I Can Barely Remember to Signal

Linked above is a New York Times article about an "emotional" car invented by four Toyota employees.  The car, through designs to its appearance, would be able to "show" emotion. It would have varying colors of light through the headlights, as well as eyebrows and eyelids. It would even be able to lower itself and turn red, as though growling in anger.

This seems like an interesting idea, but not necessarily something I would want my car to do. Isn't it too much perceptible emotion that makes driving a bit intimidating?  I'm afraid enough that someone is going to give me the finger for driving poorly -- there's no telling what I would do if someone's Celica began running me down.

From my reading of the article, it seems as though the emotions are not operator-controlled. For example, I couldn't flip the emotion switch to "delighted" the way I switch the blower switch to "defrost." Rather, the car builds up "points" based on stimuli that come from driving. I can see how fast starts, stops, and turns, could make the car develop angry points, but what are the stimuli to make it happy? The car can't know if another car is yielding. Or if . . . or is that the only nice thing someone else in a car can do for you from within their own space? Maybe that's the problem. Perhaps we don't have enough nice ways for our cars to interact. I'm sure there's a lesson for us in there.

Weekend Arts: Robert Kurson, author of Shadow Divers

Thursday night I went to list to a presentation at Unity Temple by Robert Kurson, the author of Shadow Divers, a recent release documenting the discovery of heretofore unknown German U-boat, sunk 60 mile off the coast of New Jersey.

Mr. Kurson began his speech saying how when he was an law school, he thought the law was about stories, but it wound up being about procedures. So, he left his firm and became a writer. That struck close to home, so I started listening. Mr. Kurson is, indeed, a fine storyteller. He is a large man, physically, and has a dominating presence, but a relatively soft voice. The two combine well for him, generating a dynamic nature for his speech. The stories he told about the wreck and the divers who probed it were engaging -- I hope that they reflect a similar spirit in the book (which I have yet to read, although my wife is devouring it).

Beyond the stories, though, Mr. Kurson got a little excited about his work.  The story had been told previously in television specials, he explained, but he feels his book is different. The specials are about the wreck; his book is about the people. Thank goodness. The people. He can be blamed, though, for a little self-importance. I would much rather read something by an author who passionately believes what he is writing than one who has a jaded view. Mr. Kurson clearly is fascinated by his topic (the boat as well as the people), and if he work reflects half of this fascination, it should be an engaging read.

 

The Phantom Pollbooth

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup/Starbuck's/Gap/McDonald's poll released yesterday says Kerry is entering the Democratic nation convention pretty much tied with George Bush.  However, this poll, like so many others, reflects the popular vote, and as we all know popular votes don't win presidential elections.  If you don't believe me, ask President Gore.

Taken to it's broadest exaggeration, 50% of the people polled may be voting for Kerry, but suppose that they are distributed such 49% of each state has Kerry supporters, with the exception of one state which has 99% Kerry supporters.  Kerry would win a handful of electoral votes with the vast majority going to Bush.  (generally -- Maine and Nebraska use modified systems to determine their electoral votes)

Prior to the 2000 election, modern politics had little need to notice the difference between popular vote and the electoral college. But with that tight race, and the close race that 2004 is shaping up to be, popular polls based on how 100 average Americans are likely to vote are virtually meaningless. It's close? Thank for the journalism!

The linked poll, by the way, was of 1000 respondents, fewer than 800 of whom identified themselves as likely voters. Why would one count the non-voters' responses?  It seems to me that a more effective tool -- especially for organizations with the resources of CNN, USA Today, and Gallup, would to be to take a slightly larger sample, and apply it to the electoral votes available in each state. It would be a little more complicated, but it would also be a little less . . . you know . . . pointless.

15 Print "Or Ability to Program"

Having started the SBC tale, I feel obliged to finish it. Sadly, it is not a tale of redemption for the corporation.

Yesterday (Thursday) morning I called the house, and the phone line was working. "Great," I though. "They've come out and fixed the problem." But a few minutes later I received a message on my cell phone from SBC saying that they would come out some time on Friday. Then they left a toll-free number to call if that was a bad time.

