Not Gerrymandering Redwood City? How could we tell?

Until the 2018 election, elections for City Council seats were city-wide. In 2019, in response to a California Voting Rights Act lawsuit, the city began a process of partitioning voters into seven districts for the first by-district City Council election, held in 2020.

A redistricting process, based on the results of the 2020 census, will begin soon, and must be completed in time for the next City Council election in 2022. But what's a fair way to partition the city into districts? What outcome are we looking for, and what districting plan is likely to move us toward the desired outcome?

I am not a lawyer, but my vague understanding of the lawsuit is that when we have only at-large elections, certain non-white ethnic groups tend to be under-represented in elective office. This makes me think we ought to aim for a situation where the number of districts where a given ethnic group has a plurality of voters should mirror that group's proportion of the city's population.

Let's imagine a city where population breaks down by ethnicity like this:

	population	percentage
White (non-Hispanic/Latino)	33,801	44.0%
Hispanic/Latino	29,810	38.8%
Asian	8,063	10.5%
Black/African American	1,655	2.2%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	732	1.0%
American Indian/Alaskan Native	152	0.2%
Two or More Races	2,311	3.0%
Some Other Race Alone	291	0.4%
Total:	76,815	100%

(source: https://www.redwoodcity.org/about-the-city/demographics/race )

What kind of districting scheme do we want to see? First, let me describe a partitioning that I would not like:

• District 1:
  44% non-Hispanic/Latino white; 39% Hispanic/Latino; 11% Asian; 6% mixed/other;
• District 2:
  44% non-Hispanic/Latino white; 39% Hispanic/Latino; 11% Asian; 6% mixed/other;
• District 3,4,5,6,7:
  44% non-Hispanic/Latino white; 39% Hispanic/Latino; 11% Asian; 6% mixed/other;

How would such a partitioning scheme remedy the under-representation of the Hispanic/Latino or Asian demographic in elective office? I don't see how it would, either.

Since 1/7 comes to about 14%, how many of the 7 City Council districts would ideally have a plurality (if not a majority) of non-Hispanic/Latino white people? Of Hispanic/Latino folks? Of Asians? I would suggest that what we should aim for in districts is:

• Three districts where the plurality of residents are non-Hispanic/Latino white;
• Two or three districts where the plurality of residents are Hispanic/Latino;
• One district where the plurality of residents are Asian
• Maybe a district where the plurality of residents are mixed or other? Maybe.

Does this make any kind of sense as something to aim at? If not, why not?

Collin reads the 2020 California ballot propositions

The following are of course just my opinions, informed by various biased information sources (all sources are biased, including yours)

Prop 14: authorize $5.5 billion in bonds for medical research

I think NO. Why bonds? If we want to spend money on research, just spend it; don't borrow it. This is like taking out a loan to fill the tank for the next year. I'm unconvinced by the proponents' arguments.

Prop 15: property tax on commercial and industrial real estate to be based on market value

YES. In the 1970s, proposition 13 was a bad idea (i voted NO), but only now do we understand the effect of REDUCING the property tax burden on businesses. When you or I buy a home, we buy it. When a company buys real estate, the company doesn't actually buy it; instead, there is some hocus-pocus by which the real estate doesn't legally change hands. Thus, those commercial and industrial properties that have different businesses on them than they did in the early 1980s—those properties are still owned by the same legal entities that are/were the landlords in the 1980s. Thus, the property tax burden on those parcels of real estate are based on the last "real" purchase, which was in the 1980s or earlier!

That's why homeowners now pay a higher share of the state's property tax burden then they did in the late 1970s.

It's time for businesses to pay their fair share of the property tax burden in California. Opponents say it'll increase the cost of doing business. Well, yeah. Failing to pass that will make it harder for your children and grandchildren to buy a home in California. What's more important? I've made my decision.

Prop 16: Make Affirmative Action Great Again

YES. Having read White Fragility and White Awake and the alarming statistics on racism's toxic effect on our country, I repent of my past opposition to race-based affirmative action.

The current ban on considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, etc. in public education, employment, contracting—the current ban is the way that the establishment is effectively saying "Keep Racism, Sexism etc. Alive!" It's time to reject that thinking.

Prop 17: Let parolees vote

YES. Parolees already have the deck stacked against them. Restoring their right to vote once they're "out" reduces recidivism. Let's give them a fair chance.

Prop 18: Let 17-year-olds vote in primary/special elections if they'll be 18 for the general

NO. Suppose this were the law in 2019. If you were born November 2, 1992, you could have voted in this year's primary election, but not if it were November 4th. So on March 3, you would have been 17 years and four months old.

Yeah, NO.

Prop 19: Close property tax loopholes

YES (as if you couldn't tell from the title I gave it). Why should inherited real estate be immune to reassessment— other than what's used for a home, I mean? Suppose a guy has bought two houses: one where he lives, purchased in the 1980s for about $125K, and another as a rental, purchased in 2000 for about $400K. When he and his wife die, the houses will likely be worth substantially more than what he paid for them. Suppose his heirs move into the family home, and keep the rental as a rental.

Both houses have changed hands; why should either of them be immune from reassessment (for purposes of calculating property taxes)? Even if the family home isn't re-appraised or reassessed, why should the rental be immune? Prop 19 doesn't require the famiily home to be reassessed in this case, but it would allow the rental to be reassessed—as it should be!

Prop 20: Disallows parole for certain offenses; requires more DNA samples to be collected

NO. This is rather a tough one. Prisons are already overcrowded. For-profit prisons love this proposition. This increases costs of various kinds; where is the evidence that it will reduce crime or improve the chances of catching perpetrators of future crimes?

What makes this a tough one is the scary stories of crimes that are currently considered nonviolent. But on balance I still think NO.

Prop 21: Allows localities to have stricter rent control than state law

NO. This depresses new construction and new improvements. I understand that rents are too high, but the state already has rent control, and further depressing new construction is absolutely not the answer.

Prop 22: Let uber, lyft, doordash &c to continue exploiting drivers

NO. Just no. Drivers really are employees.

