Category Archives: Politics

Are You a Science Fiction Fan? Will You be Voting?

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on Are You a Science Fiction Fan? Will You be Voting?

If the title isn’t clear enough, and the logo below didn’t show up, I’m referring to voting for the Hugo Awards rather than voting for the Cary Town Council. Being on one ballot was not enough for me!

(In fact, if you want to put me on a third ballot, you can nominate any of my filk songs for a Pegasus Award. Hahaha!)

Hugo Award Logo

But, insofar as the Hugo Awards go, the deadline is fast approaching for getting our votes in, as was recently pointed out by perhaps the biggest name in fantasy literature these days, George R.R. Martin.

The deadline is in fact the 31st of July — one day past the deadline for Pegasus nominations, haha! — and if you’re a member of the World SF Convention you should have gotten your Voter Packet and instructions weeks ago. If you’re not a member but you still want to vote, there’s just a little time left for you to purchase a Supporting Membership* and participate in the process.

In the blog post linked above, Mr. Martin noted that so far more than 2300 ballots have been cast. He asks,

Who are all these new Supporting Members? Are they trufans rallying to the defense of one of our field’s oldest and most cherished institutions? Are they Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, Happy Kittens, Gamergaters? Are those dreaded SJWs and ASPs and CHORFs turning out by the hundreds and the thousands? Are these the Neo-Nazis and right-wing reactionaries we have been warned of? The truth is… no one knows. We may get a clue when the ballots are opened and counted, but even then, the numbers may well just say, “Answer cloudy, ask again.”

If you’re not familiar with all the lingo in there, count yourself lucky. And if you’re undecided about voting or what to vote for, bear in mind Heinlein’s admonition:

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for … but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.

So, vote! Even if you vote against me.

As for that other democratic process, we’ll have more to say in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!

___
*A Supporting Membership costs $40, for which you get electronic copies of several of the nominated works (e.g., Best Novel) with which to make an informed decision.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Refining My Position on Just About Everything: Don’t Punish Good Folks When Bad Things Happen

By | | ,
2 Comments

Often it seems to me that many of our laws — and quite a bit of the heated rhetoric I read and hear — derive from a tendency to try to correct or prevent bad things by punishing everyone, including those who aren’t responsible for the bad things. I’m against this.

Community Punishment Workshop
(“Community Punishment Workshop,” by amortize, on Flickr under Creative Commons.)

I first thought about this when I was writing my “If I Were My Own Representative” series, one of which was Part IV: My Touchstone for Voting:

My initial position would be to vote “no” on any bill that had a provision that would hurt some of our citizens, even if it helped some others. I would have to be convinced that the help was worth the hurt; i.e., that the hurt was along the lines as the necessary pain of surgery to correct a life-threatening condition.

If it wasn’t clear what effects some given legislation would have, whether it would hurt some people while helping some others, I would at least ASK. If no one could tell me, again my initial thought would be to vote against it.

I’m coming to believe this in more general terms than just politics: i.e., that in general we shouldn’t blame or punish good people when other people do bad things or allow them to happen. Let me lay out a few assumptions upon which I base this position:

  • There are some bad people in the world, who tend to do bad things. However,
  • Most people in the world are good or, if not actually good, at least not habitually bad.* Even so, some good people may occasionally do bad things (but, I think, usually by mistake or in extremis).
  • Bad things cannot be predicted with certainty, and sometimes not even with confidence.
  • When a person does a bad thing, and is considered likely to do more bad things, it is best to place that person in a position where it is more difficult for them to be able to do bad things.
  • When a person (good or bad) does a bad thing, and bad people may be inspired to follow their example, it is best to downplay the bad things rather than advertise or sensationalize them.
  • When a person (good or bad) does a bad thing, it is a mistake to assume that good people will follow the person’s example.
  • Because good people are the majority, and most good people are unlikely to follow the examples of people doing bad things, it is always a mistake to summarily limit the rights of good people (or strip rights from them) in response to bad things.
  • This approach will occasionally fail, because it is impossible to prevent all bad things or to identify all potentially bad people.

I don’t expect anyone particularly to agree with me on this (or anything else, for that matter), but that’s the way I’m approaching things right now.

___
*I offer this optional way of characterizing it for those for whom the doctrine of Original Sin, or Jesus’s “no one is good but God” statement (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19),prevents them from admitting that there may be good people in the world.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

A Picture of Political Intolerance

By | |
Comments Off on A Picture of Political Intolerance

Free speech in the form of streetside signage apparently didn’t mean much to the opponents of these candidates:


(Picture taken 26 October 2014. Click to enlarge.)

