iPundit.com

Collaborative thinking

Sorry for not posting for over 2 years, I've been a little preoccupied. Lets pretend like I never stopped. It was probably two years ago that I bought this book called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain." Drawing, a never present talent of mine, is something I have been meaning to cultivate for years. So on  Thursday night, sitting in the Barrister's Den, I finally picked up the book and started reading.

New books prompt new ideas, they prompt what I like to label beach storming. Random, rampant, and generally unproductive speculation becomes the norm. At these moments, nothing fascinates me more then exploring the limits of my own mind and the connections it can make.

A few pages in, the author, Betty Edwards, begins talking about the different brain hemispheres, you know the "right side" of your brain and the "left side". It was the work of Robert Sperry which taught us that the left side of the brain controls analytical thinking and the right side controls big picture thinking. However, this wasn't what caught my attention.

Apparently our brains have 100 billion neurons and those neurons have a 1000 trillion connections between them. Our brain can recall a connection or information in a fraction of a second. It can recognize patterns just as quickly. However, its ability to make calculations is quite limited, only 200 calculations per second. So while a computer can beat us in math or in calculating sequential relationships, it doesn't stand a chance in terms of pattern seeking.

Here's my "brilliant" idea which has no practical use. We have amazing recall power but little calculation power. I think it would be an entertaining and maybe even rewarding exercise to compile a database of that knowledge which we can simply recall from their brains. Something free of googling or research. Something along the lines of a massive crossword puzzle. Everyday or every hour, or every minute, we put up a person, an idea, a historical event, whatever, and people respond with whatever they know about it. I don't know how this is any better then wikipedia, but it strikes me that we might get at some of the knowledge which is stuck in our heads. And it might be fun too.

How to defeat Islamic Fundamentalism

From 1992 through 1998, I had the privilege of living in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. It was a wonderful place to grow up because as a child I was sheltered from a lot of problems which children in America face, such as alcohol and drug abuse. It was an existence in which the biggest thing I had to worry about was convincing my parents that we should go to Disney World for summer vacation. To be clear Saudi Arabia was not and is not without its faults. Much of what you see on television today is absolutely true. Women are not allowed to drive, there is no real free speech(although papers like the Arab news are much more autonomous today than they were in the mid ’90s), there is no right to vote, and it is a religious Muslim state in which stores, schools, and all other institutions close for prayer. However, Saudi Arabia is not representative of the rest of the Middle East and its interpretation of Islamic law is certainly more strict.

Over the past few months I have been reading “The Dream Palace of the Arabs” by Fouad Ajami, a writer for the New Republic and a professor at Johns Hopkins. My reading preferences are very eclectic and just one day while in Barnes and Noble, I picked up this book. No doubt, I’m better for it. Ajami discusses the pan Arab nationalist movement which began in the early 1950’s and ended in the early 1980’s. This movement was secular in nature and was led by Arab intellectuals undivided by nationality or religion.

Ajami tells us that the movement was led by poets like the Lebanese Khalil Hawi and the famed Egyptian Gamel Abdel Nasser. Hawi was a Christian but in his time these social revolutionaries were united by ideology and not by faith. They believed in a secular nationalism which promoted the interests of Arabs as a whole, sometimes at the expense of other nations and oftentimes at the expense of religious leaders. However, with the fall of Iran, in no way an Arab nation to begin with, and the rise of religious leaders like the Ayatollah Khomeini, the sands began to blow in a different direction. Inevitably leaders like the Saudi King Fahad and the Egyptian Hosni Mubarak attempted to concentrate as much power in their own hands as possible. In an attempt to modernize and in fact westernize their countries, they left the majority in the dark. Disenchantment with the Arab nationalist movement led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as a challenge to the growing power of the state. What began as radical Islamic newspapers and a few violent militiamen turned entire populations against the west and against their leaders.