Here's an example. Suppose you're an uber driver in Monterey, and you get a fare around 10am. You don't know where the fare's destination is; all you know is that they want a ride somewhere. If they want to go to the beach or to Pacific Grove or Carmel, that's fine, but you don't want to drive them to SFO because you would miss your 1pm medical appointment. Suppose you say "yes" and you find out they really do want to go to SFO? If you reject them, uber *will* penalize you. You really are not a contractor.

Uber and Lyft and Doordash and their ilk are mis-characterizing their employees as contractors. This injustice was remedied by state law, but now they want to overturn the law so they can continue exploiting drivers.

Prop 23: Stricter requirements on kidney dialysis clinics

YES. Operators of these (mostly lucrative) clinics do not want higher safety standards because they want to keep milking this cash cow. But people die because of preventable screwups at these clinics. I remember reading about a case where some plastic tubing came loose during dialysis and sprayed blood all over the place. A tech grabbed it and reconnected it. The patient died a few days later from an infection.

If a certified MD had been present, could that have been prevented? Would stricter safety procedures have been in place? Maybe, maybe not, but given that no MD was required, and given the industry's opposition to prop 23, I have eto guess that lots of these clinics don't have MDs present during treatment.

Let's put patients ahead of profits—that's what I think

Prop 24: Amends consumer privacy laws

NO. The legislative analyst points out (p. 67 of your voter information guide) that privacy requirements will be loosened on some businesses that are currently subject to state standards. Today if a business buys/sells personal data of 50,000 consumers, households, or devices annually are subject to those standards. The propsition doesn't include devices in the count, and raises the annual threshold to 100,000. To me that's a red flag.

Prop 25: Support state law replacing money bail system

YES. Money bail is unjust discrimination, as state law recognizes. But the bail system keeps the bail bonds industry alive. That industry exploits the poor and has political power (because of the profits generated) to keep this exploitation going. End this unjust pilfering of the disadvantaged, I say!

a disturbing parable

The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

What do you think? A man had two sons. One son said, "Biggest crowd in school history at my speech today!"

The other son said, "How could that be? A third of the students were home sick with the flu."

The first son said, "And as soon as I started speaking, the rain stopped!"

The second son replied, "But I saw the video; rain continued to fall during your speech."

If these were your boys, what would you do? If one of them were running for political office, would you vote for him? If he won the election, what would you think and feel?

Collin reads the 2016 California statewide ballot propositions

Can you believe there are seventeen of these? That's as many as republicans who ran for president this year. Herewith my summary and views.

• 51 school bonds: YES

  Ever since the disastrous prop.13 from the late 1970s, municipalities and school districts have been strapped for funding. I'm not a big fan of bonds, but there doesn't seem to be any way to allocate construction funds in this state (or probably any state).

  Although the argument against says that Governor Brown opposes, I read recently that he's spoken generally about bonds, not specifically against this measure.

• 52 medi-cal hospital fees: NO

  This makes it harder for the state to respond to any future changes in federal policies around allocation of health care funds. If this measure fails (I hope so) then the legislature will just renew the existing fee program -- guaranteed! Nobody opposes any renewal because it's free money for the state and for hospitals.

• 53 revenue bonds: NO

  What is the problem this aims to solve? It may create new problems too. For instance, do you want to vote for/against a revenue bond project in a faraway location in California? Would you want them to vote on ours?

• 54: Legislature must wait 72 hours after posting measure on internet: NO

  It sounds good, but too much "transparency" in government makes it impossible to compromise. Instead we get deadlock and shutdowns and polarization. See this article in the Atlantic on how US politics went insane.

• 55: extend taxes on income earners over 250K$: YES

  We want the government to provide services, and we have to pay for them. Those of us who make more money should pay a higher share of our income for at least two reasons:

  1. We can afford it.
  2. We have benefited more from services (roads, firefighters, education) than those with lower incomes.
  And my income isn't over 250K$, but the two reasons are true for me, too.
• 56 cigarette tax: YES

  Raise taxes on cancer sticks to reduce smoking and reduce cancer in the population.

  The tobacco industry makes noise about exempting these revenues from the education budget mandate, but that's not the point! The point is that when cigarettes get more expensive, people smoke fewer of them, with positive results.

• 57 parole: YES

  Allows nonviolent offenders to be considered for earlier release. The "con" argument is flawed: if this passes, we won't release a flood of axe-murderers and rapists! The parole board still makes the decision. This measure allows more people to be considered; that's all.

• 58 Bilingual education: YES

  Spanish-speaking parents have been frustrated in the past when their children were not taught English. That was a catalyst for proposition 227 (almost 20 years old). But the best research suggests that teaching children at least part of the time in their native language can actually speed acquisition of the majority language (American English in this case). And at least one educator I respect favors this measure.

• 59 Overturn Citizens United: I plan to abstain.

  California has no authority to compel Congress or the Supreme Court to change its position on anything. Therefore this measure is a waste of time and money and effort. That said, I think Citizens United was wrong.

• 60 Condoms in "adult films" and lawsuits: NO

  This measure allows a lawsuit bonanza. Condoms are already required for performers (read the legislative analyst's report) so this doesn't change the law's requirements substantively. The anti-60 people are correct in saying that anybody can file a lawsuit against porn producers.

  I have no love for porn producers, but clogging our courts does not strike me as a good thing.

• 61 pay no more than the lowest price the VA pays: NO

  The lowest price the VA pays may not be knowable by the State of California. And what if a drug company refuses to sell to us at the same price as they sell to the VA?

  This is impractical and actually un-implementable and dangerous.

• 62 Death penalty to life imprisonment: YES

  Killing a convict doesn't bring the victims back, and sometimes we convict people wrongly. They sure as hell do in Texas! We have better things to spend money on than trying to kill convicts.

• 63 Ammo sales: YES

  NRA opposes this measure. Enough said.

• 64 Marijuana: I don't know

  There are reasonable arguments on both sides. I have no dog in this fight.

• 65 circumvent the legislature on plastic bags: NO

  This measure tries to contravene SB270, the statewide ban on plastic bags. I wasn't completely sure about this until I saw the source of campaign funds: this measure is funded by the plastics industry--money all came from out of state!

• 66 kill convicts faster: NO

  We sometimes convict people wrongly. This is heading in the wrong direction.