If you know the party affiliations of Renee Ellmers and Nelson Dollar, then you should be able to guess what candidate’s sign is crumpled up in the upper right. I’ll give you three guesses, but you probably won’t need them.*

These signs had been on Cary Parkway, right at the end of our street. Last night while we were walking the dog, I noticed them thrown into the bushes. I took the picture early this morning.

I get it, if you don’t like the little yard signs that pop up like dandelions every election season. I don’t particularly like them, either.

But if your idea of political activism is to interfere with the free speech of your political opponents, then you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.

___
*Ellmers and Dollar are Republicans, if that helps.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Four Weeks to Election Day …

By | |
Comments Off on Four Weeks to Election Day …

Sometimes I think I ought to run for office
For mayor or senator, or even the local school board
Sometimes I think you’d be better off voting for me than anyone else
Especially if you want your faith in government restored!

Yes, it’s that time again! Time to consider whether you’re going to vote for an establishment candidate, an alternative candidate, or — if you’re really bold — the Anti-Candidate!

You may want to “throw the bums out,” but be careful you don’t vote a bunch of new bums in. At least this bum is honest about being a bum! And if you don’t believe me, take a listen to “I Think I’ll Run for Congress”.

Politics, that’s the life for me
It fits my arrogant, megalo-maniacal, personality
I’ll get my name in the papers and my face on your T.V.
And take good care of myself, my friends and my family — yes, that’s the life for me

I am the Anti-Candidate, and I wrote, edited, approved, and posted this message.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Happy Declaration-Signing Day

By | | ,
Comments Off on Happy Declaration-Signing Day

The Continental Congress passed the Declaration of Independence on the 2nd of July, 1776, and then gathered on the 4th to sign it.

On July 8th, Thomas Jefferson sent a copy to my 5-times-great grandfather, John Page, who was President of the Virginia Council. Page wrote back on the 20th:

I am highly pleased with your Declaration. God preserve the united States — We know the Race is not to the swift nor the Battle to the strong. Do you not think an Angel rides in the Whirlwind and directs this Storm?

 

Page wrote to John Hancock the same day that Virginia’s citizens “have been impatiently expecting it, and will receive it with joy.”

What did he mean by “impatiently expecting it”? The calls for Independence had grown quite strong throughout the colonies before the Declaration was finalized, and in fact the delegates had been debating the resolution since it was introduced on June 7th. But even back in April, Page had written to Jefferson,

For God’s sake declare the colonies independant [sic], at once, & save us from ruin

The fervor for Independence was so strong that the delegates pledged their “Lives, … Fortunes, and … sacred Honor” to the cause. Though not a delegate, Page himself was as dedicated as any of them: he served as an officer in the Virginia militia, raised a regiment and contributed to it from his own money, and even donated the lead from the casements of his windows to be made into bullets.

When I was in high school, our English teacher gave us all copies of Paul Harvey’s little book about the Declaration and its signers, and to each of us he inscribed a challenge: “What will you give?” I ask myself that question every 4th of July.

Often I conclude that I have much more that I could, and should, give.

___
Letters quoted from The Declaration of Independence: Its History …, by John Hampden Hazelton.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

My Hope for Iraq Now Seems Hopeless … and Affects My Hope for Us

By | | ,
4 Comments

My hope for Iraq hasn’t come true, because we lacked the national will to make it come true. In fact, we seem to lack much of any national will anymore.

Waiting to board
(“Waiting to Board,” by The U.S. Army, on Flickr under Creative Commons.)

It may be a stretch to say it was my “hope” for Iraq … it was more of a prediction, that we might develop better long-term U.S.-Iraq relations by becoming long-term partners in Iraqi (and regional) security. Back when hostilities began, I told colleagues that if we did it right — if Iraq could become a more stable area in an overall unstable region — then U.S. bases in the cradle of civilization could become sought-after duty stations after the war, the way bases in Germany and Japan eventually became prime overseas duty locations after World War 2.

We did not, as it turned out, do it right.

We can postulate many reasons for this, but I count two as large contributors. First, in the rush to Baghdad we seemed to forget that all politics is local. We did not, so far as I know, help local villages develop authentic democratic (or even semi-democratic) structures that would ultimately feed into a national political structure. It would have taken time and effort, and the speed of our advance surprised us; perhaps it gave us a sense that whatever we did would turn out well. Regardless, where we could have helped develop local input to (and thereby, potentially, support of) the eventual national government, it appears that little better than local acquiescence took hold — which is all too easy to turn to disdain and rejection.

