Blogbody

One of my very good friends, Kevin, as well as my old CEO back from my Spoke days, work at a company called MerchantCircle. Kevin recently opined about how the focus of MerchantCircle relates to the upcoming presidential election.

First, a quick note about what MerchantCircle does: think “social networks for businesses” and you kind of have the idea. Instead of focussing on the consumer, like review sites like Yelp and CitySearch do, they focus on the business. Businesses can “partner” with other businesses for coupon deals (think “friends”), create their own home page, (think “profile page”), and provide an official response for praise or criticism of their business.

I find his points interesting specifically because of the waves Fred Thompson is now making as he begins his candidacy. Fred Thompson is claiming that he, like Howard Dean, will use the power of the internet and social networks, to run a more effective campaign for less.

So far we’ve heard about Barrack’s MySpace page, but I don’t really think things like that are a good demonstration of how Web 2.0 can be utilized to improve our democracy. MySpace is, afterall, mostly about kids who can’t even vote, or stoners who likely won’t.

However, more focussed communities like MerchantCirlce (small businesses), Digg (high tech workers, perhaps?), or online schools (ie: University of Phoenix, etc) might provide an excellent conduit for engaging in deep, thought-provoking exchanges about specific issues.

Forget town halls, virtual town halls, or even debates - they are too general and end up suffering from the “law of diminishing returns” because their audiences cover such a broad base. I think engaging with a specific community about needs specific to them, on a mass scale, would really open our eyes up about the candidates. I would love to see an online chat with Digg users, or a forum for MerchantCircle users to ask tough questions.

Update: MerchantCircle just recently celebrated it’s one-year birthday. Congrats to them. I love the idea of bridging local small businesses and the vastness of the internet.

My only complaint would be that they focus on the business owner and not the consumer, but that’s not really a valid complaint because they readily point out to and integrate consumer-focussing sites, ending up being a companion to them more than a competitor.

For all this talk about how Spring and whether it is good or bad or we get it or don’t get it, there is one thing about this whole discussion that really irks me: javablogs.com. Based entirely on the subject, rather than the content, the “popular entries” are currently “I Don’t Get Spring” and “I Don’t Get ‘I Don’t Get Spring’”. To prove my point, I titled this post something even more “headline grabbing” - and I won’t be surprised that it makes it’s way to the top of the popular entry list.

I propose we fix JavaBlogs. Why not start a system where blogs in a community (Java, Politics, whatever) can be rated after they have been viewed? Then those ratings can be applied in the popular topics. On top of that, it catches those who don’t visit javablogs.com but instead come through RSS feeds.

Anyone else think JavaBlogs’ popularity system is a bit lame?

PS: Sorry to be a tease with the subject, you’ll find no flame war about Spring in this entry (though I have recent entries talking about it, so go there if you want).

PPS: I’m planning to write a blog community service exactly like this, but for Politics. Perhaps the JavaBlogs community can join me and we can produce a generic system that works for any community. Or, for those Java folks that are also political couch potatoes, let me know if you’d like to help out.

My brother and I have both decided that our blogs have become diluted due to our continuous rants about politics. Rather than try to make our blogs both about politics plus (technology OR music/screen writing), we decided we’d create a blog just for politics that he and I will share. Our normal blogs will then be just for our “other” stuff.

So, without further ado, I offer you: Lightbody on Politics (name subject to change).

Lorraine talks about why she supports civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples. My response follows:

Education

So we can’t call it “marriage” purely because some people are unable to understand that marriage has multiple definitions and multiple meanings (state and religion)? Seems like we’re catering to the ill-informed and education is a better medicine. It really seems to me that the majority of the population doesn’t understand the difference between a state-recognized marriage and a church-recognized one.

Even fewer are aware of the supreme court cases that define exactly what separation of church and state is. I cite the Lemon Test in about every post about religion, but I’ll do it again:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Dictionary definition

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage also is the following:

• The state of being married; wedlock.
• A common-law marriage.
• A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
• A close union: â��the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comicsâ�� (Lloyd Rose).
• Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Legal definition

“Heather has Twenty Mommies and One Daddy?” - you’ve got to be kidding, Lorraine. There is no way that gay marriage will lead to other marriages involving family members, animals, or multiple partners. It’s so easy to define marriage as something that includes gay couples but excludes those other things that it’s not even worth bringing that argument up (though if someone isn’t able to do the critical thinking about it, I’ll gladly help you understand).

Gay Elite

Regarding the “Gay Elite”, I’m not sure who they are, but it sounds like you’ve been listening to the Republican talking points a little too much. Sounds quite a bit like the “Liberal Elite” and the “Elite Media” to me. You know, one of those phrases that when the new talking points come out you’ll ever every talking head on the talk shows repeating ad-nauseum. Regardless, I lived in San Francisco and those “Gay Elite” never pushed for teaching anything other than the law (or their proposed law) in public schools. So I can tell you that “Heather has One Daddy and a ‘Special Pet’?” is not what a those “Gay Elite” I know would propose teaching.

