Neoliberalism and the alternative
27/09/24 15:29
There are two major socioeconomic philosophies, jneoliberalism and, for lack of a better term, socialistic capitalism. (There are others, e.g. authoritarian kleptocracies, but from the perspective of the average person in them, they’re essentially neoliberalism.) Neoliberalism posits that a free market will result in the best outcomes. This leads to intents to minimize regulation, taxes, and support. Socialistic capitalism, instead, believes in spreading resources to ensure that unequal power isn’t used to benefit the privileged. This leads to intents for equitable regulation and a social safety net funded by taxation. The US has been under neoliberalism since Nixon and really came to power with Reagan. The Scandinavian countries are examples of socialistic capitalism (as was FDR’s plan that recovered America after a neoliberal led economy triggered the Great Depression).
In impact, neoliberalism has led to the evisceration of manufacturing capability as deregulation led companies to ship jobs overseas (which has empowered China’s growth at our expense). It’s led to vast inequity, as the rich have increased their advantage while the middle class has essentially had flat salary despite immense productivity gains. In short, the situation in the 50s and 60s where families could own a house and car on one salary has evaporated.
On the other hand, the Scandinavian countries enjoy the world’s highest quality of life, with effective healthcare, generous working conditions, and good education.
Empirically, neoliberalism has failed. Any political party continuing to pursue such policies is supporting the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the population. The wealthy can tilt the information base through media ownership to provide misleading stories to support their vested interests and get folks focused on other issues or misled about the importance than the core economic and social issues that are critical to societal success.
Trump represents, and is emblematic of, the neoliberal approach. His track record shows tax benefits to the wealthy, and despite promises, no improvement in things that matter like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. His tariff approach made things worse economically for the average family.
Harris represents an approach that looks to tilt policies to make things better for the country as a whole. This includes strategic use of tariffs and funding to build up the life of the families and the structures that support them, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This includes bringing back American manufacturing, and preventing companies to collude to keep prices high.
The playing field isn’t level, as folks don’t have equivalent upbringing nor access to information. Agents will exploit these inequities if possible. That’s one of the functions of government. We’ve allowed the wealthy to tilt the playing field more in the past few decades, and it’s time to right the ship.
In impact, neoliberalism has led to the evisceration of manufacturing capability as deregulation led companies to ship jobs overseas (which has empowered China’s growth at our expense). It’s led to vast inequity, as the rich have increased their advantage while the middle class has essentially had flat salary despite immense productivity gains. In short, the situation in the 50s and 60s where families could own a house and car on one salary has evaporated.
On the other hand, the Scandinavian countries enjoy the world’s highest quality of life, with effective healthcare, generous working conditions, and good education.
Empirically, neoliberalism has failed. Any political party continuing to pursue such policies is supporting the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the population. The wealthy can tilt the information base through media ownership to provide misleading stories to support their vested interests and get folks focused on other issues or misled about the importance than the core economic and social issues that are critical to societal success.
Trump represents, and is emblematic of, the neoliberal approach. His track record shows tax benefits to the wealthy, and despite promises, no improvement in things that matter like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. His tariff approach made things worse economically for the average family.
Harris represents an approach that looks to tilt policies to make things better for the country as a whole. This includes strategic use of tariffs and funding to build up the life of the families and the structures that support them, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This includes bringing back American manufacturing, and preventing companies to collude to keep prices high.
The playing field isn’t level, as folks don’t have equivalent upbringing nor access to information. Agents will exploit these inequities if possible. That’s one of the functions of government. We’ve allowed the wealthy to tilt the playing field more in the past few decades, and it’s time to right the ship.
To family
24/05/24 13:43
Wrote this to a family member, here for the record:
One last stab:
Let’s start where I think we agree.
This is off the top of my head, but, I think, a good starting point. I hope you find these acceptable.
Ok, now let’s briefly start where you begin:
I agree that the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt. When that idiot bought the company selling insulin, and raised the prices, that wasn’t fair. And he was rightly punished.
On the other hand, it is indisputable that vaccines have saved lives. Smallpox, measles, polio, the list goes on.
Now, we can disagree over whether Covid was legit or manufactured to benefit pharm companies. That, to me, is small potatoes.
There’s corruption in healthcare overall. Why was the Affordable Care Act necessary? Predatory insurance companies were raising rates and offering misleading policies. It created a floor for minimum coverage. And many more folks have been covered post-ACA than before. As an anecdote, it saved my family; as an independent my healthcare costs were rising precipitously, and Declan still wasn’t covered! After ACA, we got an affordable good plan that covered us all, and the rises were much less onerous.
This continues in other industries. There are government subsidies for fossil fuels, aviation, agriculture, and food. Yet people can’t afford rent, let alone a house. Despite fossil fuels and food notoriously misleading us (effects of climate change, fat versus sugar). Look at the tobacco industry about smoking!
By the way, climate change is real. When there’s a huge consensus across sectors and independent agents, and the only arguments are from the periphery with a lack of credibility, you can consider it to be known. In addition, it’s not getting better. We need to take drastic action now, because we’ve ignored it or dithered for too long. If you don’t want a world where the equator is uninhabitable, and the seas have risen to completely change the world’s geography, you need to work with others to help.
Overall, the problem really lies with our economic policies. Shareholders demand short-term returns and MBA-equipped execs are rewarded for agreeing. CEO vs worker pay inequities have escalated. We should be rewarding companies that do right by their people. (Others saw this decades ago, I remember reading The Japan that Can Say No while a grad student.) Unions have had their problems, but they arose for a reason, and led to major improvements in quality of life for many. The efforts to squelch them are misguided at best.
Regulation’s necessary to prevent these overreaches. Demonstrably, companies will try to exploit people for profits. And, the old ‘competition allows for improvement’ argument doesn’t work when there’s little real competition, collusion is continually demonstrated, and the power of money supersedes that of truth. Citizens United is a horrible example of that. Allowing companies to have unlimited money to influence elections and legislation is a sad outcome. And we’re paying the price.
For the record, it’s not the liberal presidencies that have had fiscal irresponsibility. Republicans regularly promote expensive programs that cut taxes and benefit big business. Then, when the pendulum swings to the other side, they decry the budget, and claim that they have to take out social security and medicare. Yet, social security is our money, which shouldn’t be available to anybody (which reminds me of those evil funds that bought companies and looted people’s retirement savings; the’s just heinous!). Medicare, btw, is great, and I love those who say that national healthcare is so difficult that only all but one of the world’s most civilized nations have managed to accomplish it. I lived it, it works.
