This one cuts a little close to home for me. It looks like Mormon church leadership may have colluded with the Boy Scouts to cover up the sexual abuse of seventeen boys by a BSA scoutmaster. I was in the same organization, under the same leadership, in the same church as those seventeen boys, at the same approximate time period. I'm realizing retroactively that I wasn't nearly as safe as I thought I was, and it is alarming, especially now that I have kids of my own.
Now I understand my naivete, and while it makes me sad for those boys, it does make me all the more certain I made the right decision quitting both the Mormon church and the Boy Scouts as a kid. While it never occurred to me as a teenager that a bishop would behave in such a reprehensible manner as described in the article, the behavior is still consistent in theme with what I came to understand in both organizations as a young man, namely, more emphasis on the appearance of virtue than upon virtue itself. Upon reflection, the events described in the article do not surprise me, sadly; they are merely the natural extension of the trajectory the church and the BSA have been on for decades.
It is why my children will not be joining the scouts. Any parent who entrusts their kids to the BSA organization is a fool, because the BSA has made their priorities clear by fighting legal battles to avoid revealing what they know about sexual assaults against kids they were responsible for. They seem more concerned about avoiding embarrassing headlines than they are about the kids in their care.
The BSA is not about the boys. It is merely about the BSA.
Multimedia development, game programming, immersive environments, and Halloween.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Thursday, November 20, 2008
You Reap What You Sow
Kathleen Parker, an old-school conservative columnist wrote Giving Up on God for the Washington Post, where she bemoans the fact that the GOP is being dragged down by the Bible-thumping wing of their party. She says, "the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows....shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs."
Well, duh. That's what liberals have been trying to tell you guys all along. Religion is not politics is not religion. Mix them at your own peril, dumbasses.
You reap what you sow. For years, the GOP has been pandering to the uneducated, the superstitious, the resentful, and the xenophobic, using them as an easily-riled base who doesn't really question whether the leaders they elect really legislate in their best interests. They were your "useful idiots," and you built an ongoing drumbeat of spin, misdirection, and outright fabrications to rile them up and draw more into their fold. But ultimately, if that's what you increasingly rely on, if that's where your rhetoric goes, and, as the generations turn, that's where you draw your fresh political blood from, that means you, by definition, will become them.
No whining about it. It's a monster of your own creation. The villagers have torches and pitchforks, Dr. Frankenstein. Your time in the castle is over.
Well, duh. That's what liberals have been trying to tell you guys all along. Religion is not politics is not religion. Mix them at your own peril, dumbasses.
You reap what you sow. For years, the GOP has been pandering to the uneducated, the superstitious, the resentful, and the xenophobic, using them as an easily-riled base who doesn't really question whether the leaders they elect really legislate in their best interests. They were your "useful idiots," and you built an ongoing drumbeat of spin, misdirection, and outright fabrications to rile them up and draw more into their fold. But ultimately, if that's what you increasingly rely on, if that's where your rhetoric goes, and, as the generations turn, that's where you draw your fresh political blood from, that means you, by definition, will become them.
No whining about it. It's a monster of your own creation. The villagers have torches and pitchforks, Dr. Frankenstein. Your time in the castle is over.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The Page Has Turned
To all who voted today, and in previous days, for Barack Obama: thank you.
And my children thank you - they just don't know it yet.
And my children thank you - they just don't know it yet.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tonight's Debate Reaction
The third debate is over, and thankfully, McCain is 0 for 3, according to the polling by most major media news outlets (even Fox). McCain lost them all. Even the town hall meeting.
A few thoughts:
A few thoughts:
- Regarding America's trailing scores in math and science, Obama said "This probably has more to do with our national future than anything." Yes - Obama gets it. Education is infrastructure.
- Again with the "$3 million overhead projector" thing from McCain. The Sky Theater planetarium projector is an "overhead projector" like Google or Amazon is "someone's web site". Technically true, but intentionally disguising the nature of what is being discussed by leaving out the important detail of how much amazing technology is behind it. The Sky Theater projector is not what people think of when you say the words "overhead projector," and McCain knows it. It's dishonest.
- McCain predictably excuses his lifetime position of giving education the short shrift by saying "throwing money at the problem won't solve it." Again, technically true - we can't just throw money at our educational system to fix it.
We need to hire and retain better teachers, find better ways to teach, provide safer and more conducive learning environments, lower the student:teacher ratios, update outdated modes of teaching that don't connect with today's kids, provide after school programs for at-risk kids, fix our crumbling schoolhouses, etc.
And you know what, McCain? Those things cost money.
