National Security

I covered some of my feelings here in Part 1 in my section on foreign policy. America’s behavior overseas necessarily has a direct effect on national security. If we do do unpopular things, we have to be prepared to accept the consequences. In simple terms, we should keep our own safety in mind when making decisions about foreign policy.

Domestically, I think law enforcement and agencies like the TSA get a bit of a bum rap. Yes, it’s very true that things like incompetence and abuse of power are big concerns, but just because something is broken doesn’t mean it should be thrown out. It just needs to be fixed.

Since it’s the object of so much debate, I’ll take the TSA as an example.

I’d be a hell of a lot more afraid for my safety if I was able to just walk into an airport and go straight to the plane than I am standing in line and taking my shoes off. Yes, it’s inconvenient and stressful, but it’s a lot less stressful to me than worrying I might get blown up. I’m sorry if you can’t bring a full tube of toothpaste or your Colt 1911 in your carryon bag. Suck it up or take a bus.

(Maybe if it gets inconvenient enough the airlines will actually improve the in-flight experience to compensate, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.)

The most common rebuttal to that is that the TSA security policies don’t actually make flying any safer. I find that hard to believe. But if it’s true in any capacity then fine, work to fix it. If you don’t like the TSA, then come up with something better. And “nothing” is not better.

The other common criticism is that Americans are trading their privacy for safety, and even then it’s only the perception of safety.

I personally don’t mind a little inconvenience when it comes to safety. And I’m not terribly worried about my privacy. If there’s something I don’t want somebody sticking his nose in, I don’t bring it on the damn plane. I fall pretty squarely in the “why should you care if you have nothing to hide” camp. If you want to see my ID to get on a plane, then fine, great. Here it is. Write it down if you want. Take a picture. If a robot wants to scrape my email to see if I used the word “bomb” I’m not particularly worried about that. If the cable company wants to know what TV shows I watch so it can serve me better ads, then great. It just means I won’t have to sit through any more ads for Boniva or Summer’s Eve.

(It’s fodder for another post, but I believe privacy is dying if not dead already, and I believe in that future anonymity will come from being a face in the crowd. Metaphorically speaking, if there’s a naked guy in a crowd of 40,000, then most of that crowd won’t even know he’s naked, or even that there’s a naked guy there in the first place.)

Immigration Policy

Here I’m pretty sure we’re all talking about Mexicans coming over the border.

Firstly I don’t think they’re stealing that many jobs from Americans. Why? Because Americans are lazy and spoiled. I know whereof I speak because I myself am lazy and spoiled. There just aren’t that many people willing to work that hard for that little money. And if they aren’t lazy or spoiled, then they end up getting better jobs anyway.

The laws should be tightened, yes, and the border should be strengthened. That being said, I’m in favor of amnesty for anyone who’s already here, and if their children were born here then those children should enjoy the rights of any naturally-born American. Just say “Hey, everybody who was here as of one year ago? You’re in! Come on down and sign some papers, take a test, and you’re good to go.”

I’d consider it a personal favor if they’d learn some English, too, but I won’t split hairs.

I just don’t think it’s practical to try and round up every illegal immigrant in the country, especially when they’re contributing to the economy. Could they contribute more? Sure they could. Let’s get them sworn in and start collecting some taxes. That’s a money-making proposition whereas hunting them down and deporting them is a a money-losing proposition.

Taxes

The very existence of a thriving specialized industry based solely on filling out the paperwork so we can give our money to the gov’t is ample proof that the system is broken.

What does Bank of America do when I owe them money? They send me a bill and tell me how I can pay and where I can send it. Blam! Done!

What they don’t do is send me forms to fill out and make me either waste an evening with a calculator or pay somebody else to help me figure out how much I owe them.

I hear a lot of talk about FairTax, which sounds pretty good on the face of it, but I haven’t read up enough to have an opinion. However, I do know that one of the common criticisms is that it would depress the economy if there was a federal sales tax. But you know, I think we’d be fine if suddenly everybody in America got a 30% raise.

If not that, I’ve never heard what I’d call a reasonable objection to a flat tax. Paying a higher percentage based on making a higher income smacks of the “Robin Hood economics” I mentioned in my intro to Part 1. I don’t make more than 250k a year, but I still think it’s wrong to raise the taxes of anyone who does.

The point is, the system is in major need of an overhaul. Whatever form that takes, just please make it easier to pay!

I know H&R Block doesn’t want to hear that, but you know, sorry. The guys who made cotton gins had to figure out something else to do, too.

