Mobile Capitol

Wow - aren't I the prolific writer. A post every 7 months isn't that bad, is it?

Today I was thinking that it would be useful for a country to have a mobile capitol. Or, perhaps more accurately a rotating capitol.

It wasn't practical at the time our capitol was set up, of course. By the time everyone got word that they were supposed to meet in Maryland instead of Delaware this year, they would already have needed to be there a month ago.

However, now, you can call/IM/fax/text/etc and within 6 hours a person can fly from anywhere in the country to anywhere else in the country (with the exceptions of Alaska and Hawaii, sorry guys).

What if, instead of having a fixed capitol we had a rotating capitol? This 4 years it's in Houston. Next 4 years it's in Fargo. Then it's in Kansas City. Then Los Angeles. Every one of these places have empty office spaces that can be rented for 4 years while Congress conducts its business.

The advantages, as I see it, are that our leaders will no longer be able to get comfortable in a single place or way of thinking. D.C. has become it's own gigantic thing with the entire city focusing on feeding (and feeding off of) the government that meets there. Long time politicians will no longer be able to ignore 'flyover' country or other areas that aren't their cup of tea because they may be living there in a few years.

Of course, there are drawbacks. Security for one. D.C. is used to being the capitol and an entire security mechanism is built up. If they moved the capitol around, new security procedures would have to be put into place. The 'little people' would also have to deal with the politicians more often. Sometimes it's nice that I only have to worry about seeing them on T.V. (and that can always be turned off).

Obviously this is the seed of an idea and not a fully formed plan. Still, I think it's worth considering.

I've Never Cared for Tea

I took the time this past Wednesday April 15th (well, it was 'this past Wednesday' when I first started this post) to participate in a Tax Day Tea Party held on the pier in Santa Monica. Santa Monica, affectionately known as "The People's Republic of Santa Monica" in Conservative circles is not well-known for having a large population of small government fiscal conservatives. Really, it's not known for having many conservatives at all, due to the 'friendliness' of the local variety of 'progressive' that thinks that vandalism of your car is an appropriate response to a McCain/Palin bumper sticker and that getting you fired is the best way to deal with your support for something like Proposition 8 that they disagree with. Top that off with the unseasonably cold weather (only 68 degrees!) and the ridiculously strong wind (about 20 knots) I did not expect to see much of a turnout. Given the circumstances, I was pleasantly surprised that 300-400 folks showed up to protest the way our politicians (of all stripes) squander our money.This protest didn't seem to be as well organized as some of the other ones that people I know attended. There was no one scheduled to give a speech. Things certainly weren't being planned or directed from anyone on high. The main organizer was a guy whose big issue is getting rid of the Federal Reserve. His big organizational tool was the website MeetUp.com. I only found out about the Santa Monica protest by doing a specific Google search for "tax day tea party protest santa monica". Beyond the MeetUp.com posting, there was no advertising or press regarding the protest. I'm sure this depressed the attendance a bit as only people already aware of the protests were going to do such a specific search to find one near them. The reality of the lack of organization involved makes it especially funny every time I read a writeup about the Tea Parties that mentions how they are centrally organized and funded by 'right-wing billionaires'. I've yet to figure out if the people saying those things truly believe what they are saying or if it is simply a tactic they are using to discredit the movement (small as it is) regardless of whether or not what they are saying is true.

I had trouble deciding which statement I most wanted to make, so, I ended up making three signs for the event. I figured that there would be people there that hadn't brought signs and I could give my other two to them. The first sign I made (and the one I carried during the event) said "Justice? 20% of Earners PAY 80% of Taxes". For quite some time, the people in this country that are for wealth redistribution have couched their rhetoric in terms of "Social Justice". Fiscal conservatives (yes, in spite of the GOP's out of control spending the past 8 years, fiscal conservatives do still exist), Libertarians and other people that believe in property rights have allowed them to make the 'higher moral ground' argument while we are stuck with less sexy (but, I believe, more well founded) arguments based around property rights and whether or not handouts have the effect that the people inacting them intended. I'd like to see Conservatives begin to fight back directly against that "high moral ground" argument as I don't think there's any justice in taking the fruits of one man's labor to give it to another man. Where I come from, that sort of thing is called stealing. Unfortunately, I don't think my sign did the best job of getting that message across, still, for a first attempt, I'm not too unhappy with it.