Unfortunately, I didn't get that message until after business hours. When I called the number left on message, it asked for the phone number that needed service. Although it no longer needed service, I put in my home phone number. The automated service clicked along, then came with a message saying that the phone line was not in operation (that's the line I was making the call from).  The SBC line then said please hold, they were transferring me to another line.  The other line said that I had called after business hours, please call back. Or, I could press "1" to talk to an after-hours operator. An operator! I was thrilled!  Finally I was able to speak to a real person and tell them that the problem had been solved. But, the "after-hours operator" was nothing more than a message restating business hours. Extremely helpful.

So, I sent an e-mail telling them not to bother to come out. By this morning they had responded that the service call had been cancelled.  

So, this gets me thinking . . . have they implemented a system whereby service for the phone lines is beyond horrible? Because it isn't the people doing the service that's a problem, its the people who have programmed the voice mail / phone answering system. Which, you would think, would be something SBC would excel at. But maybe there's no money in phones. Maybe they're just trying to get everyone to do everything by e-mail. Truly, I could live with that.

I Can't Even Play 78's Anymore

The Department of Health and Human Service is starting its drive to have all medical records available in an electronic format, and having such records accessible from anywhere. At first blush, this seems like a reasonable and positive use of technology.  However, I think there are some grave concerns associated with this process.

First of all, I should offer a little background on me. I work in a law firm that has a lot of paper. E-mails are printed and filed, and pretty much everything we do is reflected in written correspondence that is copied and filed. Lots of law firms (and probably even more solo practitioners) have moved to (almost) paper-free offices, but we aren't one of them.  I often wish we would do more, but so far .  .  . not so much.

The doctor I see more often than any other is an endocrinologist I see for my diabetes.  He is living the paper-free life.  He comes in with a PDA, takes notes, checks on me, uses drop-down menus for my prescriptions, and -- from the PDA -- faxes the prescriptions to my pharmacist very cool.

It seems to me, though, that making all medical records available in a consistent format is next-to-impossible, especially if you want to go back and digitize legacy files from decades past.  Obviously, it would be too time-consuming to analyze the contents of the record, and then keystroke its contents into a database. So, scanning the images is probably what would happen.  Some kind of image file would also be necessary for nontext documents (X-rays, MRIs, etc.) But image files would also be the least efficient method for inputting contemporary records. Most notes are dictated to some kind of text file anymore, and pharmacological and treatment records might do well in a format that uses treatment codes, drop-down menus . . . whatever -- some method that reuses those treatments and terms that are repeated over and over.

At the very least, then, we have two formats (images and text) and we probably have three -- a legacy image format, a primary text format, and an image format that coordinates neatly with the text records.  And that assumes that every single medical provider is financially able to change whatever method (computerized or otherwise) that they currently use into a method that facilitates the new format.

My other concern is about the tension between access and privacy.  Currently, each of us in theory has control over our own medical records -- HIPAA has reinforced this. Our medical providers maintain the records that they generate and act as a gatekeeper exclusively for those records.  If someone requests those records, they have to have some indicia of my desire to do so -- generally the patient's signature on request. However, once a database exists with access to all of my medical records, it gets a little more complicated. 

Is it possible for me to release a portion of my medical records to a current provider without releasing all of them? Perhaps I don't want my dentist to know about some rash I had in an unpleasant area.  And do all providers automatically have all access to all of my records?  One option would be to have each patient have a personal passcode that releases their information. But that seems mighty unwieldy, and when issued by Health and Human Service, seems a lot like a national I.D. card.  And it certainly wouldn't be practical in an emergency situation when I am unable to give my own passcode. 

Without such a passcode, it seems like we have to rely on the trust of doctors. Perhaps every doctor. "I pledge not to access your medical information unless you request it or there is an emergency." And that's basically the system we have now.  We trust medical providers to maintain our confidential files.  BUT under the current system, they only have access to the files of their patients, and only those files which have been requested for or generated by that specific office.  With a central database without the control of (I believe unworkable) passwords, then every medical provider has access to every medical record. That seems like a lot of trust to be spreading around.

The goal is good, but it seems impossible. I will be extremely impressed if it proves doable.

What Will One Dunk in It?

Click on the title for CNN's report about Krispy Kreme's new drinkable donut beverages.  At first I was really sort of disgusted by the entire concept. If you know me, that may surprise. I firmly believe that there is no such thing as a bad donut. Although Krispy Kreme's are not my favorite, as a friend once said, I didn't get this shape from being picky.

But, the more I think about it, the more I've decided that it could be great, or it could be horrible depending on the type of base beverage. If it's a water-and-ice based thing, its bound to suck. Any good taste will be diluted by the water and you might as well just have the last 3 ounces of backwash from a vanilla latte.