• 67 plastic bag ban: YES

  The legislature passed, and the governor signed, SB270, the statewide ban on single-use plastic carryout bags for certain stores. The plastics industry is trying to undo that with prop 65.

---

A few more, if you live in San Mateo County
and especially if you live in Redwood City

• Sequoia hospital district: Kane (incumbent), Griffin (R.N.)

  The big question about the Sequoia healthcare/hospital district is, should it be disbanded? Richardson, Harrison and Garcia say that the district was established 70 years ago to build and run Sequoia Hospital, which has since been sold. Hence, they say, the district should be disbanded and should not receive $15 million in property taxes annually.

  But the programs currently funded by those millions: what will happen to them? If we agree those are good programs and should be funded, how would they be funded without the sequoia hospital district? This is a classic democratic/republican divide: should there be more government or less? Should charity be the business of private individuals, or should the state be involved?

  Let's be realistic: in this part of California, with some of the world's wealthiest people, the proportion of income given to charity is among the lowest. We are almost not citizens any more—merely taxpayers. In church this morning (Trinity Episcopal actually), the sermon pointed out that voting is an act of prayer (I think it can be an act of worship). And how would my vote for members of the Sequoia health district board be part of "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?

  Imagine the day of judgment pictured in Matthew 25: "Lord, when did we see you hungry and not feed you, thirsty and not give you something to drink, naked and not clothe you, sick and did not visit you?"

  I do not want to hear the answer, "When you dismantled the Sequoia hospital district and de-funded its programs. For what you did not do for the least of these brothers of mine, you did not do for me."

• San Mateo County measure K, extend sales tax: YES

  Although I dislike the push polling done by this measure's proponents, and although I don't like the idea of pouring yet more money into the real estate market… yet the county is short on funds ever since the disastrous Prop 13 passed in the 1970s. We want the county to provide services for us, and for county residents less fortunate than we are. Those services cost more than the tax revenues would be without this measure's funds. Therefore I support this.

• Redwood City School District measure U, parcel tax: YES

  I need not repeat what I've said about public services, but $85/year is just not much money to pay to own a parcel of real property in San Mateo County.

Citizens?* Or mere taxpayers?[* I don't mean Citizens United]

In a recent Harper’s, Marilynne Robinson remarked that whereas our society used to have citizens (who may have a sense of identity based on their country, maybe even pride in or aspirations for their country), we now speak mainly about taxpayers. Both the citizen and the taxpayer are creations of political rhetoric, she wrote, pointing out the power of words to shape our thinking.

But I want to write about paying taxes. As a taxpayer, I’m pleased that my federal and state income taxes are lower than they might be. As a citizen, however, I think it’s outrageous that marginal tax rate is so low for someone with my income.

Back in the 1970s, the top marginal tax rate was about 70% for single taxpayers and about 55% for married couples filing jointly. But ever since the Reagan administration, the top marginal tax rate has been something like 39.6%. I’ve paid this rate. My income hasn’t decreased since that time, but my marginal tax rate for 2015 was 28%. Which is nuts!

Why is the national debt ballooning? Why don’t we have enough money to repair roads and bridges, and to pay our teachers a decent wage? Yes, I know that teachers are paid with state and local taxes, but the federal government also contributed to education funding; these federal subsidies have decreased dramatically since the 1980s.

I also know that we’ve wasted a lot of money fighting wars that we never should have started, and that we have furthermore wasted billions on “security theatre” at the nation’s airports. But if you say, “I’ll support higher tax rates when the government stops wasting money,” you’ll wait forever.

Those are problems I can't solve, but there is an issue I'm considering. I had solar panels installed on my roof last year, and consequently I'm eligible for a tax credit. The question is: Should I ask the federal government (read: "my fellow citizens") to pay for part of my solar panels?

Because tax credits—and, to a lesser degree, tax deductions—are expenditures. A dollar not collected because of tax deductions or tax credits is a dollar not available to fix a road or a bridge; alternately, it's a dollar that can't be used to pay a park ranger, or a dollar we've got to borrow...

Why should I ask my fellow citizens to pay for [part of] my solar panels? I understand the offer is there, and that it's permissible for me to receive it, and as a taxpayer I "should" take it, as I'm entitled to.

But as a citizen, do I really have an obligation to? Following Kant, do I want my fellow citizens to take every legal tax credit and deduction available? As a taxpayer, all I'd care about is myself, but as a citizen...

So there's my quandary.

So the problem is...

<rant>

OK, it's not the problem, but it is a big one. The short version is that the political establishment, I mean both democrats and republicans, have been bought and paid for by "the one per cent," and have thus steered us to ruin.

The first thing is that marginal tax rates for the top income earners went from 70% (single; 55% MFJ if memory serves) to no more than 39.6% today. Most of that drop happened under Reagan, and nobody has even tried to push the top marginal tax rate back up.

This has been a disaster for our nation's infrastructure, by which I mean roads, railroad tracks, bridges, tunnels and so on. It has also been a disaster for public primary and secondary education, public universities and community colleges, parks, and so on. We still want a civilized society, but those best able to pay for it (the top 1%) have corrupted the political system; now nobody's paying, and civilization is disappearing.

Trade

I didn't vote for Clinton in 1992, but when he won the general election, I thought, "Well, at least he'll hold China accountable for all the repression of their own citizens…" Wow, was I wrong! China got permanent MFN, under Clinton I believe, and that accelerated us on the race to the bottom.

NAFTA and other free-trade agreements have benefited a lot of people, and hurt a lot of people: benefits came to the rich and near-rich; pain came to the poor and near-poor. Factories moved from the US to Mexico. But it's not just about US employees losing their jobs; it's also about US mechanized agriculture driving small farmers out of business in Mexico and elsewhere.

A Ray of Hope

Did you hear Rubio's speech March 15, 2016? It was religious! He quoted 1 Chronicles 29:11-13 and Proverbs 16:9, from memory I think. In this Marco was right on: our hope is not in politics or in candidates or in the reform of our political system. In fact every human system is corrupt, and although we should work to fix these systems, they are not our salvation. They are not our hope.

That said, even a merely human perspective allows us to see that corruption isn't as effective as some people want it to be. Who donated millions to try to limit President Obama to a single term? It didn't work very well. In California, the criminals at PG&E spent some 40 million dollars to support a ballot initiative that would strengthen their monopoly. That initiative was defeated decisively.

