I'm back!! Plus thoughts on gay marriage

Sorry it's been close to two years or since I've written on this blog. That's going to change. I have a new rule: I have to write at least 500 words every day. Not all of them will be on this blog, but a good chuck of it will.

One thing I've been thinking about lately is gay marriage and how far we've come since I was in high school. I remember it being almost crazy to think gay marriage is even a possibility, I mean it was discussed but so many people were against it, it seemed it would never happen. Now, most Americans support gay marriage and all those opposed seemed to be rather defensive about it. See many of those opposed to gay marriage (some of whom are my friends) say I respect your views you should respect mine. The problem with that is your views are bigoted. By definition you are a bigoted person:

big•ot•ed [big-uh-tid] 
adjective 
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
"Bigoted." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigoted.

By being against gay marriage, you are utterly intolerant of a sexuality different than your own. So just because you don't like being called a bigot does not mean you are not a bigot. The only way to not be a bigot is not to be intolerant of other people. It is really that simple. 

Another part I find frustrating is the homophobic, anti-gay marriage crowd claims to be for traditional marriage. The modern from of marriage is nothing like marriage back in the day. Back in the day you just declared yourself devoted to another person and you were married. Most marriages weren't performed in a church with a priest instead, it is when people declare their devotion to each other. Just because you have this view of history that conforms to your own biases does not mean it is true. 

Frankly, I don't think it's really any business of the government to define marriage as anything other than an agreement between consenting adults. It is not the government's job to make laws that conform with your religious beliefs. It is the job of the government to protect the rights and safety of people. 

However, I really try not to directly argue with my friends about this topic because I feel it would not get me very far. I don't want to destroy friendships. I doubt I will change their views.. Though, if I felt destroying some friendships would make gay marriage legal tomorrow I'd definitely do it. In the end, I think most of my friends, those opposing gay marriage, would be embarrassed with themselves. Not now but years down the line they are going to look like supporters of Jim Crow and those against interracial marriage. 

The fact is human beings are free and the most important part of that freedom is people are treated equal in the eyes of the law. You cannot have a class of people whom cannot get married just because the person they love happens to be the same gender. Civil unions are not a fix (though I do support them as an incremental step) because civil unions are "lesser" marriages they are not equal to their straight counterparts. This is separate and inherently unequal. Gay marriage is happening whether you like it or not. Best get on-board. Love and respect your fellow human beings.

Suffrage at 16

Today I've been doing a little bit of thinking about the complexities of the U.S. legal system and the challenges we face. I came up with a fairly imperfect solution to some of the challenges this country faces. I am not totally convinced this is a workable idea but I'm going to throw it out there.

The biggest problem the U.S. faces is the public's desire for government services and low taxes. Because of this other government functions are often crowded out, suffer from major budget cut back or worse continue to function and contribute to the debt. Everyone wants low taxes so there is a very specific constituency there so I'm going to focus on the demand for government services.

When looking at the federal budget it is fairly obvious that seniors benefit the most from government spending. There is social security and medicare are the two largest government programs and they almost exclusively benefit seniors. It is not surprising the seniors get these benefits as it is well-known that seniors are the most likely people to vote.

In contrast, services that younger people demand are mostly education. Unfortunately our political system does not have much demand for education funding or reform. In addition, to education funding I would also add investments in science, research, and long-term infrastructure spending as younger people are more likely so see the benefits of these years down the road. That is not to say seniors don't care about education, investments, and other long-term spending its just their demand and self-interest in those services aren't particularly high.

Now how do we get young people to vote and create more young voters? We could mandate that people under the age of 30 must vote. However, this seems like it would lack enforcement or political will to implement. Another idea would be to add more eligible voters and lower the voting age to 16.

This may sound radical but the fact is 16 is an age where we start to give young people legal responsibilities, mostly by giving them drivers licenses. Would 16 year olds make the best voters? Probably not. However, that is also the age when kids can start dropping out of school. We could give more high school aged kids a bigger say in how there schools are run since they are more directly impacted then older age groups. Voting seem to be a very basic civic duty so perhaps we should start preparing young people for adult life before they reach the status as full legal adults. Honestly, I rather have 16 voting than driving anyway as a 16 year holds several lives in their hands behind the wheel.