However, it is a milk-type product, it will be excellent. Trust me, if you make a milkshake with a few dozen donut holes thrown in for good measure, it will definitely be worth it. A little extravagant, perhaps, like a deep-fried twinkie, but welcome to the consumer culture.

One final quick note -- as you might guess from the above, I'm not really a nutrition label follower.  But these numbers are really astounding: 22g carbs for a glazed donut; 70g carbs for the 12 oz. drink variation of the same.  And for the 20-oz. version of the Double Chocolate drink? 160g of carbs. Decadent.  I'm not a businessman, but it seems to me that the new-product division of Krispy Kreme that is releasing these things needs to be talking to the financial division of Krispy Kreme that says the low-carb craze is eating into its profits.

They Probably Aren't Very Good Shoes

Moveon.org and Common Cause recently wrote a letter petitioning the FTC to investigate Fox News's use of the term "Fair and Balanced" to refer to itself. Their original letter is here and provides a pretty intense legal analysis of the situation.  Yesterday, the FTC released the following brief statement from the Chairman, responding to the request:

I am not aware of any instance in which the Federal Trade Commission has investigated the slogan of a news organization. There is no way to evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency.

Of course, this is a pretty specious argument. It may be that the FTC has not investigated a news slogan, but perhaps no news outlet has so blatantly advertised that it is something when it is so clearly not that something.

The statement further suggests that it would be unable to address the slogan without analyzing the content (no question there), but that the First Amendment will not allow them to (not so clear cut).  I mean, that doesn't really make any sense, does it? Any false advertising claim requires an analysis of what the product offered actually is, unless it's some kind of blatant a priori assertion: "The consumption of Kibblings makes four and four equal nine!" The First Amendment bars the elimination of free speech (generally, although not false commercial speech); it doesn't bar the analysis of free speech.

I can understand an argument that would say that "fair and balanced" is an iffy standard, and can't really be determined to be false in the objective way that "Shoes - $12.95" can be.  But this isn't the analysis presented. Chairman Timothy Muris says that the FTC can't analyze the content of the speech. Ludicrous.

I don't suppose this should be surprising. Clearly, the initial petition was a political act, and so, it seems, is the response (from a Bush appointee, 140-ish days from an election). But the two acts don't balance out. Moveon.org's petition was grounded in fact and law. Even if the timing is political, the accusations are accurate and at least deserve a review. Muris's response is facially inaccurate and is a black mark on the face of a government agency that should be acting to earn respect.

How else could I read Ziggy from my desk?

The internet is a charming little fad, and far be it from me to promote its use for evil.  However, I think it is academically interesting to note www.bugmenot.com, a site set up to circumvent registration requirements for free internet sources.  You go to the site, put in a website that requires registration, and bugmenot returns an active account and password (in theory).

Ethically questionable? Sure. I think the rationalization behind it is that information wants to be free, and that having to give up your annual income to read an iffy column seems like a bum trade.  So, you have the site. Deal with your morals on your own.

On another note, I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the Kansas City Star's website (www.kcstar.com) progression over the past few years.  As I recall, you used to be able to (without a login) access pretty much years worth of back-issue information for free. It was a nice service, well-run. Now, however, to access the last 7 days, you have to fill in a relatively extensive user profile. Articles from more than a week ago cost real cash. 

The free login wouldn't be such a bad deal if they actually had a good website. Unfortunately, it's chock full o' delayed, outdated, and misdirected links. I think if they want me to give up information, they should actually provide the service they promise. Check out Pitch's take on the issue at this link: http://www.pitch.com/issues/2003-10-23/strip.html.

Where Be Your Roller Skates Now?

Linda Ronstadt was removed from The Aladdin in Las Vegas for dedicating a song ("Desperado") to Michael Moore (check the CNN link above). Let's break this apart bit-by-bit, shall we?
 
First of all, the actual dedication itself -- what's the point? I understand dedicating a song to a loved one or someone recently deceased, but to a friend (maybe?) who's had good financial and perhaps political success with a documentary? Does she really need to be drumming up business for the man? Did she really think it would help him to let the 4500 people at the show know that she liked his efforts? Curious.
 