What must be done?

First, hold individuals accountable; jail criminals. That's right. Don't just fine the corporations; fines are a cost of doing business. Don't just fine governments that break laws; jail the individuals who make decisions. Who poisoned the residents of Flint, Michigan? It wasn't some machine; one particular person signed off on switching the water supply to a dangerous one; another person stopped the anti-corrosion treatments that raised lead content in the water to unsafe levels. These individuals knew they would never be held accountable; worst case, somebody might fine their agency or department.

Attorney General Lynch crowed about criminal indictments against Citigroup. That's horsefeathers; criminal indictments against a corporation mean absolutely nothing. Put the decision-makers in jail, like we did in the S&L crisis of the '80s; that'll mean something.

Second, tariffs! Business "leaders" say tariffs will provoke a trade war? Bring it on! Who's got more to lose in a trade war, China or us? Hint: Look at the trade deficit! The other thing about tariffs: products sourced or assembled in low-wage countries must be made more expensive to purchase in the US, in order to protect US jobs.

Third, raise marginal taxes on the One Per Cent! Make America great again by restoring the pre-Reagan tax rate schedules! Cap the limit on charitable deductions at 20% of AGI! Limit the mortgage interest deduction at something reasonable: $30,000 a year, say. Heck, even $100,000 a year.

What, you say, people won't be able to afford housing? News flash: they already can't afford housing. But if we stop the tax expenditures, guess what? Prices will drop, and builders will build more stuff people can afford by themselves.

You want a five-million-dollar home? Fine. You want the rest of the country to subsidize your mortgage payments? Forget it!

</rant>

Collin reads the November 2012 California ballot propositions

The state ballot pamphlet came the other day, and here's my whack at November's propositions.

30. Temporary taxes to fund education…: YES

    This measure increases taxes on those who can certainly afford to pay them, to relieve the burden on those who can't afford an education -- and we as a state can't afford to destroy the dream of the UC and CSU systems. For more on this, google the "price of civilization" (with or without quotes).

31. State budget. State and local government. Initiative constitutional amendment…: NO

    I was in favor of this until I heard the league of women voters were against it. Their argument makes sense to me: the bill has many flaws and that such minute details don't belong in the constitution.

32. Political contributions by payroll deduction…: NO

    This would tilt the balance of power even more toward the rich and away from labor and the unions that represent them. I hate to disagree with my buddy Charles, and maybe before Citizens United I might have voted for 32. But corporations and super-PACs can raise and spend tons of money, anonymously in some cases, and this bill would make it even easier for them to crush workers.

    Sorry to sound like a Communist, and by the way I don't believe unions are all sweetness and light either. But golly, wasn't Citizens United bad enough? It's like the one side has machine-guns and we want to give them helicopter gunships, while the other side has only stone knives and slingshots.

33. Auto insurance companies.…: YES

    Here's how I understand this, based upon the legislative analyst's summary: today, auto insurance companies can't offer you a discount based upon your being insured by some other company for some time. The proposal is to let them give you a discount for being continuously insured by some other company.

    So who could be against this? Incumbent insurers, that's who! If today my car is insured by, say, Allstate, and I'm considering switching to, say, GEICO... then Allstate can hold on to me by giving me a discount (if I've been insured by them for some years). GEICO might like to give me a discount, but Allstate doesn't want them to be able to do that.

    I think GEICO ought to be able to say "Sure, you've been insured with Allstate for 10 years continuously, we'll give you a discount on your rate."

34. Death penalty…: YES

    For two reasons. First, if you execute an innocent prisoner, you can't give him anything back. We really are not 100% sure about all those guys on death row. Even if you think it's OK to kill a criminal, it's not OK to kill someone innocent.

    Second, it costs a lot of money, much of it from taxpayers, to go through all the court proceedings necessary to execute the prisoner. Or to change their sentence to life in prison. We do not need to spend this money.

35. Human trafficking…: YES

    Human trafficking is an abomination. If the price of more vigorous enforcement is that the "erotic services industry" (read the ballot arguments) finds it a little more difficult to do business, I rally have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

36. Three strikes law…: YES

    The point of this is the three strikes law currently means: "if you have two serious/violent felonies, and one not serious/violent, the judge may or may not be forced to give you a life sentence, depending on the order. If the non-violent/serious one is the third one, the judge must give you that life sentence—but not if it was the 1st or the 2nd."

    Huh? The proposition would change the law to require a life sentence to be imposed for the 3rd serious/violent felony. This only makes sense.

37. Genetically engineered foods. Labeling.…: YES

    Some people think the law is too vague and will cause various problems. But it seems to me a step in the right direction, vs doing nothing.

38. Tax to fund education…: YES

    The story I heard is that the worst case for schools is having both 30 and 38 fail. Some education advocates prefer 30, some prefer 38. But if they attack each other too much and both 30 and 38 fail, that's not a good situation for California's future. Thus I want to give both of them the best possible chance of succeeding.

39. Tax treatment for multistate businesses…: YES

    Why should we give any company a tax break if it's selling a lot of stuff in California? Money from the state is going to the company; it should pay taxes here in proportion to sales.

40. Redistricting. State senate districts…: YES

    The citizens' redistricting commission drew new districts and prop 40 ratifies those state senate districts. There isn't even an argument against 40 in the voter's pamphlet.

Yeah right, Mitt

Mitt isn't quite as much of a liar as Newt—at least this time around.

This is an amazing fact: Fox News—Fox News!—says Romney's case on women and jobs is skewed. Here's an excerpt:

ROMNEY: "This is an amazing statistic. The percentage of jobs lost by women in the president's three years, three and a half years — 92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women." — Hartford, Conn., on Wednesday.

LANHEE CHEN, Romney campaign policy director, on the Obama administration Wednesday: "They've done a tremendous amount of damage to American women in this economy."

Source: FACT CHECK: Romney's skewed case on women's jobs
Published April 11, 2012 / Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/11/fact-check-romney-skewed-case-on-women-jobs

You know, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics (Mark Twain I think). Fox news adds:

When Obama took office, unemployment for men (8.6 percent) was already sharply higher than for women (7 percent). The rate peaked for men at 11.2 percent in October 2009 and for women at 9 percent a month later.