It is my belief that the prevailing ideology in the Middle East is not anti-western but rather against their dictators who we happen to support. If free speech were not such a a problem in Saudi Arabia, I had no doubt then, and have no doubt now, that there would be protests against the royal family for much of what they have done. It has always been our policy to support democracy but unfortunately in this case, the movement for democracy in a country like Saudi Arabia is not secular in its nature. It is a religious movement because the people have found their saviors in the arms of sheiks, clerics, and other religious leaders. There are no Anwar Sadats in the middle east today and that is our problem.

Few people seem to understand that we simply cannot adapt an anti-royal family policy. It’s not practical, its not logical and it is certainly not in the best interests of the war against terror. The overwhelming complaint from many politicians is that we are not getting enough cooperation from either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. The truth is that both countries and both regimes could do better but only at the expense of igniting a revolution. Should either the Saud family or Musharraf take a more vehement Pro-American or secular stance, they will be overthrown in a heartbeat. If this is the case, how do we create change without inciting a revolution?

I think the answer is two-fold. First, we have to understand how revolts work. It is my understanding that when there is a non democratic government in power and discontent is at an alltime high, there are two basic tendencies which the people follow. First, the people can organize a revolution which will overthrow the status quo and replace it with a fundamentalist theocratic regime. This is obviously something which we do not want and must avoid at all costs. These theocratic regimes come into power by blaming the west and linking the west with the fallen tyrant. Such a revolution is disastrous because it guarantees a state that derives its power from being Anti-American. Such a state, if allowed to come into power, will breed terrorists. In the second possibility the people organize a social revolution that displaces the tyrant and his regime in place of a secular state. These types of revolutions are fought by the lower classes but led by the intellectuals and the elites. They are fought with the recognition that the tyrant or the monarch has little or no interest in economic development, the plight of the middle and lower classes, and the workers. I believe the situation in Saudi Arabia is ripe for a social revolution because the royal family is on its last legs. On principle, I think we should encourage a gradual transfer of power from the royal family to a democratically elected parliament and prime minister. An ideal system in this case is the one which the British currently use with the royal family as a figurehead.

How do we ensure that the type of revolution is type two as opposed to type one? The unemployment rate in Saudi Arabia hovers around 20% and while GDP growth was around 10% last year, there still has not been significant change for the majority of the population which lives in poverty. This is ripe for a social revolution or perhaps benevolent American aid. When there is a serious disparity in wealth and a large landless lower class, the people are likely to flee into the arms of the church, or in this case the arms of the religious fanatics. These people need hope. That’s how we fight terrorism, we fight it as an ideology, not as a zero sum game in which the more we kill the less we will have to deal with.

The supply of potential terrorists is seemingly infinite unless we destroy the primary motivation for a poor Arab male to become a terrorist, poverty. By promoting economic growth and providing stimulus to the Saudi economy as well as creating a secular movement which rests on growth as opposed to grief, we will stand a much better chance of success.

John McCain in 2004 ?

Ok, so I've done a little bit of thinking ... .it certainly has been a long time since I wrote this article on John McCain in campaign 2004. Essentially somehow getting John McCain to run for President. I must confess that I am a proud Democrat but yet think John McCain would make an excellent President and even an excellent Vice Presidential candidate. So these are some of my thoughts on the McCain candidacy, if you are interested, email me or leave a comment if you can answer these questions or if you can have some questions of your own! Ok, here's my original, John McCain for President 2004

1) How can one convince John McCain to run for President? I imagine there are people trying to convince him, as there have been for many years. How can it be done? Are there enough citizens who would support him? Is there a serious draft movement to draft McCain in 2004?

2) How can McCain get on ballots or any serious McCain movement get him on the ballots? How many signatures would be needed per state to get on the ballots? I just looked up the Massachussetts code and they require 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Apparently this petition is due by September 3rd, 2004. How hard would it be to get 10,000 people in a state like MA to sign a petition to put Senator John McCain onto the ballot? Does anyone know the countdowns for the other states, if you do or if you find out, please leave a comment so that the rest of us can know too!

3) I believe there is no requirement that the candidate even has to sign the petition to put his/her name on the ballot. If you can confirm or deny this, please do so. This would avoid the rather difficult issue of having McCain openly campaign or even having him state that he certainly does not want to run. In this sense, a candidate would run for President as in the past, not openly campaigning for the position but having people campaign on his behalf. Is there any interest in starting a PAC or a group to get McCain on the ballot and then of course raise money afterwards to campaign on his behalf since he probably will not campaign on his own.

