'Bank Slate

The Truth About Bain

2012-01-14T15:25:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich's PAC has new video out about Mitt Romney’s role as the CEO of Bain Capital. If you haven’t seen it, here it is:

It’s obviously a hit piece. But the video is devastating. The bulk of it is regular people describing what Mitt Romney’s company did to their employers and their lives. They also talk about the obscene profits Romney and friends made pillaging these companies.

The counter-argument, that criticism of these kinds of corporate raiders is an attack on capitalism, is simply untrue. People who have ideas, build companies, create jobs, manage organizations, and really build things can be praised and respected. The financiers who don’t do the work, but who do make the investments and provide the capital to make businesses possible are vital. Without them most of us wouldn’t have our livelihood. I don’t begrudge them their big paychecks or their return on investment.

We can praise capitalism and still be appalled by the vultures that reap obscene rewards by preying on it.

The private equity firms like Bain Capital stand accused of not building great companies but of pillaging them. They boosted the stock price by decimating the workforce, routed the companies assets into their own pockets, had the companies borrow heavily to hand the cash over to the new owners and abandoned once-healthy companies to debt and bankruptcy. Making money by streamlining and rebuilding troubled companies is one thing. Making a fortune by gutting them is quite another.

Activities taken in pursuit of obscene wealth are not intrinsically virtuous. We’re all living amongst the wreckage of those who performed selfish acts for personal gain. We know the damage that can be done by financiers untroubled by morality or consequence. It is inconceivable that in the aftermath of the economic crash, and the bank bailouts, that we would choose to elect a ruthless corporate raider as our President.

Maybe there is another side of the story. If so, we need to hear it.

Romney needs to account for his actions at Bain. He needs to tell us the story of how he conducted his business. He needs to get beyond his phony talking points and tell us who Mitt Romney really is. If Romney is going to run on his business experience then we need to know he has experience improving the lives of working Americans and not in destroying them. We need know he’s on the side of the middle class an not just the ruling class.

We are owed the truth of what was going on at Bain Capital. If even a part of Romney’s vast fortune came from pillaging of successful companies, raiding employees’ pensions to scoop up additional millions, and destroying jobs to feed his personal greed, then Romney is unfit to be President.

He owes us the true story. And it better be good.

"I Like Being Able to Fire People"

2012-01-09T20:52:00.002-05:00

Romney really stepped in it on the eve of what is supposed to be his big win tomorrow in the New Hampshire primary.

“I like being able to fire people” is a line that is sure to haunt him. He’s not talking about his Bain Capital days - during which he surely did fire a lot of people. But the comment reveals him to be someone deeply out of touch with our times and the modern climate. Nobody with any experience with unemployment or a shred of compassion for those who have actually lost their jobs would think to say those words.

What Mitt is actually talking about is health insurance. He likes being able to “fire” his health insurer. This too is deeply misguided. The services a health insurer provides is paying your medical bills. When you’re staring at huge medical bills, that your insurer has refused to pay for, being able to “fire” your insurance company isn’t going to be much comfort.

If you do “fire” your insurance company, well, then you and your family won’t have health insurance. And if Mitt Romney has his way, then nobody will be obligated to sell you a new insurance policy on account of the “pre-existing condition” that caused the trouble in the first place.

Mitt Romney might “like being able to fire people.” That won’t get people to like him.

1st In the Nation Primary

2012-01-02T21:05:00.000-05:00

One of the great joys of being political junkie and New Hampshireite is, of course, the cyclical spectacle that is the nation’s first presidential primary. I had expected that much of 2011 would have been spent talking in events and using this space for some eyes-on observations of contenders and characters vying to be our next president.

But. As it turns out... not so much... I didn’t manage attend a single town hall, didn’t hear any stump speeches, didn’t have a single candidate sighting. This outcome stems in no small part from the fact that my focus and attention have been directed elsewhere. But also reflects the nature of the campaign.

My natural loyalties tend towards the Democrats and I love me some Obama. I’ll happy vote for his renomination and would even if there was competition - which there isn’t. No drama there.

The Republican nomination battle has been a wonderful show. I’ve been following the ebbs and flows of that contest with a mixture of schadenfreude and slack-jawed amazement. But even there the action hasn’t been in New Hampshire. My Granite State perch hasn’t improved the view.

Normally, in a contest this open I would expect something of an ongoing carnival atmosphere. Battling visibility events, a town square occupied with supporters from different camps, phones constantly ringing with campaign calls and pollsters, and lots of candidates coming to town are all part a robust campaign season. Not this year.

There have been a few appearances by candidates and near-candidates. Sarah Palin and Donald Trump both popped into the gourmet goodies shop beneath my office during their flirtation phases. A visiting Parisian relative happened upon Rick Perry offering up his ignorance of evolution during a downtown stop. Yard signs have popped up most everywhere. But the season’s been relatively quiet.

Perhaps this is as it should be. The unfair influence of the New Hampshire is an regular complaint. This time the campaigns have been national affairs from the start. The fortunes of the candidates have been tied the televised debates and, more importantly, the post-debate media-spin, and the blogospheric reaction. The rise of Herman Cain certainly had nothing to do a great ground operation. Gingrich's flame-out was unrelated the efforts of local organizers.

I’m a fan of the traditional first ballots cast by the good citizen’s of Iowa and New Hampshire. More than ever, it appears we’ll just be the first to ratify decisions that have already been made by the parties as a whole.

Soon it'll be all over. It feels like it never really begun.

2012 Political Predictions

2011-08-15T17:20:00.001-04:00

Rick Perry wins easily in the Iowa caucus. Then he scores a narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary. This effectively ends the GOP primary and Governor Perry is the GOP nominee.

Perry chooses Governor Nikki Haley as his running mate.

Obama wins the general election with 52% of the votes.

Democrats gain seats but Republicans remain the majority in the House.

Republicans gain a narrow majority in the Senate.

Republicans Can't Do Anything

2011-07-12T08:21:00.001-04:00

Republicans can’t let the country reach the debt ceiling! That would trigger a US debt default, an economic collapse, a constitutional crisis, and a deep depression. Republicans will have to raise the debt ceiling...

Republicans can’t vote to raise the debt ceiling! The government already borrows too much money. Republicans can only raise the debt ceiling if there is also a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit by trillions of dollars...

Republicans can’t vote for a comprehensive deficit reduction plan! A deficit reduction agreement will require us to increase revenue. Republicans are the anti-tax party. They can’t vote to raise taxes. Republicans will have to let the country hit the debt ceiling.

But...

Debt Ceiling Explained

2011-07-11T21:17:00.000-04:00

One problems with the current debt ceiling debate is that there appears to be widespread confusion about what exactly we are talking about. Much of the reporting focuses on the horse race and the daily-back-and-forth of the negotiations. Less effort has been expend trying to explain what the debt ceiling is, why we might wish to see it raised, and what will happen if we do not. It’s boring. It’s complicated. It involves absurdly large sums of money that we can’t really relate to. Worst of all, the topic is, currently, very political. Just wading in to try and understand it means getting caught in the crossfire of accusations.

But it’s important we understand what’s going on and what is at stake. Really important.

At the basic level, the debt ceiling is a pretty simple concept. The US government borrows lots of money to meet its various obligations. The debt ceiling was created by a law passed in 1917 and it determines the total amount of debt the government can have. It’s the limit on the US government’s credit card. It’s a self-imposed limit. The debt limit was created by an act of congress. It can be, and regularly is, increased by congress.

The US has reached the limit. We’ve borrowed all of the $14.3 trillion allowed. Unless the debt ceiling is increased, or a portion of the debt is paid off, the United States government can not borrow any money, at any rate, for any purpose. Ever.

Is that such a bad thing? If I’ve maxed out my credit card shouldn’t I try and pay some of it off instead of trying to increase my limit? Shouldn’t government balance its budget and live within its means?

In general, the answer is “yes”. The government should try to balance its budget. But it is also vitally important that government not cut off its own ability to borrow. There are times when we’re going to want to run a deficit.

For example:

Suppose the United States were to become involved in a war in another country. We might want to be able to conduct the war, and incur the inevitable expenses, even if we have not collected the taxes to pay for it all in advance.

Imagine we had an economic crisis. We might want our government to be able respond to that crisis and borrow money to support institutions that are essential to our economy and our future prosperity.

What if we had a period of very high unemployment? When the economy is in bad shape people need more government support but tax collection is falling as people lose their jobs. Without deficit spending the government has to cut back sharply just when people need it most.

Maybe we think that low taxes are a good idea in and of themselves. If we think low taxes increase liberty and prosperity and are important to economic growth, we might decide to keep taxes low and run a deficit rather than increase taxes to balance the budget.

How will we handle advances in medical science? We can live longer and healthier lives. But medical advances come at a considerable cost. We might choose these advances that improve and extend our lives and livelihood over a clean balance sheet.

Nature can be full of surprises. When there is a tornado, or a flood, or a drought we look to government to help mitigate the disaster. A government that can’t borrow money won’t have the resources to deal with the unexpected.

And of course there is no guarantee that these issues will crop up one at a time. We might have to deal with several problems all at once.

A government that can not borrow money will be unable to deal with military conflict, ideological rigidity, an aging population, or any form of natural or economic calamity. This will create long-term difficulties.

There are times when we will want to run a deficit. Both of our major national parties agree that right now is one of those times. This spring the Republican controlled House and the Democratic Senate agreed to an annual budget that calls for $1.3 trillion in deficit spending.

That $1.3 trillion represents 44% of the federal budget. For every dollar the government spent $0.56 came from taxes and revenue and $0.44 was borrowed. If the debt ceiling is not raised then the United Stated government will not be able to meet 44% of its obligations.

It is difficult to overstate the implications of a sudden 44% federal contraction. Every month the federal government makes around 80 million payments to a wide variety of individuals and institutions. Soldiers, senior citizens, hospitals, doctors, contractors, federal employees, suppliers, researchers, law enforcement, holders of public debt, etc... Every one of these recipients is getting money from the federal government because a law was passed saying they are entitled to it. Behind each of these payments is a program, an appropriation, a law or a budget agreement that is just as real, lawful, and binding as the debt ceiling law.

If the debt ceiling is not raised then 44% of those obligations can not be paid. Each one of those recipients is entitled to the money. They are entitled to sue the government seeking the funds that we are contractually obligated to pay them. The government will have no means of meeting its obligations and it will default.

In addition to national default. All the people expecting to get all of those billions of dollars will, suddenly, not be getting them. Employers won’t be able to make payroll, hospitals will not be able to pay their bills, federal employees won’t get their paychecks and won’t be able to pay their mortgages.

Running up against the debt ceiling would not be one-time event. It would be a permanent condition. The debts, obligations, and needs we have in 2011 are not going to go away in 2012 or 2013. Millions of federal contractors and employees who are not getting paid and are suing the government will make things worse. The international community will rapidly withdraw its funds from the US. They will invest in other nations that have not abandoned their obligations.

Failure to raise the debt ceiling would be like the economic collapse of 2008 combined with a permanent government shutdown.

So... we should raise the debt ceiling.

The good news is that the economic cataclysm can be averted by calling a vote to avert it.

The bad news is that many of our elected representatives are refusing to do so.

Debt Ceiling End Game

2011-07-02T08:38:00.000-04:00

The Washington Republicans have taken our economy hostage, threatened to kill it if their demands are not met, and walked away from the negotiations. How should the President and the Democrats respond to this? The clock is ticking towards disaster. How is the standoff going to end?

The GOP seem to think that since the President cares about his country, and would prefer not to see an economic cataclysm, that the he will give into their demands. The debt ceiling vote is the only chip they are willing to put on table. They think it should be worth several trillion dollars in spending cuts.

As chips go, the value of the debt ceiling increase has to have a value of precisely nothing. Regardless of who gets the blame, a US debt default and sudden federal contraction will be devastating to futures and fortunes to Americans regardless of party. The Republicans have made a threat they can’t possibly follow through on.

This doesn’t mean the deficit reduction talks can’t be productive or that they shouldn’t resume. But it needs to be a negotiation and not a hostage situation.

There are a few ways this can play out. In order of desirability they are:

1. Congress and the President reach an agreement on long-term debt reduction. They also vote to increase the debt ceiling.

2. The debt ceiling is simply raised without any any other agreements.

3. There’s no agreement on anything. Obama claims the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and resumes borrowing. The US does not default on its debts. There is no sudden economic collapse. The US political system is demonstrated to be deeply dysfunctional.

4. The Democrats give in the GOP’s economic extortion and just given them whatever they want in exchange for an debt ceiling increase. The terrorists win.

5. There’s no agreement. There’s no debt limit increase. Obama accepts this. The US defaults on its debt. The federal budget is immediately slashed by 44%. The economy collapses. Again.

What will really happen?

Despite the current impasse. I’m going to bet on #1. There will be a negotiated solution.

The administration has already agreed substantial spending cuts. And they should. We’re in our third year of trillion dollar deficits. We need a path towards a sustainable budget and we’ll need spending cuts to get there. We’ll also need revenue increases. The President to right to insist on those. The GOP is being childish to assert revenue can’t be part of debt reduction solution. It has to be. But a long term deficit agreement this summer can be lopsided in favor of cuts over revenue. The major Bush/Obama tax cuts are expiring after 2012. This affords us time to reconsider long term tax policy. If no agreement is forged the outcome is higher taxes and lower deficits.

The other likely outcome is #3. The GOP has painted itself into a corner with it’s own rhetoric. It’s not clear that House majority can, or will, consider a negotiated solution to the crisis they have created. They may steer the country towards deliberate bankruptcy. If that happens then President Obama must ignore the debt ceiling legislation and assert his authority to insure the nation does not enter insolvency.

This outcome has certain advantages for Washington Republicans. They avoid a vote on the debt ceiling. They don’t have to vote to increase revenue or to close tax loopholes for oil companies or jet owners. The GOP and it’s enablers will howl that the President’s actions are illegal. It will require considerable chutzpah to demand national disaster. But I’m confident the right-wing propaganda machine is up to the task.

There are downsides to the GOP for an Obama-averted default. Deficits would continue to rise. This outcome would be the ultimate abdication of legislative responsibility in the service of rigid ideology.

Will the GOP choose it anyhow? We shall see...

Armageddon

2011-07-02T07:08:00.000-04:00

In the 1998 Micheal Bay thriller Armageddon there’s this giant asteroid on it’s way to destroy the earth. Naturally, it’s up to Bruce Willis and his plucky, quirky companions to saved the world. But before they do, they have some demands.

“We don’t want to have to pay taxes. Ever.”

When I first saw this scene I thought to myself: Well, that’s pretty stupid. In the face certain calamity nobody could possibly be so petty. If there’s a pending disaster that will destroy you and everyone you hold dear, how could someone with the power to avert this catastrophe refuse to so? So they can argue over tax rates? Who could be that craven and stupid?

After watching the debt ceiling debate in Washington, we have our answer. The entire Washington GOP is precisely that craven and stupid.

First the GOP took the incredibly irresponsible step of taking the US economy hostage. They are threatening to destroy it by refusing the raise the debt ceiling unless the Democrats agree to trillions of dollars in spending cuts. Now, the Republicans have walked out of the negotiations, after trillions of dollars of spending cuts have been agreed to, because the Democrats has also suggested revenue increases.