Women’s health is another issue. I don’t like abortion; most people don’t. A majority also agree it’s at least currently necessary. No kid should be born into a home where they aren’t wanted and can’t be supported. If a child is a product of rape, or a mother’s life is threatened, or the child is going to be born with debilitating birth defects, it doesn’t make sense to force birth. The argument isn’t about children, of course, or there’s be much more support for, say, childcare. No, it’s about control.
Immigration, too, is being misconstrued. Yes, we have lots of people trying to get into the US. And, yes, maybe some have nefarious intentions. Yet, the evidence shows they’re less likely to commit crimes, they can’t vote, and they give more in taxes than they take in services. On the other hand, in many cases they’re escaping horrific home country situations (see Central America, China, Venezuela, etc) and looking for economic opportunity. It takes two things: efforts to help those home countries, and drying up the economic opportunities (read: the people who hire them). Recognize also that we need a number of these people who work in our restaurants and harvest our crops, amongst other jobs. What we need is a immigration policy that allows guest workers, and provides paths for legitimate asylum. NOT misinformation about a border invasion.
Even your concerns about weapons manufacturing are not completely on target. Yes, I don’t like that we’re the arms manufacturer to the world. That’s not what the progressives want, by the way, that’s purely a ‘let business be business’ issue. A conservative issue. BTW, how many arms manufacturers are being supported by illicit unregulated sales to be smuggled to cartels below the border and to gangs? I don’t want to take your guns, but I bloody well do want gun control. Remember the bit about “well-regulated”? The NRA has prevented even collecting data, but folks have worked around it and demonstrated that handguns are more trouble than they’re worth. Even that noted liberal band (#sarcasm) Lynyrd Skynyrd wrote about it!
As to funding wars, we’re not in Ukraine. Yes, we’re funding support. For a simple reason, Russia invaded. We have to fight against Putin’s aggression. And authoritarianism in general (see Xi, Un, etc). We have an obligation to ourselves and the rest of the world to join them in resisting aggression. You have to stand up to bullies, together, or they’ll band together and oppress you. The path to peace is to maintain deterrents until others are no longer belligerent, and we can negotiate shared reductions to everyone’s benefit. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.
Finally, I’ll weigh in on voting rights. It’s been empirically demonstrated that there’s little voter fraud. So why the grandstanding and efforts to limit opportunities to vote? It’s about securing the rights of the wealthy, under the guise of protecting rights of (white) voters. Gerrymandering, throwing people off rolls, and more is about restricting voting to allow a the few to continue to oppress the many.
Look, people are generally good, but can be coerced or corrupted. We’re not formally logical beings. We have to use our minds and our means to fight for what’s right. We need to look to evidence-based practices, and continue to experiment to get it right. We need to fight against those who use misinformation to distract us for political or financial ends.
That’s what I do, using methods I’ve studied. And I have; I’ve studied how we think and learn. I’ve researched and debunked myths. And I’ve looked at why myths persist. I use methods to validate what I believe, and also to look for the possibility I’m wrong. I’ve mentioned what works, and what doesn’t.
It’s up to you how you want to proceed. I just suggest that science and journalism are not the enemies, and that there’s not a progressive conspiracy to ruin America. We live here! We don’t want to ruin it, we want to make it better. To become what it used to be, where folks can, on one reasonable salary, afford a house, and college for their kids, in a clean and peaceful world. That’s what I’m working for.
One last stab:
Let’s start where I think we agree.
- We want a good world for our offspring. Healthy, balanced. This, of course, applies to all.
- We want peace. As ELO sang “he should walk with no care in the world”. For us, and everyone.
- We went equity. No one should be suffering for the sake of others.
- If someone is unfairly rendering inquiry onto others, we want justice. If someone’s wronged, there should be accountability.
This is off the top of my head, but, I think, a good starting point. I hope you find these acceptable.
Ok, now let’s briefly start where you begin:
I agree that the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt. When that idiot bought the company selling insulin, and raised the prices, that wasn’t fair. And he was rightly punished.
On the other hand, it is indisputable that vaccines have saved lives. Smallpox, measles, polio, the list goes on.
Now, we can disagree over whether Covid was legit or manufactured to benefit pharm companies. That, to me, is small potatoes.
There’s corruption in healthcare overall. Why was the Affordable Care Act necessary? Predatory insurance companies were raising rates and offering misleading policies. It created a floor for minimum coverage. And many more folks have been covered post-ACA than before. As an anecdote, it saved my family; as an independent my healthcare costs were rising precipitously, and Declan still wasn’t covered! After ACA, we got an affordable good plan that covered us all, and the rises were much less onerous.
This continues in other industries. There are government subsidies for fossil fuels, aviation, agriculture, and food. Yet people can’t afford rent, let alone a house. Despite fossil fuels and food notoriously misleading us (effects of climate change, fat versus sugar). Look at the tobacco industry about smoking!
By the way, climate change is real. When there’s a huge consensus across sectors and independent agents, and the only arguments are from the periphery with a lack of credibility, you can consider it to be known. In addition, it’s not getting better. We need to take drastic action now, because we’ve ignored it or dithered for too long. If you don’t want a world where the equator is uninhabitable, and the seas have risen to completely change the world’s geography, you need to work with others to help.
Overall, the problem really lies with our economic policies. Shareholders demand short-term returns and MBA-equipped execs are rewarded for agreeing. CEO vs worker pay inequities have escalated. We should be rewarding companies that do right by their people. (Others saw this decades ago, I remember reading The Japan that Can Say No while a grad student.) Unions have had their problems, but they arose for a reason, and led to major improvements in quality of life for many. The efforts to squelch them are misguided at best.
Regulation’s necessary to prevent these overreaches. Demonstrably, companies will try to exploit people for profits. And, the old ‘competition allows for improvement’ argument doesn’t work when there’s little real competition, collusion is continually demonstrated, and the power of money supersedes that of truth. Citizens United is a horrible example of that. Allowing companies to have unlimited money to influence elections and legislation is a sad outcome. And we’re paying the price.
