Posts

Note from Mike: I didn't write this post, although I do wish I had. This was sent to me by a friend who has to remain anonymous for professional reasons. I am posting it here with his permission, and I pass along his encouragement to repost, forward or reprint it. If an undecided voter comes to understand the nature of the McCain campaign, his goal in writing it will be met.

This post is licensed under a Creative Commons "Share Alike" license.

I am driven to write this… because I am a huge Barack Obama supporter, and I am dismayed at the direction the election is taking. There is not much I can do, especially living in the solid blue state of New York. So, I am going to lay my arguments out here, and hope that the people I send this out to will keep it going and forward it, so that it reaches undecided voters, or people who are mildly leaning towards McCain/Palin. If I can change one person's mind I'll be pleased. I hope to follow this up with a positive post about Barack Obama.

The Obama campaign's main theme has been to try to link up McCain to Bush, and convince people that a vote for McCain will be a vote for a third Bush term. This theme has run its course, largely because McCain has successfully branded himself as a maverick and co-opted Obama's theme of change. This is not a slam at McCain; it is good campaigning, and any semi-intelligent politician runs on a change platform, at almost any time, because people always want something new. McCain does take on the party orthodoxy occasionally, and has worked with Democrats in the past; his message of change is not merely cynical -- as opposed to the rest of his campaign.

The problem with McCain is that he is using his maverick image and honorable personal story to lay a coat of varnish on a political party that is dysfunctional and dishonest. I am for a Republican Party that is for state's rights, individual freedom, and limited government; that would be an honest contrast to a more activist Democratic party that is more comfortable with progressive taxation, government solutions to societal problems, and social liberalism. This kind of healthy debate would result in compromises and would be roughly complementary to the system of checks and balances created by the authors of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, today's Republican Party is dedicated to the centralization of conservative social policy. Gay rights, abortion rights, and gun owner's rights are not seen as state's issues, or as a matter of civil libertarianism, but instead as grist for conservative federal policy. McCain has espoused state's rights on federalism, not so much on gun owner's rights and abortion rights, and in any event would take the mantle of a party that wants to deprive states from honoring gay marriages, or amplifying abortion rights, or enacting gun bans.

Furthermore, the Republican Party is not for limited government, at least not honestly. Anybody who has studied the federal budget knows that all programs that are designed to help the poor (with the exception of Medicaid), or are the most provincial earmarks, or fund federal programs, could be cut in their entirety, and they would not balance the budget. The budget for defense spending, health care spending, veteran's spending, Social Security, and financing the federal debt are big enough to shove all other programs enacted by either party to the margins. Yet, since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have raised their right fists and railed against government spending, while cutting more checks and piling up deficit spending with their left hands.

This is the party that John McCain represents. Even if you credit every word of John McCain's clarion calls for change and reform, he is still going to be working with all of the Republicans that have been in Washington for decades. Bush has hired thousands of Republicans to work in his administration and his presidency has ushered in an increased Republican presence, if not dominance, in K Street lobbying firms. If McCain were elected, does anybody really think that all those hires and lobbyists would be replaced? McCain might believe in reforming the Republican party, but he would be a one man campaign against most of the people who worked for him; he'd be the CEO of Coke who decided that his company really should embrace purified tap water.

Nowhere is the dichotomy between a man who represents honor and a devalued party that represents incompetence more on display than the McCain campaign. While his increasingly limited positive campaigning revolves around his iconoclastic persona and a call for reform, his rampant and deceitful negative campaigning, and his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, hearken back to the two biggest problems with the Bush Presidency and the current Republican Party - dishonesty, and cronyism.

First, dishonesty. President Bush, or rather, the neoconservatives who had the largest voices in his first term, lied to the American people to lead us into war in Iraq. The conflation of Al Qaida and Iraq, the dog and pony show at the United Nations, and the selective trumpeting of intelligence, were all lies that led us into war. The neoconservative belief that the U.S. should pro-actively use its military might to enforce democracy, and thereby make the world a better and safer place, is not a bad agenda, it's just one that a majority of Americans didn't (and still don't) believe in. So the Iraq war had to be disguised as a jingoistic response to September 11, 2001, and a search for weapons of mass destruction that likely never existed. If thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians are going to die for a cause, it should be for one that is forthrightly put on the table, not one that is grudgingly admitted after the media belatedly ferreted out the lies. The Republican brand has become synonymous with deceit, and McCain has embraced that in his campaign:

Barack Obama voted for teaching kindergartners to be wary of strangers who want to touch them inappropriately. McCain accuses him of wanting to teach 6 year olds about sex before the alphabet. That is not spin or "contrast," it is a lie.

Barack Obama voted against an immigration bill, as did John McCain. Putting out a Spanish language commercial slamming Obama for not voting for the bill is so misleading that it is a lie. Here is another example of this, with a defense spending bill.