4) Is this a futile effort since McCain seems to not want to leave his party or run for President again? I don't know the answers to these questions. Perhaps you can help, please do leave your questions, your comments. If there is enough feedback, and enough support, even I cannot define "enough" , however if there is enough support/feedback, I would like to discuss the options which we as citizens have open and by that I mean starting a REAL Draft McCain movement. Also, Senator McCain, if you're reading this, leave me a comment, write me a quick email, or letter if you prefer, and let me know how you feel about some of my questions/concerns. This applies to all of you who just think Senator McCain is a great guy too.

Political Advertising Goes Interactive..

Ladies and Gentlemen, for the past two years, yours truly has been trying to get Democrats to advertise online, but to no avail. I tried, I sent emails, I made phone calls, I left messages, and I called in every favor I had, and yet, no one would take the Internet seriously.

Let it be known, John Kerry just started buying his first ads on the Internet on Yahoo Mail. They are buying 300x350 ad units on Yahoo Mail. The ads are still very dry and there seems to be very little targeting going on. The ad buys are planned and executed by Voter Interactive. I wrote a little piece on the ActiveDemocracy.org website. If you haven't done so already, join our group, help us elect Democrats who want to lower our taxes, save our environment and reform our healthcare system. Read this piece ,

Political Internet Advertising Begins

Solution: Protecting the Environment

Global warming is rampant, environmental regulations are looser than ever. Never before has it been so easy for special interests to pollute our land, our water, and our air. President Bush has shown his dedication to reducing the limits on carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen emissions. President Bush does not think the environment is a top priority. He says it himself, he doesn’t believe global warming exists while almost every scientist in the world disagrees.

What follows is a policy prescription I wrote for ActiveDemocracy.org , a new group of citizens dedicated to preserving and protecting our environment. In this brief policy paper, I outline a series of steps which can be taken in order to ensure a proper quality of life for all Americans. I propose a series of iniatives, many of which encourage the market to help us solve our environmental crisis. Furthermore, I encourage the government to actively promote compliance with our regulations and to ensure compliance not only through punishing violators but incentivizing those who do obey the law. It's long time that we got serious about our environmental problems and pushed for cleaner air, water, and land. I am confident that if companies are encouraged by citizens and by government in the form of incentives, penalties and effects on the bottomline, that they will comply. Below is the link to my brief policy paper. If you like what you read, please forward it to your friends, please leave comments, and of course, do join ActiveDemocracy.org so that you can help guarantee that those candidates elected in 2004 stand up on behalf of what we all hold dear, our environment.

ActiveDemocracy.org Issue: Environment

Announcing the Launch of ActiveDemocracy.org

I'm pleased to announce the launch of ActiveDemocracy.org , a group dedicated to electing candidates to the House, Senate and the Presidency who believe in equal opportunity for all Americans. We are a group of likeminded citizens, who believe in the importance of balanced budgets, protecting our environment, fully funding education, protecting our veterans and providing access to health insurance for all Americans.

ActiveDemocracy uses a grassroots approach to recruiting citizens who have similar values to lobby the House, the Senate, and the President. We raise money and use that money to purchase television, radio, newspaper, and internet advertising in key battleground states. We do not donate money directly to any candidate but rather we endorse specific candidates for the House and the Senate. We provide the financial resources necessary to elect candidates who believe in the same things that we do.

Please visit our website , ActiveDemocracy.org to find out more about how you can help create a new Democratic majority in America. Please join our mailing list and tell any of your friends who might be interested. If you can, please contribute, any amount of money can help. Please visit our website today!

Solution: Campaign Finance Reform

My last post illustrated the problem of campaign finance reform and how money seems to be pervasive throughout our system with no end in sight. The American people deserve better. They deserve a system which encourages informed public participation in the election process. They deserve a system which keeps reasonable checks on corruption without unreasonable restrictions on their First Amendment rights. The American people deserve a system which will put the power of Democracy back into the hands of the people, and out of the hands of the special interests.