For the record, it’s not the liberal presidencies that have had fiscal irresponsibility. Republicans regularly promote expensive programs that cut taxes and benefit big business. Then, when the pendulum swings to the other side, they decry the budget, and claim that they have to take out social security and medicare. Yet, social security is our money, which shouldn’t be available to anybody (which reminds me of those evil funds that bought companies and looted people’s retirement savings; the’s just heinous!). Medicare, btw, is great, and I love those who say that national healthcare is so difficult that only all but one of the world’s most civilized nations have managed to accomplish it. I lived it, it works.
Women’s health is another issue. I don’t like abortion; most people don’t. A majority also agree it’s at least currently necessary. No kid should be born into a home where they aren’t wanted and can’t be supported. If a child is a product of rape, or a mother’s life is threatened, or the child is going to be born with debilitating birth defects, it doesn’t make sense to force birth. The argument isn’t about children, of course, or there’s be much more support for, say, childcare. No, it’s about control.
Immigration, too, is being misconstrued. Yes, we have lots of people trying to get into the US. And, yes, maybe some have nefarious intentions. Yet, the evidence shows they’re less likely to commit crimes, they can’t vote, and they give more in taxes than they take in services. On the other hand, in many cases they’re escaping horrific home country situations (see Central America, China, Venezuela, etc) and looking for economic opportunity. It takes two things: efforts to help those home countries, and drying up the economic opportunities (read: the people who hire them). Recognize also that we need a number of these people who work in our restaurants and harvest our crops, amongst other jobs. What we need is a immigration policy that allows guest workers, and provides paths for legitimate asylum. NOT misinformation about a border invasion.
Even your concerns about weapons manufacturing are not completely on target. Yes, I don’t like that we’re the arms manufacturer to the world. That’s not what the progressives want, by the way, that’s purely a ‘let business be business’ issue. A conservative issue. BTW, how many arms manufacturers are being supported by illicit unregulated sales to be smuggled to cartels below the border and to gangs? I don’t want to take your guns, but I bloody well do want gun control. Remember the bit about “well-regulated”? The NRA has prevented even collecting data, but folks have worked around it and demonstrated that handguns are more trouble than they’re worth. Even that noted liberal band (#sarcasm) Lynyrd Skynyrd wrote about it!
As to funding wars, we’re not in Ukraine. Yes, we’re funding support. For a simple reason, Russia invaded. We have to fight against Putin’s aggression. And authoritarianism in general (see Xi, Un, etc). We have an obligation to ourselves and the rest of the world to join them in resisting aggression. You have to stand up to bullies, together, or they’ll band together and oppress you. The path to peace is to maintain deterrents until others are no longer belligerent, and we can negotiate shared reductions to everyone’s benefit. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.
Finally, I’ll weigh in on voting rights. It’s been empirically demonstrated that there’s little voter fraud. So why the grandstanding and efforts to limit opportunities to vote? It’s about securing the rights of the wealthy, under the guise of protecting rights of (white) voters. Gerrymandering, throwing people off rolls, and more is about restricting voting to allow a the few to continue to oppress the many.
Look, people are generally good, but can be coerced or corrupted. We’re not formally logical beings. We have to use our minds and our means to fight for what’s right. We need to look to evidence-based practices, and continue to experiment to get it right. We need to fight against those who use misinformation to distract us for political or financial ends.
That’s what I do, using methods I’ve studied. And I have; I’ve studied how we think and learn. I’ve researched and debunked myths. And I’ve looked at why myths persist. I use methods to validate what I believe, and also to look for the possibility I’m wrong. I’ve mentioned what works, and what doesn’t.
It’s up to you how you want to proceed. I just suggest that science and journalism are not the enemies, and that there’s not a progressive conspiracy to ruin America. We live here! We don’t want to ruin it, we want to make it better. To become what it used to be, where folks can, on one reasonable salary, afford a house, and college for their kids, in a clean and peaceful world. That’s what I’m working for.
What I believe
20/10/19 15:42
I’ve seen a whole bunch of statements about what liberals/progressives believe, and it’s clearly written by someone who doesn’t know (or actively wants to misrepresent) what folks like me really think. So, if you want to know what I think about something, ask me!
Two starting premises:
My goals are not just personal, I’m thinking of the future. Wisdom is supposed to be about the short and long term. It’s supposed to be about me and mine, but also about the rest of the world. And I believe that. I care about the trajectory of our country and the world for all our kids and future generations! I don't want to be leaving my kids a worse world than I inherited. That’s just wrong. Robbing the future for a selfish today doesn’t represent my values.
And I’m for evidence-based approaches. Things that research tells us work. I’ve no time for positions that are based upon political stances or pipe dreams instead of a solid and scrutable basis. When the data’s not available (e.g. when it’s hidden or skewed) you then have to use causal reasoning. And that’s doable too. Running on mantras and misdirection to serve special interests is not.
Here is an overview of some traditional hot-buttons:
We need to invest in research. We can’t know what works without ongoing scientific investigation. Open research protects us from mistakes as well as providing for our future. Investments in research yield strong benefits. Gutting the engine of innovation is a key opportunity to lose our national competitive advantage.
Education is another investment that defines our future. It needs to be better (“only two things wrong with education, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fine”), as we’re still running an industrial education system in an information era, but privatizing education has not yielded improved outcomes. It’s tough, but it’s the future of our kids. I’d like to see our next ‘man on the moon’ be a complete (and modern) K12 curricula online.
Environment is one of my primary concerns. We live on a finite planet. You don’t throw trash on the floor of your house; you shouldn’t pollute your only planet. The environmental outcomes of natural resource consumption are coming due. I find it confusing that people who love the benefits of science in their internet and health and more somehow can turn around and say “oh, but they’re wrong about climate change.” As an aside, there’re scientific benefits to wildness, and we need to stop developing what little remains.
Energy is a great opportunity instead of a barrier. Continuing to exploit natural resources is like “how can I be out of money, I still have checks?” It’s time for a national commitment to manufacture renewable resource energy solutions in areas that have lost industries. And then further investment to distribute them. My personal idea: build solar panels in places like West Virginia, and install them over every parking lot in the Sun Belt. Employment and energy self-sufficiency while providing a marketable product. (Research, ahem.)