My other two signs were a bit more straight forward. One said, "My Congressman Went to DC and All I Got was Crushing Debt". It is meant to mimic those "Somebody who loves me went to [some fun place] and Got Me this Shirt" t-shirts that people are always buying for children. My other sign got a lot of comments (passed alo ng to me by the guy that ended up holding it). It said, "Congress I am NOT your ATM". I chose to focus on Congress quite simply because they are the ones that make tax laws as well as spending bills. While the President does submit a desired budget, it's Congress' duty to decide how tax money will and won't be spent and how that tax money will be collected (a flat tax for everyone, a nationwide sales tax, a graduated tax with a high rate of 10%, a graduated tax with a high rate of 39%, etc). Of course, a President can veto a spending bill, but it seems to be a rare thing for that to ever happen and I don't see the point in taking President Obama to task for something other Presidents rarely do. Would it be great to see him decide that deeper debt is not the solution to a problem created by debt? Absolutely! But, ultimately, it's Congress that makes the call and Congress that needs to be held accountable for the mess they've created.

We did have some party crashers show up. Four ladies from code pink arrived in a bubblegum pink PT Cruiser (sorry, Mom, your car is still cool). For all of you out there with that sick feeling in the pits of your stomachs, you (and your dinners) can rest easy - they kept their shirts on the whole time. They came and stood directly next to me with a sign made of a pink sheet with black electrical tape which said "Human Needs Not Corporate Greed". I'm not sure what it is about the fair children of the 60's, but, they seem to think that a slogan just isn't a slogan unless it rhymes. That's not entirely true, they do have 'Make Love, Not War". I suppose the formula is a slogan must either rhyme or promote sex in some fashion. In any case, they tried to crowd me out but I was in a fightin' mood so I stepped back in front of them (as did the other woman the were crowding). A man in a business suit attempted to engage them in a dialogue but it was fairly clear that he was too agitated at them because of who they were and they were too interested in yelling at him for money being spent on the wars for any actu al discussion to take place. Whether or not it was intentional, they had brought the 'seeds of discontent' with them and were turning an otherwise jovial atmosphere into a frustrated atmosphere. I was a bit annoyed at them for this and my cattiness got the best of me (being sweet is not something those who know me have ever accused me of) and I told the man, "Sir, I wouldn't worry about them too much. They're just feeling left out because no one comes to their protests anymore so now they've got to crash ours." It certainly wasn't a nice thing to say, but, it did seem to stop the argument and we went back to waving signs at the passing cars. The Code Pink ladies were no longer getting attention in our group, so they moved on. You can tell how serious they were about trying to get their message out there (as opposed to getting more air time) since they moved across the street and set up right in front of the TV crew vans....with their banners pointed AWAY from the street....towards the vans. *sigh* You can sort of make them out in the photo to the right of the white van....a little splash of pink. Well, we may not be as media savvy as them, but we certainly weren't going to give them free reign to frame our protest the way they chose, so, within minutes, that corner was also filled with Tea Partiers. For a while I was feeling a bit bad about that...I thought, if they're really interested in protesting taxes, regardless of their thoughts on other items, that's something we can agree on. Then I remembered that, on their own website, they called for Code Pink members to "crash" the Tea Party in Santa Monica because the parties were "all about getting less funding for government. Let’s show up with a better message: STOP funding wars and Wall Street, and start funding the needs of the people– health care, education, and a green economy. Join us as we crash their party." In other words, they weren't with us on this one either. They don't want lower taxes and less government spending...they want the same or more money to be spent, just on different things. I hope I'm not the only one that finds it at least a bit funny that one of the things they were upset abou t was spending on Defense considering that's one of the few things that the Federal government spends money on that is Constitutionally mandated to the Feds. I'm sure that a savvier Code Pink member would bust out the General Welfare clause and use it to justify government spending on pretty much any and every social program they can dream up. However, given that the Founders specifically rebutted that interpretation of the General Welfare clause in the Federalist Papers, I think it's safe to say that it was not intended for those purposes.

As for the rest of the protest, well, you can tell that we were an un ruly mob by looking at the photo of the concerned police officers. The main thing they had to do was remind people to stay on the sidewalk. Occasionally, someone would step off the sidewalk into the bus lane in order to take pictures, but, a friendly reminder from the cops and everything was once again on the up and up. As I mentioned above, my tea party was fairly easy going. Most of the people driving by either ignored us or honked in support. I know that there's a joke about people always thinking that folks honking are honking in support rather than honking because they think you're an idiot, and, I can't say for certain they were supporting us, but, they were also grinning, waving, and giving us thumbs up, so, I'm fairly certain most of them were on our side. Hopefully next time they'll be at our side rather than just on our side! Not everyone who drove by approved, of course. We did get flipped off by one old black woman and two middle aged white women. One chick in her mid-twenties, covered in peircings and wearing lots of black eye liner so you know she was emotional and 'deep' did feel the need to yell "F^#K all of you! I hope you all....." I don't know what the end of that thought was because the light turned green right as she started screaming and the guy driving took off asap. One thing I learned is that men (at least the men that were driving by) seemed to be much more tolerant (or at least able to stifle their anger) than the women driving by. Not a single man yelled or gestured in anger though I'm sure there were plenty that drove by that disagreed. Speaking of men, one Gary Busey drove by in a Lexus honking and giving us the thumbs up sign. I don't know if he hates taxes or loves parties (or both), but it was nice to see his big toothy grin flashing in our direction. If you've got Gary Busey on your side....well....you've got the biggest teeth in show business on your side. And, in show business, that's all you need.