And this seems like some really harsh behavior for crowd that, although they might not liked her politics, must have had some desire to hear the woman sing. Patrons "spilled drinks." This to me sounds like it was even unintentional. "Oh, my goodness, who's she dedicating the Eagles song to? Michael wh---? Oh, jeepers, I was so startled I upset my mai tai."
 
But the report also states that patrons tore down posters. This is where it really gets interesting to me.  Linda Ronstadt fans -- not normally, I would guess, prone to riots, were so upset by her words that they took to the destruction of property. I can just imaging the Aladdin Ballroom turning into a raging inferno as 55-gallon drums full of refuse are overturned.
 
Then the article talks about pretty stupid comments from both sides. Ronstadt was quoted as saying earlier that she hoped to be so annoying that she wouldn't be invited back. What sort of financial straits are you in when you want one more Vegas gig, but just ONE! And a statement issued by the Aladdin says "Ms. Ronstadt was hired to entertain the guests of the Aladdin, not to espouse political views." I love the suggestion that these are two concepts whose Venn diagrams never intersect.  "She was there to do music," I imagine Mr Aladdin saying. "There's no politics in music!  Where did that come from?" All music, obviously, has some point of view.  But apparently if its stated obviously (or liberally), it becomes objectionable to the producer.
 
weird, weird, weird.

And I Promise Sophomore Parking!

Last night was the first debate between the primary Democratic candidates for Missouri Governor, current Governor Bob Holden and State Auditor Claire McCaskill. The debate, I have to say, has changed my mind on this race.
 
Prior to last night, I had been a dispassionate Bob Holden supporter. I really felt that he took office at bad time, and had to fight a Republican legislature, and that as a result, he looked like he was a much worse guy than he really is. Although I continue to believe that he is largely a victim of circumstances, I was very disappointed in his presentation and rhetoric in the debate format.
 
He came across as a relatively poor public speaker -- not only in his awkward presentational manner, but in how he chose to deal with the questions addressed to him. He failed to address specific issues regarding his administration and his policy choices, and when asked "why" he would do something, he would cite the circumstances around his action, but not the reasoning behind the choice. It is hard to have faith in a leader who will not justify his actions when given the opportunity.
 
As I often note when I go to restaurants, everyone in almost every arena makes errors. That's humanity. What sets people apart is how you deal with those errors.  If the server forgot to put my entree order in, does he comp my drinks? Does he even apologize? Similarly, with Holden -- after withholding a chunk of state funding for education, voters raised taxes, then Holden found sources from which to supply the previously withheld funds. McCaskill suggested that the funds had been available prior to the election -- why hadn't this been made known. Holden avoided a direct answer, which always makes it seem as though the real answer must have been horrible.
 
Ms. McCaskill now has my favor, but not necessarily my support.  She seemed (as she has before) a bit smarmy.  She was clearly in control of the debate, a much better speaker, with much better questions to ask and with much better sources and figures to back her opinions. Unfortunately, her presentation (and career choices) made her look much more like a lifetime politician rather than a lifetime public servant.  Unfortunately, Holden looked like neither.
 
Perhaps the most significant thing I took away from the debate was its comparison to the debate I had the opportunity to see between 5th district U.S. Congressional candidates Jamie Metzl and Emanuel Cleaver.  Both Metzl and Cleaver came across as political heavyweights, relatively comfortable in a debate format. Cleaver was able to rely on his strong rhetorical skills, while Metzl leaned on his great policy background. Because each had an individual strength that made him comfortable, they were much more animated and complete in what they had to say. Frankly, it made our gubernatorial candidates look like high schoolers running for student body office.
 
On a side note . . . in a debate co-sponsored by KCUR and The Kansas City Star, where was Steve Kraske?

10 Print "No Service"; 20 Goto 10

It is not my goal to air all of my workaday frustrations in this venue, but what the heck . . . who am I not to take advantage of my digital bully pulpit?
 
We are experiencing telephone problems. Ever since a recent blackout from an electrical storm, we have had an incoming telephone line (we deduce -- we just realized it today, but we haven't had any calls go in or out since then). 
 
SBC's website, after having me put my phone number in, informed me that they could be no help, and that I needed to call SBC.  I then called (on my cell) the (allegedly 24-hour) number from the phone book, which (via recording) took my phone number, then told me that, sure enough, the line wasn't working --  I would be transferred to a different number. The different number said that they were closed, so they were transferring me. I was thereupon connected with the first number I called.
 