Since then, the gap has nearly closed. Last month, the rate was 8.3 percent for men and 8.1 percent for women.

Here's an economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics commenting on MSNBC:

Brian Davidson, an economist at BLS, told First Read: “The math they use is correct; the terminology is completely wrong.”

Davidson noted that women actually make up a larger share of the workforce now than they did in Jan. 2008 before the financial meltdown, and since January 2009, it is a statistically insignificant change.

In January 2008, women made up 48.8 percent of the workforce; in January 2009, 49.5 percent; now 49.3 percent.

FACT CHECK: Romney's women jobs-loss claim paints incomplete picture
By Domenico Montanaro, Deputy Political Editor, NBC News

So where did these job losses come from? 64% (over 3 in 5) came from the public sector. That's right: government jobs. The Republicans want to do what to government? Make it smaller? Lay off more public-sector workers. Right?

So over 3 in 5 of the net job losses for women came from smaller government, and therefore women should vote for Mitt? Dude, most women are smarter than that. Next question: in which states did these public-sector female job losses occur?

This is so embarrassing (for them), but check out the chart at left. It's from the Atlantic -- Why Mitt Romney's ‘Economic War on Women’ Charge Could Backfire by Jordan Weissmann Apr 11 2012, 5:27 PM ET

The takeaway from this chart is: All those job losses for women Mitt's been talking about? 3 in 5 are from smaller government. Over 70% of those are in Texas (the "Rick Perry effect"?) and in states that went Republican in 2010. Look what the GOP has done for women's jobs in state and local governments; imagine what would happen with Mitt in the White House!

Unemployment figures worsened for the first 8-9 months of Obama's term, then they got better.

Mitt, guys like you make me feel embarrassed to be a Republican. I wish you'd tell the truth. "Yeah, we're for smaller government, which means even more job losses at the state and local governments, (and coming soon: federal government!)..."

Cargill/DMB is to EIR as fox is to chicken coop

I recently read this op-ed pointing out that Cargill/DMB have bought and paid for the consultants writing 15 of 17 sections of the environmental report for... a project that Cargill/DMB propose for the old salt evaporators. That's right, they want to "develop" the wetlands and make a ton of money, and they're willing to buy, I mean hire, the consultants to write the EIR so it comes out nicely. Am I being too cynical? I tweaked the form email letter before sending it off. Here's how mine reads:

Dear Honorable Mayor Aguirre and members of the City Council,

Is that really true? The vast majority of the EIR studies are written by people paid by Cargill/DMB?

Can this be legal? It certainly isn't ethical, and it's extremely unwise. This makes it look like the developer's funding the EIR... oh wait, the developer IS funding the EIR. OK, Mr. Fox, here's the chicken coop; please guard it carefully. Right?

Should I not be alarmed, and if not, why not? Please, please stop this nonsense. It serves no one's interest for our city to be sued (either by its own citizens or "outside agitators") because of an extremely suspect EIR process.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

I clicked the button and sent it off to the city council. I'm sorry, but this looks pretty darned sleazy.

Yeah right Newt

Newt, you say that a 30% income tax rate on the highest earning Americans would destroy jobs. I have three questions for you.

1. We now know that Mitt paid about 14% on his 2010 income of $21.7 million. If Mitt had instead paid 30% (i.e., about $6½ million), how many jobs would would have been lost? Put differently, how many additional jobs did Mitt create because he paid about $3 million in income tax rather than $6½ million?
2. If a 30% income tax on the rich is a job-killing figure, then how in the world did our economy grow at all from World War II through the 1970s, when tax rates on high-income Americans were much higher?
3. Why do you and other Republicans keep repeating this same damnable lie? Do you think, "It worked for Hitler, so it'll work for us"?

You lying scoundrel! You whitewashed tomb! You reprobate! I'm embarrassed to be a Republican.

What a Rosetta Stone Can't Do

My buddy Todd posted this the other day, with this note on facebook:

Imagine what might be possible if we had a Rosetta Stone to help us actually "hear" what others really meant, instead of what they were saying.

I saw the Rosetta Stone last week, at the British Museum. It's got an astonishing story, having been decoded by an Englishman and a Frenchman, the latter having quite a tendency to faint. Not that I blame him; if I were the first person in over 1500 years who could read the inscription on some monuments, I'd faint too.

Remarkable as the rosetta stone is, I'm afraid that it won't do what Todd's posting wants for at least two reasons:

1. The Rosetta Stone only showed equivalent sentences in different scripts (ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, demotic, ancient Greek); we need to go to a much higher level.

   To describe what I mean by a higher level, let me first describe some lower levels. In the 1980s, the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO) defined a reference model for computer communications. Lower levels described signaling techniques, like this one, describing an encoding technique at the "physical layer":

   ...a logic 0 is indicated by a 0 to 1 transition at the centre of the bit and a logic 1 is indicated by a 1 to 0 transition at the centre of the bit.

   A higher layer might describe how data are presented -- e.g., is "Ô" represented as 11010100 (iso 8859-1) or 11000011 10010100 (UTF-8) or 00100110 00110000 01111000 01000100 00110100 00111011 (i.e., "&0xD4;"), etc.

   A yet higher layer might specify how semantics are communicated, e.g., if we want a file named "foo" to instead be named "bar", do we say:

   • mv foo bar
   • rename foo,bar
   • os.rename('foo', 'bar')
   • …
   As "mv foo bar" is higher than "a 0 to 1 transition at the centre of the bit", so deriving human intentions between individuals is a higher level than translating between "tres heureux de faire votre connaissance" and "delighted to make your acquaintance."
2. Even if our intentions could be translated, they're in conflict because of The Fall.

   A buyer for example has the intention of paying the lowest possible price for a box of goods, whereas the seller has the intention of getting the highest price. We can translate the intention, but we all knew that anyway.

   What if "Anna" wants a world where we pay teachers more if they have to work harder to educate tougher kids who have less parental support, but "Michelle" wants to pay teachers more when they work in districts with higher property tax revenues? Is it reasonable that a richer district should be able to pay its teachers more? Is it reasonable that among teachers in the same county, teachers with harder jobs should be paid less than those with easier jobs?