This is madness. Unlike, Bruce Wills the GOP isn’t even being asked to climb a rocket and blow up a giant asteroid. If they want to avoid economic armageddon all they have to is call a vote to avert it. The fact that they refuse to do so tells you how irresponsible they have become.

An Evening With My Congressman

2011-04-29T18:21:00.001-04:00

Last night I attended a Town Hall meeting hosted by my Congressman, Rep. Frank Guinta. Guinta won his seat last November defeating Carol Shea-Porter. I did a little volunteering for the Shea-Porter campaign and remain a fan. I haven’t been such big fan of the Frank Guinta.

Guinta the former Mayor of Manchester. He rode into office on the Republican wave with Tea Party support and has had a predictable Republican voting record his first few months in office. I was curious how he would represent that record.

A good sized crowd of several hundred people filled much of the Exeter High School Auditorium. The crowd skewed to towards senior citizens and I recognized some faces from the last Town Hall I attended. Judging by the volume of cheers and boos I would guess three quarters of the attendees were not there to support the Congressman.

I enjoy the Town Hall meetings. I like taking the measure of my representatives as they try out their talking points on the rowdy, messy crowds. I like the democratic spirit of these events.

The tone was set with the first question about the Ryan Budget Plan. The question was “Why in the world did you ever vote for the Paul Ryan Medicare plan?” which got substantial applause. Guinta’s vague, half-hearted defense of his vote did not generate similar enthusiasm. The crowd showed outright hostility to the Congressman’s assertion that “the plan won’t have any effect on people over 55.”

Maybe he was just responding to the audience, but most of the event Rep. Guinta was a picture of bland equanimity. Everything was a good idea, or something he would be happy to look into, or something he wanted to work on with his friends across the isle. He was calm but slippery. He gave the general impression of someone more interested in running out the clock than in defending his votes or articulating his principles.

This is the tragedy of American democracy*. In Washington, the parties will refuse to agree to blindingly obvious. When you get finally get someone in front of you they won’t admit to any disagreement.

I didn’t get to ask any questions. I do have some I would like to have answered. Here are a few:

On the deficit:

In 2000 we had a budget surplus. Since then we have cut taxes multiple times. We have gotten involved in 2 (or more) wars and run up defense spending. We have watched as medical costs rapidly increase. We had a massive financial crisis that had a devastating effect on private enterprise and government revenue. We now have an annual budget deficit of $1.4 trillion.

Congressman Guinta, in your few months in office you have voted to reduce taxes further. You have opposed serious cuts in defense spending. You have voted to eliminate government cost control measures for health care. And you have voted to to eliminate the recent financial regulations.

Why, exactly, should we regard you as someone who is serious about deficit reduction?

On the debt ceiling:

Congressman Guinta, you voted for the budget deal that calls for $1.4 trillion in deficit spending this year. And you voted for the Paul Ryan budget plan that calls for another $6 trillion in deficit spending over the next decade. All of that deficit spending, that you voted for, will require the government to borrow money.

Furthermore, if we don’t raise the debt ceiling the U.S. government will default on it’s debt obligations. Our nation’s place as the world’s financial leader will be forever destroyed. And our economy will collapse. Again.

In light of these facts will you reconsider you position on voting to raise the debt ceiling? If you will not, how can you justify your position as anything but a display of reckless disregard for your country and your constituents?

Event video:

This video isn’t from our Town Hall meeting. It’s pretty great though and shows Guinta at his most slippery:

* I bet I’ve said this before about something else. Maybe I should say “Among the great tragedies of American democracy...”

Democratic Majority Rejects Democratic Rules

2011-02-01T20:55:00.000-05:00

Last week the Senate, which still has a Democratic majority, abandoned their effort at rules reform. They elected to continue to allow the elected minority party to control the agenda and decide what is the Senate is allowed to vote on. This an astounding and pointless capitulation given the experienced of the last two years.

When the 111th congress began in 2009 the Republicans has been soundly rejected in a succession of elections and where down to only 40 senators. At that time, Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, made the deliberate decision that the best way for their small minority to exert influence would be to exploit the byzantine rules of that body and try to obstruct everything. They could not win votes, they had no interest in working towards solutions. So they would drag their feet, and gum up the works. Rather than trying to influence legislation they would try and make legislating itself impossible.

In this, they were remarkably successful. They insisted that each and every piece of legislation would require 60 votes. Then they held together and tried to pour enough poison into each process to to peel off a wavering Democrat or independent. Illness, absenteeism, Ted Kennedy's death, and the Massachusetts special election meant that often there where not 60 votes to be had.

Despite the largest senate majority in a generation, Obama’s appointments went unfilled. His judicial nominations were blocked. Health care reform was caught in endless delays, watered down, and stuffed with embarrassing kickbacks in pursuit of a 60th vote. The DISCLOSE act was killed, gutting campaign reform and opening the door to unlimited secret corporate cash. The DREAM act, which would have a provided a path to citizenship for immigrants willing to server their country, failed despite majority support. Legislation to address catastrophic climate change withered and died. When it came time to debate tax policy, Obama didn’t bother to invite Democratic senators into the room. Their 58 votes were meaningless in the face of the Republican’s 42.

Initially, the Democratic majority was taken by surprise the the extent of Republican obstruction. The filibuster and associated tactics had been used before. The most famous case was when the Democratic minority was blocking 9 of Bush’s judicial appointments. The Republicans threatened a “nuclear option” of summoning Dick Cheny to force a rules change in the middle of the session. But in this session, the GOP took the relentless use of these tactics to a whole new level. The Democrats decided, not without some reason, that it would be inappropriate to try and change the rules in the middle of the health care debate. The focused on trying to round up a 60th vote to advance legislation. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn’t.

Time and again, crucial legislation passed in the House and languished in the Senate. Rather than blaming the Republicans for their obstruction, the public punished the Democrats for their dithering, apparent spinelessness, and failure to act. The Democrats where handed a massive electoral defeat. The minority learned that majority will take the blame for failing to address the nation’s problem. Politically motivated, relentless, unprincipled obstruction works.

By the end of the session it was obvious that the Senate rules where broken. It was so obvious that all 53 returning Democratic senators signed a petition supporting rules reform. A number of proposals were written. The most popular proposal maintained the filibuster. It just added the common sense requirement that a senator who wished to filibuster a piece of legislation would actually have to rise, and speak, and hold the floor in order to do so. This minor, obvious change would have had a sweeping effect and gone a long way towards restoring democracy in the Senate and in the U.S.

The start of the 112th congress was the perfect time to alter the rules. Only 51 votes were required to end the tyranny of the minority. The obligation was clear. Their opportunity had arrived. And they blew it. After years of collective abuse at that hands of the minority, Harry Reid was unable, or unwilling, to find 50 senators in favor of rules reform. Instead, Reid settled for handshake a with McConnell and a shared agreement that the obstruction would continue.

This is a great agreement for McConnell. It’s easy to be against majority rule while you’re in the minority. Someday the GOP will be in majority. When they are, they may decide that majority rule is a good idea after all. I hope they have the guts to see it through.

We Did Big Things

2011-01-30T18:40:00.001-05:00

After the President’s State of the Union address President Obama was kind enough to send me an email that suggested that, with a small donation, I might be entitled to a t-shirt emblazoned with the their new slogan. I noticed it is a limited edition t-shirt. That’s probably appropriate. I fear the doing of big things will to be limited to Obama’s first two years and unlikely to continue into the next two.

I found the speech to be solid, agreeable, and well delivered. I didn’t disagree with his tone or topics or priorities. But I don’t think it will it serve as a rousing call to action. The reasons for the pending era of inertia are political and financial.

On the political side, the President’s large Democratic majorities were swept away in the last election and replaced with addition representative from the party of NO. This was partially an electoral reaction to rapid change during an uncertain time. The people have demanded gridlock and they shall receive it. But if the last two years were about using legislative majorities to get get stuff done, the next two years might actually be about changing the tone in Washington and finding common ground. The mixed seating at the speech was a good start. I’ve always believed in Obama as facilitator-in-chief. If the new GOP majority actually wants to address any of our problems they will find a willing partner.

Of course there isn’t any money to do big things. We’re still running trillion dollar deficits. And the big tax-deal-giveaway during the lame duck really needs to be the last big splurge. Closing that trillion dollar difference is a worthwhile focus for our government. With taxes too low and spending too high we can look forward to less money, more public-sector layoffs, and a protracted battle as everyone clings to what they already have.

Some of the things that are broken in America could be fixed without additional costs. We could institute a guest worker program that rationalized our immigration policy. The millions of undocumented people living and working in the US could be offered a legal status in a way that increased revenue. We’re sleepwalking in the face of catastrophic global climate change. A carbon tax is an overdue and obvious money-maker. Our corporate and personal income taxes could both be restructured in a way that radically simplified reporting, reduced rates, eliminated loopholes, and increased revenue.

There are plenty of big things left for us to do. But the “we” will not be the Obama administration or a Democratic congress. “We” means all of us now, left and right, Democrats and Republicans. If we can agree on the problems and work towards the solutions, then we’ll do big things. If not, the big things that bedevil us will remain undone. And they will only get bigger.

Building a Better Superhero MMO

2011-01-11T20:56:00.000-05:00

My experience with DC Universe Online has me daydreaming a bit more about what would make a great Superhero MMO. So, I decided to write down my design notes. If I ran the circus, here is what I would do...

Design the heroes and villains that will populate this world. Create about a dozen of each. Give each a name, an origin, an identity, a bit of back-story, and a general power set. Each character also gets a general arc. The character’s destiny may be to become earth’s greatest defender, or to have his revenge, or to rule the world, or to become king of the underworld. Each character starts at the beginning but has a different destination. Players will be able to edit their costumes, and choose how a character’s powers evolve. But you you choose to start as one of these predefined heroes or villains.

There is also a set of core NPCs that operate in the world. Some of them might be mob bosses, and dark overlords. But mostly they will be the normals: kindly neighbors, classmates, love interests, brilliant scientists, dogged detectives, intrepid reporters, hired muscle, and other reoccurring characters.

The game runs a number of these worlds in parallel. When a player signs into a game session he gets added to one of the worlds. The engine has the general mandate to get one (and only one) of each of the predefined characters into each instance. Social networking algorithms would be used to keep groups of players together and let you play with your friends. But your Mongoose is the only Mongoose. On a given day, your archenemy the Master Mime might be a low-level frustrated artist being played by a new player. Or he might be a high level criminal mastermind holding the city hostage.

In-game missions are generated by pulling players together with a matchmaking algorithm. A villain is given the chance to embark on some criminal enterprise. Selected heroes are alerted via sky signal, news bulletin, or thought bubble. They can decide to take the case and try to stop her. There would be some environmental adversaries run by the game - thugs, mercenaries, security guards etc.. but they would all but added as part of a dynamic ongoing mission, and not as an eternally respawing part of the scenery. The core of the action would be when the player-piloted heroes and villains square off. Then they succeed or fail, stand or fall. No dying and respawning for them either.

Because the game knows the hero’s name and identity, the NCPs can be woven into each of the missions as informers, hostages, and plot devices. The game can track the each character’s relationship with each of the other characters. It can go beyond costumed adventuring and explored the characters underneath the costumes as well.

Most MMOs pit a vast supply of bland characters against an unchanging environment. The game isn’t about the characters because it doesn’t know who they are. The rich potential of an MMO comes from the interaction and relationships between the players. I want a game that combines engaging characters, played by real people, with an actual storyline that recognizes these characters and lets them tell the story of their journeys together. That game might not exist yet. But I can dream.

Adventures in DC Universe Online

2010-12-31T12:41:00.001-05:00

A few weeks ago I got an email invitation to join the DC Universe Online beta. This gave me the (free) opportunity to take the game for a spin before it became publicly available. For all my game playing I’ve never spent a lot of time with a massively multiplayer game. Here are my impressions, playtest notes, and wish-list.

At first I was quite disappointed by the MMOness of it all. It feels very much like World-of-Warcraft-with-tights. There are lots of fetch quests and beat up X guys missions. There are loot drops and raids. Weak character development and very weak story all around - even by deeply diminished video game standards. The well-populated persistent world mean nothing really changes. I’m supposed to beat up Scarecrow’s thugs and rescue my fellow citizens from his fear gas. But an infinite stream of bad guys and infected bystanders keep showing up as fast as I deal with them. I knock out baddies and free bystanders to make my quota and leave the rest for the next guy. It doesn’t feel very heroic.

Character generation is flexible and fun. You choose hero or villain and have a wide variety of costume and appearance options. Choose a power set, a weapon, and how you get around. Choose your awesome super-name. Realize that your awesome super name was already taken. And your first 6 somewhat less awesome backups are also taken. Settle for some kind of vaguely appropriate but available name. Now you’re ready for action!

The graphics and combat are only OKish relative to their single-player counterparts (like Prototype or Batman: Arkham Asylum). But they are solid and enjoyable for a game of this scope. Combat feels more more kinetic, twitchy, and action-oriented than what I would expect. Giant spring-loaded boxing gloves send characters flying. Attacks can be dodged with a quick acrobatic roll. Rhythmic button combinations lead to spectacular, leaping, flourishes of Demon Fist’s deadly power-quarterstaff. At its best it feels like you’re playing a fighting game or a brawler.

Many of the MMO conventions are present. To a superhero fan and MMO novice like me they can seem out of place or are simply baffling. Having loot drops seems odd for heroes. The appearance changes are kind of fun. But the stat changes you get from the super-pants you got from beating up Doctor Psycho are too subtle to really get excited about. Having decaying equipment seems pointless. And facing the Queen Bee with a bunch of busted gear can be especially frustrating. Collecting money seems inappropriate for the genre (if you’re a hero). And there’s not that much to buy. So I’m not really sure what the point is.

Characters can have different roles (Damage, Control, Tank, and Healer) that seem like nods to knowing WoW fans. But I wish they were more intrinsic to the characters rather than different roles my character is supposed to take on from mission to mission. Character generation provides a wide variety of power and weapon selections. Fire and ice. Flying and super speed. Magic and brawlers. But then, they all get kind of homogenized in the name of balance. Everyone seems to wind up with similar offense and defense options to work out to the same amount of damage points per second.

The biggest advantage a MMO has over a single player game is the availability of all these other players as heroes and villains. This remains my greatest disappointment with the game. I hate chat windows and can’t imagine spending my precious gaming time typing in one. All my players interactions so far have been incidental, brief, shallow and random. I wish the game did much more to encourage player interaction and helped form enduring partnerships and rivalries between the players.

If I’m dong a mission and another hero is doing the same mission right next to me, the game should ask us if we want to work together. If we do, scale the mission, open a audio chat channel, and make us a team. If we complete the mission, ask us we want to be friends. If we say yes, let us find each other and team up in future sessions.

If a villain comes along and beats me up, offer me a revenge mission that let’s me track him down. If I succeed at the revenge mission, ask us we want to be enemies. If we do, let us track each other down and do battle in future sessions.

Instead of a “Tank” mode, I want a “Social” role. When in social mode characters should not be able to attack or be attacked. Their controls should allow them to strike a variety of poses and make a number of canned, context relevant, statements. Before a battle (or even in the middle of one) heroes and villains should be able to target each, go “Social” other to swap some banter and strike poses for a few seconds before the action resumes.