Another area that’s important to me is healthcare. I’ve lived in a country with national healthcare. Guess what? It worked! Better than here in the US. I think it’s morally wrong to have people going bankrupt and/or dying because they can’t afford healthcare. No one – children, elderly, or anyone else – should lack for the support to pursue the life necessary to enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction. It mandated minimum levels of quality, and ensured everyone was covered so that there’d be the resources for later even if they are healthy now. It still doesn’t address the additional costs that accrue to the medical profession in managing payments to multiple providers, so there’s room to improve. It’s also a competitive advantage; when businesses don’t have to use overhead to administer health benefits, they can compete better.
So you can probably infer I’m for a baseline of government investment. I think there’re things that we have government for, and one of those is supporting the things that it’s too hard to do any other way. Roads and defense and research and education and healthcare are things that make sense. It’s about deciding what we want to have done that isn’t better done through a free market. Where a profit motive is at conflict with the outcomes (e.g. private health insurance loses if you actually need coverage, so…). And then we figure out how to pay for it. But not arbitrarily cut spending while at the same time ensuring that it’s being delivered efficiently.
Which brings up taxation. Look, let’s be clear, ‘trickle down’ doesn’t work. Demonstrably. And ‘tax and spend’ isn’t a bad mantra. It’s financially sound! Tax and not spend is mean, and spend and don’t tax is unsustainable. (No tax and no spend undermines the principles of supporting activity and the future.) And *of course* it doesn’t mean unlimited spending and unlimited taxing. Again, figuring out what we want and then taxing to pay for it. With no loopholes. Those who earn a lot still have incentives to earn, but they’re also paying back for the infrastructure that allowed them to be successful. I like the saying that “when you’ve more than others, don’t build a bigger wall, set a larger table.”
Now, there’s this silly notion that folks want to get without giving. That there’re folks who don’t want to work but expect to get cared for. I don’t know anyone like that, and I don’t know anyone who wants to enable that. But I do know that there are folks who want jobs, and can’t get them. Or can only get jobs that aren’t sufficient. When productivity has grown, but income hasn’t, someone’s getting rich but it isn’t the average worker. When companies tell employees to apply for family support, something’s wrong.
And we’re on to immigration. There are jobs that people struggle to take because they’re seasonal and don’t pay well. Yet, for some, these are a blessing. If you come from a country where it’s not safe to live and you can go to one where you’ll get better wages than you could otherwise, you’ll go. Illegal or not. Look, I’m not a fan of illegal immigration, I agree with the word ‘illegal’. But when their home country is outright dangerous, and there are people who will hire them, they’ll continue. You won’t stop it with deportation. If you don’t both help fix their home country and crack down on the employers, it’ll continue. And cracking down on the employers will cause economic chaos when those businesses that depend on this labor will go out of business. Maybe then we’ll come up with a guest worker plan that actually works!
And a big issue is discrimination. All these immigrants seem to threaten the notion of our existing white founders. First, how about the native Americans? And there’s already enough privilege. Scientifically, the races are the same other than some surface features, no different than black and gold Labrador retrievers! On principle, we shouldn’t discriminate against folks on anything they can’t control. Ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, these aren’t chosen! The only thing we should discriminate on is how people behave. Generosity, contribution, and adaptivity are far more important than the color of your skin. And there’s strength in diversity.
Speaking of ‘illegal’, if you ban abortions, you only ban legal abortions, risking people’s lives. I’m not pro-abortion; I would love to let embryos achieve their potential. But I also don’t want that child to be brought into a world where they’re unloved, abused, starved, and denied support to achieve that potential. When every child has a good home to go to, where we’re adopting all those whose mothers can’t provide, we should be able to remove abortion. But it’s not the decision of men, churches, or politicians. It’s a woman’s choice, period.
And on the topic of ‘murder’, how about guns? First, I don’t want your guns. But, please register them. And keep them safe. And let’s please check the background of anyone wanting to buy them. It amazes me how the 2nd Amendment supporters forget the part of the wording that specifies “a well-regulated militia”. Constitutional scholars (not those benefiting from the industry and inferiority complexes) are clear that what was meant was not unlimited weapon ownership. I don’t want to take away legitimate guns! If you’re a hunter, have a rifle and/or a shotgun. I’m questionable about handguns; as that notoriously liberal group (sarcasm) Lynyrd Skynyrd said, “Handguns are made for killin', ain't no good for nothin' else.” But I’ll listen to a case being made. Assault weapons and massive cartridges? No! The only reason for that is killing people, and that’s not on. You can’t have a bazooka or a grenade, why should you have a weapon of mass shooting? Of course, why shouldn’t you listen to the gun manufacturers? Ahem. And don’t get me started on “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”; that myth’s been busted. We need more data, but that’s research that’s been stymied. (Research, ahem again.)
Being the arms merchant to the world isn’t our best foot forward. I’m for defense spending. Yet it was that infamous liberal (sarcasm again) Eisenhower who told us to fear the military industrial complex. We should be supporting freedom, but not imposing it, either. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Just as in business and interpersonal relations, good friendships should be built and maintained. Sure, we have to act against unfair policies, but building coalitions is better than going it alone. And, to be clear, when we deal with corrupt regimes that are enemies, their leaders should not be venerated!
Which brings us to the Mideast. I’m sorry, but when we’re cozying up to one regime, and attacking another, and their major split is religious, we’re opening the door to accusations of favoritism and guaranteeing an inability to quell disputes. Our policies towards Saudi’s Sunnis and Iran’s Shiites are different enough to engender anger. Similarly, while Israel has a right to exist, their violation of treaties to settle in areas like the West Bank should be condemned, not condoned. The Palestinians deserve a home, too. We’ll never be able to assist peace when we’re seen to be biased. Slap one on the wrist versus backhand the other across the face?
And, for the record, the Deep State is truly laughable. Look, when I hear the stories about how liberals have this plot to ruin America, I have to ask “what are you smoking?” Seriously, why would liberals want to ruin America? We live here! And the notion that there’s this pervasive conspiracy confounds common sense. No one yet has been able to perpetuate such a complicated endeavor without mistakes and leaks. It’s contrary to human nature. If it’s so big and powerful, how come Trump’s in the White House?
So: These are amongst the issues I want to evaluate a candidate for office on. There’s more (hey, I’m *deep* ;), but this is a start. And if you’re not on the side of the data, you’re on the wrong side. Let’s do what’s known to be right, not support vested interests misleading us. Learn the facts, and then, please, vote!