I'm not a hard liner on either side of the spectrum. I believe that every interest should be able to make their case to politicians. Every interest whether it is big oil, big pharma, PETA, human rights, lawyers, the environmentalists, or any others deserve their shot at influencing the government. However, their influence should not be in the form of money. Their influence should be in the form of policy solutions proposed to their legislators. I believe in equal opportunity for Americans, a group of 5,000 environmentalists should get the same opportunity to be heard as a group of 5,000 employees in the oil industry. The will of the people should trump the will of campaign contributions. After all, votes should matter, not money. So the question becomes, how do we create a system which is a balanced approach which gives people the right to influence their government but eliminates corruption or the appearance of corruption?

Remember that when Halliburton donates millions to the Bush campaign and gets billions in no-bid defense contracts, whether or not there is corruption, the appearance of corruption exists and as such our democracy is undermined. Some have proposed public financing of elections to eliminate this problem. While this is a noble suggestion, it simply cannot work because there is no way to figure out who gets how much money and how. Others have suggested lowering the contribution limit to a paltry $50 or $100. While this is yet another great sounding idea, it simply will not create candidates that have the majority of America's interests in mind. An example is Pat Robertson in 1988 who collected over 80% of his donations in sums under $250 but yet he represented a segment of the population which is no greater than 20%. Furthermore, many good candidates simply cannot raise that kind of money that quickly. They need seed investments to get their campaign off the ground and to make sure their message is heard. While public financing and lower contribution limits sound good, they are not true solutions because they don't help us elect candidates that the majority of America would support. Furthermore, limiting people's contributions in such a way really is a burden on their free speech rights, regardless of what the latest Supreme Court case may say about it. There is however, a better approach.

The Campaign Finance Reform Solution

1) Eliminate Bundling - Bundling is the practice of one individual gathering 100 or 200 checks of $2,000 each or more and presenting them to the candidate. For example, the Bush team calls those who raise more than $200,000 rangers and in fact they track the amount of money each candidate raises. This is probably what leads to such an appearance of corruption. 50 of the 64 Rangers have received Ambassadorships or other high level administration positions. Their companies also get the bulk of federal contracts from defense to construction. We can chalk all this up to coincidence, but the American people are not buying it. Eliminating bundling does not prevent anyone from donating money, it does not prevent people from exercising their free speech rights or their freedom of association. It simply cracks down on corruption and the appearance of corruption.

2) Democracy Dollars Accounts for Federal Candidates - While taking the bundling route is a safer alternative, the Democracty Dollars Accounts(DDA) is downright revolutionary. I'm not sure if it has been proposed before but the idea may save our campaign finance system. Currently checks from individuals go straight to candidates. I'm not suggesting that $2,000 will buy a candidate's support, if it did, we would be in much bigger trouble than we had thought. However, 100 donations from an energy companies employees sent to the candidate can certainly be considered substantial. DDA would be accounts managed by the Federal Government but owned by the candidate. The only difference is that checks would be sent to the DDA in the name of the candidate, the name of the donor(s) would never be disclosed to the candidate. What this does is it allows donors to donate as much money as they like to federal candidates. I would be in support of lifting the legal limit to $5,000 or perhaps even $10,000 per individual. This would allow Democrats and Republicans to raise money but that money would be contributed anonymously to the candidates. This way, the energy executives can have their freedom of speech and their freedom of association. They can even write letters to the Republican party telling them how much money they have raised for them. Fortunately for Americans, there is no way for the Republican Party, or for that matter the Democratic Party to verify that those executives actually contributed the money that they claimed they did. If necessary, that information could be obtained at the end of every 4 years, or of course those donations could remain anonymous. Anonymous donations and the inability for any politican to track who has donated what sum of money eliminate the look and feel of corruption. Under DDA , PAC's could contribute to candidates as well but these contributions too would be anonymouse. Of course DDA would have to be managed by a non partisan commission, perhaps one appointed by Congress which would function something like the FEC but hopefully with more effectiveness. DDA protects free speech by still allowing for PAC's, independent expenditures and lobbying of Congress by all kinds of groups. However, that lobbying will no longer be backed up through donations in the millions. This provides all groups an equal opportunity. Groups which have a larger base and more support amongst the people of America will be able to write more letters, and lobby in other ways so as to advance their views. DDA takes money out of the equation and through that it puts ordinary people back into the process of politics.