What I really want is more, deeper, more personal mission-based PvP. Give a villain a mission to go rob a bank. Tell my hero that I need to go stop the bank robbery. We both have to get to the bank and get sent to the same instance. I fight my way through henchmen. The villain fights through the guards. We meed in the middle and only one of us can be the victor.

Unfortunately, DC Universe Online doesn’t offer much of that kind of social-engineering. It does offer a lot of flash, fireworks, power progression, and different ways to be super. I think it’s probably a good MMO. It's just too conventional for my taste. I might buy it when it comes out. But I’ll continue to look to the skies and search the rooftops. Someday a real hero will come. Someone will serve up some real stories and save us from MMO grinding and drudgery. But who? And will they be too late?

Everyone Gets a Tax Cut

2010-12-07T17:16:00.000-05:00

A few thoughts on the announced tax-cut deal between Obama and the Republicans:

Generally, I like the deal. Everyone gets what they want (even if we can’t pay for it). Taxes don’t go up for everyone next year. We even get a little tax cut. Unemployment benefits get extended for another year. And the earned income tax credit get extended. So, tax cuts for everyone and the most needy get a little extra.

It’s absurd that there had be to any negotiations at all. The Republicans get a say because they have 42 senators and Democrats only have 58. Since it takes 60 votes to do anything, 42 is as good as 58. If the senate doesn’t kill that rule at the start of it’s next session then the Democrats are insane. I’m looking at you Jeanne Shaheen. What the heck, I’m looking at you too Kelly Ayotte. Just because you’re a Republican doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to end this foolishness.

Liberals who are apoplectic about this deal need to rethink their priorities. Would the world really be a better place if taxes for everyone went up next year? And unemployment benefits ended? This is a stealth-stimulus. It’s not a very efficient stimulus. But it’s better than nothing -- and will be much more popular.

I support progressive taxation. I opposed the Bush tax cuts. I never liked the Democratic plan to extend 75% of the Bush cuts. I don’t think it’s a moral imperative that rich people pay higher taxes. We need a lot more revenue to balance the budget. When we get serious about the nation’s fiscal health I would like to see a little extra come from where it’ll cause the least hardship - people richer than me. But everyone will have to share the burden. We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.

But we aren’t serious about balancing the budget. Nobody cares. Not this year. This deal piles on another $600-$900 billion on the deficit. It also settles taxes and economic stimulus issues for the next few years. Maybe this is our last big bender. Hopefully, this opens the door to serious negotiations around a big picture deficit reduction plan (like Simpson-Bowles) where everything is on the table and we look at the kinds of real, structural changes that are required in tax policy, defense, medical, and entitlement spending.

Speaking of negotiations- Obama is clearly at home with them. He’s much more interested in being the presidential centrist than leading the charge as the front-man of the Democratic party. I admire this quality. But it drives “the base” berserk. Obama will get plenty of opportunity for negotiation over the next two years. The man himself is such a stark contrast from the communist-socialist rhetoric that comes from the right. I hope that’ll become increasingly apparent, that the fever will break, and that American center will realized Obama is one of them.

In this highly polarized era there may not be much support for a President-as-centrist-negotiator. But that’s his job. And I’m glad Obama is the one doing it.

Two True Stories About America: Part 2

2010-11-24T12:10:00.000-05:00

It order to understand the actions of the Obama administration you have to understand the mess he inherited. Critics of Obama ask when he will stop blaming Bush for all his problems. But it will always be true that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were started by Bush. It will always be true that Bush ignored the problems global climate change and exploding health care costs. It will always be the case that massive tax cuts and runaway spending meant Obama inherited a federal budget awash in red ink. We can never forget that Bush presided over the housing bubble and watched as his economic policies led a massive, systematic, economic collapse.

These things will always be true. We must never forget that.

Seen in their proper context, the actions of Obama administration were smart, aggressive, and necessary. However bad things are, we were saved from a fate much, much worse. Critics of government intervention need to consider what would happened if those interventions had not taken place. Think about the destruction of the automotive and insurance industries. Consider the insolvency of the institutions that own the homes of most Americans. With the entire banking system teetering on the abyss we were facing the death of the capitalist system itself. Without banks, without loans, without lines of credit, without mortgages, without capitol - every business in the country, every employer large and small would be facing bankruptcy, failure and collapse. The actions taken by the Obama administration were essential to securing stability and protecting our future.

Amidst this crisis it may be harder to see the urgency of reforming our health care system. But our safely net is unraveling. Dealing with soaring health care costs and creating a system where every American can afford health insurance is more important than ever. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats were right to act now. We won’t see radical changes. Many Americans will see hardly any change to their health plans. But once the local health monopolies are broken, once everyone has some choice about their health plan, when health care costs are no longer rising without competition or constraint, when our financial and family health is no longer dependant on the whims of an unknown underwriter, when we have options beyond clinging to what we have - then there will no going back. We will never miss the old, arbitrary, overly expensive system. We can be grateful that action was taken and look forward to a more fair, more secure, less expensive system of health care.

Dealing with the multitude of problems that confront us requires dedication, focus, and a willingness to confront reality. Only the Democrats have shown that focus. The Republican party has abandoned its principles and policies in naked pursuit of politics and power. The politicians and cheerleaders who lead us into this disaster have refused to confront it. Rather than work towards solutions, they have worked to thwart them. Instead of trying to alleviate disaster they have worked to prolong it. The Republican party and its supporters fanned the flames of discontent and disillusionment. They oversaw our economic collapse. Rather than recover from it, they seek to exploit it, and channel the anger and misery. Republicans seek to regain power without regard for the public good.

There is no way to stop the march of history. There is no alternative to confronting the issues before us. It is impossible to take our country back to some imaginary days of yore. We need to look to building a better future. We need to remember that things could have been, and could still get, much worse.

Two True Stories About America: Part 1

2010-11-21T08:30:00.000-05:00

As soon as Obama took office he turned on the money spigot. Hundreds of billions for the banks. More hundreds of billions in “stimulus” funds that went towards politicians' dream projects. Every few weeks they announced some massive bailout project that cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Banks. Insurance companies. Car companies. Mortgage giants. It seemed like everyone who caused this disaster was getting a huge payout. In two years the taxpayers got nearly $3 trillion deeper in debt.

On top of all this the Democrats passed their health care reform, which will cost another trillion dollars. They spent 12 months arguing amongst themselves, in the middle of this crisis, to pass a massive, expensive, unpopular bill. Most of us already had health health insurance. And it’s not as if this great law has stopped health care costs from shooting up. Since they passed their law, health care costs have been rising faster than ever. So, what was the point of that?

After spending all that money it’s not as if the Democrats have much to show for it. The unemployment rate still sucks. Jobs are impossible to find. Housing prices are still plummeting. Those same banks that got their big bailouts aren’t lending money. And they are busy throwing people out of their homes. Where did all that money go?

The jobs disappeared and it is not at all clear when, or how, they are going to come back. Manufacturing in the US has been dying for while. The housing and construction boom that kept blue collar families going is done and dead. People are watching their net worth evaporate just as they lose their jobs. We know people in other countries are willing to do what Americans do for half, or a fourth, or a tenth, of what we need to pay the bills. Not only that, but those same foreigners are now all over the US competing for same jobs right here. Now there are millions and millions of illegal immigrants, living is this country, working illegally, while millions of hardworking perfectly capable Americans can’t find jobs and are struggling to take care of their families.

And the change doesn’t end there. We’re told that just by driving our cars around -- to go shopping or go to work -- or because we’re trying keep our houses warm - we’re destroying the planet. They want us to pay even more for gas and more or heating oil. Even if we can’t see it, we’re supposed to believe that we’re destroying the planet. Not only that, but Al Gore has plan to fix this. And God Almighty does not.

When election time rolled around, the American people looked around. They could see all the money the government is spending. They could see the debt piling up. They could see an economy going down the tubes. They had had enough change. They had one word to say to the government and that word was “STOP”.

Health Care Economics: A Personal Case Study

2010-11-06T11:10:00.001-04:00

Our family has health insurance. But our plan has a high deductible. We pay for first $5,000.00 in medical expense each year before the insurance kicks in. Part of the reason we got a plan with such a high deductible is that it saved us money on premiums. The other reason is that, after watching our premiums soar up year after year, we wanted to be responsible for our own health care utilization. With $5,000 of our own money on the line we had an incentive to consume health care services wisely. We would be the change we were looking for.

But managing your health care bills is not so easy. We learned that the hard way.

The Case

At first our decision to go with the high deductible plan looked like a good bet. Other than routine checkups, we had minimal issues. Then I got the call. One day last spring Christine fainted at work. She felt woozy all of sudden and sat down. The school nurse checked her out, called for an ambulance, and called me. I ran over. I arrived in time to check in and see how she was feeling before the ambulance took her to the emergency room.

At the ER, we were mostly ignored while the staff dealt with more severe cases. Eventually a doctor appeared. They ran a few blood tests. They ruled out anything that was an immediate concern. Then they kind of shrugged and sent us home.

Over the next few days Christine’s wooziness and weakness came and went. She always felt a little “off”. Sometimes she was too weak to stand. She missed a lot of work. Christine visited her doctor twice. They ran a few more tests. Then her doctor suggested an MRI.

We scheduled the MRI. Christine started to feel better and we thought about cancelling. Then she had another dizzy spell. Whatever was causing these spells had been doing it for three weeks now. Something was wrong and we had no idea what it was. We kept the MRI appointment.

We didn’t hear the MRI results right away. Christine started to feel better. And the problem went away. Eventually, we learned that the MRI didn’t show anything interesting.

Whatever the problem was, it went away on its own. At no point did Christine take any medication or undergo any treatment. We never even got a firm diagnosis. In this case, the outcome was the same as if she had never gone to the doctor at all.

The Bills

The ride in the ambulance cost: $758.60

The visit to the ER cost: $2,061.38

The visits to the doctor cost: $524.49

The MRI cost: $3,367.52

Health Care Economics

Before we consider the economic factors at work here, I would like to consider this question:

Why do I have such a crappy television?

We have a old, not at all flat, and rather small television. I have considered purchasing a new television on several occasions. There are lots televisions available. There are many manufacturers. Sometimes there are sales. Each year the price of new 42” flat-screen gets lower and lower. Over the years we have spent lots and lots of money on lots of different things. But we have consistently chosen to not spend our money on a new television.

This is classical market economics at work. There is competition based on quality and price. Information is available on the cost and features of each model. Retailers compete to get me to buy from them. I can make an informed decision about whether the product is worth the cost. And I can decide not to purchase anything at all.

Notice that when it comes to health care, none of these basic market principles apply.

The school did not consult with us or get a quote from the ambulance service before calling for it. The minute you set foot in an ER the meter is running and nobody is going to tell you how high. As she handed over her credit card, Christine asked the woman at the intake desk how much her scheduled MRI would cost. The response was “How should I know?”. When you get the bill, learn what the MRI cost and decide maybe it wasn’t worth the three thousand dollars, you can’t return it for a refund. And since you’re dealing with your health, something more important to you than money, you can’t opt out.

The principles of competition and selection that control costs everywhere else don’t apply to American health care. In other countries the government is paying the bills and sets the price -- controlling costs by fiat. But not in the US. With neither market forces nor government price controls, the entire system is price-blind, and costs rise without constraint. Even if we can’t control these costs we still have to pay for them - through rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, and shocking bills that arrive in the mail.

Bringing our nation’s health care costs under control will require application of some basic market principles, stronger government intervention, and a cultural shift to recognize the costs and limitations of modern medicine.

Our doctor would likely be shocked by the suggestion that she factor in the costs of tests and treatment. The doctor has a hard enough time sorting out sets of vague symptoms and trying to keep us healthy. She’s recommended the MRI because it might show something serious she can’t detect with a stethoscope. Her instincts, training, concern for her patients, concern for malpractice suits, and her own salary are all aligned. All of her incentives are pointing in the direction that says do more. But the doctor needs to recognize that, while we are deeply concerned about our health, it is not our only concern. She does us no favors by being blind to or concealing the costs. The patient is on the hook for the bill. The cost portion needs to included in the cost-benefit analysis.

We also need to recognize that, when it comes to our health, and the health of those we love, traditional cost-benefit analysis does not always apply. In an emergency, when dealing with a horrifying unknown, or with any serious medical condition - we will want more than we can pay for. The rational answer to the question of “Shall we save your life?” will always be “yes”. Cost be damned. You can’t take it with you. It is assured that some people will require vastly more medical resources than others. And at some point in our lives, most all of us are going required significantly more medical care that we can afford. We need private and public insurance plans to insure, at any given moment, the the large number of healthy people are paying in, and covering the costs of the few who need the most. Government regulation is needed to insure access and costs are broadly distributed. When market forces can’t produce an efficient outcome we require governmental intervention.

The major shift that needs to happen is cultural. Americans don’t like to talk about money. We don’t like to talk about our health. And we definitely don’t like to talk about, or even know about, our medical bills. But we are the ones who vote for the those who enact policies. We are the ones who either ask the questions of our doctors, or don’t. We are the ones have to pay the taxes, pay for the premiums, and pay the bills.

P.S. This isn’t really meant as a tale of personal woe. Paying out $5,000 sucks but won’t be an unbearable burden for us. In that other great American tradition, we recently refinanced our home to a lower rate. We took out a little extra to help cover the bills. Maybe we’ll even buy a new television.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

2010-11-05T08:53:00.001-04:00

It is easy to get wrapped up in elections and their meaning. In victory or in defeat it is tempting to conclude that in judging our candidates for office, a judgement has also been rendered on our nation, on our philosophy, on our selves. We can forget that politics is a means to an ends. And though we may disagree on the best means, we have a shared vision of those ends. The point of politics is not to grant power to Republicans or to Democrats. The point Democrats and Republicans, and politicians of any creed is to advance the causes of liberty and prosperity.

There are many factors that contribute to the mad mood swings of the American electorate - reason and propaganda, hope and fear, optimism and despair. Politicians are swept in and out of office on these waves. Sometimes their electoral fate is deserved. Sometimes it is not. Whether they are coming or going, our representatives are best judged by their accomplishments on our behalf.

Viewed through this lens, I’m sorry to see Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes will no longer be representing New Hampshire in congress. They were both elected as part Democratic wave of 2006. In the past two years they’ve been active participants in Obama’s “do something” congress. Both supported the significant legislative accomplishments that provided stability in the face of economic calamity. They enacted essential and overdue reforms to our health care and financial systems. They were the rare politicians who were willing to engage with the real and serious issues facing this country. They served during a brief era when congress took on big issues and things got done. In all likelihood that era ended this week. I’m especially sorry to see Carol Shea-Porter go. She is someone I genuinely admired as a person and politician and is someone I hope to support again in future elections.

Shea-Porter and Hodes have been replaced by Republicans Frank Guinta and Charile Bass. In the senate Kelly Ayotte replaces retiring Judd Gregg. Their predecessors confronted a number of tough issues but left plenty of unfinished business. How will we restore robust economic growth? How will we put an end to trillion dollar budget deficits? What are we going to do about the millions of undocumented aliens living and working in this country? Will we confront the challenge of catastrophic global climate change? They sought and have been granted this power. It is now the responsibility of Frank Guinta and Kelly Ayotte to answer these questions.