Two starting premises:
My goals are not just personal, I’m thinking of the future. Wisdom is supposed to be about the short and long term. It’s supposed to be about me and mine, but also about the rest of the world. And I believe that. I care about the trajectory of our country and the world for all our kids and future generations! I don't want to be leaving my kids a worse world than I inherited. That’s just wrong. Robbing the future for a selfish today doesn’t represent my values.
And I’m for evidence-based approaches. Things that research tells us work. I’ve no time for positions that are based upon political stances or pipe dreams instead of a solid and scrutable basis. When the data’s not available (e.g. when it’s hidden or skewed) you then have to use causal reasoning. And that’s doable too. Running on mantras and misdirection to serve special interests is not.
Here is an overview of some traditional hot-buttons:
We need to invest in research. We can’t know what works without ongoing scientific investigation. Open research protects us from mistakes as well as providing for our future. Investments in research yield strong benefits. Gutting the engine of innovation is a key opportunity to lose our national competitive advantage.
Education is another investment that defines our future. It needs to be better (“only two things wrong with education, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fine”), as we’re still running an industrial education system in an information era, but privatizing education has not yielded improved outcomes. It’s tough, but it’s the future of our kids. I’d like to see our next ‘man on the moon’ be a complete (and modern) K12 curricula online.
Environment is one of my primary concerns. We live on a finite planet. You don’t throw trash on the floor of your house; you shouldn’t pollute your only planet. The environmental outcomes of natural resource consumption are coming due. I find it confusing that people who love the benefits of science in their internet and health and more somehow can turn around and say “oh, but they’re wrong about climate change.” As an aside, there’re scientific benefits to wildness, and we need to stop developing what little remains.
Energy is a great opportunity instead of a barrier. Continuing to exploit natural resources is like “how can I be out of money, I still have checks?” It’s time for a national commitment to manufacture renewable resource energy solutions in areas that have lost industries. And then further investment to distribute them. My personal idea: build solar panels in places like West Virginia, and install them over every parking lot in the Sun Belt. Employment and energy self-sufficiency while providing a marketable product. (Research, ahem.)
Another area that’s important to me is healthcare. I’ve lived in a country with national healthcare. Guess what? It worked! Better than here in the US. I think it’s morally wrong to have people going bankrupt and/or dying because they can’t afford healthcare. No one – children, elderly, or anyone else – should lack for the support to pursue the life necessary to enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction. It mandated minimum levels of quality, and ensured everyone was covered so that there’d be the resources for later even if they are healthy now. It still doesn’t address the additional costs that accrue to the medical profession in managing payments to multiple providers, so there’s room to improve. It’s also a competitive advantage; when businesses don’t have to use overhead to administer health benefits, they can compete better.
So you can probably infer I’m for a baseline of government investment. I think there’re things that we have government for, and one of those is supporting the things that it’s too hard to do any other way. Roads and defense and research and education and healthcare are things that make sense. It’s about deciding what we want to have done that isn’t better done through a free market. Where a profit motive is at conflict with the outcomes (e.g. private health insurance loses if you actually need coverage, so…). And then we figure out how to pay for it. But not arbitrarily cut spending while at the same time ensuring that it’s being delivered efficiently.
Which brings up taxation. Look, let’s be clear, ‘trickle down’ doesn’t work. Demonstrably. And ‘tax and spend’ isn’t a bad mantra. It’s financially sound! Tax and not spend is mean, and spend and don’t tax is unsustainable. (No tax and no spend undermines the principles of supporting activity and the future.) And *of course* it doesn’t mean unlimited spending and unlimited taxing. Again, figuring out what we want and then taxing to pay for it. With no loopholes. Those who earn a lot still have incentives to earn, but they’re also paying back for the infrastructure that allowed them to be successful. I like the saying that “when you’ve more than others, don’t build a bigger wall, set a larger table.”
Now, there’s this silly notion that folks want to get without giving. That there’re folks who don’t want to work but expect to get cared for. I don’t know anyone like that, and I don’t know anyone who wants to enable that. But I do know that there are folks who want jobs, and can’t get them. Or can only get jobs that aren’t sufficient. When productivity has grown, but income hasn’t, someone’s getting rich but it isn’t the average worker. When companies tell employees to apply for family support, something’s wrong.
And we’re on to immigration. There are jobs that people struggle to take because they’re seasonal and don’t pay well. Yet, for some, these are a blessing. If you come from a country where it’s not safe to live and you can go to one where you’ll get better wages than you could otherwise, you’ll go. Illegal or not. Look, I’m not a fan of illegal immigration, I agree with the word ‘illegal’. But when their home country is outright dangerous, and there are people who will hire them, they’ll continue. You won’t stop it with deportation. If you don’t both help fix their home country and crack down on the employers, it’ll continue. And cracking down on the employers will cause economic chaos when those businesses that depend on this labor will go out of business. Maybe then we’ll come up with a guest worker plan that actually works!
And a big issue is discrimination. All these immigrants seem to threaten the notion of our existing white founders. First, how about the native Americans? And there’s already enough privilege. Scientifically, the races are the same other than some surface features, no different than black and gold Labrador retrievers! On principle, we shouldn’t discriminate against folks on anything they can’t control. Ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, these aren’t chosen! The only thing we should discriminate on is how people behave. Generosity, contribution, and adaptivity are far more important than the color of your skin. And there’s strength in diversity.
Speaking of ‘illegal’, if you ban abortions, you only ban legal abortions, risking people’s lives. I’m not pro-abortion; I would love to let embryos achieve their potential. But I also don’t want that child to be brought into a world where they’re unloved, abused, starved, and denied support to achieve that potential. When every child has a good home to go to, where we’re adopting all those whose mothers can’t provide, we should be able to remove abortion. But it’s not the decision of men, churches, or politicians. It’s a woman’s choice, period.
