Making fun of news headlines

Ever get sick of newspapers, magazines, web-based news sources, and whatnot and their blatantly obvious headlines? Here are a few that I can find right now:

Pope's Feeding Tube May Be Temporary or Step to Permanent One
Well, that doesn't leave much room for error does it?

Unknown Number Face Life-Support Decisions
Really? You didn't count?

Charities Exert Political Influence
Well, duh. If you didn't already follow politics enough to know that, think about it and it should be obvious. Not that it's always a bad thing (I'm sure that, say, the American Heart Association has done some good things).

Report: Milk alone not best for bones
At least when you read the story, and it says there are other ways to get calcium.

Many Cancer Deaths Preventable, Study Says
Is it just me, or do more and more studies state the obvious? Anyways, this is the same old early detection stuff we've all heard before (get it detected before it's too massive, and there's a good chance they can treat it).

Children suffer from parental meth addiction
You mean having parents addicted to drugs is bad for kids? I would have never thought.

Political dustups give elitists bad name
When don't "elites" have a bad name?

As I've spent too much time looking at articles and not enough at headlines, I'll also comment on the content of this one, which says, basically, that after a computer crash, it is not helpful to physically hit your computer. It also seems to say thta yelling at your computer does not work. And should your computer make a bad noise, that's a bad thing. Captain Obvious strikes again.

Anyways, enough snarkiness for me. More updates should be coming (I'll try to do so regularly), hopefully with a more pleasant tone.

church stuff

Jim Geraghty over at TKS is in Turkey, and, as he is adjusting to the culture, muses:

The call to prayer: I wonder if church attendance would be higher if five times a day, a loudspeaker at the top of the steeple blared, “Come to chuuuuuuurch… Come on, you know you ought toooooo…. God’s done a lot for yoooooooou, you can spare an hooooour…”

Very amusing. Along such lines, Easter was the other day, and with it came increased church attendence. Our church doubled its normal number of communion servers, apparently, so that it could get through it in a normal amount of time. The music sounds much better with a boisterous congregation to sing along. Truly great. Now if we could just get them all coming on a more regular basis ...

Palm Sunday, my church held its annual fair/carnival/whatever. Good fun. There was free pizza, but turnout was unexpectedly high, so a few people went without any, and a good portion more went without their fill. However, the kids were entertained, which was enough to keep most people from complaining. We had various of those huge inflatable attractions, including an obstacle course, bungee racing (where you are tethered to one end of the track by a bungee cord and try to see how far towards the other end you can get), sumo wrestling/boxing (with the oversized gloves), and some other slide-type thing. Got some kids from the neighborhood interested.

Our church recently had I believe three air conditioners stop working (they have a dozen). They got at least one working again, but at least one will need replacing. Not cheap. Fortunately (at least somewhat) they recently got approved for a loan to do various renovations, so they should have the money, although it would be better if they didn't have to spend it on that. Some of the air conditioners are not exactly convenient to remove from the building, either (apparently some are inside and will not fit out through any established opening), but I think the one that is definitely kaput (or at least semi-definitely) can be easily removed, thankfully. But again, that's what I think, I could be confused. Other renovations include new carpet throughout most of the building (completed, looks nice), redoing the foyer (which, currently, we have the old stuff taken out and are awaiting the new stuff to be put in), tearing up the parking lot and putting it back in (it's beyond repair), and fixing the leaking roof. Lots of fun stuff. That doesn't include other (hopefully cheaper) projects such as redoing the stage lighting in the sanctuary, and working with the sound system in there. Much work to be done.

Back to politics ...

Well, I want a political issue to write about, but I'm not quite sure which. I just wrote a goodly amount about Terri Schiavo, so I'm not much interested in getting into that right now. The two main things on my mind I want to write about are the Washington state gubernatorial election of 2004 and Iraq/the Middle East. Oh, stem cells, too. I think I'll go with the Washington one first, and get to the others within the next week.

