Saturday, April 12, 2008

Paper, Plastic or Neither

The mayor of Seattle and the city council president recently announced a plan to impose a 20-cent-per-bag "green fee" tax on paper and plastic bags distributed at grocery, convenience and drug stores. This tax is supposed to be an effort reduce garbage and encourage people to use reusable cloth bags when they do their shopping. The revenue from the tax is supposed to go to "to administer and enforce the rules, to buy and promote reusable bags, and to expand recycling, environmental education and waste prevention programs."

I am very much in favor of people using cloth bags to do their shopping. I also feel a tax or fee is a good way to encourage the uses of cloth or other reusable bags as long as the revenue is REALLY used for environmental programs. I am concerned that the revenue will just get siphoned off into the general fund and the program will just turn into a revenue generator like 2 MPH over the speed limit speeding tickets and picking one guy out of a crowd jay walking tickets. Just call me paranoid I guess.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Aftermarket LEGO parts- Gun, Grenades and "Bandits"

Aftermarket LEGOs Accessories - Guns, Grenades and "Bandits"

I'll admit that I own a lot of LEGOs. I used to be a LEGO addict until, like many addicts, price made me go cold turkey. I love the castle sets, the Star Wars sets (you'll never see me with a LEGO Jar Jar though), and best of the the big old box of miscellaneous bricks in every shape, size and color.

When I was a kid my brother and I used to spend hours making demolition derby cars and smashing them against each other. LEGO bricks would fly, and be reassembled into new designs to see what would be best to withstand the impact. I also used to make fleets of space ships to save the galaxy from evil invaders and LEGO blasters to shoot Storm Troopers and other bad guys.

The most fun I had with LEGOs was making forts and terrain to use with my army men. You know the old green and gray plastic guys with the not-to-scale tanks and cannons. Hours passed while I fought and re-fought battles where the good guys always won and the bad guys got their just deserts.

Of course thinking about those days long past makes me feel old and out of touch. Now you can buy aftermarket LEGO WW II Marines, US Army Soldiers, German Army Soldiers, Space Marines, and more from Brick Arms. They come with a dizzying array of fairly accurately modeled machine guns, hand grenades, blaster rifles and even an Uzi concealed in a briefcase for "Bond Spy." If you want to outfit your regular LEGO guys with guns well you can buy those individually or in sets. The Black Knight doesn't stand a chance if you outfit the good guys with a case of hand grenades.

The little kid in me thinks this stuff is amazing and pretty damn cool. The adult in me thinks they are just a little bit disturbing especially the middle eastern terrorist looking "Bandit." I guess that it hits a little too close to reality for my LEGO enjoyment.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Why Tuesday?

Why Tuesday?

I listen to Air America quite a bit. I mostly listen to Thom Hartmann and Rachael Maddow, but I will have it on the in background just to break the silence. I tend to absorb interesting information and trivia through osmosis even when I'm not really LISTENING per se.

Lately a couple of different shows have had on people from Why Tuesday? on to discuss their organization. Why Tuesday? is and organization dedicated to improving our democracy by increasing voter participation. (The United States is ranked in the bottom third of all industrialized countries in voter participation.) One of the avenues they are pursuing to increase voter turnout is to get a discussion going on why we still have elections on Tuesdays.

Apparently the reason we started having elections on the first Tuesday in November was it was the end of harvest season and people would be free to travel to the polling locations. This obviously isn't a relevant reason in modern America because not only are we an increasingly urban society, modern farmers have the ability to jump in their truck and drive to their poling location without too much bother.

So Why Tuesday? The most benign reason I can think of is simply tradition. We have had our elections on Tuesday for so long people don't even think about it. If this is the case then it should be fairly simple to change the day to a weekend to help increase voter participation. A less benign reason is that there is a conscious effort to suppress voter participation by making it inconvenient to vote. Surpressing voter participation would not only benefit the more conservative elements of government (check out this video) but also would probably to favor ANY incumbent. This would be a reason why more liberal lawmakers might be against moving Election Day.

One objection to moving Election Day to the weekend is that people might blow off voting for their regular weekend leisure activities. I think this argument may have some merit. I know I tend to sleep in and relax on weekends, so it might be worthwhile exploring another alternative. Making Election Day a National Holiday.

Making Election Day a national holiday would cut many people free from work and giving them more time to make it to the polls. I suppose an argument could be made that having a holiday would have a similar effect to moving Election Day to a weekend, but I think it wouldn't because people wouldn't be used to slacking off on a weekday even if it was a holiday (as long as they didn't move it to a Monday to get the 3-day weekend.) There would of course be the same conservative/incumbant push against the holiday. But, the advantage of making Election Day a holiday is that it would probably be an easier sell to people than moving it in the face of the inertia of tradition and heck who doesn't want another holiday.