And on the topic of ‘murder’, how about guns? First, I don’t want your guns. But, please register them. And keep them safe. And let’s please check the background of anyone wanting to buy them. It amazes me how the 2nd Amendment supporters forget the part of the wording that specifies “a well-regulated militia”. Constitutional scholars (not those benefiting from the industry and inferiority complexes) are clear that what was meant was not unlimited weapon ownership. I don’t want to take away legitimate guns! If you’re a hunter, have a rifle and/or a shotgun. I’m questionable about handguns; as that notoriously liberal group (sarcasm) Lynyrd Skynyrd said, “Handguns are made for killin', ain't no good for nothin' else.” But I’ll listen to a case being made. Assault weapons and massive cartridges? No! The only reason for that is killing people, and that’s not on. You can’t have a bazooka or a grenade, why should you have a weapon of mass shooting? Of course, why shouldn’t you listen to the gun manufacturers? Ahem. And don’t get me started on “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”; that myth’s been busted. We need more data, but that’s research that’s been stymied. (Research, ahem again.)
Being the arms merchant to the world isn’t our best foot forward. I’m for defense spending. Yet it was that infamous liberal (sarcasm again) Eisenhower who told us to fear the military industrial complex. We should be supporting freedom, but not imposing it, either. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Just as in business and interpersonal relations, good friendships should be built and maintained. Sure, we have to act against unfair policies, but building coalitions is better than going it alone. And, to be clear, when we deal with corrupt regimes that are enemies, their leaders should not be venerated!
Which brings us to the Mideast. I’m sorry, but when we’re cozying up to one regime, and attacking another, and their major split is religious, we’re opening the door to accusations of favoritism and guaranteeing an inability to quell disputes. Our policies towards Saudi’s Sunnis and Iran’s Shiites are different enough to engender anger. Similarly, while Israel has a right to exist, their violation of treaties to settle in areas like the West Bank should be condemned, not condoned. The Palestinians deserve a home, too. We’ll never be able to assist peace when we’re seen to be biased. Slap one on the wrist versus backhand the other across the face?
And, for the record, the Deep State is truly laughable. Look, when I hear the stories about how liberals have this plot to ruin America, I have to ask “what are you smoking?” Seriously, why would liberals want to ruin America? We live here! And the notion that there’s this pervasive conspiracy confounds common sense. No one yet has been able to perpetuate such a complicated endeavor without mistakes and leaks. It’s contrary to human nature. If it’s so big and powerful, how come Trump’s in the White House?
So: These are amongst the issues I want to evaluate a candidate for office on. There’s more (hey, I’m *deep* ;), but this is a start. And if you’re not on the side of the data, you’re on the wrong side. Let’s do what’s known to be right, not support vested interests misleading us. Learn the facts, and then, please, vote!
My vote
07/03/19 08:26
In Australia, they have preferential voting. You can have as many candidates as you like, and either you can do it manually, or each candidate specifies their directions. What that means is that if your candidate comes out at the bottom, your vote then goes to who you or they specified next. And it all cascades through until one person ends up winning a majority of the vote. This allows you not to waste a vote, and to have more parties. It's a winner on both.
They also make voting mandatory, with a small penalty not to vote. Which I also think is a good idea. Although sometimes I wish that people had to pass a test on an issue before they can vote. Of course, then the question would be who gets to write the test. If only our education system was as effective as you'd expect from this nation of incredible potential.
What we've got wrong in this country is more fundamental, however. For one, the electoral college has it's good and bad points. The good point is that the rural areas still get representation. The bad point is that the representation is disproportionate. So a Wisconsin voter is worth many Los Angeles voters.
This is exacerbated by gerrymandering. Here districts can be drawn to isolate particular segments. While it's been done by both parties, not surprisingly one has dominated. The point is that it's wrong by either side. What California has done, with an independent committee doing the decisions is the right way to go.
Another problem is voter suppression. Whether taking people off the rolls by name, closing polling places in disadvantaged areas, restricting voting hours, or more, there are many methods that have disproportionally affected minorities and other segments that may vote in opposition to the vested interests.
One last problem surfaced in our last election, and has not been addressed: outside interference. Our current administration has not been proactive in addressing this, perhaps not surprisingly since it was to their benefit.
There's much room for making America truly a land of the people, not the rich. We need to move in this direction. I think we've taken a step back, but hopefully that's the last gap that will push the pendulum in a more positive direction. We have room for improvement on energy, the environment, the economy, and more. Let's make it so.
They also make voting mandatory, with a small penalty not to vote. Which I also think is a good idea. Although sometimes I wish that people had to pass a test on an issue before they can vote. Of course, then the question would be who gets to write the test. If only our education system was as effective as you'd expect from this nation of incredible potential.
What we've got wrong in this country is more fundamental, however. For one, the electoral college has it's good and bad points. The good point is that the rural areas still get representation. The bad point is that the representation is disproportionate. So a Wisconsin voter is worth many Los Angeles voters.
This is exacerbated by gerrymandering. Here districts can be drawn to isolate particular segments. While it's been done by both parties, not surprisingly one has dominated. The point is that it's wrong by either side. What California has done, with an independent committee doing the decisions is the right way to go.
Another problem is voter suppression. Whether taking people off the rolls by name, closing polling places in disadvantaged areas, restricting voting hours, or more, there are many methods that have disproportionally affected minorities and other segments that may vote in opposition to the vested interests.
One last problem surfaced in our last election, and has not been addressed: outside interference. Our current administration has not been proactive in addressing this, perhaps not surprisingly since it was to their benefit.
There's much room for making America truly a land of the people, not the rich. We need to move in this direction. I think we've taken a step back, but hopefully that's the last gap that will push the pendulum in a more positive direction. We have room for improvement on energy, the environment, the economy, and more. Let's make it so.
On socialism and capitalism
25/12/12 11:05
I don’t see how anyone wants to argue about capitalism versus socialism. We’re no more capitalist than the USSR was communist. Really. We have subsidies for industries, instituted by conservatives, mind you, and lots of other practices that aren’t pure capitalism. How about defense, infrastructure, national initiatives like space travel, and more? And rightly so.
The issue is what services do we want to provide, and what don’t we want? And then, how do we pay? I reckon we want a social safety net, national health insurance so everyone’s covered and the cost is minimized to support national competitiveness, and investments and incentives for behavior that boosts us as a country. Add some defense, and some environmentalism.
I’m not asking for big government, I’m asking for right government, and a fair fiscal policy to support it. And the conservative movement since Reagan has been exactly the opposite, despite exaggerated blather to the contrary. Let me add “do the research” to Bill Clinton’s “do the math”.
The biggest government spending has been under conservatives, and the lowest taxation. If the government were a consumer we’d cut up its credit cards! But we wouldn’t quit the day job. Now we’ve got to pay the piper. We’ve got to invest to get the country growing again, and then we can look to streamline government, matching revenue to services. Yes, we trim waste, but not core services (read: education).
