The Demise of the USA

I've had a hard time expressing the problems with the ineffectiveness of the US Government. Probably because I don't know enough fo the facts. Paul Krugman doesn't have my problem. He explains how dysfunctional we've become.

In the past, holds were used sparingly. That’s because, as a Congressional Research Service report on the practice says, the Senate used to be ruled by “traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation.” But that was then. Rules that used to be workable have become crippling now that one of the nation’s major political parties has descended into nihilism, seeing no harm — in fact, political dividends — in making the nation ungovernable.

Bleah for the USA!

Ecological Intelligence

“We have to stop speaking about the Earth being in need of healing. The Earth doesn’t need healing. We do.”

These words, from South African physician and naturalist Ian McCallum, close Daniel Goleman’s new book Ecological Intelligence: how Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy can Change Everything. Goleman’s book is an ambitious work that goes beyond the usual cries that humans are screwing up the planet and discusses how we can use market forces to change that behavior.

Not that Goleman ignores the fact that humans are screwing up the planet. (Or rather, screwing up the planet for humanity, as with the opening quote.) He goes into great detail to show how those of us in the US continue to pollute the air, ground, water and our bodies, long after science has shown us to be doing great harm. The reason for this is threefold: 1) Industry doesn’t change its practices because it might not be profitable to do so; 2) Government doesn’t regulate change, because political elections are financed by Industry; and 3) Consumers don’t insist on changes because we aren’t aware of the harm we are doing.

To combat this, Goleman introduces the reader to the concept of “Radical Transparancy,” wherein a product’s devalue (i.e. the harm it can do) is as readily known as its value. Studies have shown that if consumers are aware of the social, environment and especially health impacts of a product, most will change their purchasing habits even if it means spending more to buy the better product.

To illustrate, Goleman tells the tale of trans fat, which under the label “shortening” was a staple of home and industrial food production for 100 years. However, when the Institute of Medicine and the Food and Drug Administration independently issued reports at the turn of the 21^st century detailing the health risks associated with trans fat, public concern reached heightened levels. When the FDA issued labeling requirements indicating the level of trans fat in foods, the agency in effect issued the death knell. Trans fat has been almost completely eliminated from foods in the US, because informed consumers do not want to buy products containing trans fats.

Not all stories are as cut-and-dried as that of trans fat. In some cases the risks are less immediate (global warming), or less personal (worker treatment), or less obvious (tainted water supplies).

To fully understand these risks, we need to understand more than simply how a product is made and how it is disposed of. We also need to understand what impacts result from the production of components, and of the subcomponents, and so forth. We also need to understand the impacts of shipping, packaging, and how the product is used. This is called “Life Cycle Analysis,” a cradle-to-grave study of a product’s impact.

One such study was made by the folks at Proctor & Gamble, who discovered that the greatest impact from its production of Tide laundry detergent was in the way the product was used. More specifically, the energy required to heat the laundry water was greater than the impacts incurred in manufacturing and transporting the product. This inspired P&G to develop a detergent that is just as effective using cold water.

Goleman treats the reader to several such anecdotes, and highlights several companies in addition to Proctor and Gamble (like Interface and (gulp!) Wal Mart) that have taken it upon themselves to improve the impacts of their businesses. Goleman also discusses the way that the US Government’s loose approval guidelines, the phenomenon of Unintended Consequences, and the corporate practice of “Greenwashing,” make it more difficult for the consumer to fully understand the impact of their purchasing practices. Thus the need for Radical Transparency.

Ecological Intelligence does a thorough job of describing the perils that face the unwitting consumer in the United States, and how industry and government work in tandem to obfuscate those perils. The reader comes away understanding that the threats to our health, the environment, and the people in third-world countries are real and avoidable. Where the book falls somewhat short is in offering solutions. This is because the Radical Transparency industry is in its infancy. The resources available to the consumer are not easily accessed at the point of sale (or, more importantly, in the aisle when the shopper is making a decision). Those that do exist still have large gaps in compiling the massive amounts of data on all products available for sale in the US.