Why Tuesday? is leading an effort to improve voter turnout by challenging what really amounts to government tradition. I think we really need to be doing more of this kind of thing. The government shouldn't do thing because its the way we have always done it. That is a good way to keep our country hidebound, and at only 230 years old we are way to young for that.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Net Neutrality - Letter to My Representative

Rep. McDermott,

I am concerned about the possible loss of Net Neutrality. In order for the Internet to truly serve as an Information Super Highway, the free exchange of information must not be inhibited for any reason, especially for a profit motive.

I own a small business and I understand the temptation to use any means available to drive people to your web presence. But the free exchange of information is more important than my or ANY business.

It is vital not only for the betterment of people all over the world but it is vital for the preservation of our democracy. The Internet is a source of information unfettered by corporate filters and it must remain so if we are to be able to make informed decisions about our elected representatives.

Please work to preserve Net Neutrality.

Sincerely,

Scott M. Taylor

Sunday, October 2, 2005

Truth, Justice and the American Way

I just finished reading a story. Well ok I’ll admit it- a comic book – a Superman comic book. It was published in January of 2001, well before the events of 9/11 that fundamentally changed the United States of America.

Superman has always been a fighter for good. Unlike many superheroes like Batman, Wolverine and other vigilantes, he has always tried to work within the system and not around it. He has been called a “boy scout” and unrealistic because of this, but its one of the things I most respect about the character. From the beginning Superman has been one of, if not the most powerful beings on his Earth. He chose not to use that power to enforce HIS will upon people; he chose to use it to serve the people and THEIR will.

The saying goes,”absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In Superman we have a character that defies this truism and instead voluntarily limits himself to be ruled by the will of the people (the government of the US.) Instead of hunting down Lex Luthor and tossing him out into space once and for all, he lets our system of justice rule the day. Does Luthor keep coming back? Yes. And Superman keeps bringing him to justice. Is it hard to keep fighting the bad guys day after day when you could just end it? I’m sure it is.

Being the good guy is hard. You have to follow rules, you have to listen to other people’s opinions, and you have to lose sometimes even when you know you could have won by cheating or looking the other way just this once. If being good was easy; everybody would be wearing a white hat. The guys wearing the black hats have more fun. They get to do whatever they want. They don’t like the way you look they kill you. They want your car? They take it and you are lucky they didn’t kill you. They don’t care. They just do. They feel they have the right to do anything they can get away with.

Since 9/11 the United States has slowly been losing its iconic white hat. We used to be kind of the Superman of the world at least symbolically, and now we are turning into a vigilante at best, the evil black hat at worst. I’m not naïve. I know that the U.S. government has always done things that are not 100% above board and law abiding. But it used to be that the government would have to hide the extraordinary rendition, the illegal wire tapping or the unlimited detainment of people under a haze of plausible deniability. If they didn’t the People would rise up, expose the problems and they would have to at least release some people or stop some project or another. I guess what I mean to say when someone ferreted out that the government was breaking the law – we the People had some recourse to stop it. Now, the government pretty much just DOES stuff and if they get caught they say “So What?”

I liked the fact that we were Superman, and I think we are in danger of going past the point where we can never get out white hat back again.

Sunday, April 3, 2005

Organized Religion is Not for Me

Religion is a personal thing for me, and I think, many others around the country. We are the people that check the “other” box in surveys. We’re not Christians or Jews, Muslims or Hindus, for that matter we’re not even Wiccans or Mormons. We don’t go to church but we believe in God or at least a Supreme Being or Beings. Some of us like to discuss religion in an attempt to understand what compels people to gather together and celebrate their beliefs in a group. Is it the need to reassure themselves that they are following the “Right” God? Is it the need that almost all people have to form a community of like-minded individuals? What drives their belief in the same aspect of a Supreme Being? I am one of those that would like to have a serious discussion with religious folks about their religion.

Unfortunately, religion has always been one of those topics that are difficult to have a real discussion about without falling into an argument. This seems to have gotten worse in the last few years. The religious fundamentalists have always seemed to ally themselves with the most conservative politicians in our country, for obvious reasons I suppose. Both groups dislike change and are generally representative of the less tolerant members of our society. This alliance has emboldened both parties and allowed them to exert influence out of proportion to the members of each group. These groups have worked together to make it tantamount to political suicide to not be an overtly religious person (of the Judeo-Christian religion of your choice). And if you disagree with the government wearing the Christian religion on its sleeve, then you hate God right? Or you are prosecuting a “War on Christianity.” It is the same method the Right uses to shore up support for its political policies: “Why do the liberals hate America?” Both methods use the easiest method of persuasion; they twist people into believing that everything is an “us against them” proposition.