Yes, you can't just throw money at the system to solve everything - it needs true educational leadership and responsible stewardship for that money to do what it needs to do. But they do need money. - Besides, McCain sure is one to talk about "throwing money at a problem." This is the guy who would be fine with spending $2,400,000,000 per week in Iraq for 100 years. This is the guy who "suspended his campaign" to go throw $820,000,000,000 at the international banking system. Doesn't he see the irony? At least when we talk about funding teachers, science programs, and... ahem... high-end planetarium star projectors, we know exactly what it is we're going to be spending the money on, that we're spending it here at home, and what we can expect as an outcome.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
More Juvenile Antics
You might remember my earlier blog post about how some idiot stole the Obama bumper sticker off my car.
I've been talking to people, and it sounds like this is not an isolated incident. Two of my friends, also Obama supporters, have told me that they have had yard signs stolen, and I noticed that two Obama signs that I pass on the way to dropping my son off at day care went missing and were replaced by a different yard sign.
It's also apparently happening elsewhere. Personally, I like this response.
I've been talking to people, and it sounds like this is not an isolated incident. Two of my friends, also Obama supporters, have told me that they have had yard signs stolen, and I noticed that two Obama signs that I pass on the way to dropping my son off at day care went missing and were replaced by a different yard sign.
It's also apparently happening elsewhere. Personally, I like this response.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Sarah Palin would make a terrible wizard
It looks like Sarah Palin has an IQ score of 83.
For you Dungeons and Dragons players McCain is always talking about, that means that if you made a character sheet for Sarah Palin, she'd have an Intelligence score of 8.
For you Dungeons and Dragons players McCain is always talking about, that means that if you made a character sheet for Sarah Palin, she'd have an Intelligence score of 8.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Adler's Response to McCain
Yesterday, I blogged a bit about McCain attacking Obama for supporting informal, all-ages Science education, namely, Obama's support of replacing the 40-year-old planetarium projection machine (not merely an "overhead projector" as McCain called it) for the Sky Theater there.
Well, here's an update. The Adler has posted a response to McCain detailing the exact position of the Adler and clearing up McCain's erroneous implications about the funding, namely that it's somehow frivolous or wasteful.
Education is infrastructure. Probably the most important infrastructure we have long-term, because if we slide technologically, there is no way we'll remain a leader of the free world. If our kids and grandkids cannot keep up, then we're looking at our potential enemies outpacing our weapons technology, our surveillance technology, our security technology, our energy technology, our medical technology. Economies ebb and flow, alliances rise and fall, but the one constant is that whoever has the best technology wields the most power. If McCain doesn't get that, if he openly mocks science education and says we don't need it, then he should not be president. He cannot possibly be a good steward of America's future.
Well, here's an update. The Adler has posted a response to McCain detailing the exact position of the Adler and clearing up McCain's erroneous implications about the funding, namely that it's somehow frivolous or wasteful.
Education is infrastructure. Probably the most important infrastructure we have long-term, because if we slide technologically, there is no way we'll remain a leader of the free world. If our kids and grandkids cannot keep up, then we're looking at our potential enemies outpacing our weapons technology, our surveillance technology, our security technology, our energy technology, our medical technology. Economies ebb and flow, alliances rise and fall, but the one constant is that whoever has the best technology wields the most power. If McCain doesn't get that, if he openly mocks science education and says we don't need it, then he should not be president. He cannot possibly be a good steward of America's future.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
McCain against Education Again
I just watched the presidential debate, and I am struck once again by John McCain's contempt for educational efforts.
It's probably not going to get a lot of play, but the one thing that stood out to me as strange was McCain attacking Obama for supporting spending money on a star projector for a planetarium in Chicago. He's referring to a $3 million earmark for replacing the 40-year-old projection system at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, the first planetarium in the western hemisphere, let alone America, and a major science education venue in the Chicago area.
To my mind, that's not "pork," at least, not in the derisive sense of the word, like a bridge to nowhere. This is perfectly in line with what Obama was saying about the need to invest in America's educational infrastructure.
As a child, I remember planetariums being one of my favorite places to visit, second only to theme parks. As an educational venue, planetariums conveyed to me, like no other venue can, the enormity, wonder, and adventure that is represented by the universe we live in. It got me interested in topics like Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics.
In particular, planetariums did a far, far better job of that than school did. In school, it's all academics and textbooks. But there was something almost spiritual about going through those double doors that opened by themselves, into the serene, dim theater, surrounded by celestial ambient music and dramatic lighting. And there, in the center of the room - the projector. That strange alien-like contraption, a black cylinder with two spheres at each end adorned with thousands of tiny eyelets, the whole thing supported on a rack, displaying it in the middle of the room as it sat dormant and quiet.