Lorraine, I have to say, I’m happy that you support civil unions for gay people and are willing to break from the Republican platform. You said yourself these people want to settle down, but then you go and say that they want to force their way on everyone. Well which is? Do they want to be covert or overt? And if there are a couple bad apples, as there are in every group, you’ve got to be able to distinguish them from those that really just want marriage, which is the argument at hand.

Separate but equal

Under your proposal we end up with two names (civil union and marriage) recognized by the state which are equal in nature? Doesn’t that seem both redundant and frighteningly similar to “separate but equal”? Of course, we can’t just remove marriage from the state laws, because then married couples will get pissed off. But if we don’t call it the same thing, we head down the path of “separate but equal” again — this time separate definitions that are supposedly equal.

Plus, think of the overhead law-makers will have to go through now. Instead of writing laws for “married couples”, they now have to use the phrase “married couples or civil unions”. What a pain in the ass! We do want a smaller government right? Why should we have to administer two things that are exactly the same thing? If I were running a company that did that, I would fire the person who came up with that money-draining idea.

Unhinging morality

Give them their legal rights, but don’t cause another chaotic scene in religion. Don’t unhinge morality.

What does this mean? I assume you mean, “don’t try to make religions accept marriage”. I don’t believe anyone has proposed that. This is a state issue and religion isn’t really part of the argument (for gay people, at least). I agree that gay couples should take the battle with their church if they want, but it has nothing to do with state laws.

Check out my last post for a couple of good threads on religion and its place in the state.

I took part in a very good debate with several folks about gay marriage. This thread, as well as another on creationism was very nice because even though we had disagreements, we were courteous and I think we all gained a bit from it. We need more debates like this in the mainstream media. John Stewart is right, we can’t have anymore crap like Crossfire or Hannity & Colmes. We need good, honest, intellectually satisfying debate.

PS: The blog that these threads came from is Ogre’s Politics & Views. He describes himself below:

Lifelong Republican, but the party has left me. I’m leaning towards the Constitution Party, but still considering Libertarians.

Oh man — I’ve never seen such beautiful use of the word fuck in a long time. Apologies to those who are offended, but the article, despite it’s over the top language, actually does have a couple good points. But mostly, it’ll make any of you liberals feeling down in the gutter feel just a little better.

I suppose it’s a guilty pleasure.

Though — if anyone wants to argue the points (re-stated below), please feel free to do so:

• Blue states have the lowest divorce rate; Red states have the highest.
• Blue states pay for more federal taxes per capita than Red states do; Red states gain from those taxes per capita than Blue states do.
• Red states have the highest murder rates.

Sorry for the generalizations, but they were too good to pass up. If you don’t like it, you can either ignore it or come up with some good counter arguments. But don’t bother to flame, it’s not welcome.

After an attempt at civil political discourse, I encountered a guy named Brian who posted recently this post. While I would love to try to understand the reasoning behind this man, I don’t have the time or energy (or probably patience) to comprehend his post… at least online.

I can only hope that most of the 59,000,000+ people that voted for Bush don’t feel this way.

(To be fair, I’m sure there is equally similar hate literature against all Christians and the “right wing nut jobs” — I don’t associate myself with those either)

My conservative friend who voted for a Democrat president for the first time ever just sent me an article in BusinessWeek giving an opinion on How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap.

You have to sign up for a free membership to read it, but I’ll outline a few points below (I don’t think I can copy the entire content):

The tax cuts have boosted the aftertax incomes of the top 1% of households, with average incomes in excess of $1,000,000, by 10% — compared with a 2.3% increase for middle-income families with average incomes of $57,000 and a 1.6% increase for the bottom 20% of families, with average incomes of less than $17,000. The tax cuts for millionaires alone have reduced government revenues by $90 billion a year, more than the lost revenues from tax cuts for the 80% of families making less than $100,000.

I think the most telling quote is this:

As an intended consequence of the Bush tax cuts, the share of federal taxes paid by the bottom 80% of taxpayers has increased, while the share paid by the top 1% has dropped.

So for all those people that think Bush’s tax cuts were for the poor — think again.

When it comes to taxes, I tend to first jump to the flat tax idea. Why shouldn’t everyone just be taxed 20 cents on the dollar? Isn’t that fair?

But then I think about the fact that I make a lot more money than a McDonalds worker who is trying to improve his life. If he earns $15,000 a year and we take $3,000 — that really hurts him. But if I make $200,000 (I wish!) and we take $40,000, I’m still doing really well. It just seems “right”. As a successful person, I’m more than happy to offer up my taxed income in place of those that need their share to purchase essentials things like warm clothes and food.