Barack Obama is proposing a more expansive and progressive tax cut than John McCain; McCain is claiming that the reverse is true, in specific enough ways to make it dishonest. McCain is claiming that Barack Obama wants to have government bureaucrats deny you health care -- a line that might have been appropriate for Hillary Clinton... in 1994, when she was helping her husband come up with a health plan. Against Obama, the line is just a lie.

All politicians spin and distort during campaigns; I'm not naive. But McCain is not only doing so worse than any candidate not named Bush in recent memory, but he is also doing so while simultaneously running as a 'cult of personality' candidate based on honor. If this is how he campaigns, how is he going to govern?

Second, cronyism. The Palin pick has been hailed and derided as many things -- an appeal to disaffected Clinton voters, an attempt to energize the Republican base, a disaster, a McBrilliant masterstroke, etc. Ultimately, whatever one thinks of Palin's politics or her personal story, I think that McCain did "one heck of a job" when he picked Palin.

Let me explain the reference and the comparison. Michael Brown was selected to head FEMA because of personal and political considerations despite an evident lack of qualification. This proved disastrous after Hurricane Katrina, yet Bush, to cover up the fiasco, praised Brown, publicly stating that he was doing a "heck of a job." The same process is true for the selection of Sarah Palin. Yes, the coverage of her has been sensationalistic and at some times sexist, although there is delicious irony in the Republicans suddenly becoming strident feminists. Yes, her reputation as a "Barracuda," her possible neglect of her home life, and her quest for earmarks and subsequent denunciation of them make her no different than most politicians, male or female.

But these criticisms are mere distractions to the real problem with her selection -- she is not qualified for the office. It doesn't matter that she has executive experience; what matters is her knowledge and mastery of national and international policy. She has been the governor of a state so unlike the rest of the United States -- it is vast yet has a tiny population, it is geographically isolated from other states, it is awash in money because of federal subsidies and because of, not despite, high oil prices -- that her executive experience will simply not translate to Washington, D.C. Governor Reagan was governor of a state with a larger economy than most countries. Governor Clinton led a small state, but a small state whose problems mirrored the nation's -- racial strife, educational difficulties, transitioning to a post-industrial economy. Unlike either Reagan or Bill Clinton, Governor Palin has no articulated vision of the place of the United States in the world. Her only public statements about foreign policy have either mirrored John McCain's or been false bravado (although the difference between the two has been diminishing) in stating that she would be prepared to declare war on Russia. If Palin had more than a boilerplate vision of the proper role of government, or a theory of the United States' place in the world, don't you think the Republicans would have put it out there, instead of more jokes -- and feigned shock -- about animals that wear lipstick?

But what's worse than Palin's inexperience is the Republicans' frantic declamations to the contrary. Hopefully, you've seen Jon Stewart's dissection of Republican hypocrisy, showing Karl Rove extolling Sarah Palin because of her being the mayor of a small town and then the governor of a state for a short while, and then slamming the potential selection of Tim Kaine as Obama's running mate for the exact same qualifications. She falsely claimed to have been to Iraq, and now quietly admitted that she has not. And John McCain now blathers that she knows more about energy policy than anyone else in the US, despite the bald ridiculousness of that statement (especially when both McCain and Palin are wildly off-base about how much of the US energy supply comes from Alaska, it's clear that she's taking her talking points in the area of her purported "expertise" right from her campaign handlers).

Finally, Republicans are now claiming that energy policy is really about national security. It reminds me of Bush in 2004, responding to questions about job training with discussions of his education policy. "Energy policy is really about national security" is this year's "No Child Left Behind is really a jobs program." Sure the two topics are somewhat related, but they both confuse part with whole. [Alleged] knowledge of energy policy is a necessary component of, not a substitute for, mastery of foreign policy. Instead of admitting that they hired someone based on political expedience, the Republicans -- with McCain as the head cheerleader -- are defending her selection with indefensible reasoning.

If McCain is so in thrall to the right wing of his party, who will he choose as his Attorney General? For federal judicial appointments? I don't know how he can be trusted in this regard anymore. He could have made a politically efficacious pick along the same lines by picking Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is as conservative as Palin but much more experienced, or Olympia Snowe, or Christine Todd Whitman, who are more moderate and more experienced.

So, please don't vote for McCain. The two things he has most control over as a presidential candidate -- the tenor of his campaign, and the selection of a running mate (or as he has freakily called her, a running soulmate) -- are contrary to his claims to be a political maverick, and are nasty echos of the Republican politics of the last 8 years. McCain is not running for third Bush term, even if he has given Bush big bear hugs. But he is running for a third term of deceit and cronyism.

Dweeby but cozy.

Professor Michael Schüring of Berkeley :-) was kind enough to show me around on Sunday -- much appreciated!

No fog. Wacky.

What song do you wish would never show up on a karaoke list?

Oh, man... Probably "I've Never Been To Me."

When we do karaoke (preferably at least annually for Heidi's birthday) we often get too loud too early, blowing out the voices with "Heaven On Their Minds." You cannot do that without warming up.

I sent this to our local parenting d-lists today...