So, here's the deal -- SBC, whose telephone ads want me to be convinced that they are the solution for my small business (not that I have one), are incapable of creating a voice mail system that offers me a solution to my problem, or even the opportunity to speak to a real person. This the second time I have gotten this type of runaround from SBC in the past year, and I am appalled by SBC's lack of customer service. If you ever have to opportunity to choose to use their services, or to support a competitor, I would highly recommend the competitor.
 
The only reason we keep residential phone service and don't go to cell exclusively is so that we can have a constant land line connected to our security system.  I am rapidly deciding there must be an alternative and I must find it.

Must We Kill the Frog?

The New York Times reports that Democrats are ramping up their legal affiliations in preparation for election challenges like those seen in 2000.  The potential stands for this to be a real monkey wrench in the gears of the national election. Not, specifically, the Democratic preparation, but the general feeling gathering on both sides of the aisle that all parties will have to fight tooth and nail for every vote.
 
The Florida debacle served only to provide America with a glimpse of what could happen, rather than a worst-case scenario. Generally, citizens and politicians tend to have faith in the groups that run the elections and the election process.  We tend to believe that the election boards and officials, if not nonpartisan, are at least aware of the gravity of their position and of its potential for abuse.  Thus, elections that are not extremely close are rarely challenged or recounted.  However, the Florida 2000 situation gave publicity to the fact that election challenges can be a very effective tool for (at the very least) obfuscation of the results.
 
I am not particularly concerned about the hard-core blue or hard-core red states. I think it's likely that those elections with have clear enough definition that there will be neither authority nor need to challenge them. However, the battleground states (including mine, Missouri), are likely to be set upon by immediate challenges, regardless of the named winner. 
 
Faith is a tricky thing.  We think about faith in terms of religion, or in self-perception: faith in God, or faith in our own abilities. But, we also have faith in everyday things.  We have to put faith in those who provide us with the information we can't get ourselves. As students, we have faith that the information in our textbooks is accurate. Most people have faith that established media outlets will tell us the important things we need to know.  We have faith in airlines that when our ticket says "Atlanta" that we will, indeed, arrive in Atlanta. But each of these everyday faiths has an available form of confirmation, whether or not we are aware of it. Books have review boards, media outlets are subjected to watchdog groups, and airlines are subject to a capitalist system that will cease to support them if they aren't accurate.  Religious faith is on the other side of the coin. It provides no confirmation for our beliefs, other than whatever support our religious background provides. I believe in the salvation of Christ primarily because of my feelings, as based on and supplemented by the bible.
 
Up until 2000, faith in the electoral system, like much of our faith in governmental bureaucracies, was somewhere in the between those extremes. Although the majority of Americans assumed that there was a system keeping the elections honest, they weren't particularly aware of what that system was.  This election cycle is likely to provide us with further destruction of that faith, as we are forced to dissect the process to see its complete results.
 

 

Short answer: "No."

I recently overheard the following question asked: "Do you believe that you can pray hard enough that you can change what God has planned?" It’s a really good question, and cuts to the core of beliefs, both in God and in the effectiveness of prayer.

Put shortly, if God is omnipotent and all-loving, then why does tragedy exist in the world? Either He CAN’T change the evil or he CHOOSES not to change the evil, neither of which is a particularly heart-warming proposition. My dad would suggest that we are trying to put human terms around a divine being, and that we can’t really do that. And, ultimately, I think that makes sense. It’s part of the divine mystery of faith. But, as humans, we are given this intellectual capacity, and it certainly can recognize this logical challenge.

In a Christian philosophy class in college, I became pretty comfortable with the concept that God has the capacity to change tragedy or evil in the world, but realizes that to do so would cause a great deal more damage to the world and to his children because interfering with tragedy would inherently cause a disruption in the natural laws He has established, but to which He is not beholden (time, cause-and-effect, and gravity, for example).

"God’s planning" also raises the question of whether He knows what will come in the future. When I bring this up with my wife, she always likes to remind me that – if time is a line – we can only see one point on the line at a time. God sees the whole line. What we perceive as eternity, He can perceive as the present moment. So, I have not doubt that He knows what will come of us and of all of His kingdom. This topic also makes me think of one of the great theological conversations ever had. It was in 11th grade on the football practice field. Kelly Wilson, our quarterback, was asserting that God knew all that was to happen and that it was all preordained. Dave Greenfield, one of our running backs, wanted to know – if that was the case – why we should practice. A fair question. Then and now, I believed and believe that God includes our human abilities and weaknesses in his grand image. He knows what we are capable of, what we will do, and where we will fall.

