fades.

If I could have one government program funded by either party, it would be to have the Internet's babelfish language translation service extended to translate Hebrew, Arabic, Hindi, Chinese, and American.

The debate thus far has borne no relation to the important issues facing the nation... except Vietnam. It's just two members of the same statist party fighting over whose friends will get favors.

I oppose the tyranny of minority rule by either side. My loyalties are to truth and reason, not emotion. Where passions boil, reason tends to suffer.

So, my vote, this election, is for a representative federal government. Call it a political anti-trust action, because I trust neither party. The prospect of either American party holding all the reins of power frightens me far more than Bin Laden ever could. Both our parties are captured by statists - my position on the negatives of creeping federalism is captured by Eric Raymond's "Why I'm not a left/liberal right/conservative" - and my positions on the positives are largely unprintable in a family weblog.

Ordinarily, I'd just throw up my hands and vote for Badnarik. But:

With the Republicans in control of the House, the Senate split, and Kerry in charge of the executive body, only the policies that both sides can agree on will come forth. With both parties sharing power in the federal government (or, rather, continuing to contend for it), the will of 97% of the voting public will be represented through the next four years (given the present 49%/48% split). If the situation were reversed - with, instead, the Democrats threatening total control of the three parts of elected federal government - I'd vote Republican. That's not the case. That's why I'm voting for Kerry.

If you can not defend a single party state: At least be confident that Kerry can perform the job as President. You're still not confident? Ah, there's the rub.

I now open the floor to debate. Comments?

Labels: democrats, election 2004, msm, republicans, terrorism

  ¶ 1:37 AM 1 comments