Since this comes up often on-list, I wanted to briefly share our passport application experience for our girls, recently (successfully) completed. Much of this info can be gleaned from the State Department page on children's passports at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/minors/minors_834.html -- but there are some gotchas to avoid.

First, the good news: despite the estimated three-month backlog, the two passports we applied for on Saturday Sept. 1 -- no rush or expediting, just a standard application -- arrived back at our post office on Monday Sept. 17. This is not to say that your process will be as fast, but it does indicate that some of the crunch has been relieved. You should still apply for a passport at least six months in advance of any overseas travel plans, if you possibly can... this early prep will do wonders for your stress level. (We're not going anywhere until next summer, and this is an extremely uncharacteristic burst of organizational energy for us. :-)

Now, the tricky bits. We applied at our local post office (Bay Ridge Station, 54th and 7th Ave) and had to make a return visit due to poor preparation on our end, so hopefully you can learn from our errors. Post offices vary in terms of the hours they accept passport applications, and I recommend arriving at the beginning of a shift to avoid long waits in line.

First, it's a family outing. Not only does the minor applicant (the kid/s) have to appear in person, but all parents or legal guardians have to be present as well. If a parent is not present you'll need a notarized form DS-3053 (http://travel.state.gov/passport/forms/ds3053/ds3053_846.html) to grant permission for the passport application. Single parents must provide evidence of authority to apply, and the acceptable items are listed on the webpage. In general it is much easier if everyone is present in person. Be sure to bring appropriate ID, proof of citizenship and documentation for all participants. If you have a current passport, that's good ID/proof for a parent. Foreign-born parents who are now US citizens may want to bring naturalization paperwork as well.

Second, don't assume the instructions are optional. We had paper copies of the passport application for reference, but we filled in applications online (from http://travel.state.gov/passport/forms/forms_847.html) and printed those out. Unfortunately we only brought the "relevant" pages with us to the post office -- the pages with the actual application info, not the instructions/'your legal rights' pages -- and even though we had copies of the paper forms, if you print out the online application, you must bring all the printed pages with you to the post office. Although the website indicates pages 1-4 (out of six) must come with you, don't take the chance of getting a passport processor who doesn't know the exact rules; bring 'em all. (This cost us a day and a return trip to the post office, along with the next gotcha...)

Third, measure your pictures. We took digital pictures of the kids (fine) and printed them out on photo paper on our HP inkjet printer (also generally fine). The rules are very specific, though -- you need two copies of the same picture, and they must be exactly in spec (2x2", precise head size, etc.). One of our pictures was a wee bit too small... and there you have the second part of our one-day delay. Check the pictures against the template on the applications and also against a ruler.

Fourth, you can't waltz in and pick them up. When our two girls' passports had arrived, Heidi went to pick them up with the postal slips in hand. The post office would not release the passports without seeing the girls' social security cards, to prove that we were the proper recipients of the passports. I imagine you could bring the kids along to pick up the passports and match them to the photographs as well, but we didn't try that.

I hope this provides some help. Good luck!

When was the last time you made a drastic change to your personal style (i.e., wardrobe, hairstyle, etc.)? What did you do? 
Submitted by miyna. 

This past Friday; I cut off almost all my hair.

Our Sarbanes-Oxley auditor glanced at his watch late Friday afternoon and said "I'd like to get out of here in time to go down to Astor Place and get my hair cut." I thought that was such a good idea that I went myself, and after a weekful of 18-hour days I was too tired to think about what kind of haircut I'd want. I just knew I needed a haircut, really badly.

When my barber asked "So, what we doing today?" I told him "#4, all over"  -- something I've only done once or twice before in my personal-grooming history. The result is an extremely short, military-looking cut that has deeply divided fans & detractors in the family and workplace. Personally, I like it, although it itches a bit and it's pretty thin on top. Lots of colleagues like it (some feel the urge to rub my head), at least one person doesn't think much of it and has told me so.

My kids both like it -- they were away all week, and when I came home Friday night the first thing the two-year-old said was "Hi Daddy, I like your haircut!" Unfortunately, my wife is firmly in the "AAAGH!" column, believing that a proper haircut must grow out gracefully (and must cost more than $12).

We've been struggling a bit with our new Vonage service: dropped calls, and hiccups where one person could not hear the other, have been pretty frequent (and frustrating). Aside from some ongoing issues with our cable modem, it seemed like the call problems kept coming even when the ISP connection was fine.

Today I switched things around so that instead of the original configuration:

Earthlink cable modem --> Netgear WGR614v6 router --> Vonage Motorola VoIP gateway

we now have this:

cable modem --> Vonage gateway --> Netgear router

and call quality seems to be much better. I was concerned that having both the gateway and the router doing NAT might give my connection the wiggins, but so far no such problems. While mucking about in the Netgear, though, I noticed I was due for a firmware update. Result? Prior to the new firmware I was getting between 4 and 5 megabit download speeds -- extremely respectable. After the firmware update...

Wow. A 2x improvement in download speed. Not too shabby.