And when the show started! The lights would fade, and the music would swell, and that alien device would come to life, rising and falling, turning on its axis, spinning the spheres at each end, throwing stars into the sky above. And the narrator would speak - not the dry monotone or the finger-wagging admonitions I heard in church, but the sage and simple voice of a guide, who would take you through the universe and back. In those tall, comfortable seats, pitched back to look up at the stars, we'd observe the magnetosphere of the Earth protecting us from the fiery conflagration of particles spit out fitfully from the sun, or travel out of our galaxy so far that we could observe it from afar, a swirling sea of stars so huge it was difficult to wrap your mind around it.
To this day, as you can probably tell, I have a childlike awe of the things I learned at planetariums.
But more to the issue at hand, planetariums are educational venues. They are venues for traditional education - school trips to planetariums are common - but they are also venues for informal and adult education. If we're going to be serious about turning around our nation's educational infrastructure, it must include more than just textbooks. We have to fundamentally embrace education as a part of life, not just a part of school. We need to support the things that make kids (and their parents) interested in math and science, that get them interested in careers in the math and science industries, and help them understand how important, far-reaching, enriching, and fulfilling these pursuits are.
If the worst instance of "pork spending" support John McCain can come up with in Obama's legislative history is this, an initiative which fundamentally embraces, celebrates, promotes, and (most importantly) strengthens America's math and science educational infrastructure, then he's better off not pointing it out. Especially in terms of what we're spending in Iraq - the $3 million for the planetarium renovation Obama asked for is what we spend in Iraq every 13 minutes. This would have been a relatively tiny investment for a big return, and given that the projector the money would have replaced was forty years old and is no longer serviceable since no one makes parts for them any more, it's not likely money that would have been squandered; that the Adler kept the last projector running so long beyond its lifetime shows that they are frugal and responsible stewards of the money apportioned to them.
To me, the fact that Obama supported a public, informal educational effort like funding a planetarium, and didn't try to distance himself from it when McCain derided him for it, just reinforces the kind of man he is, especially in contrast to McCain, who has voted against education time and time again.
Oh, and by the way, the $3 million didn't get funded. I guess we needed that 13 extra minutes in Iraq instead.
It's probably not going to get a lot of play, but the one thing that stood out to me as strange was McCain attacking Obama for supporting spending money on a star projector for a planetarium in Chicago. He's referring to a $3 million earmark for replacing the 40-year-old projection system at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, the first planetarium in the western hemisphere, let alone America, and a major science education venue in the Chicago area.
To my mind, that's not "pork," at least, not in the derisive sense of the word, like a bridge to nowhere. This is perfectly in line with what Obama was saying about the need to invest in America's educational infrastructure.
As a child, I remember planetariums being one of my favorite places to visit, second only to theme parks. As an educational venue, planetariums conveyed to me, like no other venue can, the enormity, wonder, and adventure that is represented by the universe we live in. It got me interested in topics like Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics.
In particular, planetariums did a far, far better job of that than school did. In school, it's all academics and textbooks. But there was something almost spiritual about going through those double doors that opened by themselves, into the serene, dim theater, surrounded by celestial ambient music and dramatic lighting. And there, in the center of the room - the projector. That strange alien-like contraption, a black cylinder with two spheres at each end adorned with thousands of tiny eyelets, the whole thing supported on a rack, displaying it in the middle of the room as it sat dormant and quiet.
And when the show started! The lights would fade, and the music would swell, and that alien device would come to life, rising and falling, turning on its axis, spinning the spheres at each end, throwing stars into the sky above. And the narrator would speak - not the dry monotone or the finger-wagging admonitions I heard in church, but the sage and simple voice of a guide, who would take you through the universe and back. In those tall, comfortable seats, pitched back to look up at the stars, we'd observe the magnetosphere of the Earth protecting us from the fiery conflagration of particles spit out fitfully from the sun, or travel out of our galaxy so far that we could observe it from afar, a swirling sea of stars so huge it was difficult to wrap your mind around it.
To this day, as you can probably tell, I have a childlike awe of the things I learned at planetariums.
But more to the issue at hand, planetariums are educational venues. They are venues for traditional education - school trips to planetariums are common - but they are also venues for informal and adult education. If we're going to be serious about turning around our nation's educational infrastructure, it must include more than just textbooks. We have to fundamentally embrace education as a part of life, not just a part of school. We need to support the things that make kids (and their parents) interested in math and science, that get them interested in careers in the math and science industries, and help them understand how important, far-reaching, enriching, and fulfilling these pursuits are.