   Suppose "Billy" wants a world where their companies can destroy competition by exploiting monopoly power but "Sherm" thinks government should restrict what he calls "anticompetitive" behavior. What do these have in common?

   How about if "Phyllis" wants popular media to affirm family values (e.g., marriage commitments that survive conflict, hardship—even betrayal), but "Jane" wants to show "the world as it is" including the behavior of typical US college students, the high US divorce rate, etc.?

   Besides conflicts like this, how about the observation that we've had decades now of consumers fighting workers and finally winning? Even within one person, the desires/goals are terribly mixed up.

I don't think the answer is to give up and die, but neither do is the answer as simple as clearly communicating our intentions and goals. I'd like to think that if like-minded people will listen to each other in search of common ground (think "marriage counseling"), this could make some things better, but I'm afraid there will never be a "silver bullet."

I'll be happy to be proven wrong!

In which your blogger removes any doubt that he's a wacko

Since I'm never gonna run for political office and will never be considered for supreme court justice or anything, I figure that how I vote isn't going to have an adverse effect on my career. So....

• Governor: Meg couldn't be bothered to vote. I don't buy the smear campaign related to the housekeeper, but I can't bring myself to vote for Brown. Voting for anyone else is pretty much useless. So I'm abstaining.
• Lt Governor: Maldonado. Can't stand Newsom because he doesn't seem to care what the law says. I don't want my house fire-bombed so I won't say any more.
• Att'y General: Cooley. Heard his debate on the radio v. Harris and he sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
• US Senate: Dear Barbara, you have done the impossible and caused me to vote for Carly. I never thought I'd ever do that, but you've done it. Congratulations.
• US Rep 14th: Dave Chapman. Anyone but Eshoo. Again, respect for the law is important to me.
• Sequoia Healthcare District. As I understand it, the district exists to run Sequoia Hospital. But CHW owns and runs Sequoia Hospital. So the district, and the funding, for the district makes no sense. Hickey, Graham, and Stogner say they'll dissolve the district. Why should we pay staff to run this purposeless entity in San Mateo County?
• Prop. 19: YES. Holder says the feds will continue to enforce marijuana laws. Fine, let them pay for the hours to find, arrest, prosecute, convict... and also for the prisons where these people will be housed. Why should the taxpayers of California pay for all that "enforcement" -- which in case you haven't noticed isn't working? Better to tax it -- like tobacco and alcohol.
• Prop 20: YES. Got to get the politicians out of the gerrymandering business.
• Prop 21: YES. $18 per year per vehicle, to undo some of the damage that the Governator did.
• Prop 22: YES. Have you noticed that roads have gotten worse over the past decades? Caltrain, and other public transit districts, not to mention other local programs, have had enough taken from them by Sac.
• Prop 23: NO. As in Say NO to Texas Oilmen.
• Prop 24: YES. Why would we reduce business taxes? I don't get that.
• Prop 25: YES. Stop budget gridlock in Sac.
• Prop 26: NO. Otherwise 34% of voters can block anything. (And if you're curious I did vote NO on 13 back in the 70s)
• Prop 27: NO. Not just NO but "We threw you guys out of the gerrymandering business on purpose, and now you're clamoring to get back in? NO NO NO!"
• Measure M, City/County Ass'n of Gov'ts: YES. $10/year per vehicle for infrastructure maintenance and improvements. As in yes on 21/22.

What about the other races? I've given enough effort to be well informed on them.

Why Don't We Say the Pledge of Allegiance in Church?

My opinion only: this is not necessarily anyone else's position, and is certainly no official statement.
In my elementary-school days, we said the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag every morning.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with justice for all.

Yes, by the time I got to elementary school in the early 1960s, "under God" was in the Pledge. I suppose I recited these lines a thousand times.

So why don't we say the Pledge in church? We worship the Lord in church, don't we? Why not pledge allegiance to the flag? I mean, we said it in school.

I'm being rhetorical of course. We don't say the pledge of allegiance because it's not appropriate in church. The church isn't a government institution; it isn't even particularly an American institution. People from every nation, tribe, people and language are welcome to worship in church, as they will be in heaven (Revelation 7:9).

Jesus didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the government in his day. When Pilate questioned our Lord, he refused to answer and paid no attention to Pilate's power:

Pilate ... went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.

"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

John 19:8-11

No, Jesus is no fan of any human government. Neither is his Father: "the one enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord holds them in derision" (from Psalm 2:4, sort of).

What about Jesus's comment that we should render unto Caesar what's Caesar's? (Matthew 22:16-21) The context there was taxes -- i.e., the government required everyone to pay taxes. Our government doesn't require us to say the Pledge in church. It doesn't require us to have a national flag on our church buildings. So that simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Besides that, it's likely Jesus didn't mean what we (or Wikipedia) usually think. This likely isn't about church/state separation; N.T. Wright points out the command from 1 Maccabees 2:68 to ‘Pay back to the Gentiles what is due to them, and keep the law’s commands’ is probably not talking about money. (from http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_God_Caesar.pdf, page 5)

I want to be clear; I love my country and I have pledged allegiance to the flag and to our Republic. But the message of the gospel -- the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ our Lord -- is that there is one Lord, one Savior. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords; his kingdom will last forever whereas the kingdoms of the earth are as nothing (cf. Isaiah 40:15-23).

And so it is inappropriate to say the Pledge of Allegiance in church. It is appropriate on the other hand to pray in our legislative sessions, to ask blessings of our Lord at inaugurations and other state affairs.

But when we worship the Lord we should put aside lesser things. The Pledge of Allegiance is a great and a good thing but it is too small a thing to do in church.

And how about raising the flag in church?

Frankly I'm astonished that we are even having this discussion. Should we not put away lesser things when we gather together to worship the Lord? What am I missing? Somebody help me out?

Voting for US Senator this fall

Just saw this article on Boxer vs Fiorina for this fall's US Senate race:

Boxer tries to highlight differences on abortion

By JUDY LIN Associated Press Writer
Posted: 07/29/2010 12:00:48 PM PDT
Updated: 07/29/2010 12:28:10 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Jobs and the economy may be foremost on voters' minds, but Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has been quick to stress another issue that has been a hallmark of her political career, her support for abortion rights.