The Election Process

You’d think that with what happened in 2000 this would have come up, but it sure as Hell didn’t

I question whether the Electoral College is relevant these days. I know the original intent was to basically hedge against some sort of crazy mob rule, but I think we can agree that’s never going to happen. The effect it seems to have to most people I’ve talked to is to disenfranchise them. It gives them impression that their votes only count if their state goes for the same guy they voted for.

I also don’t think it’s fair that the same handful of states get courted every four years. If it all comes down to then, hell, why even bother voting in the rest?

I don’t pretend to have a better answer. I just think it needs to be discussed. And nobody is discussing it.

My second issue with politics is the two-party system, which is something the electoral college helps perpetrate. It’s virtually impossible, no, it is impossible for anyone not in the Big Two to get elected. Hell, they can’t even get on the ballot in some states. There needs to be a way to open up the field. I’m tired of having to pick between two guys I don’t even like.

Lastly, there’s the role of lobbyists and donors. (And really, their effect on politics in general, not just elections.) Again, I don’t know enough about things to have a totally informed opinion, but for an off-the-top idea, how about putting all the donations in one pile and handing it out evenly? If that’s a bad idea, tell me why.

Tort Reform

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the fact that this can even happen is proof that the system is broken.

Can’t we come up with some sort of “pre-court” or some method to decide whether a case is even worth bringing to court and wasting taxpayer money?

Also, speed things up. Set dates sooner, make trials shorter, carry out sentences faster, streamline the appeals process, give lawyers less to do!

And if we can cut through the bullshit that actually gets to court, then things ought to go faster anyway.

Health Care

I don’t believe in universal health care because if we get it it will be universally worse. Or at least worse for the people who can afford it. And I’m not interested in subsidizing health care for people who don’t earn their keep. All you need in this country to get good health care is a job. Yes, many employers don’t offer what I’d call adequate health care. So instead of instituting universal health care, I say the gov’t should incentivize businesses to support a certain base level of health care. I stop short of saying the gov’t should mandate it, but it’s worth discussing

There’s also the problem that even universal health care won’t necessarily pay for everything. So it’s possible that we’d pay higher taxes in addition to having to pay for health insurance anyway.

I’ve also heard the gripe that people who own their own business pay more for health care than a worker employed by something else. To that I say that if you’re an employee, having your health care partially (or completely, depending on the company) subsidized is part of your compensation for working. You lack freedom in that you work for somebody else, but you get the benefit of cheaper health care. If you work for yourself, your bonus is freedom but your cost is the higher cost of health care. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Economic Policy

I’ve already said a lot that falls into this category, so there are just a few things I really want to add.

First is that politicians seem to behave as if companies exist in a vacuum and won’t object in any way to what the gov’t makes them do.

We have to strike a balance. It’s reasonable to ask certain things of a business in exchange for operating in America, but if the gov’t makes doing business here too onerous, then companies will move to greener pastures.

Tax breaks are good rewards for various behaviors, and keeping jobs in America is a good behavior. Creating socially beneficial products (such as hybrid cars) is another good one. I’m sure there are more but you take my point.

By the same token, you need a good reason to raise taxes, and “because they made too much money” is not a good reason. Why on Earth do we want to penalize success? If a company has made money by breaking the law, then fine, punish that, but if they’ve made money and abided by the law, then I don’t see any problem. (And if taxes were calculated as a flat percentage, more profit would result in more taxes anyway, right?)

Lastly, I really object to the bailout of the financial industry that’s now taking place. It rewards terrible corporate behavior and it’s only going to cause trouble down the road. If anything, the financial crisis was proof that the market is resistant to such artificial manipulation.

A criticism of big business is that the crisis came up as a result of “letting the market run free,” but that’s only true up to a point. The situation arose primarily because of conditions that the gov’t helped create.

If the gov’t had left well enough alone in the first place, we wouldn’t be in this mess. So I think the best thing the gov’t can do is get out of the way and let it all sort itself out. It would be rough, but a stronger economy would be the end result.

In Conclusion

That, as they say, is that.

If I didn’t write about it here, then I don’t really have an opinion on it. Try asking me.

Does this make me A Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or other? You tell me, ’cause I have no idea. I registered as an Independent.

And now at any point in the future somebody asks me what I believe, I can point here and say “That. That’s what I believe.”

It’s the Big Night here in America, and it’s the perfect time to do something I’ve never really done before, and that’s to write a post about politics.

I’ve been composing this in my head for a while now, but didn’t actually sit down to write it until tonight. So for all I know we’ll already have a president-elect by the time I get around to posting.

