Here's the Ballot

Next Tuesday the ballot will be full people, proposals and initiatives to vote on. Here's a little help sorting through it all for those living in the Holland or Grand Rapids areas. You can also go to publius.org and simply type in your name to see exactly what your ballot will look like.

These are the presidential candidates:

Badnarik, Michael [LIB]
Brown, Walter [NLP]
Bush, George W. [REP]
Cobb, David [GRN]
Kerry, John F. [DEM]
Nader, Ralph [NPA]
Peroutka, Michael Anthony [UST]

Here are candidates for Vice-President:

Baldwin, Chuck [UST]
Camejo, Peter Miguel [NPA]
Campagna, Richard [LIB]
Cheney, Dick [REP]
Edwards, John [DEM]
Herbert, Mary Alice [NLP]
LaMarche, Patricia [GRN]

For 2nd Congressional District in Michigan (Holland etc.):

Graeser, Ronald E. [UST]
Hoekstra, Peter [REP]
Kotos, Kimon [DEM]
VanTil, Steve [LIB]

For 3rd Congressional District in Michigan (Grand Rapids etc.)

Adams, Warren [LIB]
Ehlers, Vernon J. [REP]
Hickey, Peter H. [DEM]
Sales, Marcel J. [UST]

Click here to use the interactive voter map to find your candidates for State representitive.

For Justice of the Supreme Court:

Kelly, Marilyn [NPA] Markman, Stephen J. [NPA] Schwartz, Leonard [NPA] Thomas, Deborah [NPA] Zahra, Brian Keith [NPA]

For State Board of Education:

Boman, Scotty [LIB]
Danhof, Nancy [REP]
Graeser, Gail M. [UST]
McGuire, Marianne Yared [DEM]
McLogan, Colette [NLP]
Moyer, Herbert S. [DEM]
Ponzetti, Peter [GRN]
Poortenga, Stephanie [UST]
Smart, Robert M. [REP]
Whiteside, Ernie [LIB]

For The University of Michigan Board of Regents:

Boman, Scotty [LIB]
Danhof, Nancy [REP]
Graeser, Gail M. [UST]
McGuire, Marianne Yared [DEM]
McLogan, Colette [NLP]
Moyer, Herbert S. [DEM]
Ponzetti, Peter [GRN]
Poortenga, Stephanie [UST]
Smart, Robert M. [REP]
Whiteside, Ernie [LIB]

For Member of the Michigan State University Board of Trustees:

Burgis, Benjamin Alan [GRN]
Dern, Katherine [NLP]
Ferguson, Joel I. [DEM]
Foster, Melanie [REP]
Hall, Bill [LIB]
Miller, Michael H. [LIB]
Pittman, Randall [REP]
Thompson, Phil [DEM]
Van Sickle, Crystal [UST]

For Member of The Wayne State University Board of Governors:

Abbott, Tina [DEM]
Adams, Philip A. [UST]
Guttshall, Margaret [GRN]
Haroutunian, Susan Licata [REP]
Hillegonds, Paul C. [REP]
Jankiewicz, Jerry [LIB]
Jones, Thomas W. [LIB]
Miller, Annetta [DEM]
Oakford, Kathleen [NLP]

The ballot will also contains Proposals A, B, C, D and E.

Here's the Michigan Daily's opinion of how to vote on the proposals. It provides a breakdown of exactly what voting yes or no on each of them means.

State proposals

Proposal A: Watch out for tricky wording. Michigan has a ban against using bingo proceeds to fund campaigns. This proposal, if passed, would uphold the ban - a no vote would lift the ban. The proposal would keep the change in definition of an organization permitted to sponsor bingo so that churches, for example, may continue, but political entities may not begin to practice.

A "yes" on this ballot question would help keep campaign finance in line. Vote YES on Proposal A.

Proposal B: Currently, judges must be lawyers under 70 years of age to take office. Proposal B would add on a prerequisite five years experience. The state doesn't need judges fresh out of law school. Vote YES on Proposal B.

Proposal C: Ever heard of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Proposal C would prevent the state from raiding the Veteran's Trust Fund to cover general funds. The proposal would establish the fund as its own, and ensure that the trust monies go to veterans and their families. Vote YES on Proposal C.

Proposal D: This proposal would add restrictions to bear hunting - but the restrictions would be imposed from outside of the Department of Natural Resources, which handles all other hunting regulations. Political commercials framed the issue as humans versus bears - but it's really about who has control over hunting regulations. Vote NO on proposal D.

Proposal G: More bears, so bear with ... The proposal regards the management of wildlife populations in Michigan - basically, it delegates the responsibility to the Natural Resource Commission, a part of the DNR. Good plan. Vote YES on proposal G.

Proposal E: This proposal would change current regulations to allow gambling in "qualifying" cities - and the only city that would qualify is Detroit. However, Detroit should look for other sources of revenue.

