Do NOT bailout the auto industry.

Do not bailout any industry. Here are the top two industries that should NOT be bailed out: 1. Oil 2. Auto. See the connection. They undermine our new national direction on energy and environment. If those issues are not important enough, they also undermine the economy and national security. Dump them. Do not save them. To expect that either will change after a century of entrenchment is delusional. Propping them up is only supporting the opposite of what we know must happen: 1. Stop using oil. 2. Use only electric cars. Too big to fail. Wow, what a lousing reason to bail out an industry. It's less expensive to pay the auto workers until they get new jobs. If the federal government is willing to give auto makers $25,000,000,000, why not give it to NEW companies that commit to only producing pollution free electric cars? America needs to retool and doing it quickly is less painful in the long run. Cut the ties. Let the auto industry die a long overdue death.

Federal Reserve BANK

SEPTEMBER 21, 2008 No to the Federal Bailout of the Financial Industry ___________________________________ That was my post almost two months ago. I was one of the first to oppose the bailout. In today's New York Times, the first paragraph in the lead story: The Treasury Department on Wednesday officially abandoned the original strategy behind its $700 billion effort to rescue the financial system, as administration officials acknowledged that banks and financial institutions were as unwilling as ever to lend to consumers. Looks like I was correct. Let me expand. The Federal Reserve BANK should be our primary bank. It should deal directly with businesses and individuals, not just with private banks. It is a BANK. That word should always be used when referring to it. Personal savings accounts in the Federal Reserve BANK would be insured and implicitly regulated. Put these private institutions in the same boat as loan sharks. If individuals put their money in private institutions, then the individuals are on their own. No federal insurance much less a bailout. Same for loans. Borrow from the Federal Reserve BANK and be safe. Borrow from the others and you are on your own. That would be a much more efficient way to create capital and manage financing than throwing money around hoping that some of it does some good somehow.

21 ... 50 years later.

How about a quizz show competition between Herb Stempel and Charles Van Doren? The quizz show 21, of course. Fair and square. No cheating as in the 1950s version.

Ma Bell and the Electric Grid.

We need a new electrical grid: http://www.repoweramerica.org/elements/national-unified-smart-grid/ How about augmenting that effort using the existing right of way already in place for the fading AT&T long distance phone network, which is becoming obsolete? For those under the age of thirty, AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph) had the national monopoly for telephone service until about 1981. Long distance service refers to phone calls placed between states. This concept is now obsolete and the old public switched telephone network is being replaced by voice over IP (Internet Protocol).

Landslide elections: certainty, not knowledge.

I would not classify Obama's win over McCain in 2008 as a landslide. Big, but not a landslide. Franklin D. Roosevelt had 60.8% of the popular vote to Alf Landon`s 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election. Roosevelt had 523 electoral votes to Landon's 8. That's a landslide. Since 1936 here are the obvious landslides based on popular vote: Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% to Barry Goldwater's 38.5% in 1964. Richard Nixon's 60.7% to George McGovern's 37.5% in 1972. Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in 1984. Here are some really big wins since 1936 based on electoral votes: Franklin D. Roosevelt's 449 to Wendell Willkie's 82 in 1940. Franklin D. Roosevelt's 432 to Thomas Dewey's 99 in 1944. Dwight D. Eisenhower's 442 to Adlai Stevenson's 89 in 1952. Dwight D. Eisenhower's 457 to Adlai Stevenson's 73 in 1956. Richard Nixon's 520 to George McGovern's 17 in 1972. Ronald Reagan's 489 to Jimmy Carter's 49 in 1980. Other than Roosevelt's three and Johnson's one every other landslide or really big win was by a Republican. Why? We should want our decisions to be based on knowledge, not certainty. However, those voting for the Republican candidate were certain of their positions, especially since 1968. Votes based on knowledge are more tenuous. Certainty let's us do terrible things. Nazis were certain. See my previous post on dumb guys.

We elected the smart guy.

Obama is way smarter than McCain. Since Nixon was elected in 1968 and 1972 the Republican party has nominated the dumber guy in every presidential election. What's the deal with dumb guys? It probably is connected to the Republican outreach to hillbillies and dumb working people. Republicans ran the 1968 through 1988 elections based on the lyrics in Randy Newman's song Rednecks: "keeping the niggers down". With Reagan in 1980 they had tossed in abortion. That lasted through 2004. By 1992 racial antagonism finally became too offensive even for them so they added junk like religion, socialized medicine, homosexual marriage, guns, pollution, and a fear and distrust of science. With all that baggage how could they nominate anyone who was smart? They couldn't. Here are the twosomes in the way smarter than group: - 1976 Carter way smarter than Ford - 1980 Carter way smarter than Reagan - 1992 Clinton way smarter than Bush the elder - 1996 Clinton way smarter than Dole - 2008 Obama way smarter than McCain. In 1988 Dukakis was much, maybe even way, smarter than Bush the elder. Clearly smarter than: - 1984 Mondale over Reagan - 2000 Gore over Bush the younger. In 2004 Kerry was much smarter than Bush the younger. Every year. Every damn one. The Democrat was smarter. That's not healthy, especially when the dumb guy usually wins. We should vote for candidates who are smarter than we are, not as dumb as we are.