This is an important book, and perhaps the first step in bringing the need for Radical Transparency into the collective consciousness. I believe that the population of this country is grossly unaware of the true impact of the way that we live. With the government beholden to industries that are unwilling to make risky changes that might impact the bottom line, the impetus for change must come from the grassroots. I believe that an educated population will generate the force required to shift the markets. We just need the information.

The following web sites are referenced in Goleman’s book. They have their shortfalls, but begin to provide the information that will help us change the way business is done in the US.

http://www.goodguide.com/ to find safe, healthy and green products.

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ for Skin Deep, the Cosmetics Safety Database.

You don't have a vote in the matter

Rush might support Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. This is big news, despite the fact that he's an entertainer and, therefore, his position doesn't matter.

Perhap's he's engaging in some reverse-psychology - if the Dems believe Sotomayor is cool with the far right, they might start to think that she's not a good choice after all.

Should we "Redistribute the Wealth"?

So Barack Obama made what is probably the biggest error in his campaign when, just before the final presidential debate he told "Joe the Plumber" that his tax policy will "redistribute the wealth." Or words that John McCain took to that effect.

But why shouldn't we redistribute the wealth? Sure, this is a militantly capitalist country that is supposed to bow at the altar of unfettered markets. But we still need some government, do we not? Some services are provided for the public good, to the benefit of civilization. Roads, for example. Public safety, for another. Most would agree that public education is a good thing, and some would argue for expanded publicly-funded healthcare beyond Medicare and Medicaid.

OK then, why should the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor?

The most compelling case, in my opinion, is that unfettered capitalism has created a schism between the rich and the poor, and that it is the oppression of the poor by the wealthy that has driven the poor to need more governmental services.

Business owners move jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor. Employees are put out of work, and put in greater need of assistance, in hopes of boosting corporate profits. If the government is taking on more responsibility while corporations and their executives are getting richer, should the rich not assume a greater portion of the tax burden?

Likewise, many corporations, among them "big box" retailers, keep a part-time work force in order to avoid providing health benefits to their employees. These employees are forced to postpone health care services, which invariably increases the cost, and rely on medicaid or charity care when they do seek services. Shouldn't those who send employees into the arms of the government in order to increase their own profits ultimately be held to pay for the increased cost of providing those services?

The basic tenet of Republican economic policy is that allowing the wealthy to keep their earnings will spur investment in the economy. This will result in job creation and a "trickle down" of wealth to the poor and middle class. The problem? It doesn't work that way. The wealthy keep their money to themselves. Today we see the widest earnings gap that we've seen in 100 years - since before any sort of labor protections were put in place. Today, after 8 years of the Bush Administration, the economy is in the worst shape that it's been in since 1992. Coincidentally, 1992 was the end of 12 years of the Reagan/Bush policy of promoting "trickle down" economics.

Wealth does not trickle down. Providing tax breaks to the wealthy is nothing short of class warfare.

So yes, we must redistribute the wealth. If business owners are rewarded for cutting jobs and wages, that is exactly what they will do in a market-based economy. If jobs and wages are cut, the economy will stall and more people will be looking for government assistance. Therefore tax policy must penalize those who would unfairly benefit.

But perhaps it's more simple than that. On The Daily Show, John Stewart was much more concise. He pointed out that the Bush administration tax policy were effective in "redistributing wealth" from the poor to the very rich. Obama's policy would simply start to bring things back to where they were under the Clinton administration.

By all means, lets have the rich pay a greater share of the tax burden.

FiveThirtyEight.com

I have another blog, where I (used to?) write about baseball. Anybody who has read the SeaBlog realizes that I really love statistics. One of the baseball analysis sites that I really like is BaseballProspectus.com, with its best-in-the-business player performance projection system, named PECOTA.