DDA is not perfect, there are no doubt concerns. One such concern is the possibility of corruption within the DDA agency. However, much like we have poll watchers at elections, both parties can send their own officials to make sure that the DDA is not making any mistakes in allocation of funds. Furthermore, each party can request a full accounting of donations which have been received. There is no doubt that with added bureaucracy there is potential for problems. However, much like the IRS functions, with the appropriate checks and balances DDA could be an incredible success. We must put checks and balances on the special interests in America but we must also keep proper checks on the government to make sure they do not intrude on the liberties of any of our citizens. Democracy Dollars Accounts offer an alternative which will reform our political system while giving opportunity to all citizens regardless of their wealth to make a difference in our country.

The Problem: Campaign Finance Reform

Campaign Finance reform was not originally on the set of policy solutions which I was planning on writing, however, I did take a class on this topic and furthermore I've been reading a lot about it. So, without further ado, a policy prescription for real campaign finance reform which meets the requirements of the first amendment while also stifling the appearance of corporate corruption.

Background
Campaign finance reform has been around since the late 1880's with the passage of the Pendleton Act which created civil service reform and as such made civil servants independent from politicians. However, modern campaign finance reform first came into existence with the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Commission Act. In 1974, Congress decided to cap not only contributions to political candidates but the amount of money which a candidate could spend. Furthermore, it limited the use of personal wealth. In 1976, Buckley v. Valeo struck down part of this act as unconstitutional including the limits on expenditures as well as the limits on use of personal wealth. Perhaps the biggest contribution of FECA was the legitimization of PAC's, or political action committees in our election system. The history of court cases since Buckley is extensive but no other case has proven to be as influential with the exception of McConnell v. United States in which Senator Mitch McConnell and a consortium of liberal and conservative groups joined together to try and get the McCain-Feingold Bill of 2002 struck down. However, McConnell and his allies failed and the McCain - Feingold bill which eliminated soft money ( the use of unlimited donations from large donors for "party-building" activities) was held as constitutional. This bill was incredible in its reach because not only did it eliminate soft money but it also made it illegal for advocacy groups(non party, non candidate groups) to advertise on television 60 days before the general election. Personally, I was amazed by this because I thought it would certainly be struck down as a violation of free speech and freedom of association but the Supreme Court amazed me along with everyone else I suppose. Our current campaign finance system allows donations of up to $5,000 to PAC's, $2,000 to candidates and a total contribution limit from individuals to slightly under $100,000. However, the McCain - Feingold bill did create a loophole, the 527 organization which allows for unlimited contributions of any size. The 527 simply cannot expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate. This loophole may end up being the savior of the Democratic Party because citizens like George Soros have decided to donate $10 Million to 527 organizations like America Coming Together, the Media Fund, and MoveOn.org. The Democrats are outraising the GOP in terms of their 527 organizations while overall President Bush has raised $170 Million compared to the $162 Million of the 9 Democrats combined. This is all hard money which has been raised pursuant to the $2,000 cap. The intention of the McCain-Feingold Bill was to reduce spending in federal elections and to reduce the influence of big corporations. However, the practice of pooling donations together, essentially where one person collects 100 checks from friends of $2,000 each, this practice has not eliminated to look of corruption. It has left the American people more skeptical than ever. Despite all these reforms, we are left with a 2004 election cycle which will spend approximately $3 Billion. An election cycle which will spend over twice as much as 2000. While corruption may not be rampant, the appearance of it certainly is as oil industry, telecom industry, financial, and other execs round up large sums of money for their candidates. McCain-Feingold has made the problem worse. America deserves a solution.

The Biggest Political Blunder of 2004...