If the worst instance of "pork spending" support John McCain can come up with in Obama's legislative history is this, an initiative which fundamentally embraces, celebrates, promotes, and (most importantly) strengthens America's math and science educational infrastructure, then he's better off not pointing it out. Especially in terms of what we're spending in Iraq - the $3 million for the planetarium renovation Obama asked for is what we spend in Iraq every 13 minutes. This would have been a relatively tiny investment for a big return, and given that the projector the money would have replaced was forty years old and is no longer serviceable since no one makes parts for them any more, it's not likely money that would have been squandered; that the Adler kept the last projector running so long beyond its lifetime shows that they are frugal and responsible stewards of the money apportioned to them.
To me, the fact that Obama supported a public, informal educational effort like funding a planetarium, and didn't try to distance himself from it when McCain derided him for it, just reinforces the kind of man he is, especially in contrast to McCain, who has voted against education time and time again.
Oh, and by the way, the $3 million didn't get funded. I guess we needed that 13 extra minutes in Iraq instead.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
McCain: Making America Stupid
Thomas Friedman's op-ed in the New York Times called Making America Stupid (thanks Digg) rightly makes the argument that we need to quickly improve our educational infrastructure if we don't want America to slide into global irrelevance.
But what Friedman doesn't really do is make it clear what sort of approach our two presidential candidates would take on this issue.
I don't have to tell you that you can see what Barack Obama plans to do about it. He lays it all out.
It's harder to tell what McCain is going to do. He offers a page about his early education policy, and while it's filled with a lot of platitudes, it's extremely vague. A close read makes it clear that he's not planning on doing anything to improve things other than shuffle things around. Check out his carefully-crafted language to make it look like he'll be doing something:
His idea is, apparently, to sail along with current programs, while imposing upon them reporting restrictions and federal-level mandates to shuffle around the existing programs. Yeah, that's exactly what we need - more unfunded mandates mixed with increased federal bureaucracy. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be against that kind of thing.
Of course, a better predictor of what McCain intends to do about our educational infrastructure is to look at his past votes on education issues. See the table below. To put things in perspective, I'm including the price of each educational program that was proposed, and how much sooner we could leave Iraq to pay for it.
In addition, he has voted multiple times against funding for Pell Grants, voted against a $12,000 college tuition tax credit, and practically every time it's come up, he's voted against school breakfast and lunch programs for low income students, even though this has been shown to increase school performance. Etc.
You get the idea. Clearly, McCain is hostile to even modest amounts of money going to improving our educational infrastructure in America, despite what he likes to say on the stump. McCain is willing for us to spend 100 years of America's economy on Iraq, but he's not willing to spend even 53 minutes on our schools here at home.
Our economy is weak, our schools are weak, and the world is increasingly relying on an information economy. The number one thing we can do to ensure America's longevity is to shore up its future economic might by making sure our kids are the ones who are inventing new technologies in the future. Everything in our future hinges on remaining excellent innovators compared to the rest of the world. We need new energy sources coming from here. We need new information technologies coming from here. We need new defense, threat detection, and investigation technologies coming from here. We need new medical and transportation technologies coming from here. We need to explore our universe, our seas, our deserts, and our genetic structure. If we don't, if we slide into a consumerist, superstitious society hostile to "ivory tower elitists," then we do so at our own peril.
We simply can't afford for McCain to win.
But what Friedman doesn't really do is make it clear what sort of approach our two presidential candidates would take on this issue.
I don't have to tell you that you can see what Barack Obama plans to do about it. He lays it all out.
It's harder to tell what McCain is going to do. He offers a page about his early education policy, and while it's filled with a lot of platitudes, it's extremely vague. A close read makes it clear that he's not planning on doing anything to improve things other than shuffle things around. Check out his carefully-crafted language to make it look like he'll be doing something:
- "There is no shortage of federal programs..."
- "There is much to be achieved by leveraging and better coordinating these programs..."
- "John McCain will focus federal resources..."
- "Each Head Start Center identified by the Secretary as a Center of Excellence will use their funds to expand their programs to serve more children..."
- "We should also encourage and enable states to better align Head Start with their own pre-K programs."
- "...partnership grants and targeted federal funding can be used to encourage and facilitate early screening programs..."
- "John McCain will ensure that there are no federal prohibitions against preschool programs..."
- "Current federal programs will be focused on educating parents..."
His idea is, apparently, to sail along with current programs, while imposing upon them reporting restrictions and federal-level mandates to shuffle around the existing programs. Yeah, that's exactly what we need - more unfunded mandates mixed with increased federal bureaucracy. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be against that kind of thing.