Well, PECOTA creator Nate Silver has turned his projecting genius to politics. The results of his labors can be found at the delicious FiveThirtyEight.com. 538 (representing the total electoral votes available in the presidential election) arrives rife with colorful maps, charts and graphs. But data on it's own is dry and can be overwhelming and inaccessible. Luckily, Nate and crew accompany the data with well-written insight and analysis. The 538 formula proved to be Best In Show for the primary season, and it looks real strong for the Presidential race. Barack Obama is currently installed as a 19:1 favorite to take the White House in a couple of weeks.

Reading 538, I was directed to the Tax Cut Calculator at AlchemyToday.com. The methodology is very transparent, and it shows that, despite the McCain rhetoric, most of us will be better off under Obama's proposed tax plan. So we can all breathe easier. Even Joe the Plumber, who it might be added is in no danger of making $250,000 annually at the moment.

Tell Me They're Joking, Part II

Wha...whaaaaaaattt?

They're effing kidding, right?

The great State of Alaska (aka The Russian Front) launched an investigation into whether or not Governor Sarah Palin abused her power in having her ex-brother-in-law fired from his State Trooper position. The report issued today concludes that she did just that.

However, to nip that little problem in the bud, the McCain campaign issued its own report that proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that Palin acted ethically throughout.

Trying to head off a potentially embarrassing state ethics report on GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, campaign officials released their own report Thursday that clears her of any wrongdoing.

Excuse me? Can you really do that? Can you really just issue your own report clearing yourself of wrongdoing on a controversial issue? I suppose if you can show that the report was prepared by a truly impartial party.

McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin, who distributed the campaign's report, said it was written by the McCain-Palin campaign staff and based on public filings and Todd Palin's affidavit.

OK, so much for that. No conflicts of interest there!

Just how stupid do they think we are?

Tell Me They're Joking

It's just effing ridiculous. The GOP is going way out of its way to make sure nobody can talk to Sarah Palin and subsequently report on it. I don't know if this has to do more with her outrageous lack of qualifications to be Vice President of the USA, or just because when she does talk she tends to lie through her teeth. Regardless, the only access to Sarah Palin is the occasional photo op.

Despite all this, there is plenty of evidence that she is woefully inexperienced, dishonest, and toes the Christian-right line. There is plenty of evidence that her values are anti-woman and anti-working class.

And yet. AND YET! Sarah Palin's mere presence on the Republican ticket is making it difficult for Obama to court Hillary Clinton supporters? This despite the fact that the similarities between Clinton and Palin are 100% biology and 0% ideology. Is biology going to get the US out of the mess it's in?

What the hell is wrong with people?

Polar Bears Step it Up

Keepin' it cool for the Polar Bears

Saturday was the day that people gathered at over 1,400 locations across all 50 states to encourage our lawmakers to Step It Up! and enact legislation to cut carbon emissions and fight global warming. Participants certainly numbered in the tens of thousands in this grassroots effort to put democracy in action and make their voices heard.

I attended the Polar Bear Action at Bowdoin College in Brunswick. The Polar Bear is Bowdoin's mascot, and is the current poster child for species threatened by global warming (in the case of the polar bears, the issue specifically relates to shrinking ice sheets). Approximately 400 students, faculty and members of the community gathered to for food and music, and appearances by Representative Tom Allen and an aide to Senator Susan Collins. Following the speeches, participants marched down Maine Street carrying signs and chanting our encouragement for the government (and the people) to fight this global crisis. Additionally, hundreds of letters addressed to the local state reps and Maine's Washington contingent were signed encouraging their action.

Rally time.

All of us need to recognize the grave danger that we are putting the human race into, and the even graver danger for many of our population centers. Our continued dependence upon carbon-based fossil fuels is certainly speeding our own demise. We need to consider not only our energy choices, but the impact of all of our consumer choices - local food versus global agriculture, local vendors vs. sprawl-inducing big boxes and the like. Please take a moment to learn more about how your choices are impacting the globe.

A Flock of Dodos

I did get a chance tonight to attend my first Green Mountain Film Festival movie, and it was a real good one - Flock of Dodos. Dodos is former marine biologist Randy Olson's examination of the growing "debate" between those who want schools to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, and scientists.

