Polibits & Ecobytes

Cash for Clunkers

2009-08-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

So I bought a 2009 Ford Escape from a dealer halfway to hell (close to Dallas.) I got a great deal on the vehicle.

2500 rebate
1500 dealer incentives
4500 cash for clunkers

This was off an SUV with a 21k msrp. I got a new car and by buying it already have some equity in it with very little money down. This was made possible by trading in my 2001GMC Sonoma which had almost 100k miles and a broken AC. I couldn't have gotten more than $500 cash for this old faithful truck. I am excited. Excited enough to write my congressman a thankyou note? Not likely.

This program is nothing more than another tax subsidy called a stimulus, disguised as an environmentally conscious act of humanitarianism. It is aimed at pleasing many people and showing that promises of "change" are being fulfilled. However, all that is really occuring is that many people who are already in debt are being given a $4500 lifeline of "equity" with which to plunge themselves further in debt. This is just another example of money being created spontaneously in an attempt to further prop up a world economy drenched in bad debt.

Why disguise this and add so much complexity to what are no more than a couple simple subsidies? Why not just give a check to the automakers for half of the $3 billion this program is costing us taxpayers? If you needed to spend the extra $1.5 to million as a stimulus you could have sent each of us a check for $100 and then everyone wouldn't have to buy a car to benefit. If we need cleaner cars, just make manufacturers build them that way! Why are you blending all of these programs together and leaving us all further in debt?

The new evolution of Man

2008-05-16T15:40:00.000-07:00

This is from the film "Waking Life," which is relatively well known in Austin, but a little more obscure elsewhere. I have always understood what this "mad scientist" was describing, but always thought his ideas were a little far fetched and idealistic. I might have some evidence to lower my level of doubt. The CNN article today, "Man's rare ability may unlock secret of memory," tells of a man, Brad Williams, 51, who remembers everything about where he was on a certain date and all the noteworthy events that took place. His ability/condition, known as hyperthymestic syndrome, is known to be shared by 2 other people, one woman and another man. What makes this scary to me is that I can imagine some mad proponent of eugenics who would kill to get their hands onsome of their genetic material so that this "new evolution" can begin. How different would society/relationships be if we all had this ability. I guess it would leave a lot of politicians SOL.

Politics + America's favorite pasttime = Vomit

2008-02-14T19:52:00.000-08:00

The congressional hearings? on steroid use in baseball could not have been choreographed any better. In one corner we have an untrustworthy drug dealer who is most likely telling the truth about the dark side of a popular sport. On the other we have an American legend, role model for work ethic, and possible cheat who will do anything to convince the public of his innocence. The result was a meaningless hearing that left everyone "disguested" and with no option but to give up chasing ghosts in a controversy that will never be solved. Wasn't this the only exit strategy for a confrontation created by greedy baseball players and executives? There have to be dozens of trainers involved in the doping of athletes. Why target the dirtiest of them all? Bring the upstanding family practitioner who injected his next door neighbor who happens to be the star of his local team in front of your exploratory panel. Instead we are stuck with a pointless hearing and no results. No one will go to jail, and business will go on as usual. Don't get me wrong. I love baseball. But if the federal government wants to say that they stand against steroids, then take some real action. Don't orchestrate some public charade to appease the disappointed masses. Have the gusto to stand by your words. I hope baseball takes this as a warningshot against their bow, but fear this is simply politics as usual.

Speedfreaks and Wall Street

2008-01-28T16:14:00.001-08:00

I am a technophile. Most people of generation X and beyond are. There have even been studies showing how teenagers become uneasy when you take away their cell phones. I don't think that I am so entrenched in technology that I am uncomfortable without it, I am just exited about all of the advances that we have seen because it. It is frequently argued that the internet is to our generation what the printing press was to the 15th century. because both have made the world so much smaller. Communication is definitely much easier now, things visible instantly all over the world, but the effects of this are not analyzed nearly enough. One of the most obvious and apparent in our current national landscape is that of the stock market. We used to have to look in the paper to find out how out investments were doing. It was not a daily, or even hourly, activity, but a slow building process that was meant for long term growth. With the advent of the internet, day traders and do-it-yourselfers make up a large block of investors. This is especially true in tech savvy circles. If you have the $25,000 minimum to trade online, why pay a broker if you can do it yourself cheaper. We had warning signs back in the crash of 2000, but most of this was chalked up to the corruption of the Enrons and WorldComs. The ease of transaction is still there, and this is a very dangerous thing in the hands of a knee-jerk public. Our economy is not weak, but public perception of it is awful. We are sitting on a powder keg where we could see a reactionary populous turn a bad situation into a disaster, and not enough has been done to safeguard against this. Markets may act logically in the long run, but normally don't in the short.