Her opponent in this year's tight Senate race, Republican Carly Fiorina, often steers around the issue.

During one recent television interview, Fiorina was asked about the personal experiences that led her to oppose abortion. She acknowledged that people can have different views, then quickly steered the discussion back to the unhappy state of the economy.

[Read more]

The article goes on to say that Carly's mother-in-law was told to have an abortion, but she didn't -- as a result Carly has her husband. Carly apparently believes in the sanctity of human life, and that life begins at conception.

So here's my problem. I can't stand it that Boxer hopes to get more votes by trumpeting her support for baby-killing. I know it's not mental-health-ly correct to say this, but it makes me crazy. It might make me mad enough to vote against her.

But Carly Fiorina? Really? I still do not understand why Hackborn fired that torpedo into the belly of HP, but he did and she hit us. Besides the Compaq fiasco (immoral and a lousy business decision), she was awful as CEO, wasting the shareholders' money buying private jets and flying around doing marketing rather than managing the company. She steered the company in absurd directions (HP as a manufacturer of TV sets for example). The board finally got rid of her, a few years too late....

So I don't want either of these clowns as senator. They are not even funny.

And this makes me sad. But suddenly I remembered who's really in charge; I remembered, "Fret not yourself; it leads only to evildoing" (Psalm 37:8, NASB? or see other translations). Come to think of it, I reminded myself often of that when Carly was the boss and I was still at HP. Here are the first six verses (NIV) of Psalm 37:

1Do not fret because of evil men
       or be envious of those who do wrong;
2for like the grass they will soon wither,
       like green plants they will soon die away.
3Trust in the Lord and do good;
       dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
4Delight yourself in the Lord
       and he will give you the desires of your heart.
5Commit your way to the Lord;
       trust in him and he will do this:
6He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn,
       the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.

OK, I've taken a deep breath. I'll vote against one or the other of these clowns this fall, or maybe I'll vote against both. But I'll try to remember what Piper wrote about voting -- that voting, or the election itself for that matter -- is not the be-all or end-all. Yet I do wish we had a real choice here.

No conflict of interest! Oh, oops.

The Saltworks folks posted an article saying Rosanne Foust, SAMCEDA interim CEO and Redwood City Council member, had no conflict of interest in pushing forward Cargill's plan to destroy, uh, I mean develop the baylands by putting 8000–12000 homes out there. The Redwood City gov't page also has the article.

But now I see this story in the Mercury News (someone says it was copied from the Daily Post -- which isn't online -- but I haven't confirmed this) which says (excerpted here for fair use -- btw stories disappear from their site after a while):

Foust won't participate in future Saltworks decisions

By Bonnie Eslinger

Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 07/30/2010 08:23:23 PM PDT
Updated: 07/31/2010 12:39:20 AM PDT

Redwood City Council Member Rosanne Foust said Friday she would abstain from voting on any further matters related to Cargill's controversial Saltworks project, after being rebuked by a state political ethics agency for having done so despite having a conflict of interest.

In a letter to the editor, Foust wrote that she was "disappointed" in the California Fair Political Practices Commission's ruling but would accept it.

"Henceforth I will abstain from voting on issues related to the Saltworks Project," Foust wrote, adding in a subsequent e-mail to The Daily News that she would also recuse herself from discussions about Saltworks.

Well that's good. I've heard a lot of concern because council members make money from real estate development. (Being on the city council isn't a full-time job, so most people can't give up their day jobs, divest from any real estate or equity holdings, etc., when they join the council.) I'm therefore quite relieved to hear Ms. Foust won't be voting on any future issues regarding the saltworks. More from Bay Area Citizen here and here.

8,000–12,000 new homes.... The plus side is: such a development would alleviate our housing shortage. And job shortage too. So why do I hate this project? Let me count the ways:

1. Increased traffic.
   Transit-oriented? Gimme a break! This is near no trains or public-transit corridors. Let's develop the areas near downtown, where SamTrans and Caltrain already run. Don't tell me you're gonna run SamTrans buses into this new development -- they're cutting service, not adding routes!
2. Water.
   I mean the water level in the Bay (how much will it rise in the next half-century?) as well as water consumption on these homes and whatever else these guys want to put out there. Yeah, they say they have someone in the central valley with rights to however much water... but are they gonna haul the water from there to here? For the next half-century? C'mon, guys, we know the plan is to have a short-term kluge and then stick my grandchildren with the ongoing costs. Look, I have enough other things I'm gonna stick them with; I don't need you to add more!

   And how about that rising water level in the bay? One word for you guys: Pacifica.

3. Environment.
   Jeff Ira likes to say he doesn't care what 125 other bay area politicians think, and I'm sure he doesn't care what environmental nazis think either. The trouble with that approach is that others aren't always 100% wrong. What if the ecology of the bay, which does affect all of us who live here (even registered Republicans), really will be damaged by this development? What if 50-100 years from now, people marvel at how stupid we were for allowing this idiotic development to wreak its damage to our bay? (The same argument applies to the water and traffic issues too.)

But back to the conflict of interest. Suppose I were the interim CEO of a railroad (work with me here, please) and also on the city council. Suppose that my company's board (not me personally) wanted the city to approve a zoning change to allow the company to build more tracks, run more trains, carry different materials on the right-of-way, etc., and in spite of opposition from citizen and environmental groups and 125 Bay Area politicians I voted to move the process forward... I don't get how that would not be a conflict of interest.

What am I missing here?

What is Proposition 16 really about?

There's a lot of confusion lately regarding what Proposition 16 is about. This is understandable, given that PG&E have spent upwards of 40 million bucks (is it past 50 million now?) to create this confusion. So here's an illustration.

Suppose you live in an apartment building. The grounds there are maintained by "Excellent Gardens & Plants." This EG&P gets paid by a fee tacked on to each tenant's monthly bill. You're with me?

You hear from someone who lives in another building across town. They do not use EG&P there; the building managers have their own trucks, their own lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, leaf-blowers, etc., and the monthly fee in your friend's building is quite a bit lower than yours is. You wonder why, and after some research you find out that the boss at EG&P got paid over ten million bucks last year.