The crux of the ID proponents is that there are some holes in Darwin's Evolution science. In other words, evolution doesn't explain everything that we've found in the development of life on this planet. Because evolution doesn't have all of the answers, ID proponents want to promote Intelligent Design as a potential "alternative" theory to evolution. The only problem is that ID doesn't have holes, it has wide, yawning chasms in its explanations. The other problem is that, given that ID does not stand up to any actual scientific scrutiny. It is a theory with literally no data to support it, therefore it does not belong in a high school science class.

The other pillar that ID stands upon is the supposition that some things are so elegant and so perfectly-constructed that they couldn't have happened by environmental adaptation and chance mutations. Some power must have thought these things through. Just as some power obviously designed Mount Rushmore. ("A person designed Mt. Rushmore" the filmmaker points out to a Pennsylvania School Board member.) The problem with this argument is that we have strong evidence that some genetic advancements were the result of environmental adaptation, and we have strong evidence that genes have mutated in the past, whereas we have no evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer. So why would we assume that those evolutionary advances that don't fit neatly into some of the premises of evolution that we know exist, instead are better explained by a phenomena of which there is no documentable scientific evidence? Indeed, the existence of an Intelligent Designer is something that one has to accept on faith. And while the ID folks will argue up one side of you and down the other that ID does not promote religion, the fact is that the words "faith" and "religion" are often used interchangeably in our society.

One question that gets examined toward the end of the movie is, why, in the absence of scientific support, is ID gaining steam in this country. One possible answer - Americans don't like to think that much, and ID (actually, I think we can call it "Creationism" now) doesn't require a lot of hard thinking. It's a neat, easily digestible answer. Another answer is that those who are in the best postition to debunk Creationism - the scientists - aren't interested in the debate. They see Creationism as non-scientific hokum and not worthy of debate, just as we no longer debate whether or not Earth orbits Sun. The scientists exacerbate the issue by failing to treat the Creationists with much respect. "They are ignorant," is a commonly-stated viewpoint. The Creationists, on the other hand, are in the position of having to respect the scientific validity of Evolution, and therefore only need to focus on the gaps in what evolution can explain. And, unlike the scientists, they are motivated to actually engage in the debate. And, frankly, I believe that they have an audience that wants to believe in Creationism, because many of us have spent a lot of energy in our lives believing that we have to accept, on faith, the presence of a higher power.

It's all heady stuff, but a topic that Olson handles fairly even-handedly even though we are aware early on of what his opinion is on the matter. There is a great deal of humor in the film as well. Most memorable is the discussion of how rabbits have to ingest their food twice (in other words, eat their own poop) to extract the nutrients from it. As one scientist asks, "who would design that?" And the scientists are not always portrayed in a positive light, particularly in a roundtable discussion of PhD convened by Olson. Okay, the roundtable is actually a poker table, and Olson films the scientists playing cards, getting drunk and obstinately denouncing Creationism. They are having fun, but they clearly are not respecting the Creationsists.

In the end, it is Olson's own mother, "Muffy Moose," who steals the show. A lively, eccentric octagenarian, Muffy lives around the corner from leading Creationist lawyer John Calvert. Molly has lived a full life, and has tried on lots of sprituality hats over the years, but she's a devout Evolutionist. When she is on screen, she never fails to fully engage the audience. She also has the line of the movie when, consulting a toy, she says "let's see what the Intelligent Eight Ball has to say."

Flock of Dodos is getting a lot of non-theatre play, and it will be coming to Showtime in May. The DVD public release is set for August of this year. I'm certain that most of us are so clearly entrenched in our beliefs that this movie is unlikely to change anybody's mind on the subject, but it's a fairly thorough and entertaining examination of the issue, and I highly recommend it to all.

US is near the bottom in family-friendly employment policies

In the "sadly not a surprise" category, a new study from researchers at Harvard and McGill Universities shows that "The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding...The study, officially being issued Thursday, says workplace policies for families in the United States are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries."