Look, we’ve had 30+ years to prove that unregulated business doesn’t lead to trickle down. Anyone pushing that barrow is just greedy or stupid (or both). Let’s get back to a time when you could get rich, but not quickly without paying your dues. Let’s get back to a set of values that says we pay for what we receive, and our effort is rewarded.
And to skewer another canard, stop that ‘those folks don’t want to work’. Sure, there are those fatheads, but there always have been. We need to provide programs to give them legitimate opportunity, and track them. If they don’t do the effort, they don’t get rewards. That’s just sensible.
The issue is what services do we want to provide, and what don’t we want? And then, how do we pay? I reckon we want a social safety net, national health insurance so everyone’s covered and the cost is minimized to support national competitiveness, and investments and incentives for behavior that boosts us as a country. Add some defense, and some environmentalism.
I’m not asking for big government, I’m asking for right government, and a fair fiscal policy to support it. And the conservative movement since Reagan has been exactly the opposite, despite exaggerated blather to the contrary. Let me add “do the research” to Bill Clinton’s “do the math”.
The biggest government spending has been under conservatives, and the lowest taxation. If the government were a consumer we’d cut up its credit cards! But we wouldn’t quit the day job. Now we’ve got to pay the piper. We’ve got to invest to get the country growing again, and then we can look to streamline government, matching revenue to services. Yes, we trim waste, but not core services (read: education).
Look, we’ve had 30+ years to prove that unregulated business doesn’t lead to trickle down. Anyone pushing that barrow is just greedy or stupid (or both). Let’s get back to a time when you could get rich, but not quickly without paying your dues. Let’s get back to a set of values that says we pay for what we receive, and our effort is rewarded.
And to skewer another canard, stop that ‘those folks don’t want to work’. Sure, there are those fatheads, but there always have been. We need to provide programs to give them legitimate opportunity, and track them. If they don’t do the effort, they don’t get rewards. That’s just sensible.
Guns 'n' thangs
25/12/12 10:57
As with healthcare (and voting), I find that the Aussies are smarter than us. They restrict certain weapons to folks in rural areas who might legitimately have an ‘at large’ threat like feral pigs, and handguns are kept locked up at shooting ranges. They recognize that the concern over a tyrannical government is far less than an angry and/or soused spouse or other family member. Criminals still get guns, but it’s much harder. And as so many statistics say, our weapons deaths are far out of proportion to our population compared to other countries where guns are better controlled.
Look, I don’t want to ban guns, I just want to remove the opportunity for criminal activities. While I do think that assault weapons and cartridges - that is guns designed to kill people not animals - are unnecessary, my bigger issue is access and tracking. I want no gun to be sold without verified identification of the purchaser, a nationwide database of owners, and possibly even tracking tags. We tag our pets, and they’re way less harmful.
The Second Amendment interpretation was originally seen as arming a militia, not the average citizen, and that only recently changed under pressure from, yes, the NRA (which only recently changed it's own perspective on this). And I’ll bet dollars to donuts that both a) the average member isn’t gonzo about allowing mass killing weapons, and b) that the largest proportion of funding comes from manufacturers. As does the agenda.
It is far past time to stop risking our lives for weapons profits. OK?
Look, I don’t want to ban guns, I just want to remove the opportunity for criminal activities. While I do think that assault weapons and cartridges - that is guns designed to kill people not animals - are unnecessary, my bigger issue is access and tracking. I want no gun to be sold without verified identification of the purchaser, a nationwide database of owners, and possibly even tracking tags. We tag our pets, and they’re way less harmful.
The Second Amendment interpretation was originally seen as arming a militia, not the average citizen, and that only recently changed under pressure from, yes, the NRA (which only recently changed it's own perspective on this). And I’ll bet dollars to donuts that both a) the average member isn’t gonzo about allowing mass killing weapons, and b) that the largest proportion of funding comes from manufacturers. As does the agenda.
It is far past time to stop risking our lives for weapons profits. OK?
Why I support Healthcare reform
21/09/12 12:10
I want to share the reason I support health care reform. It's based upon my experience and my reflections, so it's very personal. I believe the status quo isn't working, and the reasons for change are compelling.
My mother worked as a nurse, and was adamant that (among other things), we should always be covered for health care. So I have been. It was fine up until I was laid off in 2001. When COBRA ran out, I found out that while they'd give us a family plan, they wouldn't cover my lad under that plan, and that while they were required to provide a plan for him under HIPAA, it didn't have as good a coverage as the rest of us had. He was a second class citizen in this country where "all...are created equal"!
It's not like he's got a serious problem. He has what's known as a Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD), colloquially known as a heart murmur. In his case, it's a small hole in the wall of his heart. It's not getting bigger, it's causing no complications, and doctors tell us not to operate, that it's fine. However, the HMO doesn't want to cover him unless we cut into his healthy young body! That's just bad craziness.
Then, of course, our insurance rates went up 400% in 4 years, now rivaling our mortgage (and we live in California). It's not like the quality of our care went up, or the cost of living, or our income, just the rates. It's hard to budget when you've got such an inequitable rise, and it's hard to countenance.
Now, to put this in context, we lived overseas in Australia for 7 years. Let me tell you about their healthcare system. You see the doctor you want, and get the treatment you need. It cost each of us 1.5% of our salary (yes, you read that right), and that doesn't vary much by governmental administration. But it does vary by your income. Everyone's covered. Period.
The system is single payer, reducing the redundant processing we see across providers here. And, yes, there are a (very) few horror stories. Note that we see the same here, and probably more! Certainly not people being cut off from coverage when they need it most, or not able to get coverage. And you can get private health insurance on top of the base level if you want, that lets you get private rooms and other benefits. We got it when m'lady was pregnant with the lad, just to be on the safe side. I don't think many Australians would change their health system for ours!
It works for every Australian, but it also works for Australian business as well. They don't have to worry about providing healthcare, and consequently they are more competitive than they would be otherwise. And there is a role for private insurers, too. So it's not stifling business, and yet it's also not leaving anyone in the lurch.