Based on their election rhetoric and policy positions, I am skeptical that my new representatives have plans to confront the problems we face. I hope that this skepticism is not shared by the majority of New Hampshire voters. I assume that their supporters see opportunity where I do not. What solutions will they support? How do they plan to move the country forward? Our new representatives have the power and responsibility to legislate on our behalf. We’ve elected then. Now all of their constituents, especially the majority that voted for them, need to hold them accountable.

Support Carol Shea-Porter

2010-10-21T17:23:00.000-04:00

Contempt for politicians is part of a rich American tradition - especially around election time. But here in southern New Hampshire, in the 1st congressional district, we are represented by someone we can be proud of. It would be a shame to give that up.

For the last four years Rep. Carol Shea-Porter has served us faithfully- supporting health care reform, voting for efforts to get the economy back on track, and fighting for New Hampshire residents.

Carol’s smart and reliable advocacy on the issues that matter are the best reasons to support her.

But there are plenty of other reasons. When she scored her come-from-nowhere, upset victory in 2006, Carol Shea-Porter became the first woman to represent New Hampshire in national office. Before her election Carol was best know for getting kicked out of a George W. Bush rally for wearing the wrong t-shirt. Our representative is not some vat-grown politician. Her background is one of noisy citizen turned public servant - something I can certainly get behind.

I’ve witnessed Carol performing ‘live’ in two different settings that could not have been more different. I’ve seen her facing down a cranky mob at a health care town hall. I’ve seen her rallying a crowd of Democratic supporters. On both occasions I’ve been impressed by her intelligence, commitment, and good humor. I’ve seen her stand up and take the tough questions. She comes off as open, principled, informed, and inspiring.

We are fortunate. Our representative is someone worthy of our respect and worthy of our vote. Vote for Carol Shea-Porter on November 2nd.

Paul Hodes for NH Senator

2010-10-07T17:30:00.001-04:00

Here is a letter I wrote that ran today in the local newspaper, The Portsmouth Herald:

We know Paul Hodes will fight for us in Washington. Working for us in the House of Representatives, Paul Hodes has fought to improve access, reduce costs and make affordable health care a reality for all. He has extended essential support for unemployed men and women in New Hampshire. Hodes voted for economic recovery bills that have put our state back on track. Paul Hodes fought for the financial reforms we desperately needed and an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts.
New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg helped get us into the mess. Then Senator Gregg spent the last two years doing everything in his power to insure nothing improves. Gregg opposed the economic stimulus. Gregg refused to help us address our crumbling health care system. Senator Gregg refused to extend benefits to unemployed New Hampshire citizens. In the wake of the massive financial collapse that had a devastating impact on New Hampshire businesses -- Judd Gregg opposed essential, overdue financial reforms.
Whenever there was a chance to help the people of New Hampshire Judd Gregg said “no”. Now that Gregg is retiring, we don’t have to take “no” for an answer any more. We don’t want more of the same. We have a chance to replace the Republican Senator who has been working against us with a Democratic Senator who will work for us. We need a US Senator who cares about the people of New Hampshire. We need Paul Hodes. Vote on November 2nd. Vote for Paul Hodes.

The Twenty Percent Solution

2010-09-30T21:30:00.000-04:00

How is this possible? The Republican party was cast out of office in disgrace only two years ago. Since then they’ve merged with the even-more-irresponsible Tea Party. How can the Republicans be making a comeback? How could the majority of Americans be falling for this? Again.

Here is the silver lining. The majority of Americans are not falling for it. Not even close.

Mid-term elections in America have very low voter turn out. In recent years about 37% of eligible voters showed up to vote. Those votes are split between two parties. Getting 19% of voting-age Americans to show up and mark the ballot for you means a whole bunch of big victories.

Can they get the majority of Americans to believe the President of the United States is a secret socialist bent on enslaving them? They can not. Can they get a much smaller number of Americans to believe that government is coming to take their guns, their money, their freedom and then issue a summons to appear before a deal panel? Yes. Yes, they can. Once people buy into that story, those people are going to show up and vote. And they are going to vote for people that “share their values”.

It’s a problem. But there is a solution.

Do you believe the government works best when it’s run by people trying to make it work for us instead of being “part of the problem”?
Do you think all Americans should have access to health insurance they can afford? Would you like to try that out, see how it goes, rather than see it taken away?
Do you believe that the separation of church and state is a pretty good idea?
Do you think “science” might not be cruel hoax invented by Al Gore to sell books?
Do you believe the solutions to the problems of the 21st century won’t all be found in texts from the 18th century?
Would you like to be represented by someone actually working to solve our nations problems?

These ideas are pretty radical. I don’t expect all Americans to agree with me. But. We only need 20%. There must be at least one American out of five who believes as we do. Surely 20% of Americans are willing to stand up and vote for what’s right.

Maybe you could join us. Maybe you know other people who would be willing to vote on November 2nd. You could talk to them. You could join us. The few. The patriotic. The citizens who give a shit. The elite. The people who don’t sneer when they say elite. The 20%.

What is the Tea Party?

2010-09-26T20:35:00.002-04:00

What is the Tea Party? The movement has been evolving rapidly over the last 18 months. It was a potent force in the Republican primaries, and gets lot of coverage and commentary. But what is it? And where did it come from?

It’s not a party. That’s the first thing Tea Party members and sympathisers will tell you. You may think that with a name like Tea Party that they are, or aspire to be a political party. But they aren’t and don’t. It’s more of an advocacy group (think NRA or MoveOn.org - but less structured) that is loud, vague, and angry and doesn’t actually advocate for any particular polices (other than “not taking it anymore” - which they support).

An early invocation of the term “Tea Party” came from Rick Santelli’s bizarre rant from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Unless you’re setting it on fire, the CME seems a particularly inappropriate place to start a populist movement. But somehow the image of a bunch of post-bailout financial traders (which Santelli calls “a pretty good statistical cross-section of America”) railing against the injustice of federal intervention struck a nerve. Santelli’s complaint was that the government was bailing out homeowners. As millions of former-homeowners learned during their foreclosure, no such program existed. But a movement was born, and with it the rich Tea Party tradition of being incensed over purely imaginary federal programs.

Sensing another opportunity to rally gullible people angry at Democrats, Fox News quickly got in on the act and put its stamp on the young movement. The network sponsored and promoted Glen Beck’s 9/12 project, giving the Tea Party national exposure. The nation was not impressed. The obvious extremism on display gave rise to the impression that Tea Party members tend to be racist or insane.

Since those early outings, the movement has controlled its message a little better. Local groups appear to be somewhat more reasonable. The Tea Party has gained strength an pulled together a powerful coalition.

The Tea Party has been effective at re-branding of the Republican Party. They’ve got all the energy in the party and have had an impressive show of force. Even establishment candidates like John McCain have had to dance to their tune in order to win the primary. They’ve been able to bring back a lot of conservative voters that bailed after the Bush years. Being a ‘Tea Party Patriot’ running as a Republican is much cooler than being a ‘Bush Republican’. And they can rope in and energize the independent conservatives and libertarians.

Andrew Sullivan has described the difference between how the Tea Party members see themselves and conventional Republicans:

I think what the tea-partiers would say is that they are for real - that, unlike Bush, they won't spend the country into oblivion, that they won't bail out the banks, that they won't pass unpaid-for entitlements, that they actually will make sure that abortion is illegal, that they will round up illegal immigrants and enforce the border, and will not pretend that we are not fighting Islam in a civilizational war. And that they will refuse to raise taxes even if it means the most radical dismantlement of the entitlement state since the New Deal.

This attitude has swept through the Republican party. The question remains whether it will be popular with the rest of America. As much as they’ve been a force in the Republican primaries, it’s not clear they are going to be so helpful in the general election. Any group that thinks the likes of Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann are to be taken seriously is going have hard time getting themselves taken seriously by the American people. In the 2010 mid-term, where energy and base turn-out trump, they’ll be about a wash. After that, it’s not clear what the Tea Party does for a second act.

I would like to hope the Tea Party will pull the Republicans away from meddling in social issues and towards some actual fiscal conservatism. But real deficit reduction means taking on tax policy (and not just cutting taxes), controlling health care costs, and reducing defense. The Tea Party doesn’t offer serious proposals on any of that.

Actually, the Tea Party doesn’t really offer any policy proposals. They mainly like to complain about Democrats, say “freedom” a lot, and talk about the Founding Fathers. It is telling that the few members who seem to have policy ideas got very quiet about those ideas very fast after winning their primary. This suggests they are well aware that their actual plans may not be so popular with the general public.

The issues that motivate the Tea Party- health care reform, TARP, economic stimulus - are not the issues that will be confronting newly elected Tea Party members when they take office in 2011. TARP and the stimulus funds are spent and there seems to be little appetite in either party for more. Health care reform will continue and there may a fight over funding and implementaion. But full repeal will be unpopular and impossible.

The actual battles of the next congress will over deficit reduction, tax policy, immigration, the Defense of Marriage Act, Afghanistan, and corporate campaign disclosure. In theory, a libertarian-aligned Tea Party would be more sympathetic to the President’s positions on these issues than the conventional Republicans. In practice, we’re likely to find that the movement’s contempt for President Obama overrides any (as yet unseen) pragmatic impulse. Gridlock will get worse, even on issues when there is general agreement.

Once a few Tea Party members are elected they’ll have to take votes and support legislation. They won’t be able to stay in the realm of dreamy platitudes. If they want to remain relevant in 2012 they’ll have to do something to improves the lives of the American people. Since they’ve pledged not work with the President on any issue, it’s hard to see how they’ll do that. Unless Democratic voters get energized and vote this November, we’re about to find out.

You Are What You Eat

2010-09-21T17:14:00.001-04:00

Over on Slate John Dickerson is considering a strange phenomenon. Voters prefer Democrats and Democratic policies to Republicans and Republican policies. But a majority are planning to vote for Republicans anyhow. Groping for an explanation Dickerson comes up with this analogy:

You're a long-haul trucker on the highway, and you're hungry. You wish you'd eaten a good healthy meal, but those are time-consuming and expensive. You see a choice at the next exit: McDonald's or Burger King. You're not thrilled about either, but in general you prefer McDonald's to Burger King and, if asked, you'd probably agree that you like every comparable menu item (fries, burger, drink, Happy Meal toy) better at McDonald's than at Burger King. But you've eaten at McDonald's for eight straight days. So, you go to Burger King.

That’s not bad. But Obama’s only been in office for a year and half. So I think we need to modify it a bit to really capture the national moment:

You're a long-haul trucker on the highway, and you're hungry. You wish you'd eaten a good healthy meal, but those are time-consuming and expensive. You see a choice at the next exit: McDonald's or Burger King.

You used to eat at this Burger King all the time. For year after year you had nothing but Burger King. It was terrible. It didn’t taste good. It wasn’t good for you. The service is terrible. But they have a big flag out front and they keep their prices low. As it turns out, the owner was philosophically opposed to meddling “food safety regulations”. The last time you ate there you got E. Coli and it nearly killed you. “That’s it!” you swore. No more Burger King for you.

You were pretty hopeful that McDonald’s would be better. And it is. You suppose. Can’t complain really. The food is better and the staff seems to be trying really hard. The problems is you’ve still got that stomach infection from the E. Coli you got at Burger King. All this gastrointestinal pain and massive diarrhea is kind of ruining your dining experience (not to mention all the long-haul trucking). Where did you get this stomach bug again? You forgot. But McDonald’s just isn’t quite what you hoped it would be.

Oh, look. Burger King got an even bigger flag!

Story of the Storyline

2010-09-19T13:43:00.001-04:00

Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Storyline events have traveled down some dark and dangerous roads. They have explored sinister conspiracies, infernal pacts, desperate power struggles and terrible secrets. Only now can I tell the deepest and darkest tale: the story of the storyline itself.

Well, maybe it’s not that dark. Or deep.

The story of my path to VTES storyline coordinator starts with my work on the Player’s Guide. Robert Goudie was coordinating that effort. I was asked to edit a version of an article I had written on strategic postures for the guide. I said the article could be included on the condition I was allowed to submit ideas for other pieces. Robert agreed and my persistence was rewarded with more assignments. I was also willing to pitch in with whatever was needed. So, I received a variety of assignments like: write 300 words on strategy for the True Brujah (Step 1: Make a good deck. Step 2: Add a True Brujah).

By the time the manuscript was complete The Powers That Be were generous enough to bestow me with a co-author credit. I was able gaze proudly at my name on the cover of that fine volume, search for myself on Amazon.com, and check out our Amazon Best Sellers Rank at any time (#2,183,000!).

After the book, Robert and I exchanged a few emails where I pitched some storyline theme and plot suggestions. When a request came along for someone to write up the Millennium Cultist aftermath fiction, I was happy to pitch in and take that on. When it came time to prepare and design the next event, the torch was passed to me.

I was excited to take on the VTES Storyline. It’s a great, unique format - a series of design and narrative experiments that bring together the strategic depth of VTES with the rich World of Darkness source materials. Robert deserves a lot credit for conceiving of the series, making it real, his great designs, and running all those events in the early years.

When I took over as coordinator my lofty goals were:

Make storyline events a more frequent, predictable, integrated supplement to VTES
Coordinate the themes and timing of the storyline with the core sets
Establish the setting for VTES and it’s relationship to the (defunct) old World of Darkness
Create some character and story continuity between the events (and include prior events in that continuity)
Raise the stakes and explain how the events of the storyline are important to the game setting

My tenure as storyline coordinator got off to a slow start. I got my first sense of the long lead times involved in game production. By the summer of 2008 I had been coordinator for a year and still hadn’t run my first event. I did learn the set themes for 2009. So, before Anarchs & Alastors started I had a road-map in place that would take the storyline through to Battle Lines.

Searching for a common meta-plot that might run through the storylines, I settled early on the legend of Lilith a useful theme. In the source materials Lilith is presented as a powerful, counterpoint to Caine - sometimes an equal sometimes and enemy. Her role was significant enough to serve as a useful foundation and vague enough to suite a wide variety of my purposes. The Bahari proved to be useful device- versatile enough to applied to event themes including anarchs, Montreal, and Africa. Initially those purposes would be mysterious and in the background - the shadowy cult sought by the anarch gang or the force motivating the power struggle in for the Kaymakli Fragment. In Battle Lines the Lilith followers stepped to the forefront. I was especially pleased to come up with an event concept that could encompass all (and only) the diverse bloodlines.

The peculiar structure of the storyline means that the coordinator writes the introduction to the story. Then players around the world play the middle. Then we have to take all those results and produce an outcome. The aftermath fiction should reflect the actions of the players, and be the story of their games. But it also needs to make sense in the story. No matter what the players chose, the ending should read like that was the plan all along.

In terms of sticking to the script, storyline players were remarkably generous. Infernal Helena reunited with her lover and rival Menele and claimed victory in the Montreal event. A Black Hand Seraph lead the anarchs to their destination, lending the series a bit of intrigue. I had no expectation that Count Germaine would return to play a prominent role in the Imperator. And it was a pleasant surprise to find the source materials implying Germaine’s rival Karsh was also a pawn of the infernalists. We established Dmitra Illyanova as a key Germaine supporter (and thus a likely Bahari). She conveniently reappeared to lead the Brujah in an effort to ignite Gehenna in Eden’s Legacy.