(And since I’m currently watching McCain give his concession speech, I was right about my posting time. But this was written before I knew who would win, I’m not going through and changing all the verb tenses.)

Anyway…

I’m not an opinionated guy. Chances are, if you’re not a friend of mine you have no idea as to my personal politics. That’s fine by me. I don’t care if you know or if you agree or disagree. I don’t feel like I have anything to defend, and you don’t need to defend yourself to me.

But at the same time, holding the poker face is getting a little old.

I’m not a political guy, either. The passion some folks have for politics puzzles me. It seems like a lot of emotion and heartache for something that doesn’t even affect the majority of us, and for candidates that aren’t radically different. Sure, there are big differences on paper, but government these days just isn’t about big change, and I think it’s foolish to believe otherwise.

So you could say I don’t really have a horse in tonight’s race. I’ve got enough disagreements with both parties that purists of either stripe would never claim me. Both candidates seem to be good, well-meaning, honest men… As much as career politicians can be, anyway. But, for the record, I voted for McCain. He’s far too old for my taste, too conservative, and a little too friendly with big business, but at the end of the day I had fewer issues with him than with Obama. Honestly, my main gripe about Obama isn’t even with the man himself. It’s that people won’t shut the fuck up about him. If I’d had no other reason to vote for McCain I might have still voted for him out of pure spite. Beyond that, I won’t go so far as to use the “s-word,” but I absolutely object to Obama’s Robin Hood-style economic plans.

With all that being said, you’re still no closer to knowing what the hell my my opinion is.

(Participle dangled for effect.)

So, without further ado and in no particular order, below are my opinions on everything on which I have an opinion. Each topic could be a huge post in and of itself, so I’ll try and keep things brief.

Abortion

I don’t believe it’s right and it’s not a choice I’d ever make myself, but barring an instance where the unborn child is half mine, it’s not my decision to make. I believe in the right of a woman to make decisions involving her own body.

That being said, the vast majority of abortions are performed because a child is unwanted or inconvenient. In other words, they’re performed as after-the-fact birth control because of irresponsibility. Sure, accidents happen, condoms fail, etc., but they don’t fail that often.

What’s the answer? I’m not sure. I’m not willing to outlaw all abortions that aren’t due to rape or safety concerns, but would it be practical to limit the number of “inconvenience” abortions a woman is allowed to have?

Also, I do think the father, if identified and located, should have more of a say in the matter, but I’m not sure what form it would take.

Separation of church and state

I don’t feel too strongly about this. I think children can be taught a variety of things and still end up making their own decisions.

That being said, religion belongs in a church, unless you plan on teaching a variety of religions. And actually I think a type of “religious survey course” would be a good thing for K-12 students. Understanding the different beliefs and religions of the world could go a long way toward building tolerance.

On the flip side, and I say this as someone who believes in evolution, I say teaching evolution as fact is the height of hubris. Evolution is a theory and should be regarded as such. It’s not fair to accuse religion of being intolerant and dismissive when science shows the same regard for any contradicting ideas whatsoever.

Lest we forget, there was a day when Earth was the center of the universe.

Now, as far as things like taking “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and taking “In God We Trust” off the money, I think that’s just splitting hairs and being petty. In this day and age I don’t believe for a minute either one can honestly be interpreted as state-supported religion, and if you’re offended simply by a line in a pledge that they don’t even make you say or some writing on a piece of paper, then you need to grow some thicker skin.

Foreign Policy

Ugh, this one is messy. I’m not nearly smart enough to make any calls here, but…

Other countries accuse America of acting as the world’s police force, but when shit goes down, who do they come running to? The fact of the matter is that no other country has the resources or the will to serve as the world’s police. The other countries can’t have their cake and eat it, too. I think it would be interesting to try an experiment and withdraw as much foreign involvement as possible for a year or two and see what happened, but I think the result would be chaos.

The fact of the matter America is the world’s police whether we like it or not, the military should be funded accordingly.

So where’s the line? When do we as a nation accept atrocity and oppression, and when do we not? Obviously we’d rather China weren’t communist, but it’s too big a country for us to do anything about it, so we leave well enough alone and hope the culture of freedom seeps in and does our work for us.

Then there are the smaller countries, like Iraq.

Should we have gone in? I think so, yes. But not on the basis or whether the ruling government had WMDs, but on the basis that they were committing atrocities and it was within our power to stop it. Should we still be there? Yes, for a little while longer. But at some point Iraq has to grow up and take care of itself. And frankly after we left it would be nice if they’d toss us a few bucks or a few million barrels of oil in return for our services.

