Category: Politics

Posted on
by

1. You can disagree with or dislike people in your government, from your city council up through the President, and still love your country. (Conservatives disliked the President for 8 years; denying that privilege to the rest of us is hypocrisy at best.)

2. You can oppose war – or a particular war – without being anti-American. Speaking out against your nation’s policies and actions is not treason, it is necessary for a free society. If no one disagrees with the official policy, and that policy turns out to be a mistake – say, slavery, for instance – the mistake will never be corrected.

3. No, being a movie star does not make you an expert on politics. Neither does being a country singer. But neither job makes your opinion matter any less than anyone else’s.

4. America is not and should not be a theocracy. Freedom of religion does not exist without freedom from religion. If you are free to attend a Lutheran service only if you also attend a Catholic mass, you don’t have freedom of religion. If you can practice Christianity at home but your children are expected to recite Allah Akbar daily in school, you don’t have freedom of religion. This doesn’t mean that you can’t pray the way you want to. It does mean you cannot coerce me into praying the way you want me to.

5. Remember, the first amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. The popular speech doesn’t need protecting. And not everyone is offended by the same things.

6. The right to speak freely does not compel others to listen. You always have the right to turn the radio to another station, hang up the phone, or walk away. If I don’t want you to call or email me, I have the right to block you, and as long as the choice is mine, there is no reason I can’t let someone else handle the administrative details – whether it’s a restraining order against a stalker, a spam blacklist, or a do-not-call list.

Posted on
by

….because right now, they’re more fun than handmaidens. This took place in the car on the way home today.

Kelson: “I’ve heard 193, 195, and 196. Where’d those numbers come from?”
Katie: “Two minutes, five minutes, and ten minutes later.”
Kelson: “I mean, the deadline was Saturday!”
Katie: “‘Uh-oh, it was stuck to somebody else’s. ….It was stapled to the chicken.'”
Kelson: (smirking) “Peer pressure.”
Katie: “So we have one stapled to the chicken, one peer pressure, and two stuck to other people’s. So who turned in the chicken?”
Kelson: (laughter)
Katie: “I know, it was filling out the forms as it went.”
Kelson: “No wonder they’re so hard to read!”

…..kind of like my notes on this conversation…..

Posted on
by

193 people have filed candidacy papers for the upcoming recall election. Just think about it: if every application is verified, we could have almost two hundred names on the ballot, just for one office. And they’re going to be listed randomly.

Imagine how long the ballot will be. Heck, imagine how long the info pamphlet will be. Nearly 200 candidate statements.

Only a plurality is required. In theory, it would be possible to win the election with less than one percent of the vote. Of course, we’ll probably end up with only about 5-10 people who are seriously campaigning, so it’ll be more like 10% required to win, and some polls are already giving Arnold Schwarzenegger 40%. Come to think of it, the sheer number of names may be enough by itself to get him into office: he’s got greater name recognition than anyone else on the list.

Assuming people can find him in 15 pages of unsorted names.

Posted on
by

Yes, the American Teleservices Association is suing over the do-not-call list.

The ATA estimates that the do-not-call list will cost as many as 2 million U.S. telemarketing jobs, wiping out almost a third of its industry.

Sounds like a good start.

Maybe they can get jobs that don’t involve annoying the hell out of people in their own homes.

Spam is a problem because it’s pervasive. There are no limits on how many messages one business can send, and very little in the way of entry barriers. If outside controls (societal, legal, or technological) leave it unchecked, it really can destroy email as a useful means of communication. (Consider getting 500 spams with one order confirmation somewhere in the middle.)

Telemarketing does have limits. Even with recorded messages, it takes time to make the call. There’s usually a limited number of outgoing phone lines. And if they’ve got live people making the calls, they can only make as many calls as they have people – and people need paychecks and space to work.

No, the problem with telemarketing is that it’s invasive. The phone just screams for attention, interrupting whatever you’re doing. You can choose when to check your email, or your postal mailbox, but the telephone wants you to answer it now, and even if you choose not to, it keeps ringing until your answering machine takes the call or the caller gives up.

Telemarketers don’t just try to reach you at your mailbox, front door, or living room. They are the only form of advertising I know of that reaches into the bedroom – even when you’re asleep.

And yet these scumbags are defending their “right” to interrupt you while you’re eating dinner, or reading a book, or watching TV. They want to be able to wake you up when you’re sleeping in on Saturday. If you have a cell phone, they can get you at the grocery store. They can get you on your lunch break. Someone can start jabbering about resort condos while you’re in line for Space Mountain.

That’s not protected speech. It’s harassment.

Posted on
by

One things that’s bugged me since the start of the effort to recall Governor Davis is that people keep bringing up the budget crisis.

Repeat after me: The Legislature chooses the budget, not the Governor.

Recalling the governor because the legislature can’t get its act together is like firing your plumber because your electrician screwed up.

Of course it’s all tied up in partisan politics. Some people just want a Republican governor, and are using the budget as an excuse. (Anyone remember the regular budget impasses during Pete Wilson’s administration in the early 1990s? This is not unique to Gray Davis!) Some people just want to throw someone out, and it’s less effort to kick out one governor than 100+ legislators.

But the budget crisis is all about party infighting. The Democrats have rallied behind tax increases, the Republicans have rallied behind spending cuts, and neither side will budge.

If these people would just stop fighting over who was a Democrat and who was a Republican, maybe they’d actually get some work done.

Posted on
by

For several years now (before the 2000 Presidential election, but even more strongly after that), I’ve been of the opinion that allowing people to mark a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice on each ballot would effectively resolve the “lesser of two evils” problem that limits us to the Republicans and Democrats as the only viable political parties.

(For the record, since I was first eligible to vote, I’ve registered with a “decline to state” affiliation because I prefer to be associated with neither right-wing wackos nor left-wing wackos. I usually consider myself a moderate, but in today’s political climate what I consider moderate looks extremely liberal by comparison.)

The last two big elections, Bush vs. Gore for President and Davis vs. Simon for California governor, were both cases where I didn’t particularly like one candidate but really disliked the other. Continue reading →