In Battle Lines, a new set of characters came forward. The dilemma facing the Kiasyd had been in the introduction. The rise of the Baali within the Bahari conformed to the overall storyline arc. This provided a reason to revisit the ideas introduced in the Infernal Plague and an excuse to bring back Nergal. With each event, member of the Lilith cult claimed victory. The faction grew in power as the storyline progressed. For continuity purposes, this was a happy outcome.

While I was deeply involved in the overall story, I recognized that VTES is at heart a strategy game. I have always loved the narrative aspect of VTES game - they way the card interactions lend themselves to storytelling. But ultimately it’s card game, not an RPG, and many players care more about the mechanics than the “fluff”. Storylines are also about introducing strategic experimentation and mechanical variety. In that regard, I thought the storyline designs worked well.

I was most worried about the Anarchs & Alastors event. That was my first storyline event. And I wanted to start off on a solid footing. White Wolf had requested a sealed league format. My design focused on the anarch and trophy mechanics. Each of these could fall under the heading of “things VTES players think suck”. I added in some Assamites to complete the set. But the auction mechanics were an interesting addition to the format. Among the players willing to try a draft league at all, the event went over well.

The original plan for Rise of the Imperator was to sell a fixed Imperator deck as part of the kit. But, for art-rights reasons I couldn’t get permission to reprint most of the cards I wanted. No one seemed overly upset that organizers were asked to construct their own decks for the event. And the the mixture of decks added variety. In the rules you could use a master phase action or a discard phase action to cycle a card out the deck. Players focused on getting rid of cards that hurt them over finding cards to play. If I were to do it again, I would still say you can do a discard during either phase. But I would add a rule that a player can’t do both in the same turn.

I was pleased with the Eden’s Legacy rules. The Laibon had enough of a boost to encourage their use, but didn’t dominate the event. The four motivations were well balanced in the standings. I expected the Jyhad-bleed boosting motivation to be the strongest, but it came it last, far behind a dead-heat of the others.

Battle Lines ended up as the least well balanced of the events. I was pleased by the outcomes of the bloodlines-only rules. And the relaxing of the slave and scarce mechanics allowed for some novel deck opportunities. I was surprised by the strong showing of the Baali given their general lack of defense. Maybe removing the infernal cost only after they because Bahari would have been a better rule.

A greater source of the imbalance was difference in the relative strengths of Lilith’s Blessing and Guide and Mentor. Earlier versions of Lilith’s Blessing were used during the untap phase and cost a pool for each use. I didn’t fully comprehend the changes until they were pointed out to me during the second round of the event I played in (“Why are you paying a pool?”). I should have been more observant. At the very least, the printed pool cost of Lilith’s Blessing should have been maintained and paid for at the start of the event - which might have encouraged players to choose loyalist by default.

Overall I was pleased with the events and their reception. I was glad to be able to complete the initial arc I had envisioned. At this point, it is not clear if the storyline can or will continue. But I hope it does. The storylines played an important role in establishing the VTES setting after the RPG ceased its run. With White Wolf ceasing production the need for something new will be stronger than ever. Being storyline coordinator was a lot work and a lot of fun. It was a great experience for me. But all great things end.

Perhaps it is time for the storyline torch to be passed once again.

Lost Secrets of the Storyline

2010-09-19T11:30:00.000-04:00

During my time as VTES Storyline coordinator I designed a few events that never made it off the drawing board. I thought I might share them now. Interested groups can take them for a spin or just gaze at them longingly - imagining the storylines that might have been...

Wars of Ascendancy: This was my first pitch when I became storyline coordinator. The idea was to start things off with a bang and a global war. And it wouldn’t have required any new cards to be printed. But White Wolf wanted a sealed league so I pitched...

Secrets of the Mazzeri: I was trying come come with a sealed league to go with the Lords of the Night set. The independent clans don’t have much in common. Their origins do have share a rough geographical proximity around the Mediterranean. That was the genesis for this theme.
Then I found out that Lords of the Night had already been printed and next set would be Twilight Rebellion and so my focus went to the Anarchs & Alastors event.

Siege of Mexico City: This is an event design I had waiting in the wings as a possible next event after Battle Lines.

VTES Storyline Credits

2010-09-19T10:19:00.004-04:00

A lot of work went into creating and running the VTES Storyline Events. It was an all volunteer effort, and I’m proud of what we were able to produce. I want to thank those donated their time and talents to make it all possible. This is all going to come off like a cheesy awards show. But hey. This is my blog, and these people deserve an award.

Todd Banister registered, designed, and hosts the storyline web site. At my request, he built it to mimic the core VTES site. We wanted our site to be part of the core VTES web experience and while still being under our control. Without Todd’s help, if I had been reliant on the notorious White Wolf web maintenance team, the storyline wouldn’t have been possible.

When I saw Greg Williams gorgeous Whispers in the Dark storyline design I was immediately envious. I’m grateful that Greg agreed to extend his talents to core effort. And I’ve tried not to be too jealous when the document layouts themselves gathered more praise than the words I carefully selected to place upon them.

I was not the only one writing those words. Daria Patrie offered her assistance just as the storylines were getting under way. We met for the first and only time at the NAC in Montreal where we plotted out the overall story and how we might collaborate on it. Daria wrote the aftermath for Black Miracles and Lies, the aftermath for Anarchs & Alastors, the introduction and aftermath for Rise of the Imperator and the introduction to Eden’s Legacy.

The storyline fiction is not an easy format to write for. I had very specific demands for the plot points I wanted the fiction to express. And the strange requirements storytelling-by-spreadsheet mandated for the aftermath pieces could drive any writer to insanity. Daria handled it all with great skill and patience. Her storyline writing established characters, action, scenes, and settings with a level of quality, detail, an emotion I could not match. I’m truly grateful for her work and what her writing brought to the series.

I also want to thank Eric Chiang. He might prefer to have his role remain obscured but I’m going to drag him into the light. Eric was a great help, always engaged, whispering in my ear with excellent suggestions, fixing my many egregious errors, and keeping me on track. Thanks Eric.

While I’m here, I need to thank the makers of the great game itself. Thanks to Oscar for being the defender and advocate of the storylines and to White Wolf for letting me play in their big, scary sandbox. Thank you LSJ. Thank you for having that unique, curious combination that make you a an intensely creative game and set designer, the pedantic precision that makes you an excellent card text and rules designer, and for having the patience and commitment to be such a responsive issuer or rulings and the ultimate net-rep all these years. Thanks for using your powers for the good of VTES.

Last of all, thank you to all the friends and players and everyone who took part and helped forge the storylines. Thanks for all your feedback and criticism. I hope you’ve had half as much fun as I did.

At the End of the Eternal Struggle

2010-09-11T22:06:00.001-04:00

Yesterday White Wolf announced that they have ceased production of the Vampire: the Eternal Struggle (VTES) card game. VTES has been a preoccupation of mine for many years now. The news marks, for me, of the end of an era. Production of the greatest game ever has ceased.

“Greatest game ever” may sound excessive. But it shouldn’t come as a surprise to people who know me. I’ve been in involved as a player, playtester, designer, writer, author, international competitor, and fan of VTES for 16 years now. If there was a game I regarded as superior, I like to think I would have had the good sense to play that instead. But no. It’s been VTES. I’ve spent a lot a time, creative energy, and no small amount of money on this game. And my efforts have been rewarded.

I remember my first game. It was 1994 shortly after the game was introduced. It was called Jyhad then. The name was wisely changed to Vampire a year later. Erik had a bunch of cards and taught me and few friends how to play. I brought out Don Cruez, the Idealist and Dre, Leader of the Cold Dawn, and got ousted quickly. I left the game with my head swimming, attempting to come to terms with its complex mechanics and deeply intrigued by it’s endless permutations, enthralled by the creative and strategic possibilities.

The core group of friends from that first game-- Jeff, Keith, Matt got hooked and we stuck with it. We each built up a card collection. We alternately cursed and saluted the player fortunate enough to own a Dreams of the Sphinx or a Torn Signpost. We developed our signature decks and play styles. Gangrel-Malkavian hybrids and Toreador-Ravnos team-ups were reoccurring themes. Individual cards came to invoke little songs and catch-phrases “Igo to torpor”. “He makes me Ig-nauseous”. We only played against each other. We were a closed ecosystem developing our own mutations and eccentricities, playing in isolation - unaware of the wider VTES world. When Wizards of the Coast stopped publishing the game in 1996 we just played on. For added variety, we designed our own leagues and rules variants. After these games we wrote bits of fiction to explain the outcome, celebrate the victor, and taunt the vanquished.

In the year 2000, as my sister is still fond of reminding me, I declared myself the Vampire Prince of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. My regular group had dispersed. White Wolf had acquired the game and was printing cards again. VTES was back and I wanted to play. The prince system, in addition to bestowing gamers with a goofy title borrowed from the source materials, serves a useful purpose. With any group activity someone needs to organize, schedule, promote it, run events and resolve the inevitable disputes. The Princes takes on these duties and have been crucial to the game's longevity.

I wasn’t much of a prince. My interest are in the playing and designing. Not so much in the organizing and promoting. I spent a few lonely evenings a a local game store - waiting and demoing the game. I ran a few events. The chief benefit of this was that a few players from Boston showed up. I because aware of the the vibrant community there and, through them, the wider world of VTES.

I quickly abandoned my local organizational duties and became a regular player with the Boston group. I began a routine that continued for almost a decade. During that time, I changed jobs four times. My second son was born and grew to be a formidable gamer himself. But my routine was constant. Most every Monday night I drove for over an hour down to Davis Square in Sommerville, grabbed a burrito at Anna’s Taqueria and then headed over to Your Move Games to play VTES. I would play as many games as I could until the store closed at midnight. Then I headed home, typically arriving something after 1am. I got a few hours sleep and got up, bleary-eyed, for work the next morning.

One day the system administrator at the tiny technology company where I work mentioned that, on-line, she had met “the Prince of Pittsburgh?”. I blessed their union and they were married shortly thereafter. When John Eno moved to town there were suddenly two hard-core VTES players in Portsmouth and John joined me for our weekly gaming expeditions. We swapped news, game and movie reviews, newsgroup gossip, and deck-building theories during our many long trips to Your Move Games.

The Boston group has grown and shrunk over the years, with an interesting cast of characters coming and going and coming back. It also maintained a remarkably stable core of players, good friends with whom I’ve shared innumerable games. Something about the combination of complexity, depth, and social interaction means that the people drawn to VTES tend to be interesting, fun, well-adjusted and intelligent. We’re definitely on the nerd spectrum but, as a rule, VTES players a quite high-functioning. Around the world, the game draws a consistently enjoyable crowd. These good people crowd my Facebook lists and have been crucial to my enjoyment of the game.

Early in my competitive VTES career our family vacation to Paris was fortuitously scheduled to coincide with the VTES European Championships. Upon meeting the French side of Christine’s family for the fist time, I had to explain to them why I would be abandoning them for several days. It’s a card game. It has a vampire theme. No we don’t dress up. No, I’m not going to win any money.

“These are the moments that make up a fulfilling life. This is the thing that dreams are made of.” That’s what I told Christine a few years later, trying to explain why I should fly off to Budapest for an extended weekend of card games. I was right. It is wonderful to have a hobby that takes you to other countries and allows you to meet interesting people. To compete in a European Continental Championship, to strive to be among the best in world at a competitive activity, however obscure- these are worthwhile pursuits, memories I hold with pride.

Earlier this summer Your Move Games closed it doors, uprooting the old Boston VTES group. Now, the game has been canceled. The last Vampire card has been printed. It is the end of era. But 16 years is one hell of a run. I’m glad I was part of it, and grateful for the little card game that became part of my life.

Remembering J.P. Plumez

2010-09-06T11:46:00.000-04:00

Some of my first memories of college are of J.P. When I arrived at Hamilton in the autumn of 1990, J.P. was a member of the orientation team. He was among the group there to welcome us to our new homes on “the Hill” and there to be the friendly face of Hamilton College for us, the fresh, anxious batch of first-years. I don’t remember much about that orientation. But I remember J.P. He stood out as the funniest, the showman, the most welcoming, the most lively of the bunch.

At the end of my first year at Hamilton it came time to consider housing for the next year. I had steered clear of the fraternities. Sophomores were last in line for dorm housing. So, with some friends, I took a look at joining the Emerson Literary Society. ELS had the unique position on campus of being a private house, like a fraternity. It was also co-ed and not selective. Anyone who wanted to could apply to live there. And this self-selected group of young men and women were a family of sorts. We divided up the rooms of the big, ramshackled, old home. We shared meals, a living room, and cleaning duties. We held parties and enjoyed the unique blessings of college life.

There was an ELS “type” but I have trouble defining it. ELS attracted a curious mix of scholars, radicals, stoners, and iconoclasts. But whatever the definition was, J.P. embodied it. Recognizing him among the cast of characters helped motivate my decision to join the club. Memories of J.P. loom large from the ELS era. Not just J.P. though. At the time he was really part of a duo. J.P. and Brian. Two tall and lanky guys with identical grins and heads piled with thickets of dark curly hair. Any given day would, inevitably, involve multiple passes by the big dining area during my various comings and goings. Frequently J.P. and Brian could be found there. It was always a worthwhile diversion to stop and hang out for the ritual shooting of the shit. Time well spent.

For my junior year I went abroad to the University of Edinburgh. One side-effect of such a decision is that the class ahead of your will have graduated by the time you return. But it was during that year that J.P. was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s. He missed a lot of school and we learned he would be returning the following year. I felt bad for him. But I will admit to takings some selfish pleasure at the notion that J.P. would be around to share my senior year. I opted not to return to live at ELS. But I was a frequent visitor and would check in with J.P. Generally I had no particular purpose, but the visit was its own reward.

After graduation came the inevitable scattering as we departed Hamilton. I returned to New Hampshire. But a substantial contingent of my friends, including J.P., moved to New York. Gatherings that once required a trip across the quad, now required trains and cars and hours of travel time. We got together less frequently. Sometimes Christine and I would venture to the big city and sometimes we would entice of a group to come visit us. We enjoyed a lobster diner on our deck and shared the frigid pleasures of a New Hampshire beach. J.P. had set a goal of visiting all 50 states, a goal he came much closer to achieving than I ever well. In pursuit of that noble goal we took a quick trip across the bridge to set foot in Maine. Because the distance made friendships harder to maintain, our time together was valued more. In these years came the winnowing between “college friends” to the select group with whom, however infrequently you gather, you see yourself sharing the events of your life.

Christine and I got married shortly after my 25th birthday. When you get married, at any age, but especially at that age, the event involves bringing together people from the various aspects of your life. These are the people you care about and who care about you. And so they are a reflection of you, your character, and your background. I was especially pleased to have my friends from college there. Having ventured from my home town in New Hampshire, I was proud of the fun, cosmopolitan, very “New York” crew that had been enticed to celebrate with us on a hilltop in Vermont. I have fond memories of J.P. bantering with my old math teacher and dancing with my sister Anne.