Of course, a better predictor of what McCain intends to do about our educational infrastructure is to look at his past votes on education issues. See the table below. To put things in perspective, I'm including the price of each educational program that was proposed, and how much sooner we could leave Iraq to pay for it.
| Year | What he did | Cost | Iraq Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | Voted against rolling back Bush's earlier cuts to education, health care, and job training programs for education. | $7 billion | 20 days |
| 2000 | Voted against a small estate tax increase for school repairs and teacher training. | $3.5 billion | 10 days |
| 2001 | Voted against improving the national student-teacher ratio to 18. | $2.4 billion | 7 days |
| 2003 | Voted against funding for educational programs and dropout prevention. | $210 million | 15 hours |
| 2005 | Voted for the largest cut to federal student loans in history, a vote that was voted against by crossover Republicans to make it a 50-50 vote, with Cheney casting the tiebreaker. If McCain had been the "maverick" on this issue, and also broken with his party, the student loans would not have been cut. | $12.7 million | 53 minutes |
In addition, he has voted multiple times against funding for Pell Grants, voted against a $12,000 college tuition tax credit, and practically every time it's come up, he's voted against school breakfast and lunch programs for low income students, even though this has been shown to increase school performance. Etc.
You get the idea. Clearly, McCain is hostile to even modest amounts of money going to improving our educational infrastructure in America, despite what he likes to say on the stump. McCain is willing for us to spend 100 years of America's economy on Iraq, but he's not willing to spend even 53 minutes on our schools here at home.
Our economy is weak, our schools are weak, and the world is increasingly relying on an information economy. The number one thing we can do to ensure America's longevity is to shore up its future economic might by making sure our kids are the ones who are inventing new technologies in the future. Everything in our future hinges on remaining excellent innovators compared to the rest of the world. We need new energy sources coming from here. We need new information technologies coming from here. We need new defense, threat detection, and investigation technologies coming from here. We need new medical and transportation technologies coming from here. We need to explore our universe, our seas, our deserts, and our genetic structure. If we don't, if we slide into a consumerist, superstitious society hostile to "ivory tower elitists," then we do so at our own peril.
We simply can't afford for McCain to win.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
What is this, middle school?
Coming out of work today to head to lunch, I look down at my car's rear bumper and notice that someone stole the Obama bumper sticker off of my car. There's a little scrape mark where they got it started, and they peeled the rest of it off.
Seriously, since when do middle schoolers care about politics? What's next, ding-dong-ditching me?
Seriously, since when do middle schoolers care about politics? What's next, ding-dong-ditching me?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Voter Registration Drive
A few weekends ago, I volunteered for a voter registration drive being organized by the Barack Obama campaign. It was an interesting day.
I'd never done it before, so I had to get a bit of instruction on what to do. The Obama staffers I worked with, a group of uncommonly intelligent and personable young men and women, were pretty patient with my questions, and walked me through the process.
In particular, they told me that we were registering any and all voters. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we were providing a service that day to get as many people registered as possible. The main thing they wanted to express was openness and inclusiveness, so anyone who wanted to register would be registered. This is significant, because in talking to some people afterward, I was met with a lot of cynicism about whether we were actually willing to register anyone but Obama supporters. The truth of the matter is, with most of the people I signed up, I didn't tell them who I was doing the voter registration for, and they didn't tell me who they were supporting. I wasn't wearing any Obama pins or shirts, we didn't have a table, or anything. I was just a guy with a clipboard full of voter registration forms. If they asked, I'd tell them, of course, but the vast majority of the time, political leanings were not even mentioned during the act of signing up people.
In addition, the campaign staffers made the point that one thing that would solidify someone's distrust of the Democrat party would be to sign up with a Democrat registration drive and not turn it in, and conversely, if a Democrat helps a conservative sign up, it might break down stereotypes and help us reach across to other constituents. It's clear that they're not just interested in doing what it takes to win this election. They're taking the long view, which is a good sign.
I was also impressed with the people I met. Many, many people were already registered, and a lot of people thanked me for just trying to get people registered. People from all walks of life, who drove up in a Prius, an Oldsmobile, or a bicycle, valued the role of voting. It was pretty heartening to see how many people took it seriously and how many people were genuinely appreciative of what I was doing.
Of course, there were a couple of uncomfortable moments.
I talked to more than one college-age young woman who "just wasn't into voting." This is sad, especially considering McCain's obvious misogyny. This is the man who referred to his own wife as a "c**t" in front of reporters, remember. Not a lot of respect for women in that man, despite the politically-calculated choice of a woman for VP, a cynical attempt to grab expatriate Hillary supporters who haven't been paying attention to what McCain actually does with his political power.