Before you skip over this because you're thinking "Why would I care about the Washington state gubernatorial election?" (too late!), let me at least explain the basics of it and why you should be interested (aside from gubernatorial being a cool word). The election featured Republican Dino Rossi (yes, his first name is pronounced just like the Flintstones' pet -- with a name like that, how can you not be interested?) and Democrat Christine Gregoire. Now, I'm going to estimate a few numbers to save me the time of looking all of them up. I'd do the full research for a formal paper, but I'm just trying to give you a quick rundown -- I'll personally vouch for the fact that while the numbers won't be exact, they'll be close, and give you a general idea of what happened. After election night, Dino Rossi was up by about 560 votes over Christine Gregoire. There was a machine recount, after which his lead dropped considerably (I think it was less than three digits). Another recount, this one by hand, and Gregoire was ahead by 129 votes (I did double-check that one). At this point, the recounts ceased and Gregoire was declared the winner and has been sworn into office. It wasn't quite that simple, though.

During the recounts, King County (home of Seattle, the most populous county, and a bastion of Democrat voters) mysteriously "found" votes on several occasions. Each time, Gregoire benefitted. Also, 660 provisional ballots were fed into the machines and counted along with the regular ballots instead of being set aside to verify whether the voter could legally cast a ballot (after they are fed into the machine, there's no way to identify the provisional ballots and seperate them from the legitimate votes). Moreover, a discrepancy of a couple thousand existed between the number of votes and the number of voters in King County (think that's to be expected in an election with so many voters? the 2000 election total was about 1% that amount (yes, one, you read that right)). As if that wasn't enough, there were also felons voting who did not have their voting rights restored, dead people voting, and non-citizens -- evidence of over 1,000 of these illegal votes (combined) has been found. As Gregoire defeated Rossi in King County by about 58% to 40%, it would appear quite likely that she benefitted from this mess, which may have involved 4,000 votes or more. Even going by just the 1,000 illegal votes, allocate them proportionally, and you have a Gregoire advantage of 180, which is more than her statewide margin of victory.

Currently, this matter is before the courts, as Dino Rossi challenged the election results. Before I forget to note it, a win by Rossi would result in a new election, and not Rossi automatically assuming a gubernatorial role. It is before a trial court now, with the actual trial probably to begin in about a month.

How can you support Rossi when you supported Bush against Gore?

Glad you asked. There are a series of fundamental differences between this case and the Bush v. Gore deal:

1) Look at all the above problems. How many problems from Florida can you name? All those stories about Florida voter suppression? The U.S. Civil Rights Commission (under the control of Democrats, I might add)investigated, and failed to document a single case. You might mention the Palm Beach butterfly ballot as being a problem, but a) if people are too dumb to use a ballot correctly, that's their fault (I still can't believe the Democrats used that, basically saying "The people who wanted to vote for us were too stupid to figure out a ballot that a child could use.") and b) Buchanan had won more votes than that there during the 1996 Republican Presidential Primary, so him receiving that many votes is not completely out of the question (though I agree that at least some of the votes for him were probably intended for Gore). The problems I saw in Florida tended to hurt Bush rather than Gore.

2) Hand recounts are not trustworthy, machines are more accurate. Any election expert not trying for partisan advantage will tell you that. Both Gore and Gregoire benefitted from hand recounts in strongly Democrat-influenced areas.

3) "Divining" votes in Florida. I'm sure most of you remember talk of dimpled, pregnant, and hanging chads in Florida. That is, quite simple, not a reliable way to judge "voter intention" when counting ballots. Someone resting a stylus on a choice can create an indentation without actually trying to vote for that candidate. Chads were found lying on the tables and floors where ballots were being counted. Foul play at work?

4) Voter error vs. election official error. If someone screws up voting, they have only themselves to blame, and it is no loss. However, if an election official screws up, by either not allowing their vote and disenfranchising them, or by counting invalid votes and dimishing the value of their vote, it is a problem.

5) Illegal votes. As already mentioned, it is quite possible that Christine Gregoire got her winning margin over Dino Rossi through illegal votes. There were felons who voted in Florida (and other such problems), too, so why wasn't that an issue? Because felons tend to vote for Democrats by a lopsided margin. That whole view (largely accurate) of Republicans being "hard on crime" and Democrats being "soft on crime" and all that. That's also played a role in Democrats wanting to re-enfranchise felons, and, to a lesser degree, in the Republicans opposition to such. (Laws on felons voting differ by state, with very few (one to three) never taking away their right to vote, several not letting them vote only while in jail, some for x years after they complete their sentence, and some states require the felon to petition for a reinstatement of their voting rights.)