Second, and more important to the current state of decay in Iraqi affairs, we did not have the national will to occupy Iraq for the long term, the way we occupied Germany and Japan. We defeated those two nations and we stayed in them for years afterward because it was in our best interest to do so. It was in our best interest for a number of reasons, not least because of the threat that they might fall victim to the growing menace of nearby communist powers. But the spectre of terrorism has not proved as compelling to us today as the spectre of communism was to our predecessors. So we declared disinterest in Iraq and left the Iraqis to their own devices. We left them to the encroachment of the terrorists upon their lives and freedoms. We left them, I submit, to our shame.

I hear people from time to time disparage the U.S. with statements that we shouldn’t be the world’s policeman or that we should focus on problems here at home before we get involved abroad. I wonder if those who said such things are happy now that Iraq is in chaos, and if they will be happier still when Afghanistan is again under despotic rule once our departure proves our disinterest there as well.

I have heard people wondering if the expenditure of blood and treasure in our conflict in Iraq was worth it; given how little we now have to show for it, the questioners may have a point. I haven’t heard as much wondering if the blood and treasure we spent in World War 2 was worth it, but then again that was a different kind of war and we had the will to see that fight through to the bitter end.

What does this foretell for us? Our troops may still have the will to fight, and the will to win, but so long as our people lack that will our nation’s downward spiral seems inevitable. Our obsession with our own safety and comfort, with being coddled and cared for, entertained and well-fed, will drag us down as surely as the decadence of Rome left it unable to withstand the barbarians at its gates.

We left the Iraqis vulnerable. We will leave the Afghanis vulnerable. But worse than those, we appear to be willing to leave ourselves vulnerable, too.

And that does not leave me hopeful.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Living in Interesting Times — 30 Years Past 1984

By | | ,
2 Comments

How much is our world in 2014 like the 1984 that George Orwell described?


(George Orwell. Image from Wikimedia Commons.)

In other words, how much of our world as it exists now — particularly the technology-saturated Western world — would Orwell recognize as reflecting his cautionary tale?

The television in my living room doesn’t watch me watching it, the way the citizens’ did in the novel, but it certainly has enough electronics to keep track of what I watch and deliver that information to marketers without my being aware of it. And my laptop has a camera that could have been watching me as I typed this blog entry — and it could have done so without my knowledge. In addition, consider the proliferation of closed-circuit TV surveillance cameras in big cities around the world. Orwell might say we were indeed living in the world of his novel.

And remember, his novel was written in 1947-48, and published in 1949.

I can think of a few other parallels between our world today and the dystopia Orwell envisioned:

  • In the novel, Oceania is locked in a near-perpetual war with Eurasia and Eastasia. No matter how hopeful about (or intent we are on) extricating ourselves from the Terror War, it seems likely the terrorists will have different ideas (something I wrote about in my 2002 essay, “Yogi Berra, Polybius, and the Recurring Jihad”). And that says nothing about the rise of Chinese power and the resurgence of Russian ambitions (e.g., their looming presence over Ukraine).
  • In the novel, history is frequently rewritten to excise people and ideas that have fallen out of favor, something that was observable in Orwell’s day especially in the Soviet Union. Today, the ‘Net and its archives may prevent that kind of complete removal, but here in the U.S. some “progressive” historical interpretations are changing the perceptions of our traditional heroes — history being rewritten not to excise, but to diminish, people and ideas no longer favored.
  • In the U.S. recently we have seen a lot of animus toward the “top 1%” as well as emphasis on the shrinking middle class and the expanding ranks of people dependent on the government for their support. In some respects this seems to mirror the class structure depicted in the story.

And of course we have Orwell’s famous concept of “doublethink,” which we encounter almost daily at both ends of our political spectrum. Especially with respect to the idea of personal liberty, many people at either end seem simultaneously to support and resist personal freedom; or perhaps those who support all personal freedoms equally, from bearing arms to abortion, just don’t attract much attention.

What do you think? Even though it’s 2014, are we close to 1984?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

One Week Until the Election Filing Period Opens …

By | |
Comments Off on One Week Until the Election Filing Period Opens …

Maybe it’s the flu talking, but once again I’m thinking about whether I’d like to run for office. (Seriously.) (Okay, sort-of seriously.)

Hope is a belief in a positive outcome...
(“Hope is a belief in a positive outcome…,” by Vince Alongi, on Flickr under Creative Commons.)