My memories of these years are distorted. I remember the pleasant times. The fun times. But we only saw J.P. during the healthy times. We got together during months of recovery and remission. Sometimes we heard other details and diagnoses and sometimes J.P. was unable to join us. Even when we heard the Hodgkin’s had returned we assumed it would be beaten. We were young. We knew he would be getting the proper treatment. After our daughter Mattea died, I remember commiserating with J.P. However horrible, arbitrary, and cruel the vicissitudes of biology may seem, I felt certain we would be ok. We would look back on the dark times as strange, disruptive chapters that stood in contrast to the normal textures of our lives.

It wasn’t hard to be optimistic about what awaited us. We seemed to be approaching the lives we envisioned for ourselves. J.P. got a job in the world of New York advertising. He was dating Joy, a delightful woman who wholly lived up to her name. Talk of the latest Lean Cuisine campaign or a Saab photo shoot in Scotland began to pepper our conversations. I remember a sunny summer day we spent exploring J.P.’s home town of Larchmont. We were two lucky young couples in a fancy convertible. J.P. showed us around to the various sites and stomping grounds that had occupied his youth.

Shortly after that, fighting the disease became a full time occupation for J.P. The prognosis reports became increasingly dire with talk experimental treatments and cross-country trips for a bone marrow transplant. Nothing could stop the spread of the disease. They ran out of treatment options. And so J.P. returned to home. He was 29 years old. We made the trip to to see J.P. one last time. At his wedding.

I brought a gift. It was a plant. It was an ugly plant - a two foot tall, thin green stem with two or three plain green leaves at the top. If my memory serves, on the attached note I wrote:

Dear J.P.

I would like you to have this plant. I do not offer it because it is a very fragrant plant. In does not seem to have any particular smell. Also, it’s not an attractive plant. It is quite plain. Ugly even. But it does have some special significance.

In the fall of 1990 each member of Hamilton’s incoming class was given a plant during their orientation week. This is the plant that was given to me. Somehow it survived my years at Hamilton and the years that followed. I believe it is the last of its kind.

I have fond memories of you from that time and from our years at Hamilton. This plant has been a reminder of those times. It is also a symbol of longevity, of perseverance, and of beating the odds.

We are thinking of you and hold you in our hearts.

Ben

J.P. and Joy were married at the Guggenheim museum. We celebrated and said goodbye with the vast spiral rising above us and around us. J.P. arrived in a wheelchair, thin and bald, but still showing flashes of the wide grin we remembered. He stood and danced. A slow dance. The bride and groom held each other close. It was a beautiful, sad, profound moment. It was a gift to all off us who were fortunate enough to know J.P.

We will remember him.

Knocking on Doors for Democrats

2010-08-29T13:07:00.003-04:00

On Saturday I joined my local get-out-the-vote effort and spent a few hours knocking on doors for the New Hampshire Democratic Party. It was a beautiful day to be out walking around, and I enjoyed the activity. For me the central pleasure is having an excuse to engage strangers to talk about politics. I was armed with stickers on my shirt and a clipboard. Clearly, I was duly deputized to ring people’s doorbells and ask whoever answered how they thought their elected representative in congress are doing.

I was fun. And I learned a few things about my neighbors and fellow citizens.

One thing I learned is that people really don’t take care of their doorbells like they used to. Homes with functioning doorbells were a distinct minority. The other thing I learned was that the good people of Portsmouth appear to have better things to do on a gorgeous Saturday in August than staying home to attend to random canvassers like myself. Nobody was home.

But I was able to engage a few people. The people I spoke with were uniformly pleasant. They were not angry or overly disillusioned. Times are tough. But most places seem to be worse off than Portsmouth. Peoples’ concerns were general and economic. We’re in a hole, but the Democrats are the ones trying to dig us out. Even the guy who was “definitely not a fan” of the Democratic party applauded my civic-minded purpose.

Mostly, my mission was to not take more of people’s time than they seemed inclined to give. I wanted to be sure and state the names of our candidates. Representative Carol Shea-Porter. Paul Hodes for senate. Governor John Lynch. I was on their doorstep to extend a personal invitation to come on out and vote in November. I wished them a pleasant weekend and was on my way.

A Year of Questions and Answers

2010-08-21T12:15:00.001-04:00

When I started up this blog one year ago, I was moved to start writing again by two impulses:

The country has problems. With a new president and substantial Democratic majorities we had a chance to address those problems. But we seemed to be blowing that chance.
Despite the depth of our woes, there were a whole lot of people who wanted to the president and the congress to fail. I wanted to figure out why.

Today, one year later, I’m not so worried about #1. Obama and the congressional Democrats have produced a number of substantial achievements. The passed health care reform. Affordable health insurance will soon be available to all Americans. Health care costs continue to rise. But there is a structure in place with which to contain them. Unemployment remains high and the economy weak. A series of stimulus bills and stabilizing measures have, at considerable cost, extended the safety net. We’ve turned an economy going off a cliff into one experiencing modest growth. We’re still stinging from the last financial crisis. But thanks to financial regulatory reform, we’ve put necessary structures in place to ward off the next one.

These are substantial accomplishments. Add in the victories of the past few weeks, and that’s a whole lot of leading and legislating. Throughout it all President Obama has been methodical, persistent, and deeply practical. Congressional Democrats have shown remarkable dedication, perseverance, good sense, and remained focused on tending to the people’s business.

These are politicians. Inevitably, their vanities and hypocrisies are going to be exposed. But when it really counts, Democrats have been kicking ass. In a big, messy, diverse, democracy -- this is as good as it gets.

The Republican party may have some competent governors and state legislatures out there. But at the national level, in congress, on the internet and air waves, they have been the model of dysfunction. After the disaster of the Bush administration, the GOP has not embraced governance as central to who they are or who they seek to be. They are dead weight on all policy discussions, on issues foreign and domestic. It’s all cable news nonsense and culture wars.

It is with weary dismay that I greet the conventional wisdom for the upcoming elections. The Democrats are disillusioned. Republicans are fired up hoping to make some big gains. Why? Why don’t the Democrats get credit for their accomplishments? What does anyone hope to accomplish by voting Republican in this cycle?

The party in power tends to take a beating in mid-term elections. And when unemployment is high, incumbents take the hit there too. So, maybe that’s the whole story. When times are bad we vote for the “other guy” -- regardless if we think the current guy is doing anything wrong. Even if we don’t think the new guy can do any better. Even if a Republican administration got us into this mess.

I can understand it at a macro level, but the expected Republican resurgence perplexes me when it comes to individuals. I can see why people who aren’t paying attention would go with their anti-incumbent-gut. But I don’t get the anti-incumbent activists. If you’re active and plugged in enough to be commenting on message boards, arguing on the forums, crashing town hall meetings, or attending a Tea Party rally -- what do you want? What do you think Republicans in power will do? Should do?

That’s the question that drove motivation #2 above. After a year of searching, I’m frustrated by a lack of answers. My efforts haven’t been exhaustive. But they have been sincere. I’ve been to a health care town hall, done battle and probed on Politico, whipped out the gauntlet and slapped a few faces, and attended a local Tea Party rally. I’ve approached each engagement with the same questions. What do you want? What are you mad about?

I’ve got nothing. I still don’t understand it. I’ve learned that “Well, what do you think the president should be doing differently?” is a pretty reliable conversation killer. I suppose the non-answer is it’s own answer.

Is it all just tribalism? Just rooting for your team? Maybe it is only wonk-wannabees like me who expect a system of cause and effect. Maybe the ones that are the most engaged in our political discourse are just the members of the tribe prone to the most chest-thumping.

Here’s the bottom line:

We are the public. We get to vote. There’s an election this November. That’s the only poll that counts. Show up. Vote for the Democrats. They’ve earned it.

Newsweek and the Media Landscape

2010-08-05T18:00:00.001-04:00

This week Newsweek magazine was sold to a 91 year old stereo magnate. The sale price is said to be $1. The sale of the iconic magazine is an interesting reflection of the strange media landscape we’re in today.

I grew up with Newsweek. It was always on the coffee table in our home and I was a regular reader. When I went off to college I got my own subscription. For a number of years, Newsweek was a central conduit to my sense of what was going on in the world.

These days I’ve a voracious blog and on-line news reader. We still have a subscription and I still read it. But Newsweek is but one news source among many. I approved when Newsweek transitioned away from a summary of the week’s events format and went with more long form investigation and analysis. But I can see why the magazine would be struggling to hold onto advertisers and subscribers. It’s not dead. It is on life support.

Why pay for a print magazine when there is an abundance of free news at our fingertips? Why wait a week for news analysis when there’s a perpetual stream on the internet, and river of information there for the drinking?

The economic problems of the print news business is not surprising. As I think of my media consumption habits I see similar trends everywhere. I get my news and analysis on the internet. I spend my days streaming great, free, advertisement-free, internet radio. My books come from the public library. Movies arrive via Netflix. Games are downloaded at deep discount from Steam or for a dollar in the iTunes app store.

My life is spent saturated in media, but I don’t see many advertisements, and don’t pay much money for any of it. The old business models are crumbling. What is going to replace them? It’s going to get harder and harder to make money as a media producer.

It’s a great time to be to a consumer. I have more access to media of all kinds than ever before. There’s no shortage in sight. There are more great music, movies, books, news, and games than ever. An embarrassment of media riches is everywhere and there for the consuming.

I just don’t see how anyone is making money off it.

How to Restore American Democracy on January 3, 2011

2010-07-31T10:17:00.001-04:00

Last Tuesday the Republicans in the Senate blocked passage of the DISCLOSE act. The vote “failed” with 57 votes in favor and 41 votes against.

The DISCLOSE act is a response the recent Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance reform. The US Supreme Court ruled that corporations have right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influencing elections. The DISCLOSE act would require that these corporations do us citizens the kindness of identifying themselves. The corporations could still spend all the money they want to buy elections, they would just have to tell us who was doing it.

Apparently, this is something the GOP now opposes.

Voting against the measure was each and every Republican senator - including New Hampshire’s Senator Gregg. Including the New England “moderates” of Brown, Snowe, and Collins. And including senator John McCain, the author and one-time champion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Adding to the absurdity is the fact that the bill is supported by 59 senators and opposed by only 41. Thanks to the insane rules of the US Senate, they need to 60 votes to break the filibuster. Why would the Republicans unite to filibuster this particular piece of legislation? That is what they do. They filibuster everything.

The 60 votes-to-break-filibuster business was a hot topic during the health care reform debate. During that debate is was suggested that the senate rules are not absurd, and that the filibuster is there to insure that the voice of the minority is heard on important topics. But that’s not how it works and that is not how the filibuster is used.

Republicans have employed the filibuster more than 105 times during this congress. They filibustered health care reform, financial regulation reform, economic stimulus, extending unemployment benefits, judicial nominations, federal appointments, cutting taxes for small businesses, and now, corporate campaign disclosure rules. They filibustered everything.

No matter what the topic, the Republicans are opposed. Not only will the vote against, but they are opposed to even letting the vote happen at all. During the Obama presidency use of the filibuster has jumped dramatically. Its use has gone from the extraordinary to the routine.

The perpetual filibuster votes requirement has, amidst turmoil and a vast array problems that require action, turned the legislative process to a slow slog. Important laws have been distorted, delayed, water-down, or killed by a super-majority requirement for each item of business.

This is not your father’s filibuster. They do not involve a Mr. Smithian stand or principle. They do not involve feats of endurance or endless inspirations speeches. The modern Senate filibuster is a parliamentary gimmick where the speech itself is not required and can not be compelled.

The GOP found a loophole in the rules. They broke the game.

It is frustrating to watch a duly-elected legislative majority try to confront our nations problems only to be thwarted by the minority. It is tragic to see our problems fester from abuse of protocol and cruel political calculation.

This can change.

The US Constitution makes clear that the Senate can establish its own procedures. At the start of a new congress, a simple majority can establish a new set of rules. The 112th Congress will be seated on January 3rd, 2011. On that day, they can break the filibuster once and for all.

Live Free, New Hampshire

2010-06-13T14:13:00.003-04:00

Today's front page of the Boston Globe has an article on the branding of New Hampshire (featuring photos of Portsmouth, naturally). Since our big stone face fell down, apparently there have been some problems coming up with icons and slogans that capture capture the essence of New Hampshire.

Vermont has its cows, farmers, and hippies. Maine has the coastline and Lobsters. Massachusetts has it's history and dynasties. New Hampshire has a little of all of that, but less that is distinctly its own. When the West Wing was on the air New Hampshire native President Bartlet was always in search of New Hampshire maple syrup. We can relate.

The Floridian firm that has been tasked with the re-branding effort is steering clear of the state slogan: Live Free or Die. "We're not touching that." And that is why they fail.

The one thing that unifies us as a state is our willingness to deploy our motto at every opportunity and for every purpose. It's an echo of our patriotic past and present. We're a state with no sales tax, no income tax, no motorcycle helmets, gay marriage and plenty of firearms and fireworks. We have beautiful mountains, trails, ski slopes, and historical areas. And we have industry and entrepreneurial spirit. There's opportunity here. People have the means to enjoy it all and there's much to enjoy. New Hampshire is also famous for its importance in primary politics. But its citizens are fundamentally skeptical and unpredictable.

Our independence is our unifying theme.

Live free, New Hampshire. There is no alternative.

On the Bright Side

2010-06-06T15:34:00.001-04:00

Last Thursday my parents came to town to see Isaac's 4th grade track meet. It's about a 3 hour trip from their place in Vermont to Portsmouth. I've yet to witness one of these meets myself. But I understand my son's contribution is a minute or two of middle-of-the-pack jogging and jumping. Under the best of circumstances, the trip itself was a heroic act of grand-parental involvement.

As it turned out, these were not the best of circumstances. The meet was rained out. There was no competitive elementary running to be witnessed. My parents joined my sister for a short shopping trip with a cranky and screaming baby. They joined us for a quick dinner. Then they got back on the road for the 3 hour return trip.

On their way home, in the darkness on Vermont's route 2 their car hit a moose. The moose had been struck and killed by the car preceding them, totaling the car and moose. My parents ran into and over the large carcass lying in the road. They weren't hurt. Their car was not so fortunate.

The day after their 9 hour odyssey to witness an event that didn't take place - after a morning spent cleaning the blood and gore off their banged-up and undrivable car - Mom had this to report:

We are thankful that no one was hurt. The female driver of the first car (whose car was probably totalled) was much more interested in whether or not she could get the moose meat than she was about her car. That's Vermonters for you!

Sorry that you didn't get to see the moose... but believe me, it's not the best way to have a sighting.

Thanks for the fun day yesterday and the slice of life of each of your families. We loved it in spite of the rain, crying baby, and cancelled track meet!

Happy Birthday to Me

2010-06-05T16:53:00.003-04:00

It was my birthday yesterday. 38. Birthdays are a good time to have a few drinks, sit back, and think about where you are and where you've come from- the years gone by and the ones that lie ahead. It's been a good year. It's been a good life.

I am one of the most fortunate people anywhere. Ever.

I have been blessed with the good fortune of being born, a human being, on this earth, in the United States of America. Today, in the year 2010, I find myself in world of privilege, opportunity, and material comfort. The world has provided an abundance of games and music, sights and sounds, wonderful people and fantastic foods. My daily cares and concerns are generally small and petty. Few of them are worth recounting. Most are easily resolved.