I also got a little vitriol from both the left and the right.
I talked to one woman who told me that yes, she was registered, and that there was no way in hell she would vote for "that fascist Obama." Fascist, really? I don't think that woman has read Obama's position papers on his web site - the legislative work he's done has clearly been democratizing work, rather than supporting fascism, such as requiring new standards for making the government's behavior and spending open to public scrutiny ("Google for Government"), and limiting the power of lobbyists (see his political ethics reform plan for more). And she especially hasn't paid attention to McCain's voting record over the last several years, which really has been sweetheart deals for corporations. My guess is that she was a disgruntled Hillary supporter, but I really don't understand how someone who supported Hillary would take it out on Obama by voting for McCain. Unless the only reason she supported Hillary was because she was female, it doesn't make any sense. Vote policy, not plumbing.
On the other end of the spectrum, I talked to a, shall we say, forthright individual who, when I asked him if he was registered to vote, told me that it didn't matter whether he votes or not because the outcome of the election could never subvert God's will. He went on to say that he looks forward to my destruction at the hands of his God. And then stormed away. I watched him go, thinking, "yup, it's probably a good thing you don't vote." It's been a while since someone has launched into the whole "my god hates you" thing against me, but it's always a surreal, depressing, and saddening experience, no matter how many times I get it.
But all in all, it was a positive experience. I personally signed up people who may not otherwise have voted. I spurred people into taking part in the political process. I don't know how they're going to vote, but the mere fact that more people will be voting because of me is a good feeling. It may not make a difference in the final count, but I'll at least know I was part of the solution and not part of the problem. And even if my guy loses, at least the winner will have been selected as a representative of more people than he otherwise would have been.
I'd never done it before, so I had to get a bit of instruction on what to do. The Obama staffers I worked with, a group of uncommonly intelligent and personable young men and women, were pretty patient with my questions, and walked me through the process.
In particular, they told me that we were registering any and all voters. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we were providing a service that day to get as many people registered as possible. The main thing they wanted to express was openness and inclusiveness, so anyone who wanted to register would be registered. This is significant, because in talking to some people afterward, I was met with a lot of cynicism about whether we were actually willing to register anyone but Obama supporters. The truth of the matter is, with most of the people I signed up, I didn't tell them who I was doing the voter registration for, and they didn't tell me who they were supporting. I wasn't wearing any Obama pins or shirts, we didn't have a table, or anything. I was just a guy with a clipboard full of voter registration forms. If they asked, I'd tell them, of course, but the vast majority of the time, political leanings were not even mentioned during the act of signing up people.
In addition, the campaign staffers made the point that one thing that would solidify someone's distrust of the Democrat party would be to sign up with a Democrat registration drive and not turn it in, and conversely, if a Democrat helps a conservative sign up, it might break down stereotypes and help us reach across to other constituents. It's clear that they're not just interested in doing what it takes to win this election. They're taking the long view, which is a good sign.
I was also impressed with the people I met. Many, many people were already registered, and a lot of people thanked me for just trying to get people registered. People from all walks of life, who drove up in a Prius, an Oldsmobile, or a bicycle, valued the role of voting. It was pretty heartening to see how many people took it seriously and how many people were genuinely appreciative of what I was doing.
Of course, there were a couple of uncomfortable moments.
I talked to more than one college-age young woman who "just wasn't into voting." This is sad, especially considering McCain's obvious misogyny. This is the man who referred to his own wife as a "c**t" in front of reporters, remember. Not a lot of respect for women in that man, despite the politically-calculated choice of a woman for VP, a cynical attempt to grab expatriate Hillary supporters who haven't been paying attention to what McCain actually does with his political power.
I also got a little vitriol from both the left and the right.
I talked to one woman who told me that yes, she was registered, and that there was no way in hell she would vote for "that fascist Obama." Fascist, really? I don't think that woman has read Obama's position papers on his web site - the legislative work he's done has clearly been democratizing work, rather than supporting fascism, such as requiring new standards for making the government's behavior and spending open to public scrutiny ("Google for Government"), and limiting the power of lobbyists (see his political ethics reform plan for more). And she especially hasn't paid attention to McCain's voting record over the last several years, which really has been sweetheart deals for corporations. My guess is that she was a disgruntled Hillary supporter, but I really don't understand how someone who supported Hillary would take it out on Obama by voting for McCain. Unless the only reason she supported Hillary was because she was female, it doesn't make any sense. Vote policy, not plumbing.