The Wall

2008-01-24T16:42:00.000-08:00

The separation of the church and state is a principle that most Americans believe is one of our reasons for such a successful government. However, its source is not widely known. Most Americans would answer, if asked, that this principle is in the constitution. However, it is not mentioned anywhere in our preambles or any literature prominent in our foundation. It was added with the Bill of Rights, but was first expanded upon when Thomas Jefferson, a very spiritual man, wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that the establishment clause erected "a wall of separation between church and state."

Ironically, my good friend's parents live in a small town south of Houston called Danbury. His mother works for a catholic church there.

Debate on this topic and its meaning in our government have raged constantly. My friends argued about it just the other night. The secularist always says that there should be no aspects of the political in governance. The spiritualist claims that this idea just means that the government can't regulate religion. However, this is an issue that makes perfect sense when you return to the context of our founding fathers. The intent is not that we remove all connections between the spiritual and the institutional. Church has always played a major role in politics, even directly. Many of the roles that are now performed by the state were once supported almost exclusively by religious organizations. However, we our some of our politicians are going too far by acting on their religion.
The intent was that the federal government never regulate religion, and that the government should never force religion on anyone. It is coming to mean that the two should never intermingle. The thought of this would make someone other than Grant in his tomb roll over. How can religion ever be excluded from a debate, they would say. Now, many argue that anything stemming from a religious source be discredited. Those who would say this are a minority now, but their numbers are growing. Though most still quote some source of spiritual faith, the number of agnostics will continue to climb, and the view that religion is good for government might collapse into ignorance.

However, fueling this debate on the other side are the religious leaders of our country using a spiritual yardstick when creating policy. The creation of Israel was possibly the most obvious misstep by the international community, while our current political "right" clamors incessantly for legislation on abortion. A government must not make a decision based solely on religious conviction. One can use the principles and morals that spirituality helps make succinct, but we must safeguard urges based on the ideologies that these institutions create. To many religious scholars, the conflict in the middle east has an intensified air due to the prophecies of revelation stemming from that area. It is the urgency caused by this that we must remove from the government, not the individuals who might feel this way. When ruling for others we must act on logic, not spirtual conviction.

This Land is My Land

2008-01-15T19:47:00.000-08:00

The idea that land is sacred may seem idiotic to many agnostics and athiests, but I find it easier if I remember back to the children's song by Woody Gutherie. The idea of your land and my land always came so naturally back when I was young. Before we even understand what the word means, capitalism makes perfect sense to the child who is struggling to overcome the hurdle of egoism. To me, so did the idea that God had created the land as he did soley for our use. The concept of land and ownership, as basic as it may seem, is at the heart of the international political debate. Some look at land as an economic assett, and others view it as a God given comodity. If we are to understand the tension in the middle east, we must explore these two views and anazlyze what they share and how they contrast.
As an American, it is easy to percieve this debate from the capitisitic frame of reference. After all, land ownership is a right that most Americans strive for. However, as an American, it is important to examine the concept of property through the lens of a spiritualist. In this perspective, land is not "owned" by anyone. God is responsible for everything that we see. For Years Arab leaders with this vision enjoyed dominance of this region and faced limited outside interferance. It was not until the discovery of large deposits of oil that frequent intervention occured.
Persian oil …is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt to a British Ambassador in 1944.
However, the creation of Israel in May, 1949 was the ultimate source of strife in this region. Thrown into exile and moved from their homes, Palestinians were told to assimilate into other societies and refused a political solution.
to be continued

Exclusive Interview : Wellsy Orr

2008-01-10T17:50:00.000-08:00

Tonight I have a special treat for my army of loyal readers. I was able to track down Reverend Orr, the founder of the fastest growing religion in Austin, and obtained an exclusive interview through Google chat! If you aren't an Austinite, you might not realize that Reverend Orr, who prefers to be called Wellsy, and his many converts believe that the land of Austin is holy, and claim to have proof to back this up. He claims to have hacked into google earth and retrieved a subset of data. With this data he has created an algorithm that explains the subtle changes to the world's landscape. Rev. Orr claims that when this algorithm is run backwards, "much like a Black Sabbath album," we begin to see patterns emerge. If this pattern is followed backwards long enough, we even see the continents all go back together in a "Pangeaesque" fashion. However, according to Rev. Orr, this was all expected when he began the process. What surprised him was that when the one large continent began to shrink back into the ocean from whence it came, one spot refused to sink, Austin, Texas. Ok, enough of the preface, here is our unedited interview:

-Brian- : Thx for the exclusive interview Reverend Orr!
-Rev.O- : Call me Wellsy
-Brain- : Sure Wellsy, so what do you think that this means to the people of Austin, and the world?
-Rev.O- : Well I think that anyone who lives in Austin knows that we are blessed, but This shows people how blessed we really are. Austin is the center of the world. Do you know what that means? We are God's chosen people!
-Brian- And what does this mean to you?
-Rev.O- Well, obviously I am his profit.
-Brian- I see, so what is so sacred about this land? It's just land after all.
-Rev.O- Austin is protected by God. The land is blessed. We are safe from natural disasters, disease, terror attacks, recessions, and the apocalypse. Austin is sacred in the eyes of God, and the people shall have no wants. In Austin we are free to celebrate life.
-Brian- I see, so your message is that in other places, people should fear, but not in Austin?
-Rev.O- Exactly.
-Brian- What did you do before you started to believe all of this?
-Rev.O- Before I saw the light I was in real estate.

The digital revolution

2008-01-09T18:12:00.000-08:00

The Blu-Ray/HDDVD debate will be a moot point in a decade or so. Media of all sorts is going digital. You can see this with the emergence of ipods and mp3s as the preferred method of appreciating music. The speed of data transfer is not to the level needed yet, but eventually hard storage will all be done on a central storage device. All of your large music, movies, program files will be remotely accessed by whatever device you are currently using. You wont need a blu-ray player if your television can remotely access your computer, or even an online music archive, and play a high definition file from there. If download speeds are fast enough, you would be able to access this file from anywhere connected to the internet, negating the need for hard copies. However, the only limiting factor we currently have is this speed. The most apparent answer to this is fiber optic cable. Fiber can deliver transfer of data at speeds faster than any of our current devices can process them. Why worry about portability if all of the data that you need can be delivered on demand. The main hurdles to this will be the costs of the cable and the ability to regulate the new ease of data transfer.

Beta-Ray or HDMAX

2008-01-08T16:53:00.001-08:00

I know the question has crossed your mind. You quickly opened your eyes afterwards and sat up, your alarm clock rejoining you with your mental faculties. Or maybe you are one of those who bought a PS3, or happened on a good deal for a HDDVD player. However, most of us aren't going to dump a lot of money into some technology that might be obsolete in a few years. Many who remember the burn of the beta-max are playing the wait and see game. Technical data on the subject has been available for some time now, but the shelves of your electronic store still carry both, only adding to the confusion.
Finally we have a little sales data to help sort out the mess. Blu-ray players outsold HDDVD players by a 2-1 margin in 2007. This was largely due to the PS3, but the tides finally appear to be turning in the video format wars. Now that there are more blue ray players on the market, coupled with the fact that they can hold over 60% more data, the beginning of the end for HDDVD may finally be approaching. However, I won't be first in line to purchase one. The prices of the players and the disks will not begin to come down until there is standardization in the marketplace. HD sports will have to be enough for now.

Black Tie Gala or Kegger

2008-01-07T18:56:00.000-08:00

I want a third choice. I want another option to sate my celebratory urges. Why do I have to decide between a martini and a cold lager. I should be able to order a jack and coke, or a margarita it it suits my fancy. In our modern age of information overload we are inundated with choices. You can't go a day without being flooded with advertisements from companies inviting you to fulfill yourself with their aid. We expect choices, we even demand them. Imagine walking into a car dealership and being told that they only sell two models of cars. You would ask me manager what he was smoking. Yet, we accept a form of government that only offers us two viable political parties. We think nothing of it and accept it just because it's the way things have always been. We call our country the land of freedom, but we are only free to choose black or white. I want gray.... with a splash of cranberry.