My job is lucrative enough to provide a comfortable life for my family. It is stimulating enough to be gratifying. My colleagues are pleasant and competent. My work keeps me busy but doesn't overwhelm my life - leaving me time to spend with family and pursue my interests, hobbies, and amusements.

Every year my two sons grow more interesting, more confident, and more independent. I see myself in them and see them growing into themselves. This is the 23rd birthday I've celebrated with my wonderful and lovely wife, Christine. That's a lot of years. But time has spared us the worst of its ravaging. With a little regular maintenance, we both carry our years well. I am fortunate to share my life with such a wonderful wife, mother and friend - someone who complements and supports me. I am blessed to have someone who tolerates my eccentricities, diversions, and perpetual distractions.

In the past year, thanks to the technological marvels of our time, I have been able to reconnect with a great many people. There are so many old friends, lost classmates, physically distant relatives, kindred spirits, and interesting souls met along the way. Maybe we get together once or twice over months and years. Many of you I had no expectation of ever hearing from again. Now, from afar, I get a rolling window into your world. I can see the snapshots of your life, share in your stories, banter a bit, and follow your ideas and interests.

This year also marked, for me, a return to writing. It has been a pleasure to take the thoughts rattling around my head and find a home for them. My natural state is introverted and standoffish. So I'm enjoying this little soapbox. I like being able to share my views with friends, acquaintances, and a few strangers. I appreciate you for taking the time to consider my musings.

The year to come holds great promise. Perhaps my little company stands on the financial success. Perhaps another long-held dream will bear some delightful fruit. Whatever comes, I will share it with wonderful family and friends.

It is a happy day. Thank you for being part of it.

Housekeeping Note

2010-05-30T21:46:00.001-04:00

I just updated the blog here a bit. The good news is all my posts have been labeled. On the right here you'll find a handy-dandy list of everything I've written about. I tend to write about anything that interest me. Now you can find my thoughts on whatever interests you.

The bad news is that, for reasons unknown, blogspot decided to update the time-stamp on the 'You Lie!' and 'Tea and Nazis' posts. Those were written last Fall. They are not new. But maybe they are new to you...

I've also added my email to my little profile box. So, that's another way to reach me with a question or comment.

You Lie!

2010-05-30T21:01:00.000-04:00

You do lie, of course. I lie. All of us human beings do a fair bit of lying. We should not find it surprising or outrageous that politicians also lie. If you won't vote for politicians who lie, then you won't vote. President Obama is both a person and a politician, so yes, he lies. Anyone can be painted with that brush, and most people have been. It's surprising there is any bristle left on it.

Everyone lies, but we lie to varying degrees, frequencies, and for various nefarious and not-so-nefarious purposes. Among human beings, and certainly among politicians that have ascended to the office of the presidency, Barak Obama strikes me as one of the more honest ones. He has not been in politics, and certainly not been president, long enough to abandon his aspirations. He has not kept all his campaign promises. But he's been busy. He deserves some time and space to determine which promises and priorities he'll continue to pursue. We should not be appalled by inevitable compromise. Some commitments will go unfulfilled. Circumstances will change. He'll change his mind. Some dreams will die.

We still honor honesty, and should continue to ask for it. When the president was speaking to the congress last Wednesday he was articulating his principles. President Obama was describing his desires and expectations from the bills that congress is authoring. When the president said his plan would not use public money to pay for the health insurance of illegal immigrants, that was a statement of principle. The facts, the text of the bills, are still subject to amendment and change.

Congressman Wilson, and many of his more courteous colleagues, presumably agree that taxpayers should not purchase insurance for the undocumented. They may suspect that Obama's agreement is insincere, or that the current text is inadequate. Rather than assault him, why not just hold him to his word? Congress is authoring the bill. Joe Wilson is a Congressman. Why not work to insure the bill contains the principles that both Wilson and Obama say they support?

Obama wants the public option to be funded, not by taxpayers, but by subscriber premiums. He speaks of fair competition between the public and private insurers. Obama says he doesn't want a single payer plan and offers a market-based approach. He says, constantly, that he intends to (mostly) leave private employer-provided plans alone. Obama says he wants the plan to be fully funded, to reduce medical costs in the long run, and not add a dime to deficit.

Congressional Republicans don't argue that these are bad ideas. Instead, they argue, that Obama's health care reforms must be stopped because Democrats can't be trusted! So, don't trust them. Laws are written with words and those words have meaning. The GOP should be negotiating to insure their shared principles are signed into law.

Republicans, including New Hampshire's own Senator Gregg and that forgettable gentleman that spoke after Obama's speech, all claim they recognize the real and urgent need for health care reform. When described, the Republican plans sound a lot like what Obama is proposing. But when it comes to negotiating in good faith, the GOP is just yelling from the sidelines.

Of course, when Republicans say they support health care reform, they may be lying.

Tea and Nazis

2010-05-30T21:00:00.000-04:00

There was a big teabagger march in DC yesterday, with lots folks carrying creative signs.

One particular sign and sign-holder merit a bit of deconstruction:

Let us pause to admire the unnecessary quotes, and then proceed to consider the message and the messenger.

Does he look like he wants to serve in a Nazi Youth Militia? Yes. He does. He looks like precisely the sort that has conviction without reason and a pack mentality. He jumps right to the persecution of the vile, alien, other and throws out indiscriminate accusations. In a Nazi Youth Militia, he would fit right in.

He's calling for new era of McCarthyism? McCarthyism was a good thing?

I don't know if we're meant to take these people seriously. Presumably, they don't consider themselves to be outrageous fools. Did the people around this kid chastise him for making them all look like extremist idiots? Or did they applaud his creativity and audacity?

Have these people no shame?

The Secrets of Lost Revealed!

2010-05-25T20:38:00.000-04:00

I was big fan of Lost during it's first season. Before that I had been into X-Files and Twin Peaks. I was ready to sign up for more mind games. The central pleasure of the show was always trying to sort out what the heck the was going on. What is this show about?

They piled mystery on top of mystery. The crash, the island, the numbers, the polar bear, the hatch, the smoke monster, the "others", the flashbacks... The show had riddles within riddles. Enigmas came from so many different directions it was hard to imagine what was at the root of it all? What could be the tie the binds? What is really going on in this world? What are the rules?

By this middle of season 3 the show was a hit, but answers were no where in sight. More and more imponderables appeared. The episodes didn't illuminate the plot. The creators were just digging themselves a deeper hole. Tantalizing turned into tedious. I stopped watching. As the seasons went on, I stopped caring.

I got caught up in the cultural moment and curious about how they would wrap it all up. I returned for the Lost finale on Sunday. It was not impressive.

As a TV consumer, I would be perfectly happy to be the blind man groping at a misleading portion of the elephant. I want the misdirection. But there has to be greater whole. There needs to be an elephant. The creators need to know it's contours. The audience can be left guessing, but the clues need to be clues to something (however preposterous). But if you're the creator of a mystery that you're teasing and stretching out over years (which, come to think of it, I am) then you, the author, better know what is going on in your story.

I'll call bullshit on Lost. There was no plan. There were no reasons. They just threw one thing after another on the screen. Once in a while, they made some sort of ad hoc, after-the-fact attempt to explain some portion of what had come before.

That's not a mystery. It's a waste of time.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

You Balance the Budget

2010-05-20T17:50:00.000-04:00

Back in my Federal Budget Blueprint series I took a look at how we should deal with our trillion dollar budget deficit. This was a useful exercise and something everyone should consider. What do you want? How do you want to pay for it?

Everyone should consider this. And thanks to a spiffy new website created by The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget now everyone can!

On their site you can punch in your priorities. Choose your spending and tax policy. Steer a grateful nation towards a path of fiscal sanity or financial ruin. You decide!

I was able to plug in a version of my plan and was pleased to see that my preferred path led to a sustainable place with debt at 48% of GDP, well below the suggested 60% target. But then, I call for spending cuts and tax increases. Because, you know, trillion dollar deficit...

If an all-powerful genie granted me one wish -- and if that genie made it clear that I could only use my wish to influence election policy -- then here's my wish: Every politician running for any federal office would have to take this budget calculator for a spin and publish the results.

Think about it. Instead of inane platitudes and vacuous campaign slogans (Ok, in addition to inane platitudes and vacuous campaign slogans. I only got the one wish.) we would have an actual breakdown of a real plan. We could learn their actual priorities before we voted for them.

And anyone who says they are going to "cut taxes and reduce the deficit" could explain how the hell we're supposed to do that.

My choices...

Bomb Squad

2010-05-07T20:58:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I stepped out of my office for my noon constitutional. At the end of the block I was surprised to find a substantial crowd, a number of emergency vehicles blocking the roads, and a large, heavily armed police presence.

These were the early minutes in an unfolding drama. The police were surrounding a Greyhound bus parked in downtown Portsmouth. They believed the bus contained 17 people and a bomb.

I joined the gawkers for a minute and then continued on my run. It was pretty much the same scene when I returned. I went up to my office, in a building just outside the evacuation area, and went back to work- keeping tabs on the drama outside via the internet.

During the afternoon 16 of the bus occupants were able to leave, one at a time. When I passed back through on my way home, around 6pm, the standoff was still ongoing. The number of responders on the scene had increased to dozens of officers, officials, sharpshooters, firemen, and SWAT teams with all manner of weaponry and gear.

Local police were joined throughout the day by officers from Exeter, Seabrook, Epping, Hampton, Stratham, Rockingham County Sheriff's Department, Seacoast Emergency Response Team (SERT), a K-9 unit from Dover, the N.H. State Police bomb disposal unit, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, immigration and customs officials and the FBI. Even the Portsmouth animal control officer's truck was parked in the area.

At approximately 12:30 p.m. an armored vehicle known as a “Bearcat” was called in from Rye. Exeter Police Chief Richard Kane and Hampton Chief Brian Page stood by, while SWAT officers combed the area wearing riot gear and with rifles drawn. Exeter police sent a Special Operations Vehicle and Senior Assistant Attorney General Jane Young arrived early afternoon...

And they had a robot.

One person remained on the bus.

After a 9 hour standoff, the last man on the bus was convinced to get off and surrendered himself to police.

A few details have emerged. There was no bomb. There have been no reports of a gun, other weapon, or of threats made against any of the bus passengers. The entire incident seems to have been based on an erroneous report. A big misunderstanding. The last man to leave the bus is from Burundi and speaks Swahili.

Two of the other passengers were arrested for failing to cooperate with police. One of them was shot with a taser.

Portsmouth Police Chief David “Lou” Ferland said late Thursday night during a brief press conference that investigators “do not believe this to be a terrorist event”.

This may not have been a terrorist event. But it was initially, indistinguishable from one. It's tempting to accuse the authorities of overreaction. But we can be grateful that that these resources are available, that the incident was treated with patience, and that nobody was seriously hurt.

Even in little ol' Portsmouth, New Hampshire there is, apparently, quite an army that can be brought to bear should the threat of terrorism rear it's ugly head. Our forces of law enforcement are ready for any emergency and eager to leap to our defense.

Maybe a little too eager. Next time the animal control officer can probably stay home. Bring back the robot though.

Children of the 21st Century

2010-04-30T17:15:00.000-04:00

One casualty of our municipal budget cuts this year is going to be the elementary school computer program. These children of the 21st century will grow up in a world that is ever more divided between the technological haves and the have-nots. The personal computer, and its high-tech spawn, will be central to much of what they do throughout their lives on whatever paths they happen to take. In their wisdom, during the annual belt tightening, this is what our public servants decided to cut. The computers.

I'm ok with that.

My kids are plenty familiar with computers. And they didn't learn it at school. Each school day already starts with me yelling at them to get off the computer because we're going to be late for school. Presumably the curriculum is more edifying than learning how to level-up your Vanquisher in anticipation of her inevitable confrontation with Ordrak. They may skip extended lessons on the proper flora for warding off back-yard zombie infestation. Still, I'm not sure what they are learning in computer class.

Isaac and Leo have grown up with mouse in hand. They're unsure what the "chan" button on the TV remote is for. The telephone eludes their understanding. We can blame the parents for that. They are comfortable with watching shows on iTunes and the subtleties of NetFlix streaming.

The virtues of the computer were discovered early. The pace of exploration has been rapid. My kids were quick to discover the endless video bounty of Star Wars, Lego, and Lego minfigs enacting scenes from Star Wars that awaited them on the internet.

There are hazards of childhood internet exploration. "Eat plasma you stuck up bitch!" - made a surprise appearance during a kindergarten-era game. We had a talk. Our concern isn't that they can't navigate the computer. It's that they can.

Portsmouth Budget Letter

2010-04-20T22:13:00.000-04:00

To Members of the Portsmouth City Council,

I grew up and went to school in Lebanon, New Hampshire in the 1980s. Lebanon was not a wealthy town and did not have many of the advantages Portsmouth enjoys today. We had our schools and our classes. We had the basics. We had sports. We had music, art, and computer classes.

When my wife and I moved to Portsmouth we moved here to stay and to have and raise our family. We chose Portsmouth because of its rich history, because those who came before us built such a wonderful civic foundation, and because Portsmouth is a city with an eye on its own future.

As you navigate the budget process this year, in these uncertain times, I ask you to consider that future. We know that times are tough, that state support has fallen, and that some belt-tightening is required. In the proposed budgets each of the departments has made tough choices. The school budget eliminates many teaching positions, cuts the crossing guards, and the computer program. These are smart sacrifices. We can accept them, but only with great regret.

It is inconceivable that these cuts would not be sufficient.

Cutbacks beyond what has been proposed will endanger athletics, art, and music. They will require unacceptable cuts into the core functions of our schools and would not leave us with a system we can be proud of. The schools are already making do after years of tight funding. The fat has been cut. Once these vital programs are gone they will not easily return. Cutting this budget even further would not provide a level of support for our schools that this community can accept.

Thank you for your consideration. Thank for for looking to our future and insuring Portsmouth remains a great city to live and raise children. Thank you for your service.

The Day I Joined the Tea Party

2010-04-17T17:06:00.000-04:00

The Tea Party held a tax day rally in Portsmouth. I went to the rally to see what the fuss is about and check it out for myself. I was surprised more by what it was not, than by what it was. For better and worse, the New Hampshire seacoast chapter of the Tea Party doesn't live up to it's reputation.

There were plenty of signs on display. I didn't see signs with egregious spelling and grammar errors and the messages were relatively tame. Nothing racist. No Nazis. Nothing that seemed overly hysterical. No Fox News references.

I expected the general mood to be one of anger and defiance. But it wasn't really. Cranky, yes. But the partiers seemed to be mostly just enjoying the opportunity to curse big government, complain about onerous taxes and root for freedom.

I didn't see any guns. I thought implied violence might be a theme. But it wasn't really. At one point the MC was explaining a mock tea party bit where costumed reenactors were going to dump "the things we don't like" into the river. When someone yelled out "But Obama's not here!" the MC responded with a jokey agreement. He quickly followed up. "You know that's the one line they'll use in the papers." Big laugh.

Another thing the rally wasn't is large. The newspaper estimated the crowd at 250 which seems about right. Prescott Park has certainly seen bigger events. The annual Chowder Fest, for example, draws crowds more than 15 times that size. And they have delicious chowder.