Lord of the Flies

Speaker Boehner told President Obama to "Grow up" about the deficit. Unfortunately, he is not acting like an adult either. He called Obama's speech too partisan, but at the same time said he will not raise any taxes at all. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you need both spending cuts and tax increases to fix the budget there is no way around it.

I'm not just talking about any cuts either we MUST cut social security, medicare, medicaid, and the military. Yes, all three. Plus, you have to raise taxes. No way around it. Too bad the Democrats and Republicans represent both side of the Americans' schizophrenia know as our love for low taxes (Republicans) and our love for public services (Democrats).

In these negotiations, there are no adults in the room. Welcome to Lord of the Flies.

Al Qaeda is Overblown and Playing the West

I've been slacking on the blogging recently in part because I'm a slacker and in part because I want to spend more of my time reading than expressing my opinion (I realized you just laugh right about now I did too).

Anyway, following the events in Libya I have to say one thing. Al Qaeda is overblown. The protest around the Arab world are not for a giant Islamic Caliphate they are for democracy. It might not be an ideal democracy in the western sense but it will be freer both in terms of politics and economics and less violent (democratic peace).

There are a lot of miss conceptions about al Qaeda. To clear it up al Qaeda is against the western supported monarchies and dictatorships in the Muslim world. They see these dictatorships as corrupt, neo-colonialist and secular. They want to overthrow these dictatorship and create a universal Islamic government.

So far, it looks easy to say al Qaeda has a had in the current protest yet this is not true. You can break down what is happening in throughout the Muslim world (Iran and Afghanistan are Muslim but not Arab) into three factions:

1. Dictators/Monarchs: These are largely western supported and secular. They represent the status quo.
   


2. Protestors: Pro-democracy and reform advocates also largely secular.


3. Coalition/the West: Allied with most of the regimes facing protest (Iran and Syria are notable exceptions). Again they are secular and are caught in an awkward position between supporting stability and democracy. In the past they've chosen stability but now are leaning towards in democracy on a case-by-case basis.

Notice on thing all three of the participants have in common. They are all secular or largely neutral on religion. None of them want an Islamic Caliphate not the dictators, not the protesters, and not the coalition. All three major actors are enemies of al Qaeda.

Not to mention, contrary to popular belief, al Qaeda is not that powerful, organized, or popular. They do not have the political or economic ability to propell themselves into power. The only country were al Qaeda is possibly a threat is Yemen.

In the end, these protests are a rebuke of al Qaeda and terrorism in general. The whole idea of al Qaeda is you need religious violence in order to overthrown these dictatorships. Instead the protests found a third and more obvious way. Demand freedom through (largely) peaceful and secular protests. Al Qaeda does not the only thing going on in the Muslim world. By believing this we are giving al Qaeda more credit than it deserves. We are playing right into their hands.

A Crazy Idea for D.C.

I was watching "Waiting for Superman" last night and it made me think about Washington D.C. Then I thought its unfair for D.C. to not have representation in Congress (mainly I was thinking of those license plates that say "Taxation without representation). So I thought about giving D.C. some representation but the problem is D.C. is not a state so it would not have representation in the senate still making the process unfair. Not to mention Republicans won't go for it because a D.C. congressional district would be an extra seat for the Democrats. There is also the idea that D.C. has its own place in government and shouldn't be represented.

So what to do?

I though how about eliminate all federal taxes in the District of Columbia. This could bring a lot of business to D.C. and eliminate "taxation without representation."

Obviously there are a few kinks to work out such as overcrowding D.C., reduction income not only from the federal government but states who would loose business to D.C., and that's just a few.

However, we could keep jobs in America but having our own tax-haven instead of letting companies incorporate overseas. Not to mention there is a lot of poverty, education problems, and crime in D.C. This will bring more investment into our nations capitol and make it a hub of international business.

This could also be used as a tactic by the Republics to get some compromise on D.C.'s representation.