Compare that to the US, which doesn't seem to be working for much of anyone except the shareholders in health care and medical providers (e.g. pharmaceutical companies). The non-insured and the 'uninsurable' aren't covered. The self-insured can't cope with the costs. The employees with health coverage are being asked to shoulder more and more of the cost, and companies are finding the increasing costs undermining their competitiveness. And doctors are being pressured to take more patients, live with more constraints, and face ever more complicated billing procedures.
Of course, I understand the fear of government intervention. And the fear of the associated costs. But, logically, the upside overwhelms the potential downside. Everyone covered at a rate that they can afford and doesn’t burden business success. Quality? I felt the quality in Australia was the equal of the care I get here. Actually, slightly better since the doctors weren't so pressured to service more and more patients in the same time due to reimbursement rates, and their overhead wasn't as slammed by multiple billing requirements.
And we're ignoring that the costs of the uninsured are being born by the rest of us one way or another. Really, single payer is the right solution, because the savings from removing redundant administration would offset any inefficiencies. Given that single-payer seems to be politically too big a step, a public option is our only other course of action.
I know some say that we could just regulate the existing health care companies to get what we need: cost reductions, full coverage, no denials. And that there's more we could do by facilitating competition. I agree that we could do more, but I'm beyond that point. My response is that we've had a long period of little regulation and opportunities for competition, and the companies have blocked competition and stifled regulation. At this point, frankly, I just don't trust the free market, at least in this instance. We don't have, and aren't likely to get, the openness we'd need without a legitimate public competitor.
It finally comes down to whether you believe healthcare is something that should be part of the infrastructure or not. You certainly do have infrastructure provided by the government in other areas, even if you complain about paying for it: interstate highways, mail, defense, and lots more. However, it seems clear to me that no one, particularly children, have a choice in needing healthcare, and therefore it should be a national responsibility. I believe that the rest of the developed world is showing us that. As I told you, this is a personal note, and this is what I believe is logical and right.
UPDATE: We've had the Affordable Care Act of late (aka Obamacare), and it's been a great improvement. It's provided plans with necessary minimum guarantees, kept costs down, and covered those who had pre-existing conditions (like my son). The current threats to it are worrying for sure.
My mother worked as a nurse, and was adamant that (among other things), we should always be covered for health care. So I have been. It was fine up until I was laid off in 2001. When COBRA ran out, I found out that while they'd give us a family plan, they wouldn't cover my lad under that plan, and that while they were required to provide a plan for him under HIPAA, it didn't have as good a coverage as the rest of us had. He was a second class citizen in this country where "all...are created equal"!
It's not like he's got a serious problem. He has what's known as a Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD), colloquially known as a heart murmur. In his case, it's a small hole in the wall of his heart. It's not getting bigger, it's causing no complications, and doctors tell us not to operate, that it's fine. However, the HMO doesn't want to cover him unless we cut into his healthy young body! That's just bad craziness.
Then, of course, our insurance rates went up 400% in 4 years, now rivaling our mortgage (and we live in California). It's not like the quality of our care went up, or the cost of living, or our income, just the rates. It's hard to budget when you've got such an inequitable rise, and it's hard to countenance.
Now, to put this in context, we lived overseas in Australia for 7 years. Let me tell you about their healthcare system. You see the doctor you want, and get the treatment you need. It cost each of us 1.5% of our salary (yes, you read that right), and that doesn't vary much by governmental administration. But it does vary by your income. Everyone's covered. Period.
The system is single payer, reducing the redundant processing we see across providers here. And, yes, there are a (very) few horror stories. Note that we see the same here, and probably more! Certainly not people being cut off from coverage when they need it most, or not able to get coverage. And you can get private health insurance on top of the base level if you want, that lets you get private rooms and other benefits. We got it when m'lady was pregnant with the lad, just to be on the safe side. I don't think many Australians would change their health system for ours!
It works for every Australian, but it also works for Australian business as well. They don't have to worry about providing healthcare, and consequently they are more competitive than they would be otherwise. And there is a role for private insurers, too. So it's not stifling business, and yet it's also not leaving anyone in the lurch.
Compare that to the US, which doesn't seem to be working for much of anyone except the shareholders in health care and medical providers (e.g. pharmaceutical companies). The non-insured and the 'uninsurable' aren't covered. The self-insured can't cope with the costs. The employees with health coverage are being asked to shoulder more and more of the cost, and companies are finding the increasing costs undermining their competitiveness. And doctors are being pressured to take more patients, live with more constraints, and face ever more complicated billing procedures.
Of course, I understand the fear of government intervention. And the fear of the associated costs. But, logically, the upside overwhelms the potential downside. Everyone covered at a rate that they can afford and doesn’t burden business success. Quality? I felt the quality in Australia was the equal of the care I get here. Actually, slightly better since the doctors weren't so pressured to service more and more patients in the same time due to reimbursement rates, and their overhead wasn't as slammed by multiple billing requirements.
And we're ignoring that the costs of the uninsured are being born by the rest of us one way or another. Really, single payer is the right solution, because the savings from removing redundant administration would offset any inefficiencies. Given that single-payer seems to be politically too big a step, a public option is our only other course of action.
I know some say that we could just regulate the existing health care companies to get what we need: cost reductions, full coverage, no denials. And that there's more we could do by facilitating competition. I agree that we could do more, but I'm beyond that point. My response is that we've had a long period of little regulation and opportunities for competition, and the companies have blocked competition and stifled regulation. At this point, frankly, I just don't trust the free market, at least in this instance. We don't have, and aren't likely to get, the openness we'd need without a legitimate public competitor.
It finally comes down to whether you believe healthcare is something that should be part of the infrastructure or not. You certainly do have infrastructure provided by the government in other areas, even if you complain about paying for it: interstate highways, mail, defense, and lots more. However, it seems clear to me that no one, particularly children, have a choice in needing healthcare, and therefore it should be a national responsibility. I believe that the rest of the developed world is showing us that. As I told you, this is a personal note, and this is what I believe is logical and right.
UPDATE: We've had the Affordable Care Act of late (aka Obamacare), and it's been a great improvement. It's provided plans with necessary minimum guarantees, kept costs down, and covered those who had pre-existing conditions (like my son). The current threats to it are worrying for sure.
Welcome to the Quinnstitute
20/04/12 16:04
Well, we’ve got the site up, now to figure out what to do with it. We’ll see. Politics? Social commentary? Probably all of the above. Need a place to vent, and I reckon this will be it!