Speaking of oil, I’m not so naive as to think our reasons for entering Iraq weren’t at least a little self-serving. If we decide that it’s our moral imperative as a nation to eliminate injustice whenever possible and wherever we find it, then we can’t play favorites. We shouldn’t “rescue” one country and ignore another based on whatever vested interest we have in that country.

And the ultimate goal should be to have little or no vested interest in any country so that we can act without questionable motives. We should work to be as independent a country as possible. Economically, agriculturally, and in terms of energy production.

Social programs

This principle should guide all social programs: it should alway be preferable to help yourself rather than be helped by someone.

And by that I mean programs like welfare shouldn’t provide a more attractive income than a job. Social programs should also not reward behavior that makes the situation worse. A family with four kids shouldn’t get a bonus is they suddenly have a fifth. Basically, encourage people to get jobs and support themselves, and don’t enable those who aren’t willing to help themselves.

Gun control

The second amendment is there for a reason and should stay there. We have all the gun laws we need. More legislation isn’t going to prevent a criminal from getting a gun. Pandora’s box is open and there’s no going back.

What would be a good idea? Well, you have to prove you can drive a car in order to get a license, why don’t you have to prove you can handle a gun (and handle owning a gun) before you’re allowed to buy one?

The Environment

It’s easy to be magnanimous and environmentally conscious when you can afford it. Assume most people can’t. Also assume most people are lazy. I know it’s a sad thing to face, and it’s not ideal, but it’s the truth. If you want people to play ball, the onus is on you to make things easy or more appealing. That’s how business works. Why should your environmentally friendly business be an exception?

I’m not anti-environment, but I am pro-human. I scoff at many environmental measures because I think they’re working backwards. Environmental policy needs to work from the top down, not the bottom up. Nagging and guilting the general populace into compliance is a path to failure. If cows aren’t treated humanely, don’t tell me to stop eating meat, tell me how I can bring the meat packers to justice. People eat meat. They always will. Telling people not to eat meat will fail. Not enough people are ever going to quit to ever make a dent in the gazillions of burgers McDonalds sells every day.

Similarly, if you want environmental initiatives to succeed, you have to work with people, not against them. If you want them to recycle, make it easy, don’t make it a chore. Taking out the trash is already a chore. Don’t make me have to sort it into a 100 fucking containers when I decide to take it out. I pay taxes, you sort the Goddamn trash.

Ahem.

If you want me to buy a hybrid car, make a hybrid car that’s comparable to one that isn’t in price, performance, and value. Don’t make me pay to test your prototype. Take a page from Apple’s book and don’t introduce your product until you’ve perfected it. But don’t ask me to pay a premium for it. I’m a practical guy. I can’t afford to pay more for a car because I want to help the environment. The money I save on gas should pay for all or most of car in the span of a normal loan. Otherwise, what’s the point?

The government’s role should be to incentivize pro-environmental policies from American companies. There’s no reason Toyota should be whipping everybody’s ass the way it is. American automakers simply believe they have no tangible reasons to innovate. So let’s offer tax breaks for companies that really innovate and break new ground. Tell Chevy to quit horsing around and bring out the damn Volt already and maybe we’ll cut them a break on their W-2s next year.

Like cars, environmentally friendly products should be equal to their unfriendly counterparts. If styrofoam and plastic are bad, then give good alternatives, not something that disintegrates or falls apart. And make those products easy to find. Like I said above, if people have to go out of their way, your plan will fail.

Getting back to government, if the question of whether or not a policy is environmentally safe, such as offshore drilling, the don’t just make it a question of whether or not to do it at all, work with the oil companies on finding a way to do it better. Find a way to drill for oil that won’t harm the environment. Give out tax breaks in exchange for success.

Gay rights

It is not the role of government to legislate morality. If for no other reason than practicality. The government should be in the business of protecting personal liberties, not limiting them.

It’s not the government’s place to define marriage in any capacity except a legal one. The gender of a couple has no bearing on any governmental concern. There is no logical argument to be made against that. If you claim to have a right to be protected from things that offend you, then you have a lot to learn about living in a society.

Give gay individuals and gay couples should be afforded the same rights as anyone. Period.

Coming in Part 2

National Security
Immigration Policy
Taxes
The Election Process
Tort Reform
Health Care
Economic Policy

After all, these people have real problems. Why don’t I just suck it up and live with it?