New book of the week

This week's book is probably going to disappoint a few of you (if anyone actually reads this blog) since it is not very political, but it is so good I'm going to recommend it anyway. Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl is an excellent and short book about his experiences as a prisoner during The Holocaust. The great thing about this book is Viktor Frankl is a psychotherapist and a very well-known and good one. To sum it up, without giving too much away, Frankl says those who felt that they add meaning where more likely to survive The Holocaust than those that didn't. I will let him explain the rest.

Also, a blog I follow that you should read, especially if your in Denver, love architecture, or a history buff, Denver Urbanism. A great blog about architecture, city planning, and history. I used to be a historical tour guide for The Brown Palace and the capitol building so its a great read. This has a lot deal with politics so enjoy.

Book of the Week Segment?

As you probably know I am a huge fan of Fareed Zarakia's show GPS. My favorite part of the show is there is a lot of critical thought and a lot less of an "infotainment" aspect to the show. My favorite segment is "Book of the Week" where Zarakia recommends a book to read based on upcoming events or interesting subjects. Personally a goal of mine is to read a lot more and watch less cable news and television in general. Plus, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

So in order to give myself some motivation, I will recommend a new book (hopefully) every week. This week's book is one I recently read called The Promise: President Obama, Year One by Jonathan Alter. This book gives a great inside view of the Obama White House. How it operates and its successes and flaws. Its a good read that will make you a little more informed about how things actually work and not how they are seen on television.

After reading this book I tend to blame Larry Summers and Ivy League group think for a lot of Obama's problems.

In Honor of Christina Taylor Green

Today, a funeral was held for Christina Taylor Green. She was only nine years old when died in the Tucson shooting. I never met her, but the fact she seemed so smart and driven bothers me to no end. President Obama said something truly inspiring about her in his speech:

Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation's future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us - we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations.

I don't know what to say. I don't have President Obama's gift with words. She wanted to be a baseball player and loved politics. I love sports and politics since I was young so I guess I see myself in her. Though she would have been and was a far better person than I could ever be.

Economic Ideas.

In keeping with my ideals, I've spent more time educating myself on politics than just throwing out my opinions. I've spent a lot of time on what this blog is about and its about ideas. So in keeping with this I have a huge idea about how to restructure the economy and the American tax structure.

Usually, this blog is a lot about process in addition to ideas. In other words, how do we get stuff done? What is politically possible? I try to answer these questions in ways that try to make people think. Today though is not about the art of the possible but what needs to be done.

All of us have been hearing a lot about the economy and taxes. How do we make the American economy better? Well I have an idea that probably won't make a lot of people happy but here it goes:

First, end temporary tax cuts. All tax cuts have to be permanent. This is basic Milton Freedman economics. Temporary tax cuts do not increase consumer spending so all these temporary stimulus cuts (Bush tax cuts and the American Recovery and Reconstruction Act, also known as the stimulus package) do absolutely nothing for the economy. Consumers use this money to save or pay off debt because they realize this is temporary so they use this money to get ahead not to spend it. Sounds great but in reality does nothing to boost jobs or GDP.

Second, slash corporate taxes and capital gains permanently. The problem with the American economy is we are focused so much on consumer spending that we get into large bubbles and spending money we don't have. This is an epidemic over all over the place from business, to government, to the average person. The United States has the second largest corporate taxes in the world while we have on of the lowest personal income taxes. This needs to change. Corporations don't pay taxes consumers do. Business just pass on taxes to consumers. These taxes prevent companies from investing which is were the U.S. economy needs to focus more on instead of consumer and government spending.

Third, include a Value Added tax. Sales taxes are another way to discourage spending and raising investment. Since we lowered or eliminated corporate taxes consumer prices will go down. Make this up by adding on a sales tax so that consumer prices have a zero net difference. Instead of buying things we don't need the economy can focus more on innovation, investment, and building.

These ideas are not very original Fareed Zakaria talks about these a lot on his CNN show GPS, but these are not talked about enough.

The little pig that couldn't

Back when I was in high school, I used to be a fairly strict libertarian. Over the years I've soften on that; however, every now and then I am reminded why I have libertarian leanings.