It would be interesting to see if my unconventional approach to politics — from the Anti-Campaign to my political anthem — would generate any interest in an actual election. To get on the primary ballot, I’d have to sign up and pay money before the end of February.

The filing fee is one percent of the annual salary of whatever office you seek, so I would need to decide whether I should try to serve at the local level or the state level or the national level. From my time in the USAF, and especially my work on the Air Staff, I’m most familiar with how things work at the national level. And, as proof of my arrogance and megalomania, I think I would be as fine a member of Congress as anyone. On the other hand, all politics is local and serving at the local level would have its own set of challenges and rewards. And it would cost a lot less to file.

Of course, if I did file, I’d have to actually campaign — and that takes time and money, too, neither of which I have in abundance. Which is why I wrote,

I’d like to run for Congress, and play the political game
But I don’t have very much money, to wage a big campaign
I’m okay with giving speeches and debating might be fun
If I took myself more seriously, then I might really run

— “I Think I’ll Run for Congress“

So the driving factor in whether I should file and run for office has to be whether anybody wants me to — and wants it enough to help organize, fund, and execute a campaign.

What about it, local folks? Any interest in working on a political campaign?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

What Media Bias? This Media Bias

By | |
Comments Off on What Media Bias? This Media Bias

CAUTION: Political Post Ahead.

The pro-Obamacare slant in major media came home to Raleigh, NC, this week.

The local CBS affiliate, WRAL-TV, aired a story — Some have success signing up for health coverage online — that chronicled how a self-employed graphic designer who had a $176 per month insurance plan got a new plan “on HealthCare.gov with the help of a federally trained navigator.”

Without going into the question of why Internet-savvy people (who can presumably purchase all manner of goods on commercial websites) would need a “navigator” to guide them through the Federal health care maze, let’s get to the obvious spin WRAL put on the story.

The lady’s original plan, which she categorized as “bottom of the barrel” (whatever that means; no specifics were offered on the plan’s supposed deficiencies or how long she had been dissatisfied with it), was replaced with a better one:

She took about a week to compare plans and enrolled in one that provides better coverage than her current plan. With federal subsidies, her monthly premium for her new insurance will be $91 a month – a 48 percent decrease.

In case you missed it, the bias comes by way of the quickly passed-over phrase, “with federal subsidies,” in the information that’s missing about how much the new plan costs and how much the subsidy is. That information is not in the audio or the transcript, but it shows up on screen at about the 1:30 point, as seen below:


(Screenshot of the WRAL-TV story.)

From this we see that the premium on her new, Obamacare-approved policy is actually $344.46 per month, nearly twice what she was paying before. We might hope this new policy would be better than the one she had, if it costs that much more.

But she’s only paying $91 and change for that policy, because the silent graphic shows that over $250 of that monthly cost is listed as a “premium tax credit.” That’s more than her original policy cost, for an annual total of over $3000, paid by the enforced generosity of the U.S. population and the borrowing habits of the Federal Reserve.

Remember, this was a “success story” in the eyes of WRAL: not what I often hear touted about an uninsured person or someone with a preexisting condition getting coverage, but that someone who had health insurance and was paying for it on her own has now been forced by law into dependence on the government. Yet in preparing their approved narrative, they chose not to call attention to those facts.

I thought I felt a breeze, that story spun so fast. But I’m a failed engineer, so what do I know about journalism?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Another Election is Over … Plus Some Space History

By | | ,
5 Comments

“Every country has the government it deserves.” So said Joseph de Maistre, and his words ring true to me.

What is it we deserve, then? On a national level, it seems that the politics of class warfare, handouts, and cradle-to-grave coddling have again won the day, and since the resulting system is unlikely to be sustainable over the long term, it seems that we deserve to — or we have at least voted to — decline as a nation. I hate to think it, and I will work to postpone and even correct it, but we seem to be living out the aphorism about the people destroying the republic by voting themselves largesse out of the public treasury.*

Meanwhile, the calendar turned over, and it is another day. And forty-five years ago today — November 7, 1967 — Surveyor 6, the fourth in the series to soft-land on the Moon, was launched from Cape Canaveral on an Atlas Centaur rocket. It would be less than two years before human beings — our countrymen — walked on the Moon.


(We went there, a long time ago, remember? NASA image.)

We had ambitions then, and big dreams. Those were the days.

___
*Attributed in various forms to several different people, including Benjamin Franklin, George Orwell, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Alexander Fraser Tytler.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmailby feather