But, back to the original question – how can prayer affect all of this? I don’t believe we startle or surprise God with our prayers – our praises or our entreaties. Again, our spiritual desires and requests are included in his grand image. By fervently praying, we are fulfilling what He has always known we would do. We are not changing the future, but fitting ourselves into the system that God has known. We have the choice to act – to pray, to think, to believe – as we want to, but God knows and has always know what we will choose.

On a final note, I have always found difficulty (even in these post-Jabez days) in praying for what I want. I don’t mean that "I think it’s wrong to pray for a new car," but rather that even when praying for others ("heal my Mom," "soften my co-worker’s heart") I am asking God to change his plan. But I’m not. My asking is merely fitting into the plan that God has known. Although I need to continue to embrace my preferred prayer: "God, help me accept your will," I also need to realize that a portion of that will is for me to let God know where my heart and my heart’s desire is.

More on politics later.

Abattoir Inspection

The AP reports here that the House of Representatives struck from the record comments made by Florida Representative Connie Brown. Brown was defending the position that the U.N. shouldn’t be barred from observing the U.S. Presidential election in November.

"I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again," Brown said. "Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said, 'Get over it.' No, we're not going to get over it. And we want verification from the world."

Steve Buyer, an Indiana Republican demanded the comments be stricken, and presiding officer Texan Mac Thornberry ruled that there was a violation of the House rules because "members should not accuse other members of committing a crime such as, quote, stealing, end quote, an election." The House then voted along party lines to strike the comments.

First of all, it’s kind of funny that you keep a record, but then get rid of the parts of the records for which you don’t care. If it’s a violation of House rules to make such an accusation, isn’t it more appropriate to keep them officially on the record so that you can note them in the future?

Second, don’t accusations of criminal activity get made on the House floor pretty often? I certainly don’t claim to read the Congressional Record with any degree of regularity, but I would think that such comments must come up relatively often. Especially with House members who . . . you know . . . have committed crimes? Was no observation officially made on the house floor of the conviction of James Traficant?

Third, doesn’t the fact that the vote was along party lines indicate that no one was really interested in whether such a statement offensive to the decorum of the House so much as it was a statement offensive to the majority party that could be penalized under the House rules?

Finally, as to the underlying issue, why are we afraid of outside verification of our electoral process? If it really is so great (and I believe it is, warts and all), then why don’t we let representatives of the U.N. or other bodies see what we have to offer, and how we go about ensuring fair elections? Are we willing to sell the sausage, but not let the abattoir be inspected? Do we value verity or simply verisimilitude?

Another Party? Why Not? The Night is Young!

So, Kerry has proposed three debates between presidential candidates (I'm using the term "presidential" in its most literal sense -- despite actually being President, I have yet to be convinced that Bush has ever acted particularly presidential) and one between Edwards and Cheney. Frankly, I have to think that the latter will be infinitely more interesting than the former. We already sort of know what will happen between Bush and Kerry, right? Kerry will be remarkably articulate, have sound policy arguments and will be roughly as inspiring as one of those Easter Island heads. Bush will be so well-prepared that he will only make up a word or two along the way.

But, oh, the number twos! Spew that venom, Dick! George W. often appears to not really understand what he’s saying, let alone believe it. But Cheney seriously buys into (or perhaps he wrote) the theory that the U.S. should be whupping up on the world, and that the citizens are better off when they know the results, but not the process. His reptilian eyes light up when he gets to take the stage.

And that dreamy John Edwards! He doesn’t have to have anything of substance to say at all. He simply has to talk slowly and make eye contact with that camera. An occasional head tilt, a smarky grin and he will enchant everyone who feels it’s okay for the country not to be consistently cracking heads.
 
Of course, the true shame is that - in a nation that claims to celebrate the free exchange of ideas – no third party candidates will be allowed to participate in the debates. Thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates, only Republicans and Democrats are allowed to participate in the debates. The CPD is, natch, run by Republicans and Democrats who have no interest in having third party ideas posed. Third parties are nice. When a candidate has nothing to lose, he (or she) doesn’t have the need to be conservative. He can ask whatever questions he thinks aren’t being answered.