Granted, it is early, we're only in the third month of 2004, but I believe the biggest political blunder of this year has already been committed. Perhaps, what's sad is that it wasn't even committed this year, it was committed in 2002 but the implications for 2004 are overwhelming.

I just received a dual travel cup coffeemaker today. I opened it up, I had ordered it on the Internet, and in the picture, it looked fantastic. Unfortunately, I ordered the slowest form of shipping, and everyday I would check the Fedex Tracking page to see when it would get here. Day after day, the longing set in and I knew the sooner the better. Eventually I was checking the tracking page a couple of times a day, and then today it arrived. I thought it would solve all my problems, I thought, "wow, now I"ll be able to make a quick cup of coffee, a cup of tea, whatever I want...". But alas, it was not meant to be. As I opened up the box, I noticed the coffeemaker was a bit smaller than I had expected it to be. And then, it wasn't silver, or stainless steel as the website had pictured it to be. On the box it was white, but the website had shown it to be dark black. I tore upon the box, letting the styrofoam and the airtight bubble wrap fly everywhere. I put it on top of the freezer, and admired, or rather looked disappointed at this, my newest purchase. It was black, but it now looked cheap. It had some steel, but it was not stainless. It had the two mugs just like they showed on the website. The mugs were tiny, and they along with the coffeemaker looked brittle. I expected high end technology, but the parts were obviously inferior. Along with this coffeemaker came two bags of coffee and it was then I realized that I had made a mistake. I opened up the coffee, smelled it, and immediately my stomach felt a bit queasy. I knew then why I had waited so long to order this coffeemaker. I don't drink coffee. The smell makes me sick, and the texture ruins my pearl white teeth. Afterwards, I realized that not only were these things true, but that my kitchen was too small for this coffeemaker, I had nowhere to put it. So, I did what I had to do, I put it in the cupboard with the plastic utensils and retreated to my room, knowing full well that I should have known better.

In 2002, DNC Chairman, Terry McAuliffe decided to follow the 1996 Republican lead and stack the primary schedule to make it look like a 3 week James Bond movie marathon. The rationale was the same, let's keep the primaries as bloodless as possible and lets rally around a nominee. Oftentimes, in haste, we make decisions that perhaps in retrospect, given time to think, we would not have made. Now, the Democrats are left wondering how they will keep people interested in their nominee. The question becomes, how will they keep the discourse going? How will they keep the free media interested? Unfortunately, the Democrats don't have the money to flood the paid media. Kerry had $1.2 Million cash on hand as of the last financial statement with $6.4 Million in debt. The President was sitting with $105 Million, no debt, and another $5 Million raised in California a day or two ago. As the President's new televion advertisements hit the airwaves, I think buyer's remorse amongst the Democrats is about to set in.

Screwing with Kerry's Record

The Slate just posted an excellent piece on how the GOP is trying to screw with John Kerry's voting record. I'm not talking about their attacks on his patriotism, but rather that they are just trying to make shit up. The latest analysis by slate, which is brilliant, talks about what the Republicans say Kerry voted for as opposed to the facts.

As the article so plainly points out, Kerry did not vote to reduce intelligence spending, or vote to reduce defense spending in general. In fact, the opposite is the case. Kerry voted several times to actually repeal any mandatory cuts in defense spending and oftentimes made sure that the Republicans(of all people) did not cut national defense spending. The times where he did vote to cut defense spending, the majority of the Senate was on his side.

As Slate points out, Kerry voted for reductions which were suggested by George Bush the elder and by Dick Cheney. This is another classic case of the right wing trying to have it both ways and purposely misleading the public about the record of an elected official. Everyone remembers the famous "seaweed" ad which they ran against Paul Wellstone in which they criticized him for voting for a bill which would spend $800,000 researching seaweed and its benefits. Of course, the GOP failed to mention that this was a large appropriations bill which had as its total budget several hundred billion dollars. They also failed to mention that then chairman of the RNCC, Bill Frist, also voted for the bill, along with 82 other senators. This is the game of politics, tough as it comes, plenty of strings, but no boundaries.