My fellow group members are dealing with issues of abuse, abandonment, divorce… Things I can’t even imagine because I’ve been lucky enough not to have to deal with them.

And what are my issues?

Not being able to enjoy things, a lack of passion, direction, ambition, or hell, even an opinion. Not caring about anything, low self esteem, not knowing what to do with my life…

(Heh. That last one is a real kicker. How many millions of people don’t even have the luxury of being able to choose what to do with their lives?)

Problems? Sure, but they pale in comparison.

Objectively I realize the pitfalls associated with this kind of thinking. I know it’s just a way to talk myself out of going. So I do suck it up, but instead of quitting, I live up to the obligations I’ve made to myself. That doesn’t stop me from thinking the way I do, but the thoughts don’t control me, and I take pride in defying them.

It really doesn’t make sense, though. Someone with a minor ache or pain doesn’t think about denying himself treatment just because there are people who are sicker or more seriously injured. But take that malady and turn it into something less tangible, and there I go judging myself.

I’m lucky enough to be in a situation where I can do something to help myself, and I shouldn’t be critical of myself for doing it. But I am critical. I don’t even know if it makes sense, but there it is.

I’ve spent far too many years letting thoughts paralyze me, and this time I’m doing something, even if it’s wrong.

But I know it’s not.

(Right?)

The check cleared today, so I can officially declare that my student loans are now COMPLETELY PAID OFF!

WOO!

1. Get out of debt (except for a car and a house)
2. Lose weight
3. Get “right” in the head

Items 1 and 3 are showing the most progress right now. Working two jobs is helping with Item 1, and meds and therapy are helping with Item 3. Yeah, I haven’t mentioned meds or therapy before, but this seems like as good a time as any. Lately I’m having good luck with being blunt.

(What? There’s stuff I don’t tell you people, ya know. I also dated a woman for about five months last year. I didn’t mention that either. OK, that was mainly because she also read my blog, but still, I tend not to discuss that sort of thing. Anyway…)

So yeah, Items 1 and 3 are underway. I expect Item 1 to be wrapped up in two years or less, and Item 3 will be ongoing for… Probably the rest of my life, but that’s fine so long as progress is made.

Item 2 is a different animal. I had some success a couple of years ago and I’ve maintained that for the most part, but I’m pretty well stuck right now. As you might imagine, Item 3 plays into Item 2 in a big way. Item 3 makes Item 2 harder to accomplish than it already is, but making progress on Item 2 would really help progress on Item 3. I’m trying to figure out what to do, but having messed up so many times makes for difficult strategy.

*sigh* It’s all very tiring.

Anyway, I just wanted to get that out there. It just makes things more tangible for me, ya know?

Off to bed…

My Personality

Neuroticism	67
Extraversion	1
Openness to Experience	8
Agreeableness	41
Conscientiousness	51

There’s not a kind I love or hate in particular. I tend to like rock or alternative, and dislike hip-hop and pop, but really each song is its own case. The only time I tend to hate a song is if I hear it too much, or too loudly, or both. I will occasionally crank up the stereo in my car, but more often than not I’m listening to a podcast. I have an iPhone of course, but I get far more use out of it as a phone and internet device than as an iPod. I never had that many CDs in the first place, and the ones I did have I traded in for credit at a used CD/DVD store.

I see so many people that talk about music and live it and breathe it and I just can’t relate. I hate the “which album would you take with you on a desert island” question because I wouldn’t even care if I had an album on a desert island. The last time I was asked that question, I replied “The audiobook version of The Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook.”

Out of all the dating websites I’ve used (and am using) over the years, the overwhelming majority of women want to know what kind of music you listen to, and it has to be this and this or you’re automatically disqualified. I know it’s a shorthand way to get an idea about a person, but it seems like an awful lot of importance to hang on something that, to me, seems fairly trivial. I could understand if we were talking about singers or musicians, but we’re talking about people with real passion for music, yet who barely know which end of a trumpet to blow on.

What else can I say? I don’t get it and can’t. They speak of color to one who is blind. Or sound to one who is deaf, I suppose. Metaphorically speaking of course.

There are less than an album’s worth of songs that have meant anything to me over the years. I suppose I could do a post about that if anybody’s interested.

However, I’ve always privately held the opinion that if anything I said here did scare somebody off, then I was better off without them anyway. But all the same, if I ever found out that I’d cost myself an awesome job with something I said here, well… I just wouldn’t be able to punch myself in the face hard enough to ever make up for it.

At any rate, I’ve been thinking about loosening up lately, and recent events have led me to think that it’s not a terrible idea.

What do you think?