Surely the third parties would make things more interesting if not actually affecting anyone’s final vote. And we shouldn’t just open it up to Ralph Nader (spoiler or hero – you be the judge!) but also to the Green Party, the American Party and the Peace & Freedom Party, that last one featuring presidential candidate Leondard Peltier. Peltier would have to appear by satellite, of course, what with his life imprisonment in Leavenworth and all. We could even hear from Personal Choice Party nominee Charles Jay. Of course, his Vice-Presidential candidate might be more interesting – porn star Marilyn Chambers Taylor (her married name). I do wonder what that discussion was like:
"What if we put Marilyn Chambers on the ticket?"
"Wouldn’t that look bad?"
"Well, we’d just make her Vice-President. She wouldn’t have access to the football."
"Oh, Vice-President. Perfect!"

Obviously, we couldn’t realistically have anybody who claimed to be a candidate participate in the debates. But the current standard of 15% in 5 national polls is too high a bar, and change needs to occur. Check out www.debatethis.org for more information.

Da Almost-Ran

So, it seems there will be no campaign for Senator Mike Ditka. I have to admit that I am a little disappointed by this. Although Ditka is hugely famous, it wouldn’t necessarily have been a fame that served him well in Washington. He has behaved . . . if not oddly, then at least non-political on more than one occasion, he got upset at the media when they tried to cover his meeting with G.O.P. representatives, and he genuinely perceives himself as being “one of the people.” And maybe he is. Although he has more money and name recognition than most of us will ever know, he said on the Today show (in a comment that seemed no more than half-joking) that he’d been advised that he’d have to wear a suit every day, and that didn’t seem enticing. Who can’t relate to that?

Not that I wanted Ditka to win. His opponent would have been Barack Obama, one of the Democratic Party’s up-and-comers, and I would much prefer to have an experienced politician backing the policies I tend to support than a “common man” backing the one’s I don’t care for. I find it curious that Obama, if elected, will be only the third black senator since reconstruction. I find that a startling fact. Maybe I shouldn’t.

So, Ditka will stay a commentator, and occasionally be a call-back when the Saturday Night Live creators tire of writing original material. I wish him well, and hope he can avoid suits. Frankly, his neck was not meant for neckties.

Don't be Surprised if Nobody Buys It

The link above is CNN's report about the same-sex marriage amendment failing in the Senate. The topic of gay marriage is one for another day. What bothers me most about this article is Senator Frist’s rhetorical question: “Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children?” There’s so much wrong with this statement coming from an elected national leader that I don’t know where to start.

Okay, now that I’ve thought about it, I’ll start with the term “activist judges.” In theory, this term refers to jurists who “make their own law,” rather that following the law of the state, or of the country. Of course, as a practical matter the term means “a judge who interprets a law differently than from how I think it should be construed.” No judge can make up the rules. They have to follow the boundaries established by the law. Further, there are appellate procedures in place for when judicial errors occur. Even if you believe that a judicial ruling at the highest level (the state or Federal Supreme Court) is in error, one always has the opportunity to change the law – as here, with the same-sex marriage amendment. If enough elected officials had felt passionately about the topic and the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, then further consideration would have been mandated. The U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions set up a free-market economy for ideas. If you don’t like the offered product, you’re welcome to promote your own. But don’t be surprised if nobody buys it.

Further irritating me is Frist’s reference to the judges “not elected by the American people” as though a) there’s no benefit to a judge not being elected and b) they have taken their positions through bloody insurrections. Despite what Frist and the conservative idealogues he echoes maintain, the purpose of the judicial branch of government is NOT to act on the whims, or even on the studied will, of the majority. It is to enforce the laws written by those the majority elected. The Constitution lays forth a series of laws that we, as a country, tend to believe in when we consider them as generalities. It’s when it’s used to enforce specific propositions (prayer in school, gay marriage) that people get up in arms. A judge’s duty is to the state as an entity, not to its individual members.

This duty to codified ideas rather than to people is protected by non-elected positions. When judges are elected, they have to pander (as politicians do) to the desires of the electorate, regardless with whether those desires align with the interpretation and enforcement of law. The maintenance of a judicial appointment without repeated approval by the electorate is part of the separation of powers, Senator Frist. And until you can understand that concept and its application through the judicial system, I will continue to have a grave concern for the leadership of our country in EVERY branch.