The most damning information, according to the article, is that the US is alone with just four other countries - Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea - who do not provide some guarantee of paid maternity leave. On the surface, this does not appear to be esteemed company. 173 total countries were in the study.

The strong points for the US were in the areas of equal access to employment, and in compensation. The sad state of this country is that dollars are able (and expected) to appease any injustice imposed upon people. That's a conclusion that you could draw in theory, anyway. In reality, those who are not offered maternity leave are more likely to be people working at the low end of the pay scale.

This is yet another example of how corporate America is allowed to run rampant with little governmental control. All corporations have to do is say, "it will cost too much money if we are mandated to provide maternity leave" and the government cowtows to them. God forbid we jeopardize the bottom line by being decent to people. We want mothers to be back at work so we can continue poisoning their children with polluted discharges into the air and water while nobody is looking.

Is it not true that unpaid maternity leave costs too much for most families to handle? Why are corporate bank accounts more important than personal ones? Furthermore, don't corporations suffer from lost productivity and poor morale from workers who are forced back on the job when they should be attending to their children, or from women who were forced to take unpaid leave in order to care for and bond with their newborn? What about not providing paid sick time? Sick workers will go to work rather than miss a day's pay, perhaps to their own detriment as well as their co-workers, and more productivity losses ensue. It's not easy to quantify the cost of lost productivity, but it is a real one that does affect a company's bottom line.

To be fair, most companies do provide for paid maternity leave and sick time, though they are not forced to do so. Allowances for breastfeeding breaks and paternity leave, however, are much less common. And many companies are happy to have employees work 60-hour weeks with no legal repercussions. Workers are too often treated as commodities - units of productivity, if you will - in this country, rather than as people. The government is loathe to create more regulations, assuming that the "market" will take care of any problems in our capitalist society. However, the market does not address employment practices, especially for those on the lower end of the earnings scale. Low-skill workers can not pick and choose where they work based upon benefits, they have to hope to get jobs wherever they are available. If that's at Wal Mart and they won't be getting health insurance, too bad for them. Organized labor faces more roadblocks every year, making them less effective than in the past. And the consumer market isn't really in a position to have much influence, because we simply are not informed of a company's employment practices, and we are not educated on how poor educational practices can be a detriment to society.

If the US is supposed to be the greatest country to live in, then we should act like it. People should be treated as people, and poor employment practices should not be legal in this country. It's shameful to be the wealthiest country on Earth and continue to appear at the bottom of these lists.

Doomsday Approacheth

I was not aware of it exists, but there is such a thing as a Doomsday Clock, and it's been moved closer to midnight. As of right now, it's five minutes 'til "nuclear" midnight. Like any good clock, it's not constrained to any linear definition of time, as it's been as close 11:58 (the height of thermonuclear testing in 1953), to the downright comfy spread of 17 minutes when it was set to 11:43 following the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1991. According to the referenced articles,

The major new step reflects growing concerns about a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea,
unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing
"launch-ready" status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S.
and Russia, escalating terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for
expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks

I say nuclear war is less of a threat to our civilization than climate change and natural resource reduction will be in the not-too-distant future. For sure more wars are to follow the current skirmish. I just don't have them pegged as "Nuclear".

Snowe must Go

I've been thinking that I ought to write a blog entry about Maine's incumbent senator Olympia Snowe, and how it is time for her to be removed from the Senate. Per usual, Wisdom Weasel has done all of the heavy lifting on the issue, and his comments reflect much of what I would say on the matter.

For all of the moderate Democrats and Independents in Maine who don't like the direction that the Congress is heading, but who push-button Snowe's re-election because "she's a moderate," and "she does a good job representing the interests of Maine," there is one sentence in Weasel's post that is pertinent, if a bit underserved:

In reality all Snowe represents is a warm body helping to shore up the
Republican majority; to be patronized by the leadership on matters pertaining to
lobsters and lighthouses but otherwise just counted as another vote for the GOP.