All in all, it was a good experience, but, I don't think it accomplished much. This is not to say that it doesn't have the potential to accomplish more, but, right now, I think the result has been more street theater than anything else. Here's what I'd like to see happen:

1) Unify around a single issue - I'm not saying the tax issue doesn't have multiple facets that you can bring out in the protest, but, I am saying that the side issues need to be left to a different forum for now. I get that you think the Federal Reserve was created by Satan. I agree with you that abortion is murder. I don't think a lot of Obama's decisions are that great either. Guess what?!? Tea Parties aren't the place for it. Focus on the amount of money Congress is spending, what they're spending it on and whether or not that is something the government should be spending money on in the first place. Everything else is just a distraction.

2) Have a plan - occasional protests are nice, but, they aren't going to affect any change. This may not have been the case at other Tea Parties, but, at least at the one in Santa Monica, no one really seemed to have a plan for what to do next. The people involved should focus on local issues and candidates as that's where you have the opportunity to have the greatest impact. We can't say that we believe in Federalism and then ignore every election except the one for President. Run for offices like City Council and School Board Member. Find and support candidates for State Legislatures that share your fiscal outlooks. These people serving in the local offices are gaining experience to serve in state/nationwide offices in the coming years. If we get fiscal conservatives elected locally, we'll have a larger group of experienced fiscal conservatives to run nationally.

3) I don't really have a three, but, I don't like lists of two.

Friday Grab Bag

A couple night ago, I had a dream about President Obama. Not the creepy dreams that the middle-aged women are having about him leaving his wife and hooking up with them. It was actually a hybrid of a work dream and an Obama dream.

In the dream, it was the present time and I was at work talking to my boss. I told him that I had a vague memory that we had interviewed Obama for a job a few months earlier and I asked him if it really happened. He said that we had indeed interviewed him for an account manager position back in September. I was extremely confused at this since the guy was running for president at the time, it seemed unlikely that he'd be trying to get a job at our company. My boss agreed that it didn't really make sense and said that he hadn't been a good fit for the job, so it's a good thing he won the election.

When I woke up, it still seemed so real that I was a bit confused. I knew that it was completely ridiculous to think he took time off from the campaign to apply for a job in SEM, but it still seemed real. Then my head cleared up and I realized it was all just a dream.

----------------------------

There is a controversy brewing over the upcoming Disney cartoon "The Princess and the Frog". The cartoon features Disney's first black princess (Princess Tiana) but, apparently, the prince (Prince Naveen) isn't dark enough to please the masses. Many people are complaining that he's white (I guess, for these people, mixed race couples are a bad thing). I personally think he looks more olive-skinned/middle eastern.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1162718/Disney-feature-black-princess--critics-complain-falls-love-WHITE-prince.html

It might seem like they're just hopping on the whole "First African-American President" bandwagon (and the article does make it seem that way), but, Disney animated films are planned years in advance. They began this one in 2006 which wasn't exactly pre-Obama but was during the time that a Hillary Clinton presidency was considered inevitable. If they were pandering, they'd have done "The first Disney princess that only wears pant suits".

----------------------------------

I haven't watched television in about 2 weeks.

Normally this would be a good thing. In this case though, it's because I signed up for Netflix. We were spending more per month on movie rentals than what Netflix costs, so we figured we might as well try it. What's killing us is the older t.v. shows and movies that we can instantly stream.

I've spent the last couple weeks watching Season 1 of Dead Like me and catching up on Discovery Channel specials like "Engineering an Empire". It's been great.

On the other hand, I miss the fact that we watched less t.v. when the picture was all blurry.

I was reading an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/world/europe/11castrate.html?pagewanted=all) about a debate currently happening in Europe regarding castration for sexual predators and came across the following quote:

Whether castration can help rehabilitate violent sex offenders has come under new scrutiny after the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee last month called surgical castration “invasive, irreversible and mutilating” and demanded that the Czech Republic stop offering the procedure to violent sex offenders. Other critics said that castration threatened to lead society down a dangerous road toward eugenics.

I wonder if the Council of Europe's anti-torture committee considers voluntary sex changes to be "invasive, irreversible and mutilating" as well? I won't even touch the inherent contradiction in their fear that voluntary castration can lead to eugenics at the same time that they embrace abortion as a "reproductive right".