In Michigan, a boy with severe pet allergies and his family where not allowed to keep a small pig.

If someone can take care of the animal and its not a danger to others than why not let the poor kid have the pig? In fact, I wish more people kept chickens, goats and small farm animals as it is better for the enviroment, cheaper for use to produce food, and maintain our lawns and gardens.

If no one else's property or life is threatened than its really no business of the government to act this way.

And, in the end, don't you just feel bad for the kid and the pig?

Well that was fast

Yesterday, I wrote at length about how Russia was using anti-piracy measures against dissident political groups.

Now the very next day, Microsoft has come out against using such tactics. Essentially, once the American press (MSNBC and the New York Times) got wind of this it was corrected the very next day.

This is why the news media is very important to spreading political rights at home and around the globe. Public perception is a powerful weapon indeed. Russia will continue its slow march towards political freedom.

Russia, Microsoft, and protesters

I recently read an article about how Russian may be using international copyright law as a way to disrupt opposition political organizations. I have also been keeping track on Medvedev's efforts to modernize Russia (which is needed very badly).

(Just as a note the idea of Russia enforcing copyright law is hilarious. I've been to the faux Disneyland ins St. Petersburg. It is just way too obvious.)



The problem with Russian politics in general is that it tries to blend two mutually exclusive things. Russia gets away with doing this by saying "Well this is Russia and we are different from you."

Point taken, Russia is very different (I love the country and hope to go back). However, you can't have a democracy (aka nobody lives in a democracy its called a republic) without having a way of organizing, protesting, and meeting publicly. Russia is not against freedom of speech necessarily, I didn't feel like I had to watch what I said when I was over there, but they don't like people saying things in groups or newspapers.

Reason why is because United Russia, pro-government political party, is the freaking government. Russia is a one party state. Elections are really just a formality and more represent a coronation. Still it would be wrong to compare Russia to say Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Iran. There is some freedom in Russia. In fact, modern Russians have way more freedom than their ancestors could have dreamed.

Unfortunately, in the west we lump Russia with the axis of evil out of nostalgia for the Cold War. The biggest misfortune however is the west biggest asset in changing Russia to a freer state is actually helping the Russian government. Russians want an American lifestyle (just not the politics) our corporations have a duty to say "to have an American lifestyle you have to be a free country." Yet, Microsoft sits back and lets Russia (allegedly) abuse its citizens.

Luckily, we in America have freedom of assembly and freedom of the press so Americans can put pressure on Microsoft to help Russian political groups. Russia will gradually modernize and get freer, it has to to survive, our only question is how long do we want to wait?

David Harsanyi on the NYC Mosque

Hasanyi is definitely on of my favorite columnist. I agree with him sometimes. His articles are highly sarcastic (I enjoy my sarcasm on a very deep level). Even when I disagree with Hasanyi his articles make for interesting topics of discussion.

His latest about NYC Mosque is interesting in the sense that I agree with him in shades of grey.

There is definitely a line between healthy debate/critical thought and then outright bigotry.

I don't think its bigoted to say I disagree with aspects of religious belief. The line I would draw is when the religion as a whole is discriminated against and adherents are prevented from exercising there religion.

There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. Period.

Therefore, I have no problem with people debating whether or not building a Mosque at that particular location is a wise idea. Where I draw the line is when politicians go on television to say we should not build any mosques anywhere.

I've personally have visited mosques many times. I have always been treated well and I have returned the favor though I am not a Muslim. Islam contrary to popular belief has a longer history of tolerance than Christianity.

Does this make Christianity evil? No of course not. We should not characterize religions or any group of people based on their worst members. If you are in fact a true conservative/libertarian than you will judge people as an individual not by the group they belong to. That is higher than tolerance. It is acceptance.

Mosque issue and why I'm not convince the GOP will win big

A lot of opinions have been thrown around the mosque issue in NYC. I will simply say this if you are one of the 30% or so people who think the government should discriminate against Muslims then you have no business telling me or anyone that the government is too big and powerful. You also have no right to lecture anyone about the Constitution.