Snowe is "helping to shore up the Republican majority." This means that the Republicans get to set the Senate agenda, get to have majorities on all the senate committees, and get to direct the debate on the Senate floor. A vote for Snowe helps to perpetuate the Republican agenda, no matter if she is a moderate legislator. And, as Weasel so convincingly points out, if Olympia Snowe was once a moderate, she is no more. The only time she breaks lockstep with the GOP agenda is when the the outcome is not in doubt. A token bone to her constituancy to enable her to wave the "moderate" flag.

My support will go to the Democratic challenger Jean Hay Bright, the journalist, organic farmer and former homesteader from Dixmont. Hay Bright wants to pull out of Iraq, supports single-payor health care (might as well join the rest of the industrialized world!), supports renewable energy investment, and wants to protect the environment, all values that I share.

Bill Slavick is the Independent in the race, and while I find his forthrightness to be quite enjoyable, there are a couple of areas where we aren't so well aligned, and I question whether he has the political chops to make a difference in Washington without a party backing him up (as opposed to Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, who has been in the House for many years and who, in fact, has the endorsement of Vermont Democrats, who did not enter a candidate in the race.) Slavick's web site is worth a read.

Mainers Support Higher Taxes

Once again, Mainers have shown that when given the choice between lowering their taxes and maintaining "local control," they'll take local control every time.

The most recent example comes from Livermore Falls, a mill town about 30 miles up the Androscoggin River from Lewiston/Auburn. According to this story, Livermore Falls residents voted at the end of June to not fund several town services (including police and emergency services) in protest of plans to close the local transfer station and switch dispatch services to a regional rather than local service. These moves were designed to save taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, it took restoring the "local control" over dispatch and the transfer station to gain approval for reopening the rest of the town government.

The town decided to keep local dispatchers and continue to pay for the transfer
station. But in order to do so, they will have to raise the property tax levy
limit.

Time after time we in Maine are beat about the head with the fact that the state carries the highest tax burden in the country. In fact, according to The Tax Foundation, Maine's State/Local tax burden has been highest in the country every year since 1997. This leads to periodic support for potentially destructive tax-reform legislation.

Yet every time we are given the opportunity to consolidate services to save money (for example school districts, which are extraordinarily inefficiently organized), Mainers squawk. "We want our local control," they say.

Well folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't have neighboring towns paying full-time wages to duplicate services for a few thousand people, and also save money.

Personally, I'm all for paying a few more tax dollars and making sure that Sally down at the clerk's office keeps her job. I see it as akin to shopping at Grand City instead of Wal-Mart. Keep the dollars in the community. Then again, I'm not complaining about my tax rate, though it is undoubtedly too high. Other Mainers do complain about their taxes, but are apparently incapable of seeing the connection between their choices for local governance and the tax rate. So Livermore Falls, you've officially lost your standing to support TABOR this fall, though I've no doubt how the vote will go in that town.

Happy New Year

The Holidays are now behind us, and I look forward to regaining some blogger momentum in 2006 (the last two months have been very slow). (Un)fortunately, there is a lot of material out there.

I think this country is a mess right now. The current regime is heading deeper down the road to fascism and has become an international embarrasment. But for all of the guns and money controlled by the US, some other nation would surely take it upon themselves to enforce the "rule of law" upon us, as we've proven so quick to do to others.

As embarrassing as the administration is, it's only abetted by the media. Media Matters is a leading watchdog, and David Brock's 2005 recap illustrates the steady stream of misinformation being spread to the American public.

There is room for optimism, however, as we enter 2006. For one thing, it's an election year, and American citizens have the opportunity to send a message to the Republican party that it can no longer attack the poor of this country, inpinge upon our civil rights, and desecrate the environment, all the while turning more money and power over to the rich. We can overthrow the Republican majorities in Congress and re-establish proper checks and balances in Washington.

More and more people are questioning the Bush Administration, and waking up to the abuses enacted upon the citizens of the US and the rest of the world. Let's continue to spread the message and do the right thing in 2006. There will continue to be attacks by the right-wing blowhards, and without question we'll have an orange alert or three as election day nears, but let's not fall prey to these tactics, and start ourselves on the path to recovery and civility this year.