More on the race/recount/court battle can be found at Sound Politics. (Clever name)

Well, that's enough for now. It should give you feeling for what is probably the most underreported story of the 2004 election. Another political report coming either tomorrow or next week and non-political updates wifli.

Non-political update

I went paintballing for the first time recently (well, more recently than the last time I updated this, anyways) and I found it to be fairly enjoyable. Not painful, either, though we didn't have the air pressure all that high, and I was decently covered. Sitting (laying, squatting, et cetera) for long periods, waiting for someone to shoot at was not always the most fun, though. I must get into better shape and improve my skills so that I can do more than try to snipe people (mostly unsuccessfully at that, though in the last game ... well, it was great).

In other news, I must say that I dislike the driving of most people. Though that really isn't news, I admit. People driving below the speed limit (especially on two-lane roads, people next to each other, each going about ten under, leaving you going frustratingly slow without a way to pass), people weaving through traffic too much (or, more often, trying to), and stop-and-go freeway traffic (yes, that isn't the fault of a good many of the drivers, but something causes those tremendous slowdowns, and it's generally stupid driving).

To end on a positive note, girl scout cookies are delicious. I think I'll have one now. Ciao.

Links!

I created a links section over on the left. I couldn't find any option for doing it, so I actually had to go in and fiddle with the html coding. I am very much unlearned in the ways of html, but it was all very simple. Anyways, I didn't link to anyone's webpage/blog/journal/whatever that I know personally, I only linked to ones that have at least some degree of a national following, so don't feel bad if I didn't link to you. The links are in more or less random order at the moment, and no, I do not read all of those blogs/websites on a regular basis, nor do I endorse all content to be found there yada yada yada, but I think all are worthy reads. I imagine I'll get around to organizing them and adding more later. Or not.

Dorothea Brande and an update

I was recently introduced to quotes by Dorothea Brande, and I was fairly delighted by them, so I thougt I'd share a few.

"Act boldly and unseen forces will come to your aid."

"The Wright brothers flew through the smoke screen of impossibility."

"All that is necessary to break the spell of inertia and frustration is this: Act as if it were impossible to fail. That is the talisman, the formula, the command of right-about-face which turns us from failure towards success."

"Old habits are strong and jealous."

"A problem clearly stated is a problem half solved."

That ought to be enough in the inspirational outburst department for awhile.

Anyways, for those precious few readers that I have, blogger has been having some problems lately. It appears to be mostly just a bad time for them, rather than chronic issues, but I'll still wait and see. If the problems are not resolved, then I may switch my location. The commenting issue was resolved, so that should be good now.

Social Security Reform

I feel that a political post is a good way to get things going.

Now, chances are, if you're reading this, you either support the basic idea of the President's reform plan, or you're at least warm to the idea; either that, or you've gotten completely lost on the web and stumbled across this blog. So I may not have any readers to persuade, but perhaps I can offer a few more details than some of my readers than they already know (though this assumes that I actually have readers -- or, to be more precise will have readers, as this is less than an hour old as of this typing).

Some basics:

1) Private accounts will not affect those already retired or those nearing retirement. Most of the plans I've seen only allow those under 50 to opt into the program, which leads to the point I should have posted first ...

2) Private accounts are optional. If you want to stick with the old Social Security system, you can. Your loss, frankly, but you can choose to do that. So if you're too lazy to worry about private accounts, or too scared of them, you can stick with the old system all you like; that's no reason to deny private accounts to others.

3) You own your personal account. Amazing concept, huh? Well, with the current system, if you die soon after you start collecting benefits, or before you start collecting benefits, that's it. Your widow/child/whatever can receive a death benefit (at least if you're collecting -- don't think so if you haven't started collecting, but don't quote me on that). Actually, slight modification, for a married couple, if the chief income earner dies, the spouse can elect to forfeit their own benefits and take those of the dearly departed. At any rate, the death payment is a rather small amount that tends not to cover all the fees associated with death. However, with your own personal account, you actually own the money in it, and can bequeath it to others at the time of your unfortunate demise. So, even if you're not around to enjoy it, it can go to the people you love instead of the government.

4) Only a portion of your Social Security funds will go into private accounts (again, that's if you opt into the system). All those fearmongerers out there who warn that you could lose all your money in a "risky investment" in private accounts are dead wrong. Leaving aside the probable government bail-out of anyone that happened to (which is another matter entirely), and the downright improbablity of such a thing (which I intend to address in a bit), only a portion of your money would be invested in private accounts, and you would still be entitled to receive (reduced) benefits from the current system.