Organized religion, especially Christianity, seems to be uniquely suited to this proposition. The very foundation of most Christian sects is that the word of God comes to them through the Bible and one of the most important parts of the Bible is the Ten Commandments where God says, “thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” This is not exactly a tolerant attitude. If you combine it with the proselytizing that seems to be a part of most Christian religions, then it can easily be warped into the attitude that anyone that doesn’t accept their version of religion is the enemy. This is not reflective of the majority of religious people but it seems that a frighteningly large number of the more fanatically bent “people of faith” are drawn to these types of religious sects.

It may be unfair to dismiss organized religion based on a small subset, but the influence that these fanatical people exert paints all similar religions with the same brush. If the more moderate and reasonable sects of a religion don’t want to be lumped into the extremist category of their more fanatical relations then they should make an effort to distance themselves from them. Just as Christian religious leaders call upon moderate Muslims to denounce the terrorist acts of their extremist sects , it’s only fair if other people can call upon the moderate Christians to denounce the extremist Christians.

Where I live (Seattle, WA) there are many churches that do good charity work. They save lives by hosting and feeding the homeless; they raise money for disaster relief and host informative forums about political and social issues affecting the area. They do good work and are an asset to the community. But I also feel that I live in an area that is not dominated by extremist sect. We don’t have an aggressive push for prayer in our schools, or at public events. We don’t have churches calling for rewriting science textbooks to include creationism or push for banning books.

Other areas of the country aren’t so lucky. They have churches pushing their Christian agendas on the secular arena. They use their influence to push values that they believe in on the general public that may not believe in them. If the more moderate sects don’t believe that this is right, why don’t they speak out against it? Why don’t they use their status as religious leaders to call for a more tolerant attitude from these more fanatical sects?

I don’t know why. Some kind of religious politics I suppose, maybe someday someone will explain this to me. But until then, this will be one of the reasons that organized religions don’t appeal to me. It seems hypocritical to be for tolerance but not speak out against intolerance in other sects of the same religion. It is a failure of sorts and one that has a profound effect on the country. Until I see some organized religion that is willing to stand up to the fanatics, especially those in their sects, organized religions will be forever lumped into the category “watch – may be dangerous.”

The First Amendment to our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” to my mind this reflects the intent that government should stay our of religion and religion should stay out of government. Organized religions don’t seem to be able to grasp this concept.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Since When Was The United States Founded On "In God We Trust"

Joe Scarborough is apparently doing a series on the topic:

If America was founded on the words “in God we trust", Joe asks "Why are so many liberal elites so against religion?"

(The current MSNBC page doesn’t have this ad but this cashed one does.)

Well, first lets ignore the inaccurate statement about liberal. Since when was our country founded on ‘In God We Trust’? That particular phrase on our money dates back to 1864 over 80 years after the founding of our country. The phrase was invented at this time to be used instead of the "Our Country; Our God" or "God, Our Trust"

The Constitution of the United States nor its predecessor the Articles of Confederation do not mention God a single time (the latter is dated “In the Year of Our Lord”, a convention at the time) so where do people get the idea that the United States was founded on Christian values? If Christian values were so important to the Founding Fathers you would think they would have codified the 10 Commandments into the Constitution instead of the First Amendment that reads, “Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

To my mind the Bill of Rights exemplifies the founding principles of the United States of America. A lot of thought and debate went into their writing. It wasn’t just slapped down in the spur of the moment. The Constitution laid down how our government was supposed to work; the Bill of Rights laid down the core principles that concerned the Founding Fathers so much they had to be explicitly delineated.

Where is the mention of Christian Values, or for that matter where are the values delineated in the Bill of Rights mentioned in the Bible? I’m no Biblical scholar, but freedom of religion seems to go against the 10 Commandments. The first Commandment says (depending on translation) “I am the Lord Thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” Not exactly religious tolerance.

I’m not knocking Christianity I’m just saying that our country wasn’t founded on Christian principles. Our country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment a radical school of thought brought forth for the first time that the power of government should come FROM the people not be imposed UPON the people.

Send Joe Scarborough (joe@msnbc.com) a letter telling him he really needs stop spouting misinformation.