Good Old Rockaway

Casino voting is again rearing its ugly head in Missouri this cycle. Amendment 1 on the ballot would allow casinos to operate in Rockaway Beach, Missouri, about 15 miles from Branson. This, of course, is not the state’s first foray into legalized gaming. We have multiple casinos in or near Kansas City and St. Louis, and one in Booneville, roughly halfway between the two larger cities.

This is the tenth anniversary of the boats in Missouri, and their success has been mixed. There is no question that the casinos have funneled a great deal of money into state and local governments, but they have been accompanied by social pains. According to Casino Watch, a local anti-gambling organization, Missouri taxpayers have paid over $600 million as a result of gambling addictions through, among other things, judicial costs, social services costs and crime.

Although I believe gambling is probably wrong from a Christian perspective (if only from the point of poor stewardship–and although I believe it’s wrong, I have played my fair share of blackjack), it shouldn’t be outlawed by the state, and it certainly shouldn’t be monopolized by the state in the form of lotteries. Lots of addictive activities are legal, for better or for worse. When one can go to a casino acknowledging that money will be lost, just as it would be spent at an evening out at a show, there isn’t any problem. The difficulty is when unaffordable money is spent. Casinos, particularly slot machines, act as a tax on the stupid. Just as a sales tax affects the poor at a higher rate than an income tax, slots take money from those who think they have a statistically significant chance of getting more money out than they put in.

Even if you view gambling funds optimistically – as money spent on entertainment, not as a bad investment – it still has a negative effect on the rest of the local economy. Money spent at casinos is money not being spent at other entertainment venues. I had the opportunity to work as an actor for the five years following the opening of Casinos in Kansas City, and I was repeatedly startled to hear the number of people in the business say how they regretted voting for the casinos. The voters I was speaking with thought that the casinos would draw people to the city, but rather, the casinos drew the money out of the other entertainment venues. There is a finite amount of money to go around. I’ve also heard talk radio hosts suggesting slot machines in business in town, saying that we could add to the money that’s already spent in the casinos on the river. But, again this is specious logic – there is only a finite amount of money to go around. If people want to gamble, they are not without the capacity to do so – in the Kansas City area.

Which brings us back to Rockaway Beach. Casinos in that area would pull out some of the funds from people who travel to my part of the state to gamble. It would also draw some of the money out of the already-past-its-prime Branson entertainment district. However, it would also subject Southwest Missouri’s economy to a no-return investment. There is very little up-side for this portion of the state in approving casinos in Southwest Missouri.

But, is that fair? I voted against casinos the first time, and I am inclined to vote against them again, based on my personal belief that they cost society more than they return. However, I’m torn – knowing that there will be SOME casinos in Missouri, what justification can the voters have for being an arbitrary dispenser of vice licenses – like a Missouri Soup Nazi – No Casino for You!

The Bifurcation

CNN.com - John Edwards:� Favorite of the press bus? - Jul 12, 2004

Mark Shields wrote the above yesterday regarding the press corps' tendency to like candidates who are generally to personable for their own good. This is an excellent illustration of the unfortunate bifurcation between those who can lead and those who can win elections. Ideally, the electorate would view its potential leaders with an eye to those qualities required by the position. In the case of the U.S. presidency, this would include a working knowledge of international and domestic economic theories and policies, a working knowledge of military structure and strategy, the ability to shape and inspire legislation, and the ability to shape and inspire public opinion in support of that legislation.

Unfortunately, our electorate as a whole (and, for that matter, any given individual) lacks the discipline and information to enact that discernment. Thus, our national -- and often local -- candidates become those who are camera-friendly, regardless of their policy or legislative skills.

The choice of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate is a prime example of this principle. Edwards's only legislative experience is a single term in the U.S. Senate. Although well-received, he hardly has the experience to back the labyrinthine movements required to support preseidential legislation. He is, however, a golden-voiced pretty boy. He is visually a strong contrast to Kerry the candidate. He is color to Kerry's black-and-white, a moving orator to Kerry's mortician. But while these are traits that will serve the team well through November, they are traits that will become unnecessary to the performance of the Vice-Presidential office.

Dick Gephardt would have made a poor running mate -- Gephardt makes Kerry look like Edwards. But, he had precisely the skills that would be required of the office -- extensive legislative background, a knowledge of the system, and a history of working within that system. But, would he have ever had the opportunity to use those skills? Probably not. There's only so much monochrome that the public can palate.