You also have no business reading this blog. This is about complex issues and promoting independent thought.

Now, I will leave some room for disagreement about whether the mosque should be built at that particular location. Honestly, they have the right to build a mosque wherever they like on private property. Just remember we are talking about fiat and political strategy not legal issues.

With that said, I would like to take this NYC Mosque issue and use it as an example of why I don't think the GOP has an effective strategy for the midterms.

Now to be fair, Fivethirtyeight already wrote about this so let's give credit where credit is do.

The idea is the polls are more complicated on the mosque issue than they might appear. The country is broke up into thirds on third thinks there is no problem building a mosque there, a third doesn't like the mosque there but thinks they have a legal right to build it, and the last third thinks the government has the right to prevent the mosque from being built.

So looking at the polling two-thirds of the country find Obama's position agreeable (Obama is somewhere in the middle). Whereas the last third really won't agree with Obama on anything anyway.

As an example, this is a pretty good explanation for the entire GOP strategy which is work hard to the right and get the base to the polls. The problem is you can't win elections with a third of the population.

This third of the population is more likely to vote; however, in this hyper-partisan environment it motivates independents to get more involved in politics. If the hard right and the hard left cancel each other out (well the hard right has a slight advantage but not enough to fight off the middle). Obama has been placing himself in the center-left which is strategically makes sense. Get the middle and the left has no choice to follow. Contrary to the right's belief the left are really not to happy with Obama as Robert Gibbs comments showed.

Now will the Republicans win seats this fall? Almost certainly. Will they take back the House? Maybe. Will they take the Senate? I really doubt it.

Lastly, I would like to point out the in-fighting with Republicans isn't over. The Tea Party challengers are forcing primaries that are preventing Republican resources away from the general election. In the short term, the Democrats have trouble but the its not as bad as it might appear. As for the long term the Democrats are likely to dominate but we'll save that for later.

Hickenlooper is Colorado's next governor

Well after McPlagiarist was found out the GOP officially handed the governorship to Mayor John Hickenlooper.

The GOP clearly blew this one. As one of my favorite columnists David Harsanyi points out:

But long before Republicans were asked to absolve Scott McInnis of his occasional Tom Cruise meltdowns, or his imaginary turn as philanthropist, or his fantasy campaign's real-life payments to his wife, or even his plagiarism (do your own lack of work, for God's sake), the Republican Party had blown it and blown it good.

He really hit the nail on the head there. I'm surprised he made it all the way to plagiarism. He gave thousands to his wife for managing a campaign that didn't exist.

Not only did he plagiarize, which is bad enough, but he was paid $300,000 for it!

He's finished. The Grand Junction Sentinel (his hometown paper) is calling him to leave. GOP blew it they could have had Penry really challenge McInnis but he backed out mysteriously.

Now according the The Denver Post, Republicans want Tancredo to replace McInnis. There are so many problems with that I don't know where to begin. Tancredo says bizarre things. Not to mention his name might not even appear on the ballot.

If the GOP has any brains at all they drop the governor's race and focus on the senate, Congressmen John Salazar, and Ed Perlmutter.

Palisade Mayor Recall

Though originally from Fruita, I have family in Palisade and they brought to my attention there is a recall effort to get Mayor Dave Walker out of office.

I've been reading up on the situation but I'd like to here from Mayor Walker and Wayne Reid, the man leading the recall effort, to get their take.

I sent an email to Mayor Walker about doing an interview. I look forward to his response. If you want a brief look at what is going on look here from video and here for print.

Mayor Walker or Mr. Reid if you are reading this I'd love to do an interview. I will give you both a fair shake. I'm more interested in learning about the issues than expressing my opinions.

Ken Buck gets my kudos

Well Tancredo pulled yet another well Tancredo:

. . . I believe this with all my heart, that the greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country put together by the Founding Fathers, is the guy who is in the White House today."


Though honestly, I think the bigger story to me is Buck's response:


"I think he's created a new word in the dictionary; it's called a Tancredo-ism. I don't agree. I think there are a lot of threats to this country, and I don't think the man in the White House is the greatest threat to this country at all."