No free ride

I had a brief debate about taxes, a couple of weeks ago, over at Words Matter with a guy named "Keepmo'money". Keepmo' was commenting in response to Jim's post about a speech made by Warren Buffet. In the speech, Buffet (one of the world's wealthiest men, and the man who brought you Geico) advocated against the type of tax structure favored by George W. Bush.

In response, Keepmo'money stated that taxes are "stealing," and even went so far as to compare the government's self-imposed power to tax with decisions made by the Nazis. He also succinctly stated that "Liberals justify this system of stealing by giving all the good things that are done with the money. It still is stealing."

Now, obviously this guy is an idiot and doesn't really justify your or my attention. However, he does express a mindset that I've heard from others: "why should I give my money to the government?" I've earned it, it's rightfully mine, and the government is stealing from me.

The simple answer is that it's not your money. By this I mean that you are paying the government to provide you with services. Just as you would consider failing to pay someone who landscaped your yard "theft of services", failure to pay taxes can be considered theft of services. Let's think of some examples.

Here's one: as soon as Keepmo' puts the wheels of his SUV onto the pavement of a public way, he owes the government some money. The government built the road and maintains the road. If it were a private road (i.e. not supported by tax money), he would most likely have to pay a toll. Tolls are another form of taxes. The less tax money that goes toward road construction and maintenance, the more toll money gets charged. So far, we're not saving any money. In addition, to be truly "fair," every road would have a toll, so that just those using each particular road are paying for it. Would this be a better system?

Here's another: education. Currently a whole lot of our tax dollars go to support public education. What would happen if we didn't pay taxes? Well, we already know the answer to this one, because we already have private schools that don't receive tax support. These private schools charge tuition. In a "tax-free" world, tuition is another form of tax.

So far, we're not keeping any mo' money.

How about safety: police and fire? These services are paid for by tax dollars. Are we supposed to pay for our own police and fire protection, like we do insurance? If we don't pay, we don't get coverage?

"I'm sorry that your uncle got shot, but he discontinued police coverage last year, so we're not going after the killer."

"Wait, what's the address of the fire? 32 Main? No coverage, let 'er burn!"

Or maybe they send you a bill. "OK, we sent over two tankers and a ladder. You got your hourly charge for the trucks, plus mileage to and from the station. We had ten men on the scene, and since it was a Sunday they get double-time . . . . ."

And just think of the fines for speeding!

This is obviously absurd, but it illustrates a point. Government provides services that benefit the public good. Education, safety, infrastructure. And in most cases, they provide them much more efficiently than a fragmented, privatized provider system would. How about national security and defense? Most conservatives consider these worthwhile endeavors. How do you suppose we would pay for these without taxes? We live in a capatilist society, people aren't going to volunteer to put their lives on the line, and defense contractors aren't going to build bombers and simply hand them over to the military, free of charge.

Maybe we could all just pay some of our own money into a pool, and we'll use that pool of money to pay for the bombers. Oops! That's a tax, just like the government does.

Unfortunately, Keepmo'money doesn't leave any contact information, so we just have to hope that he comes back to continue the debate. I suspect that what Keepmo' and most of the other "anti-tax" people really mean is that they don't want their tax money to go to social services, which they usually define as "lazy poor people on welfare." However, I think that it's well documented that government handouts to the well-to-do easily exceed those provided to the poor of this country. Furthermore, I suspect that we get favorable returns from money spent on social services (e.g. productivity gains as a result of adequate health insurance for the workforce), especially as compared to tax breaks to industry that end up in the pockets of the shareholders.

Hopefully I'll have enough time in the coming weeks to further explore some of these concepts. For now, however, I hope that I've demonstrated that there is no such thing as a free ride, and a reduction of taxes doesn't necessarily allow us to "keep more money."