5) "They'll reduce your benefits if you get a private account!" There's an important semantic shortfall in that statement -- namely, a more accurate statement would be "They'll reduce your guaranteed benefits if you get a private account." Of course they will; otherwise, private accounts would be like giving out free money and only a complete sucker (or someone with the moral fortitude to resist handouts like that) wouldn't sign up for a private account. Basically, you'd get guaranteed benefits on the money you pay into the old system (actually, those will probably be slightly reduced, too, for various fiscal reasons, but by a smaller amount than the "reduced benefits" crowd would lead you to believe, plus that additional reduction would almost certainly be offset by the greater return on investment that personal accounts are likely to yield).

6) "Private accounts will be too complex for the average citizen." (Yeah, I kinda changed format in the middle of this; it seemed easier to state the opposing position and then briefly refute it.) While private accounts do require a tad more thought than the old system, it's still not that much. Proponents of private accounts are not trying to create a nation of stock brokers. Basically, you'd have a choice of several funds to invest in. Something like seven. They'd run from higher-risk to low-risk investments. Choosing one fund out of seven isn't nearly as difficult as picking out seperate stocks and bonds to invest in. You'd be allowed to change which fund you used once every so often (annually, quarterly, something like that).

7) "A downturn in the market as a senior is about to collect could ruin their retirement fund." A somewhat more sophisticated charge, as those who make it tend to know that the market moves in cycles, but still not overly hard to refute. As you approach retirement, your private account would switch to the low-risk investments automatically. While a loss would still be possible, it would not be massive. Moreover, even in bad market times, a well-managed fund can still make money. Under some versions, you could opt out and stay in (relatively) riskier investments; under other versions, you couldn't. I tend to favor great personal freedom, but that's not pertinent to the argument I'm making here, so I'll leave that for another time.

8) "Private accounts are like gambling with your retirement fund." AARP has made this argument (maybe not these exact words, but that basic argument). It's rather hypocritical, as the AARP is linked to various mutual funds and the like (not very good ones, either, apparently). A private account really is not much different from a 401k. I know most readers won't be overly familiar with those, but most recognize at least that the 401k is a respectable retirement savings method.

9) "Government-run retirement accounts are untested and risky." Actually, they're already in use. The Thrift Savings Plan is available to government employees. Here is a list of rate of returns it has produced. The "G" fund seems to be the most low-risk, with others offering varying degrees of risk. I didn't look through everything, but on a quick check I did not find a single month in which the G fund did not offer a positive return, let alone an entire year.

10) "Private accounts will be a windfall for Wall Street." Nope. Well, at least aside from any benefit extra money in the market might have (a debate I'll leave aside for now). Factcheck.org did a good job on this here (and responded to a liberal group's attacks on it here; they take on AARP here). Basically, they found that under the Thrift Savings Plan (which the private accounts will be based on), "brokers netted only 16 cents in fees to manage a $10,000 retirement account," which I would hardly call a windfall.

Well, ten points seems like a good place to stop, and this has gone on longer than I originally planned. In the very least, I've provided more information than most people who oppose personal accounts know. Now, dear readers, go forth and educate the masses. I can post more detailed arguments for private accounts (both my own and links to those of others) if there is any demand for it, or if I later feel like it.

In the next few days, expect posts dealing with Iraq and the Middle East, the 2004 elections (and possibly a look ahead at 2008 and/or 2006), and other topics. I'll even throw in something non-political (I think).

Beginnings

Welcome to my new blog. Yes, I've finally succombed. As the title implies, there will be many political musings here (and you can probably guess what angle I'm coming from), but that probably won't be everything. Chances are, I'll start out with a flurry of posts, followed by updates on a wifli basis. So, come along for the ride (boy, doesn't that sound hokey?), or move on to something else to satisfy your humdrum life. Oh, the blog address -- Reagan is a hero of mine, and it seemed like a good, alliterative way of naming the blog. A few Reagan quotes, and then I'm out -- well, at least until I post again in the next few hours.

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
Remarks to the White House Conference on Small Business, August 15, 1986

"A friend of mine was asked to a costume ball a short time ago. He slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist."
February 11, 1988

"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."

(I put in a hidden Reagan reference -- see if you can find it.)