"I was surprised when Tom said that. Tom tends to exaggerate sometimes. I respect, frankly, President Obama. I disagree with him on a lot of his policies, but he is the president of the United States, and I respect him as our leader."


My kudos to Buck for respectfully disagreeing with Obama and Tancredo. A strong democracy is a democracy that debates ideas and maintains civility. Nice to know some Republics don't play a zero-sum game.

Taking Arizona down a notch

I really hate to through around the term racism. It seems to me that it is an overused straw-man in today's political discourse. However, I might make an exception to what Arizona's legislature is doing at the present moment.

First, both houses passed a bill that gives police in Arizona the power to stop anyone to check their immigration papers. I understand the United States immigration system is terrible in the sense that it is too hard to become a citizen so immigrants are forced to come illegally.

Let me say that I have some experience with police having the right to check your papers at anytime. When I was in Russia, (a very hard country to even get a visa to) police have the right to check your papers at anytime for any reason. This leads to racial profiling which I have seen first hand. I never had my papers checked once (I am of Russian decent but speak very little Russian) while people from the Caucuses and Central Asia, many of which are probably Russian citizens, get stopped constantly. Does this stop illegal immigration to Russia? No, it increases crime and corruption of police. Does this stop terrorists or criminality? No, it alienates people and makes them more likely to be terrorists or criminals.

Therefore, I can only conclude that this law only encourages racial profiling, division, corruption, and criminality. Not to mention state and federal issues.

Next, we have the birther bill that is working its way through the Arizona house. I find it hypocritical that Arizona is trying to pass a birther bill when its senior senator, who was born in Panama, has already ran for President twice. Not to say John McCain isn't eligible to become president (he was born on a military base) but there is more cause to question McCain's eligibility than Obama's. Obama was born in Hawaii which is a state. His birth was in the newspaper, there is a birth certificate posted online, and Hawaiian officials say he was born there.

It seems to me that its not difficult to find Arizona to be on the wrong side of racial equality. The West is not the South. Arizona needs to stop becoming the next Alabama.

16th St Mall

This is largely a local issue, but since deals with politics, economics, and a place I literally go to everyday I think its an important discussion.

How to revitalize 16th St. Mall? There are three options being proposed and I really don't like any of them except maybe option two. I think option three of moving the shuttles to 16th and 15th Streets is interesting but 15th needs to be revitalized massively. There is nothing interesting there. After looking at the comments I came up with my own idea:

1) Move the shuttles to 17th & 15th Streets. 17th will go east and 15th will go west.
2) Move up the sidewalk to create patio space, a large walkway, and more kiosks.
3) Use the current center lane on 16th as a two way bike path.

Denver should be more bike friendly. Unfortunately, a lot of bicycles (myself included) act like idiots downtown. This way there is a convenient and safe place to ride downtown. Pedestrians and bikes are always a problem but it is almost impossible to bike downtown without using a sidewalk and that is far more dangerous than a careless pedestrian or bicyclist wandering to were they shouldn't be.

I also think 17th St. is very attractive and should be shown to tourists while 15th needs to be revitalized. There is nothing there which seems a waste to me. Obviously, the city and investors would have to be heavily dedicated to this idea but I think after how LoDo was rebuilt after Coors Field it looks certainly possible.

Haiti

I did some research on Haiti awhile back and I do consider myself particularly familiar with its history, economics, and political problems. I'm thinking of doing a series of blogs on how to solve for the major problems in Haiti. Unlike some other countries I think Haiti's cycle of crisis can be solved.

This is how I feel Haiti's problems lie:
1) Economics/Environment
2) Politics
3) Too much direct foreign intervention
4) AIDS

I will cover this more in the future but here's my solutions:
1) Immediately input a reforestation program
2) Open up Haitian trade by including Haiti in DR-CAFTA
3) Gradually withdraw the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti
4) Refocus the UN to:

• Monitoring elections
  
• Treating AIDS through the World Health Organization
  
• Focus aid through UNICEF

5) Have the US and EU train a police force and a (small) military
6) Respect Haiti's sovereignty

More on this later...