<> Vote NO on proposal E.

For even more detailed information on the proposals check out the Citizen's Research Council of Michigan.

Don't forget to vote. . .even if the weather's bad.

Put on your Red Sox

In the past few weeks, the Boston Red Sox have been wowing old fans and making new ones. Now their two game lead against the St. Loius Cardinals in the World Series is not just history in the making but news worthy of a spot on Silverwagon.com.
1918, the same year the Spanish Flu Pandemic killed 675,000 Americans, was also the same year the Red Sox last won the world series against Chicago Cubs, 4-2. In his book, Babe Ruth and the 1918 Red Sox, Allan wood describes the year as follows:

In 1918, the United States was struggling through the first World War. An epidemic of influenza took the lives of more than 650,000 Americans. Fuel shortages and food rationing were daily facts of life. Against this chaotic backdrop, the Red Sox began their quest for an unprecedented fifth World Series title. And a young Boston player named Babe Ruth began his historic transformation from ace pitcher to the greatest slugger the game has ever known.

So here we are in 2004, another year in which the U.S. is plagued with problems. The 533% increase in the number of "buttck-augmentation" surgeries being just one of these problems, and the news that "A quadriplegic man succeeded in checking email and playing computer games via a microchip embedded in his brain (source)" are just two of the smaller ones.

The Red Sox winning again after all these years would be just one little high note.







p.s. The prudential building in Boston even staggers it's lights at night to spell out "Go Sox."

Cowboy memory

Here is just a quick note on last night's debate.

From the transcript:

BUSH: Thank you very much.

I want to thank Arizona State as well.

Yes, we can be safe and secure, if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world.

I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it exists -- and we're making progress; three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice -- but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account.

As a result of securing ourselves and ridding the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the Afghan people had elections this weekend. And the first voter was a 19-year-old woman. Think about that. Freedom is on the march.

We held to account a terrorist regime in Saddam Hussein.

In other words, in order to make sure we're secure, there must be a comprehensive plan. My opponent just this weekend talked about how terrorism could be reduced to a nuisance, comparing it to prostitution, illegal gambling. I think that attitude and that point of view is dangerous. I don't think you can secure America for the long run if you don't have a comprehensive view as to how to defeat these people.

At home, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland. I signed the homeland security bill to better align our assets and resources. My opponent voted against it.

We're doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports.

But absolutely we can be secure in the long run. It just takes good, strong leadership.

SCHIEFFER: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, Where is Osama bin Laden? He said, I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

Here is a direct quote from the March 13, 2002 news conference which Senator Kerry was referring to:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."

and later. . .

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him,
when he had taken over a country."

Nurture or Responsibility

In one of the most interesting discussions I have heard recently (listen to discussion with link at the bottom of the NPR page), George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist and linguistics professor at UC Berkley discusses his research into the deep rooted differences between people who identify themselves as conservatives and liberals.

On Tuesday's Talk of the Nation on NPR, Neal Conan and Dr. Lakoff discuss the idea that behind all of our political philosophy is our understanding of the nation as a family-and most importantly that there are two very different types of families. Dr. Lakoff distinguishes the two with the labels strict father and nurturing parent families. In the strict father view, "the world is a dangerous and difficult place, there is competition, and there will always be winners and losers. . . Children want to do just what they want to do and that they need to be made good." Lakoff states that in this view a strict father is needed to support the family in a difficult world, win the competitions and teach his children the differences between the absolute right and wrong, painful punishment and withdrawal of affection being effective ways of teaching this difference. He also highlights the conservative notion that being prosperous is directly linked to being moral, which in turn he links to conservatives going against social programs as they give people something they have not earned.

The opposite of the strict father model being the nurturing model, Dr. Lakoff describes this model being centered on empathy. Empathy leads to the protection of children and the family, which leads to protection of the environment and freedoms. Character being at the heart of the two models, Dr. Lakoff describes each side’s definition of character as:

"Their (conservatives) notion of character is internal moral strength. Whereas the notion for character for progressive is caring and responsibility"

This discussion is incredibly enlightening. While it is important to keep in mind that Dr. Lakoff is a liberal democrat and that he obviously sides with the nurturing family view, his research and facts can provide a deeper understanding for why it is so difficult for individuals of different political opinions to understand each other. Dr. Lakoff points out an interesting example here:

"We have a two-tier economy. About a quarter of our work force can't afford health care and are working people who don't make much money at their jobs. A large percentage of the jobs in this country don't pay enough to really live on. And those people cannot, even though they work hard, cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Because if everybody did, nobody would do those jobs and they are absolutely necessary jobs. These are jobs where the people who do them support the lifestyles the top three-quarters of the country. There aren't other jobs for them and somebody's got to do them. That is what you can see if you are a liberal, but if you're conservative, you just don't see it. You have the idea that any individual, one by one, can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but you don't see the mass of people and the mass of jobs because you only look at the individuals"

So our political stances go much deeper than our personal opinions. They are rooted in how we have been raised and our ideas of individual responsibility and opportunity. While liberals believe in nurturing the entire community or family, conservative hold to the idea that each individual has an equal opportunity to pull themselves up and a responsibility to do so. This may be an over generalization and obviously everyone falls somewhere between these two opposites. The ideas presented in the discussion, though, and in George Lakoff's book Moral Politics certainly creates an avenue for bringing liberals and conservatives to a better understanding of themselves and the individual on the other side of issues.