The flip side of the argument is: what incentive is there to work to keep doubling your income if you don’t actually double the money you take home? For example, going from $25K to $50K might net you 30% more relative income than going from $50K to $100K. So why should I bother to do it? I’ll tell you why: because money isn’t everything. People who want to kick ass will do so even if the rewards aren’t monetary. Don’t underestimate the value of power and self-satisfaction.

While wandering the blogosphere, I came across American Lady. I asked her to write about why she was a Republican and Bush supporter given Bush’s feelings towards abortion as well as his dismantling of Title IX.

Instead of replying via the comments section in her blog, I’m hoping she and I can have civil political discourse via our personal weblogs.

Rather than getting bogged down in tearing apart each others entries line by line, I’d rather focus on the overall message in effort to get above partisan politics. I’ll just jot down some overall thoughts after reading her first entry.

• Liberals: Liberals, such as feminists and civil rights advocates, have always been subjected to challenges. The perspective of history makes those early advocates look less silly than they did at the time. Remember, being a liberal is merely being someone who proposes alternative ideas to today’s problems. Don’t hate them for that, but instead try to learn something from them.
• Abortion: I personally do not approve of abortion, but I understand that current social situations have led to the need for it (cases of women committing suicide or dying from underground abortions are undeniable). What I would like is for us to eventually be able to reduce abortion to a place where it is used in only the most extreme circumstances (mother’s health, rape, incest, etc). I also don’t believe in any death penalty, including that rapist you mentioned. I just don’t believe that any God would approve of it.
• Birth control: Similarly, I’d love for us to get live in a world where personal responsibility was the best form of birth control. But again, history has shown that we haven’t lived in that world. Rather than saying, “sorry, you’re screwed”, I’d like to keep the option available but also focus on education and moral responsibility such that it isn’t needed.
• Equal pay: I don’t know of anyone that proposes women get paid the same as a man who is more qualified. But I do know people who wish for women and men to be paid the same, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else — assuming that they are equally skilled. While you may feel like that fight of feminists is ridiculous now, always remember that people also thought it was ridiculous back when women didn’t even have the right to vote.
• AIDS: We cannot simply dismiss AIDS as a problem due to irresponsible minors. It is an epidemic in Africa and is by leaps and bounds the most deadly transmitted disease in human history. We must find a solution both medically and socially.
• Patriotism: World War 2 was pretty clear cut: a country attacked us, so we attacked back at that country and the countries that were allied with that country. Today’s world is not that clear cut. No country attacked us and our role in Iraq isn’t so straight forward.
• Anti-Americanism: Don’t fall in to the trap that people who question the policies of our government are ant-American. Political discourse is the greatest form of patriotism, as it keeps us honest. Just as I would never want a government entirely controlled by Democrats, I’d never want a country that all feels the same way. Difference of opinion should be valued and we should all try to learn from it (that’s exactly why I’m engaging in these discussions with you).

Lorraine, you didn’t discuss Title IX, but I can assume how you feel about it. I too believe in self discipline and hard work. I am 22 years old, I’m consider myself extremely successful thus far, I have a published book, and I am extremely happy. I definitely understand what hard work is all about. But I also have known people who have faced adversity much greater than I have. Some were able to overcome it, some were not. All of them worked as hard or harder than I have. I’d be more than happy to explain why I think hard work isn’t enough and why government should help out (to some degree) to bring equality to all. But we can save that for another day.

Right now I’d like to ask you to discuss your feelings on gay marriage (after all, it is the big social issue of the day). The Republican platform is pretty clear where it stands on this issue, and I’d like to know if you feel the same way, and if so, why. You can read my previous posts on gay marriage here and here.

Economist.com | America’s next president

With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd.

The summary of the article says it best:

Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America’s great tasks.

I was given this article by a friend of mine who is a self-described “flag waiving Republican” and just a few days ago planned to vote for Bush. Yet today I learned he will indeed, with a heavy heart, vote for Kerry. Before I learned about this, I sent him this email:

I just realized why you should vote for Kerry — Congress! Let me
explain:

You worry that Bush will harm America more in foreign relations, but you want to support him because you believe Republicans will pursue Free Trade and direct the economy in the right direction. You fear that Kerry could set up an economic situation where your children will suffer economically.

But — take in to account that Congress will be Republican-controlled (between 52 and 54 Senate seats will be Republican). With Kerry in office, you’d have the chance at restoring the image of America globally, but you’d have a safe bet that a Republican House and Senate would ensure that Kerry’s policies wouldn’t get too far and that Republican policies would get plenty of attention.

It seems to me that voting for Kerry is a great position for you. You get the best of both worlds. Besides, I’m not sure if Bush is really a conservative when it comes to the economy either. He’s spent so much and has no plan to curb the costs, and his administration has overseen the largest increase in government jobs since in the last 50 years (I’m making that up, but it sure feels like it).

Anyone who is Republican out there and is having a hard time deciding between Bush and Kerry — please think about what I said and read the article on Enconomist.com. I believe that it is possible for most US citizens to win this election if John Kerry is elected.