On the other end of the spectrum, I talked to a, shall we say, forthright individual who, when I asked him if he was registered to vote, told me that it didn't matter whether he votes or not because the outcome of the election could never subvert God's will. He went on to say that he looks forward to my destruction at the hands of his God. And then stormed away. I watched him go, thinking, "yup, it's probably a good thing you don't vote." It's been a while since someone has launched into the whole "my god hates you" thing against me, but it's always a surreal, depressing, and saddening experience, no matter how many times I get it.
But all in all, it was a positive experience. I personally signed up people who may not otherwise have voted. I spurred people into taking part in the political process. I don't know how they're going to vote, but the mere fact that more people will be voting because of me is a good feeling. It may not make a difference in the final count, but I'll at least know I was part of the solution and not part of the problem. And even if my guy loses, at least the winner will have been selected as a representative of more people than he otherwise would have been.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
It passed!!!
Neph does a happy dance. It looks like Spaceport America is coming. The spirit of JFK's race to the moon lives on in the populace of New Mexico.
Of course, as close to oblivion this project came with this vote, this was the easy part. Now comes the real challenge. We have the resources and will in place, but now we have to actually do it. Now that we've decided to do this thing as a state, I'm hoping the opponents and proponents can come together and try to make it work. I think we all understand that this is a financial risk for the state, and that if it fails, it will cast a long shadow over future economic development of any sort. No one wins if we build it and no one comes.
So please continue supporting the aerospace industry in New Mexico however you can. Most of us don't have much opportunity to make a difference directly, like we did on this voting measure, but we do have some small ways to help. Make sure to attend the X Prize Cup and related events when they occur, and support the advertisers and sponsors of aerospace events - especially local ones. Teach your kids about the space program, and generally stay in touch with the space effort. The sooner the space program becomes part of our state's identity, the stronger base we'll have to build upon moving forward.
And if you voted for the measure, thank you! This was a very close election, and your vote mattered. If you ever watch a spacecraft lift off from the New Mexico desert, think back - it all could have easily ended right here in a whimper.
Of course, as close to oblivion this project came with this vote, this was the easy part. Now comes the real challenge. We have the resources and will in place, but now we have to actually do it. Now that we've decided to do this thing as a state, I'm hoping the opponents and proponents can come together and try to make it work. I think we all understand that this is a financial risk for the state, and that if it fails, it will cast a long shadow over future economic development of any sort. No one wins if we build it and no one comes.
So please continue supporting the aerospace industry in New Mexico however you can. Most of us don't have much opportunity to make a difference directly, like we did on this voting measure, but we do have some small ways to help. Make sure to attend the X Prize Cup and related events when they occur, and support the advertisers and sponsors of aerospace events - especially local ones. Teach your kids about the space program, and generally stay in touch with the space effort. The sooner the space program becomes part of our state's identity, the stronger base we'll have to build upon moving forward.
And if you voted for the measure, thank you! This was a very close election, and your vote mattered. If you ever watch a spacecraft lift off from the New Mexico desert, think back - it all could have easily ended right here in a whimper.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Down to the Wire!
Wow, the Spaceport America vote here in New Mexico is going down to the wire. Last night, it was looking like the anti-Spaceport crowd was going to have their way and end New Mexico's chances at playing a part in the future of space exploration and cashing in on math and science industry benefits for our kids' education (25% of the tax proceeds will go to aerospace-based math and science initiatives in our area schools).
But in the evening counting, the pro-Space vote pulled ahead. It's now almost neck-and-neck with 50.6% for and 49.4% against, a difference that is less than 541, the number of provisional ballots cast. We have a 204-vote advantage, so it's looking good, but it's too early to call. This is one close race.
It's also a pretty emotionally charged race. When one of the NMSU administrators endorsed the measure (a reasonable thing, I think, considering the measure provides direct funding for education AND practically guarantees an injection of students in aerospace topics), we had some rather nasty-toned emails go out in opposition.
I won't go so far as to say there are no reasons to vote against the measure. There are legitimate gripes, such as questioning the environmental impact of a spaceport and wondering how much risk this project entails when compared to the possible competitors to Spaceport America. What strikes me about the arguments against the measure is that they all come down to a risk-versus-reward question, and those opposed seem to think that there is negligible reward to a spaceport.
I guess I can understand that, if you discount the increased math and science school funding (something that is desperately needed across America as a whole, but in our communities in particular), because not everyone really appreciates that this isn't (entirely) about taking a risk to create high-paying jobs here. It's not merely about growing a completely new industry for New Mexico. And no, it's not about Bill Richardson's bid for the presidency (lots of people have been working for a very long time to bring this project to fruition, thank you very much - this is not a recent marketing stunt).