"Whoa," you think to yourself, "maybe our building should buy our own trucks, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, leaf blowers, and so on." Or maybe hire some other outfit?

Now you can imagine that EG&P doesn't like this idea. They don't want your building managers to buy their own equipment and hire their own gardeners; EG&P want you and all your tenants to keep paying EG&P! Especially EG&P's boss wants you to do that, so he can enrich himself.

What if EG&P were able to make a rule of apartment building management that said, "For any apartment building or condominium management group to invest in their own landscaping equipment, they need to get 2/3 of the tenants to agree to it in a secret-ballot election" -- wouldn't EG&P be happy?

That's what Prop 16 is: if people in your city or county are disgruntled by PG&E's high rates, and you want to buy your own generators or windmills, PG&E wants to force a vote where the answer is "NO" unless over 66% of the voters say "YES". Can you imagine the amount of propaganda that will fill the mailboxes and airwaves in your area if such a vote were proposed? PG&E would use every dirty trick they can think of to muddy the waters, and 34% of your voters would vote NO, and PG&E would continue to "own" you.

And they called Prop 16 the "Taxpayers Right to Vote Act." Slimebags.

Please read the Ballotpedia impartial summary, including the donor list; for a more partisan perspective check out this article from The Bakersfield Californian, or my earlier posting, "Proposition 16 -- ebola in sheep's clothing."

Prop 16: the bad guys are probably going to win

The "bad guys" in this case being PG&E. The Mercury News summarize the bill with this headline: "Prop. 16 is PG&E's attempt to prevent other cities from following Palo Alto's energy lead." They (PG&E) are spending tens of millions of dollars to trick people into voting YES on this turkey. Please read the article!

Here's another, from San Diego: Pacific Gas & Electric spending millions to pass California Proposition 16. According to that April 15th article, PG&E had "spent nearly $30 million in an advertising spree to pass Proposition 16."

The sad thing is, their tomfoolery and deceptive wording, plus now over 40 million$, will probably work. We have to remember that the voters in this state voted for Prop 13 back in the '70s, cutting the legs off the elementary and secondary education system; they voted in Arnold, crippling Parks and Rec and who knows what else... and they're quite likely to fall for the deceptive wording of Prop 16 too.

What can we say to all this? Our citizenship is in heaven, from which we eagerly await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power he has to subject all things to himself. So although the bad guys sometimes win (and really, this loss is nothing compared to the disaster that Rumsfeld and Cheney created in Iraq), we have to remember too that whether we are awake or asleep, we can be with Jesus.

Proposition 16 -- ebola in sheep's clothing

This time it's PG&E, saying you should vote yes on 16. They call it the "Taxpayers Right to Vote Act" but the attorney general says "Imposes new two-thirds voter approval requirement for local public electricity providers." Why should you vote yes on this? Here are some reasons I can think of:

• You're hate cheap public power and would rather pay more to PG&E;
• You own bazillions of shares of PG&E;
• You think responsible corporations like Duke Energy and environmentally sensitive PG&E, not irresponsible, polluting municipal governments, should provide utilities.
• You hate government so much that you'd rather pay more to those corporations.

I guess it's time again to post a pointer to http://newappeal.blogspot.com/2009/08/government-cant-do-anything-right.html.

What is it with these guys? Why can't they be content to make an honest buck? Why do they have to come up with these deceitful tactics? I mean really?

A patent apology (sic)

There are plenty of reasons to dislike software patents: they stifle creativity rather than enhance it, they're used by rich companies to reduce competition (think Mi¢ro$oft and FAT, Apple and the WIMP GUIs), and so on.

Given this situation, can an employee in today's tech industry ethically participate in his company's patent incentive program? On one hand, it feels like a bribe: "Are you sure you don't believe in software patents? Here's $500 just to tell us about an idea that might be patentable, with thou$and$ more if we file a patent and a few more thou$and$ if the patent office issues one."

That is one point of view, and it's certainly respectable and consistent. I don't happen to hold it, and I'll admit right here that I'm biased, having received incentive payments (or "bribes" for you purists). But here's how I see it.

As I understand it, the main reason my current employer applies for software patents is a defensive one. In this regard, it resembles the attitude of US and Soviet defense strategists during the Cold War days: neither side wanted to be the first to use nuclear weapons, but neither did either want to be the victim of a "first strike." Though a patent "war" obviously wouldn't have the devastating human consequences of a nuclear exchange, unpleasant (potentially disastrous) financial consequences would certainly hit one if not both sides.

How does this work? Suppose someone at a fictional company Moon MegaSystems (hereafter "Moon") casts about for a way to make some money and considers suing another company Relational Equipment ("RelEq") for patent infringement. Moon owns hundreds, maybe thousands of software patents, which under challenge may prove to be invalid. But it takes time and money to challenge Moon's patents, so a potential victim of a Moon patent lawsuit may decide to settle -- to just pay Moon off -- rather than spend millions in court costs. But if RelEq itself has hundreds or thousands of software patents, Moon will think three times before suing RelEq becuase of the real possibility of a counter-suit.

Suppose a RelEq employee is concerned (as he should be) about his employer's financial well-being, but doesn't believe in software patents. What good does he do by declining to participate in his employer's software patent incentive program? What if every RelEq employee behaved this way, and RelEq's (defensive) patent portfolio became smaller, relative to Moon's? This does nothing to overturn the software patent system, and only makes RelEq a more attractive lawsuit target for Moon.

If we could vote on the policies of the US Patent Office (I guess it's the "PTO" actually) then I'd vote to overturn all software patents and refuse to grant any new ones. But given the current reality, I'll continue participating in my employer's patent incentive program. It's actually part of my job.

You socialist you

The oldest reference I can find (easily) to this essay is: http://newappeal.blogspot.com/2009/08/government-cant-do-anything-right.html; I'm going to tweak the first sentence before posting here:

"The Government can't do anything right"

This morning I was awakened by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

New Appeal to Reason
Politics from a democratic left perspective from the middle of the United States
Monday, August 10, 2009

The details aren't all quite correct (oh, and I think that's "Fire Marshall") but I certainly agree with the sentiment.