Check your levels

I love coffee, yet along with a good part of the thinking public, I have always had the sneaking suspicion that something might a little off about the brew passed across the counter at the neighborhood Starbucks.

Daniel Gross of Slate on MSN.com did some research on Starbucks coffee and found some interesting facts (see his article here). Aside from the fact that the chain announcned plans to up the price of its espressos due to the rising costs of sugar and coffee, more startling are the whopping caffeine levels in Starbucks coffee and drinks. According to this chart from the Center for Science and Public Interest, a 16 oz. cup of regular coffee from Starbucks contains 550 mg. of caffeine-that's more than twice the amount in one dose of Maximum Strength NoDoz and nearly the equivalent of 8 1 oz. shots of Starbucks espresso. Next to the java from 7-11 and Dunkin Donuts which averages around 157 mgs. of caffeine per 16 oz. cup, Starbucks coffee is loaded with tasty trimethylxanthine (caffeine's scientific name).

Just think, with the average american consuming 200 mg of caffeine per day, suck down just one 16 oz. Starbucks coffee, you'll have already caffeinated yourself over twice as much as everyone around you. But then again, doesn't everyone drink Starbucks coffee.

I'm not suggesting there's really anything wrong with that much caffeine, it's simply good information to have.

The most interesting

In an interview (listen to the interview with real player here) on the NPR Program, The Connection, New Yorker writer John Lee Anderson describes conversations and experiences while living and writing from Iraq on the war, the Iraqi people and the future of the country. One of the most interesting people he meets is Ala Bashir "one of his prisms into the society. . .and the man closest to Saddam" as Anderson describes him. In an article on Aljazeera.net, Bashir is described as

"a prominent Iraqi painter, sculptor and internationally known plastic surgeon who once treated thousands of Iraqi soldiers for disabilities arising out of wounds sustained during the 1980-1988 war with Iran. He was also a senior surgeon at Baghdad's Ibn Sina hospital where he provided medical services to Saddam Hussein and senior Iraqi cabinet members. Dr Bashir left Iraq after US-led occupation forces reached Baghdad on 9 April and stayed in Qatar for a while before moving on to Norway."

Anderson described the friendship the two developed and the point at which he eventually broke his silence months before the war broke out. The two met in an art gallery where, as Anderson tells in the captivating interview Bashir

"stood, I'll never forget it, about four inches from my face, it was very unusual. There was an air conditioner nearby, a very noisy old one. . .and began to tell me that everything I had heard about Iraq was true, that there where thousands of disappeared people, that the fear that I felt, that the silence was because everybody was terrified, that nobody was ever going to tell me the truth. It was as though the earth moved or opened beneath my feet-this was the man, I mean after all was Saddam's confidant. This was his personal doctor who had served him faithfully for years and he was telling me that the man he served was after all a terrible killer. And he was taking a huge risk in telling me this."

The reporter goes on to describe his further meetings in Bashir's home during which he expanded on the their conversation in the meseum.

"And it was quite extraordinary because there was something unreconcilled in this. He would swerve between telling me graphically about the brutalities of Saddam or people around him and then he would fall back on statements about how Saddam was necessary for Iraq, that Iraq's history has always been about killing and dying. There was a kind of fatalism to his reflections on Saddam. And like many people around figures of often great and brutal power, he attributed the excesses to the people around Saddam."

The Connection interview continues and Anderson tells of Bashir's hiding in his sister's home during the invasion of Baghdad after being summoned by Saddam. Bashir did not obey the summons and escaped according to Anderson. Bashir worked with the CIA and helped to turn over many of the individuals on the infamous deck of cards.

Bashir is now living in Qatar where he is paiting a series of canvases titled the "Masks of Cain" (one of which can be seen on the Aljazeera link above and another of his paintings can be seen here).

I found listening to this conversation and learning about Dr. Bashir fascinating as it gives us a look inside the real Iraq that most Americans have no context for. This man obviously is a very intelligent and complex individual and l hearing his story is effective tool for creating that much more context for this war that has split not only the U.S. down the middle but changed the world.

Read John Lee Anderson's "Letter From Baghdad" regarding Dr. Ala Bashir and check out Anderson's book, The Fall of Baghdad.

the first post

the first post