Clarification and a Mission

2008-01-05T17:20:00.000-08:00

America, I don't blame you for hating politics. It's amazing how many people dislike them so much that they refuse to even discuss them. I guess I can't blame you, but what I want you to realize is that a political discussion does not have to be an argument. Though I am frequently critical of the establishment, I realize that I live in one of the best countries in the world. We have so much to be grateful for. In this new year I am thankful that despite so many blessings, I can still find so much to complain about. But I am more thankful that despite never being satisfied, I am happy.
However, do not fear that I am just another blogger with an agenda. I do not have any political ambitions and will not join in and propagate party bickering. I aim to criticize the system as a whole and not individual candidates. Too many people view an attack on a candidate of the party they support akin to insulting a family member. I will try not to do that to you. Your Aunt Hill and Uncle Rudi are safe here. We talk about the issues here, not people.

How to speak the most and say the least

2008-01-04T19:00:00.000-08:00

All joking aside, the heart of yesterdays post was one of the most important topics of modern American politics. Yes, we have always had a two party system in the past. Yes, it is has always worked. And of course, we do have one of the most stable governments in modern society. However, as Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.” There are faults with our system, and any fault should be routinely examined in a modern context.

The main problem in a two party system is that the two sides polarize all of the issues of contention. Politicians are constantly trying to find where the majority of the citizens stand on a particular issue, and then position themselves accordingly. In the next many months of “electorama,” We will have the privilege of learning exactly what it means to be moderate on any topic. An election between two candidates becomes a popularity contest. No one wants to do too much to startle any potential voters, and each candidate’s only real concern is being more supported than their opponent. A candidate such as Hilary Clinton might seem un-electable if the majority of voters think that a universal health care system will wreck the country. A Republican will lose if he pushes forward in a theatre such as Iraq if not enough voters support this. Therefore the candidates discuss their pet issues as little as possible.

Though it makes for calculatingly predictable and often two-dimensional candidates, it breeds moderation. This slow moving and deliberate form of government might frustrate many with its unresponsive call to many issues such as the environment, globalization, and anti-trust laws, but the main reason it has been supported is for its “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it mentality.” We have an extremely moderate system that makes no sharp turns in its political maneuvering. We are a huge ship that takes quite a while to change its course. This is encouraging to many because of the stable and predictable occurrence of events in our country. Businessmen, who are too many the soul of the American dream, thrive on predictability. But at what costs are we choosing this consistency?

This was certainly a brilliant decision made by our founding fathers. At the time, no other nation believed that a country as vast as the USA could survive democracy. How would we constantly compromise in a way so that no group would feel alienated and seek succession? Individuals were too different back then, they felt, and issues such as religion, and later slavery would surely rip this nation apart. It was realized that any small faction with too much power would be disastrous to a country. Therefore, the founders created a flavor of democracy with many checks and balances and a political system to guard against this. Our variety is controlled by the two party system, where each side is so similar that we are incapable of making radical changes.

Yet, this slow moving predictability comes at the cost of progress. Issues do not surface in our political environment because politics is a continual popularity contest. It is not until the majority of the American public begin to fall behind an issue that politicians will begin to act on a topic. Why make proposals regarding an issue unless you are certain that it will gain you more votes than it will lose you? It is rarely done. Any candidate will tell you that running for office opens the doors to a new kind of calculus that only the insane can appreciate. Don’t say what you think, say what they feel. And those who play the game the best are remembered the fondest.

Being placed into a modern context has only exacerbated the shortcomings of the two party system. The media is a great thing, but it further polarizes the issues into two sides. We focus on a left and a right like they were two sides of a coin and forget that there are more views than there are issues. It cannot be argued that this theater of politics is more exciting to the average viewer in this context. It greatly simplifies things and places our parties on a relatively even stage, set for battle. It makes for sensational arguments, but what does all this time posturing really accomplish. Programs such as “Hardball,” are only at the beginning of this tendency. Realizing that this sensationalistic view of the news sells, whole networks have emerged having either a Republican or a Democratic slant,

The 24 hour news cycle and the inter connectivity created through the internet are changing everything. They have begun to reveal the grotesque side of politics that many of us have lay witness to for a long time. Everything is now under a microscope, and we realize how much there really isn't there. Why does it surprise so many that political interaction is at an all time low? We focus so much time on Halliburton and blowjobs, and never discuss the issues that the politicians are afraid to mention. Challenge yourself to come up with 20 issues that affect the country, and see how much time the media spends on each of them. Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner focus on what sells, and infotainment sells, not issues that no one is talking about. And still, because of a civic duty to participate, a dwindling percentage of our population chooses to participate and joins a major party. They buy into this “us” vs. “them” mentality and often, join right in. And when the time comes to vote for a candidate most Americans choose the lesser of two evils. Is this how our founders intended our government be run? Were we intended to select the worst candidate except for all those others that are running? I hope not.