Spaceport America is about New Mexico having the courage to embrace man's greatest adventure: space exploration. Yes, there's risk. Yes, it's hard. Like JFK said in perhaps the greatest, most adventurous political speech of our times,
But the real value, for me, comes from the personal aspect of brining space travel here. It will be well worth one cent on every four dollars to watch my son grow up in a school with strong math and science programs, with great local opportunities for field trips and guest speakers. It will be worth it for my son to feel connected to the space program growing up, rather than it being some otherworldly thing that you see detached exhibits about at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum when you visit D.C. It will be worth it when I can stand with him to witness the awesome power of a space shot with our own eyes as a handful of people sit on tons of burning explosive fuel hurtling skyward for the sole purpose of adventure. It will be worth it if my son has the opportunity to experience space travel when my generation did not.
I just hope this bill passes.
But in the evening counting, the pro-Space vote pulled ahead. It's now almost neck-and-neck with 50.6% for and 49.4% against, a difference that is less than 541, the number of provisional ballots cast. We have a 204-vote advantage, so it's looking good, but it's too early to call. This is one close race.
It's also a pretty emotionally charged race. When one of the NMSU administrators endorsed the measure (a reasonable thing, I think, considering the measure provides direct funding for education AND practically guarantees an injection of students in aerospace topics), we had some rather nasty-toned emails go out in opposition.
I won't go so far as to say there are no reasons to vote against the measure. There are legitimate gripes, such as questioning the environmental impact of a spaceport and wondering how much risk this project entails when compared to the possible competitors to Spaceport America. What strikes me about the arguments against the measure is that they all come down to a risk-versus-reward question, and those opposed seem to think that there is negligible reward to a spaceport.
I guess I can understand that, if you discount the increased math and science school funding (something that is desperately needed across America as a whole, but in our communities in particular), because not everyone really appreciates that this isn't (entirely) about taking a risk to create high-paying jobs here. It's not merely about growing a completely new industry for New Mexico. And no, it's not about Bill Richardson's bid for the presidency (lots of people have been working for a very long time to bring this project to fruition, thank you very much - this is not a recent marketing stunt).
Spaceport America is about New Mexico having the courage to embrace man's greatest adventure: space exploration. Yes, there's risk. Yes, it's hard. Like JFK said in perhaps the greatest, most adventurous political speech of our times,
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win...I want New Mexico to step up to the plate and commit itself to trying to reach for the stars. We're a great state, filled with great people, but for too long, we've languished in the shadow of low achievement, low expectations, and lack of courageous vision. Space exploration is one of those things that can serve as an identity for our state, redefining us as a cutting-edge, tech-smart state, in the same way the film production initiatives are paying social and economic dividends on the creative side. We can be known for this if we have the will to embrace it.
But the real value, for me, comes from the personal aspect of brining space travel here. It will be well worth one cent on every four dollars to watch my son grow up in a school with strong math and science programs, with great local opportunities for field trips and guest speakers. It will be worth it for my son to feel connected to the space program growing up, rather than it being some otherworldly thing that you see detached exhibits about at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum when you visit D.C. It will be worth it when I can stand with him to witness the awesome power of a space shot with our own eyes as a handful of people sit on tons of burning explosive fuel hurtling skyward for the sole purpose of adventure. It will be worth it if my son has the opportunity to experience space travel when my generation did not.
I just hope this bill passes.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Why I am not a Republican
Here's yet another example of why I cannot connect with the Republican party platform. In this LA Times story about the investigation into Republican political edits to global warming science, it was revealed that Republicans
I wonder...what part of being a taxpayer-funded scientist, in Chris Cannon's mind, makes one ineligible for free speech? Chris Cannon himself is taxpayer-funded, so he certainly couldn't be so hypocritical as to suggest that being supported by taxpayer funds makes one ineligible. So it must be the mere fact that he's a scientist. Says a lot.
...disputed [the scientist on the stand's] contention that taxpayer-funded scientists are entitled to free speech. "Free speech is not a simple thing and is subject to and directed by policy," said Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah).To my view, free speech is a simple thing. So long as you're not inciting a riot or yelling "movie!" in a crowded firehouse, you should be able to express your views. And sharing the results of your scientific findings doesn't even come close to an edge case. But Cannon is correct about one thing. Free speech is directed by policy: the U.S. Constitution.
I wonder...what part of being a taxpayer-funded scientist, in Chris Cannon's mind, makes one ineligible for free speech? Chris Cannon himself is taxpayer-funded, so he certainly couldn't be so hypocritical as to suggest that being supported by taxpayer funds makes one ineligible. So it must be the mere fact that he's a scientist. Says a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)