City States in America.

In the early 1970s there was a PBS (Public Broadcasting System) program called The 51st State. The idea was that New York City was or could be a new state with its own perspective and issues. I always liked the idea and wanted it to happen but with additions: Westchester county to the north and Long Island counties Nassau and Suffolk to the east. I wanted this group of municipalities to secede from New York state and join the union as the 51st state. The U.S. constitution has many flaws. An obvious one is the disproportionate nature of the Senate. The founders did not intend for the Senate to be proportionate but they could never have imagined that it would become so hugely disproportionate because they could not have imagined that cities would become so populous. By becoming a city state, New York City would have its own two Senators. This would still not make New York's Senate representation proportionate but it would be a big improvement. New York City State would get direct federal aid. It would no longer need to ask the current New York state legislature for permission on local issues like increasing local sales tax. Currently the rural upstate tail wags the dog. Once New York sets the precedent, all large U.S. cities should follow. They all have the same problem: lack of representation in the Senate proportionate to their large populations. Once cities started to secede the Congress would have no choice but to admit them as city states. If not, they could each become an independent country. Then they could form an alliance. Cool.

Voted

I voted at about 6:15AM. On the way to the polling place I passed people returning to my apartment building. They seemed pleased and said good morning. There was a line of about eight people signing in. This surprised me. A poll worker asked for people up to the letter M, so I moved right up and signed in. The wait was not long. Once in the voting contraption, the only type I've ever used, I did not pull down the Obama lever with the vengeance that I had anticipated. It was a much more serene act. It felt good. The idea of voting for Nader because of my annoyance with Obama's pragmatism had long since passed. I had done the right thing. It felt like the first time I voted.

Electing the Vice President: a new system

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden are not very good choices for vice president. We have had poor choices for a long time. Presidential nominees in both major parties have selected running mates. Their parties have not. While views of party members are a factor, the presidential nominee makes the decision alone. Amend the constitution and eliminate running mates. Vote only for president. Oh, excuse me, vote for electors who then vote for president. We don't want democracy to take hold. After taking office, the new president would nominate a new vice president. I doubt that McCain or Obama would choose Palin or Biden if that were done. No need to balance the ticket or placate minor constituencies, just make a solid selection. We already have a method for filling the office of vice president. Amendment XXV (25) - February 10, 1967 Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Looks good to me. See my post: FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Electing the President: a new system

write-in votes

I just sent this message to the New York state board of elections at info@elections.state.ny.us: Your web site has nothing about election machines (other than those stupid new contraptions in certain counties) and write-in votes. I opened some of those annoying PDF files but they are not searchable. Are you trying to hide info? I want to write-in a vote and would like to know the current procedure before election day. How about implementing early voting? Many states already have it. ______________________________________________ I am pretty dissatisfied with my choices for offices other than president. I am settling for Obama, since Nader is not likely to win and Obama is a fascinating possibility. I want to vote for myself for the other offices. Not voting for anyone on the ballot might be interpreted as an accidental omission. I want them to know that the candidates were unacceptable. I have cast a write-in vote for myself a couple of times previously but who knows what the procedure is now. The one time I checked after votes had been counted, mine had not been counted. For several years I have thought that a person could be elected without jumping through the hoops and over the obstacles set by the two major parties. Getting on the ballot is EXTREMELY difficult without a party designation. http://www.elections.state.ny.us/RunningOffice.html "The current political parties are the Republican, Democratic, Independence, Conservative, and Working Families parties." There is no indication as to how these parties were designated. I suppose that they achieved a certain number or percent of votes in previous elections. Especially for local office, it should be relatively easy to get elected as long as write-in votes are counted. The web makes it so. Just create a web site, use youtube.com and promote your candidacy. That's the point that almost everyone misses about using the web for elections. Spending very little money, candidates can by-pass the two major parties and appeal directly to the voters. Pundits thought that former Vermont governor Howard Dean was really clever in his use of the web when he ran in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. All he did was put direct mail functions online. Big deal. Even Barack Obama has done little more. Once people wake up and seize the initiative and go directly to the voters, we can all become write-in candidates. Now that's democratic.