Next: The solution—the parliamentary system.

The Great Colbert/Stewart Debate

2008-01-03T15:06:00.000-08:00

From a recent debate between Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert moderated by Tim Russert:

Russert: Our program has faced a lot of criticism for only having a Republican and a Democrat on today's debate. However, our explanation that the two party system dictates this has only further angered many of our viewers. What are your views on this system gentlemen?

Colbert: Yes, we do have a two party system. Though there are more than 2 parties that we can choose from, only 2 parties matter. If you don't vote for one of us you are just throwing away your vote. If you want to run against us you're just throwing money away. Hi Ross Perot! The Democratic and Republican parties have dominated for longer than anyone can remember. They have the networks and the money, the tradition and the legitimacy of the American populous. They are everything that is American that isn't apple pie. They keep our government moderate and ensures that we don't do anything too radical. I just wish our writers had a two party system.

Stewart: Tim, I think that a small vocal minority of your audience is just disillusioned with politics. They think that all politicians are corrupt and self interested. They choose to vote for a third party candidate in a voice of abstention. You don't need to worry about these people too much, Tim. They aren't your audience. They will never buy into partisan hacks such as yourself and the games that you play day in and day out on your networks. It surprises me that any of these people are even watching right now.

Colbert: Surprisingly, I agree with most of that Tim, but what these people don't realise is that they have plenty of choices right now. They can vote for me, or Mitt, or Huck, or McCain. They can even vote for Rudy if they are a socialist or Ron if they are a fascist. I sometimes think that the American people have too many choices. Wouldn't it be much easier if there was only one choice: me.

Stewart: Tim, it is true that we rarely fall in love with a candidate anymore. And though there may be problems with the system, the only explanation that I can find is that so few people who actually want to lead this country anymore. I know I'd have to be pretty insane to volunteer to associate with a bunch of politicians all day. Maybe the bigger problem is our improvement in the area of mental health. Zoloft has saved your youth, but damned your nation.

On the eve of the Iowa Caucases

2008-01-02T19:57:00.000-08:00

As Slate so eloquently put it, The Iowa caucuses are a joke. They encourage the media to focus on a small area of the country, and influence politicians to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into its economy. Why not take this process that does so much to infuse money and influence into an area, and hold it in the area of the country that needs it most? Having a caucus in a place like Iowa only propels the most moderate conservative and the most “electable” democrat. Though the Iowa Primaries may “create momentum” for two particular candidates, the overall effect of this on our nation as a whole is trivial. In reality, much like this sentence, all it truly accomplishes is the lengthening of a process that is already too long in most American’s minds.

The benefit of holding the first primary should be shared with the rest of the nation. Weeks upon weeks are spent focusing on the needs of one state, why not hold it in the state that faces the worst problems? Would it not be both enjoyable and informative if the candidates were forced to go to an area such as Michigan and have the first vote? We could see where each candidate stands on some of the issues that are the most perilous to the country. We could test each candidate’s ability to address issues such as unemployment and the loss of industry, and see how well they propose solutions to the nation. This may not generate any novel solutions to our problems, but it would challenge the candidates and allow America the opportunity to see exactly how bad things are in some areas. More people might even be interested in the primaries if they were also learning more about a few of the greatest problems that our nation faces. The money and attention that would flow into this area would only be an added boon to hard-off areas.

Though a change such as this would most likely improve the political field, it will take a lot before our current parties would agree to this. Each party wants a warm-up to the election process much like a college team wants a cupcake game at the beginning of its schedule. They want a good amount of time to slowly test the mettle of their candidates before they groom the “correct” one to be the new leader of their party. But what about the nation? Shouldn't we demand that the best candidates that society can produce come to the front and try to lead? If a candidate is faulty the public needs to be informed of this as early as possible. We should not allow our political leaders the time to conduct polls that decide where they stand on the issues. We should force our candidates to create a platform as early in the process as possible, and a stage such as Michigan would provide this. I love you Iowa.

Welcome

2008-01-02T19:38:00.000-08:00

Howdy! How's it goin y'all? This is my blog. I've created it so that all of you can see just how insane the world of politics is, and how crazy following it makes me. If you want to know more about me personally, then you are not at the right place. Visit my myspace page. This site is only about the politics, religion, economics, and American society. Take notes for the dinner table!
I have to thank my Friend Chris for turning me on to this whole blog thing. As a thank you, I have even ripped off his blog's name, Space Age Polymer Bits.