A Resounding "No"

In the most definitive vote yet on the issue, Mainers rejected discrimination against homosexuals by a 55% - 45% margin on Tuesday night. The vote culminates years of work by Maine Won't Discriminate, which has fought this battle twice in the past. Apparently Mainers are more convinced that homosexuals do, in fact, face discrimination in their daily lives. As Wisdom Weasel pointed out, the Christian Civic League may have also mis-stepped in running a campaign based on irrational fear ("Protect our Children!" "Save Marriage!") rather than making the focus on "special rights" as they have done in the fact. Indeed, I read just one reference to special rights, in a letter to the editor of the Times Record, in following the debate this year. As I wrote the other day, the campaign of Michael Heath and his minions was based on desperate non-truths, and Mainers were savvy enough to see through them. For that, I am proud of my neighbors.

And, in another resounding "no" that caught my eye, voters in Dover, PA ousted an entire school board. Enraged by the board's plans to teach "Intelligent Design" (a religious construct appropriate for Sunday School, not Public School), several residents ran a concerted campaign to take control of the board and reverse this decision. They were hoping for a simple majority but came out with 8 of the 9 seats. Score some big points for freedom of thought in this country!

Vote No on 1

Tuesday, Mainers will have the opportunity to reject hatred and uphold the law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law states that no Mainer can be denied employment, housing or public accomodation based upon their sexual orientation. While proponents of the "people's veto" play on fear, ignorance and hatred, reasonable Mainers will see that homosexuals do face oppression in this state and vote to do the right thing. Please Vote No on question 1.

The vote will likely be very close, so I encourage all Mainers to head to the polls on Tuesday and reject hatred. Most of the arguments by Christian Civic League and others supporting the referendum fall short on fact, leaving bigotry as the only rational motivation for their actions.

"Preserve Marriage": This is the biggy. For some reason, Christians are real threatened by the thought of gays getting married. I don't understand why "the sanctity of marriage" is damaged by homosexuals getting married, but many people believe it so. I even read a letter to the editor that suggested that the "next step" will be "three people getting married". This incredible leap of logic is symbolic of the fear-mongering preferred by the "Yes on 1" camp. No matter, however, as the law on the books specifically states that it is not to be interpreted as to permit gay marriage.

"Protect Maine": This is the other part of the slogan on the signs. I have no idea how Maine is threatened by gays. I did read an ad in the paper that said that, if allowed to stand, this law (which is supported by the Maine Education Association) will lead to gay-friendly curriculums and the celebration of gay pride week. I thought that the curriculum was set by the school boards and administration. Another leap of logic, I guess.

"Mainers have already rejected protection of gays twice before." So what? Mainers are wrong to promote hatred, and it is an embarrassment to the state that we have done so. I believe that there is greater understanding of the hardships that gays face in their daily lives, and that it is more and more apparent that protection is needed. And if the law is rejected a third time, I hope that the legislature brings it back a fourth time, simply because it's the right thing to do.

"Why protect a choice?" While I know a lot of gay people and have no doubt that homosexuality is not a choice, this line of argument also holds no water. Is religion not a choice? Is it illegal to discriminate based on religious affiliation? Why not take religious protection off the books, just to be equitable.

(Actually, scratch that. Too many Christians in this country would likely take advantage of the ability to discriminate against people of other faiths.)

"Isn't discrimination illegal anyway? Why do we need another law?" That's right, folks. Freedom from discrimination is protected in the constitution. So, in addition to religion, let's drop protection based on gender, race and nationality off the books, too.

No, we won't do that, because we know that, despite the redundancy, these laws provide an avenue to prosecute those who would discriminate agains their fellow people. As does the new law in Maine protecting those of all sexual orientations (please note that heterosexuals are also protected under this law).

If you believe that it's wrong to discriminate against other humans, you should not vote to approve this referundum. If you don't think that it's OK to discriminate, but you oppose the law presently on the books, then it's obvious that you have a problem with homosexuality and don't want to treat gays as equal human beings. Everybody is entitled to their feelings on the issue.

Just don't pretend that a Yes vote is based on anything other than hatred.