In addition to talking in the scene, I was there for the speeches. I wanted hear what the fine minds of the Tea Party had to say-- to bathe in their vision of human liberty. There was not a lot of thematic diversity. The speakers struck the same notes again and again. I'll outline their arguments. I had some quibbles.

Founding Fathers

The Tea Partiers are big fans of the Founding Fathers. They are under the impression that the feeling would be mutual. Apparently the Founding Fathers would unanimously support every Tea Party utterance. I'm not so sure.

One memorable sequence was called: "Obama or the Founding Fathers". The speaker was going to say a phrase. We, the audience were supposed to call whether it should be attributed to President Obama or the authors of the Constitution. I was looking forward to this. I was genuinely curious what excerpts from the Federalist Papers or out-of-context Obama quotes might be used in service of the Tea Party thesis. I was disappointed.

Rather than draw material from anything the subjects ever said, the speaker just tossed out slogans. "Honest work", "Government handouts", "Freedom from oppression", "Federal control". A few times the speaker said something like "Projecting American power" and the crowd was genuinely confused about who we were supposed to be calling for.

Some notes on the Founding Fathers: They invented the federal government. The reason they invented the federal government is they had already tried the independent states approach and found it to be a disaster. They knew a strong nation would require a strong central government. So they created one.

The authors of the US Constitution held a diverse set of political views. They didn't agree with each other. No matter what your beliefs are, they would not all agree with you. They did ok despite their differences. So do we. Imagine if, by some miracle, we could resurrect James Madison today. Suppose we could invite him to see what has come from their little experiment in Republic-building. He would be impressed. America today is much more than anything they envisioned. We've build a great nation upon the foundation they established. We've kept their principals intact and inspired the world with our example.

The Founding Fathers would not be joining the calls to tear it all down.

Taxes and Deficits

If I hadn't already known that we had a trillion dollar deficit and that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax, I could have learned these facts from the speeches and signs at the rally. They neglected to mention that Obama has lowered our taxes or that income tax rates are now the lowest they have been in 60 years. Many of the people there complaining about the oppressive federal tax burden are among that 47% that pay no income tax at all.

It is no coincidence that we have historically low taxes and historically high deficits. One naturally leads to the other. The TPers claim they want to reduce spending. But their lack of specifics is damning. I want to "eliminate wasteful government spending". Everyone wants to eliminate wasteful government spending. The problem is there is no consensus on what counts as waste. And you can't build consensus without offering specifics.

An energetic call for tax cuts paired with vague hand-waving in the direction of spending cuts is a clarion call for increased budget deficits.

God

God got number of shout-outs (Jesus Christ, not so much). My favorite: "God was the first entrepreneur. He created the universe with His own toil and His own imagination. He derived the pleasure from His work and reaped the rewards. He would have us live by His example."

No. The first artist? Maybe. But God was not an entrepreneur. He may move in mysterious ways, but we can safely assume that God isn't in it for the money. The universe was not created as one big franchise opportunity (The Almighty Dollar Store?). If that is the altar at which you worship then your faith rests on a very shaky foundation.

Liberals

Speaking of shaky foundations, much of Tea Party rhetorical edifice is built upon an simplistic house of straw. Each of the speakers was building a bulwark against some imagined, imminent assault on our civil liberties. Apparently, Obama and "the liberals" have some big plans.

I don't claim to speak for all liberals. Like all vaguely-defined labels, liberalism is a many-splendored thing. I am an Obama supporter.

So, to all you Tea Partiers:

I'll happily defend your right to speak your mind. I don't dispute your right to own firearms. I want your employer to thrive, prosper and expand. If you own a business, I wish you luck and hope for your success. I am also deeply concerned about the federal deficit and am concerned that the American people will not support policies that lead to its reduction. I don't believe in federal expansion for it's own sake. I don't like paying taxes. I don't think tax dollars should be spent on initiatives that are unrelated to the public good.

We aren't coming for you. Really.

Politicians

While I was hanging out listening to aspiring Republican senatorial candidate Bill Binnie I was approached by aspiring Republican congressional candidate Bob Bestani. Mr. Bestani was kind enough to entertain a few of my questions. I pressed him on how we'll reduce the deficit, control health care costs, and why American health care costs are vastly higher than those in other countries. His responses were not wildly divergent from typical Republican talking-points. He concluded by suggesting I audit his economics course at Stanford for the full extent of his wisdom.

My encounter with Mr. Bestani left me pondering the fate of Congressional aspirants. What is it like to reach such a position in life? You to put yourself forward. Your quest to be a member of the United States House of Representatives leads to skulking about at the back of a rally, shaking hands, passing out fliers and hoping to score a few votes. The guy at the podium is excoriating the legislative body you hope to join. You're trying to become one of the bums the crowd is demanding to throw out.

By the end of the rally, I had my fill of the New Hampshire chapter of the Tea Party. These people are not part of some formidable, fearsome movement. But nor is it a party I would care to join or in whose hands we can entrust our future.

Building a Better BioWare Game

2010-04-10T17:49:00.000-04:00

The search for Kasumi's stolen memory has brought me back to Mass Effect 2 and back to the topic of stories in video games. I've been bemoaning the limitations of video games. BioWare, the studio behind Mass Effect and other excellent games, has been pushing against those limitations. In this post I'll take a look at the BioWare approach to game design.

I want to be able to shape a story in two different ways. I want be able to influence the plot and I want to be able to influence, and be influenced by, the characters.

BioWare provides some illusion of plot control, but this is limited. You have missions and objectives. You can skip some missions and have options regarding the order you'll undertake them. But the story is their story. Most players will end up doing the same things.

We're a long ways away from (and may never see) a game world where the consequences of all your choices have real ripple effects. The studios have a story to tell you and they don't want you to ruin it. There aren't an infinite number of writers devising an infinite number of exciting paths to follow. But they could, and should, design a few inflection points where you have real choices and deal with the consequences. Some of those consequences should be dire. The game should let you screw up and force you to fight your way back.

It's amazing BioWare games are as good as they are given the limitations of their engine. Most glaring is the absence of characters that can move outside of cut-scenes and combat. BioWare worlds are populated by people rooted to a single spot. Some mobile bystanders would make the worlds less sterile.

The engine limitations are also apparent in the combat missions. But some of the limitations maybe be just limitations of imagination. Mass Effect does a reasonable job of presenting some tactical variety and variation to its firefights and action sequences. But far too many missions devolve into corridor crawls. You move from one conveniently-placed spot of cover to another. Enemies pop-up, four at at time, to be dispatched with biotic blasts and head-shots.

Every mission should have some wrinkles. Some options:

Have enemies approach from all directions
Take away some or all of your weapons
Add non-combatants to be saved or imperiled
Have swarms of enemies
Have stand-off situations where combat can be avoided or risked
Neutralize powers
Add time constraints
Use 3-dimensions with enemies coming from above and below
Undertake missions alone with 1 or 3+ companions.
Go without Shepard
Tactical retreats where escape is the only option
More environmental dangers and effects
Reduce visibility
Deal with character injury and limitation
Enemies that can't or shouldn't be killed and must be trapped or evaded
Take away the cover
Limit or remove ammunition
Limit or remove medi-gel

These variations can be mixed and matched for even more variety.

The old BioWare injury model is overdue for redesign. Your companions go down in a hail of blaster fire. Wherever you are, you push a button, lose a dollop of the mysterious medi-gel and your friends bounce back. Even if you can't be bothered with the medi-gel administration, as soon as the last enemy in the room falls, everyone immediately gets up suffering no ill-effects from taking those mass-accelerated metal slugs to the face.

This model lacks a certain verisimilitude. It also lacks drama. It would more interesting if Shepard had to play medic, fight her way over to the injured companion, and apply the medicine in person. After their revival, downed characters should suffer a bit -- make them sit out a few missions in sick-bay while they recuperate.

When Shepard takes a hit players are treated to the old Game Over screen. Mass Effect should never show a game over or reload screen. They are tired, drama draining, and unnecessary. What are space-faring friends for if not to help up a Shepard when she's down? Your companions could revive you. Or Shepard could be shown to summon the strength to apply her own medi-gel. Or team members from the mother-ship could come bail you out. Or you you could fail. Very few of the Mass Effect missions are essential to the core plot. Letting you fall short on a few and face the consequences would be more interesting than the string of endless do-overs and successes.

Game Over is a crutch. Players and designers lean on too much. It's time to throw it away.

BioWare has built its reputation on the strength of its characters and quality of your interactions with them. Good character interaction rests on three requirements:

Characters that are interesting and fleshed-out enough to care about
Having some ability to define and control the relationship between you and your companions
Allowing your choices and actions to determine the fate of other characters

BioWare does a solid job with the first requirement. They've created a number of interesting and memorable characters over the years and are getting better at it with each release. Mass Effect 2 also allows you to have an impact on your relationship with you shipmates. More than any other game, you get to opportunity to explore their past, shape their destiny, and get them killed. But here again there is vast room for improvement.

The loyalty system is fun but should more flexible and less binary. Every action, choice, and conversation should make your various party members more or less loyal. And that loyalty should have a significant impact -- influencing how effective, aggressive, accurate, and helpful they are.

The inclusion of so many character-based missions is great for the game and an excellent device for developing the characters. I was saddened when one of my party members started to shun me. And Jack, you never gave me the chance to tell you this, but I'm sorry. I'm sorry I didn't confront Miranda about how Cerberus tortured you and made you a psychotic, biotic killer. That was wrong. And I'm sorry that big rock fell on your head during the cut-scene and killed you.

The character-based missions worked and I want more of them. Every mission should have one or more characters volunteer to take part. Including the ones who step forward might be optional, but would offer the opportunity for extra dialogue, scripted awesomeness, and heroic sacrifice.

BioWare is notorious for their in-game romantic options. I was torn. Do I choose the bland but anatomically compatible Jacob or grizzled Garrus. In my heart of hearts, do I go for the black guy or the green guy? Garrus won me over and the inter-species liaison was handled with remarkable tact, humor and affection.

I want to explore a deeper relationship with all the characters. Offering a few romanceables should be just the beginning. Every relationship should have a next level. And there should be more variety. I want jealous rivals, greedy high-maintenance mercenaries, subtle betrayers, zealots following their own agenda, moral beacons, reliable right-hands, jilted lovers, and manulative lotharios.

These relationships shouldn't just be incidental to the game but central to it. BioWare's given us a tiny glimpse of the possibilities of character-driven computer games. I love them. Now it's time to take them to the next level.

Part of the Game Design Workshop series.

Me and Scott Brown's Mom: How I Took Down a Fence, Sparked the Tea Party Movement, and Almost Killed Health Care Reform

2010-03-28T10:48:00.002-04:00

In the winter of 2003 my wife Christine and I purchased our home from the Brown family. At that time George Bush was President, health care reform was a distant dream, and Scott Brown toiled in obscurity. On that day, as we signed those papers, we had no way of knowing what would transpire in days ahead. We had no way of knowing how our fate would intertwine with that of the Brown family. We could not know how our rash decisions in the years to come might endanger the health of this great nation. Now we know. Only now, can this story be told.

That fateful winter the Brown family was divesting their holdings in Portsmouth following the untimely death of Scott Brown's Grandfather. Their lands were substantial. Standing in what is now our yard, members of the Brown family could look out in any direction and rightly say that everything they laid their eyes upon belonged to them. The houses are in there pretty tight. You can't really see very far. Nonetheless, such a sight must have instilled in the Browns a sense of majesty and pride. Unless they were looking through the window at the pile of black trash bags and the random metal step ladder the tenants kept in the dining room. That was not so majestic.

This corner of Portsmouth was the Land of Brown. It has been thus for many a generation. The sale our home was held up due to a title dispute. Some great ancestor had been willed a portion of the land in the 1860's. The land hadn't been bought or sold since. The lawyers had to locate the papers lost during the Civil War before the sale could proceed.

Proceed it did. We moved into our first home and set about repainting, renovating, and making it our own. This was a time of transition for the Brown family as well. They sold most of the property in the area keeping only the duplex behind our our house as a rental unit. With the substantial income generated by the sale of these homes members of the Brown family would have the opportunity to follow their dreams. An ambitious Brown might have found the means to go into politics, become a nude model in a woman's magazine, or buy a truck.

Looking back now, I can see that the years that followed were, for us, a time of peace and stability. A contributing factor in the neighborhood tranquility was an lovingly constructed but decaying set of white picket fences that ran along each of the property lines, separating all the homes and duplexes. Those who know me best may not be surprised that I purchased a home with a white picket fence. They might also suspect that the painting and maintenance of such a fence is not a task I approach with a lot of energy or enthusiasm.

It was during the fateful spring of 2008 that we decided to take down the back fence. Many have questioned our motivation in this. But our reasons were simple. We had a fence on our property. And we didn't want it. The previous summer, the neighbors had all collaborated on a coordinated fence painting project. The Browns declined to participate claiming the fence was ours to maintain. Considering this and the property line, Christine asked me if we might take down the fence. We would have a more pleasant view from the back porch. Our children would have more space to frolic with their friends and neighbors. I said "Ummm. Sure." The die was cast. Saws and crowbars were deployed. The fence came down.

For a time the decision to take down the fence seemed like the right one. The new view was an improvement and the neighborhood boys enjoyed multi-family nerf battles. But the good times would not last. Within two weeks Scott Brown's Mom discovered the section of fence had been removed. She was not amused.

Christine observed Scott Brown's Mom examining the space where the fence had been and went outside to confer. My wife was met with a flood accusation. Scott Brown's Grandfather had constructed that fence with his own hand. Why would we tear down a perfectly good fence? Like the Little Tailor confronting an angry giant with a piece of cheese, Christine tore off a chunk of fence remnant with her hand and presented it to Scott Brown's Mom. Scott Brown's Mom was not intimidated by this show of strength. Neither was she convinced of the fence's imperfection. She stormed off cursing our names. We knew she would return.

The men came the next day. They inserted thin metal posts in the ground and attached a 4 foot tall, bright orange, thin, plastic snow fence that ran the full length of the property line. The new fence was an abomination. It came be known as the Fuck You fence. It was a flimsy eyesore that mocked us with it's vastness, it's pointlessness and it's cheapness. It served no aesthetic or protective purpose other than to say "fuck you" to all who gazed upon it.

I placed a call to Scott Brown's Mom seeking to negotiate a settlement between our warring factions. Sadly, the call was not returned and the stand-off continued. For weeks we endured the tyranny of the orange snow fence. Then, one day, we looked out. The Fuck You fence was gone.

That same day, Scott Brown's Mom returned. Christine saw her exploring the fenceless void. Once again she went out in the spirit of inquiry and to extend a neighborly hand. Christine was subject to yet another verbal assault. This one was even more violent, sustained, and expletive laden than the last one. The orange snow fence had not been deliberately taken down by Scott Brown's Mom. It had been dismantled. This was vandalism. Sabotage.

Scott Brown's Mom found the orange fence rolled up on the ground. She tossed it into her car and departed in a storm of rage and recrimination. This would not be the end. This crime would not go unavenged. The police would be looking into this matter.

No doubt the fine officers of Portsmouth Police Department heard about the severed snow fence. They committed all the resources to the investigation that a crime of this severity warranted. And they must have conducted their inquires with great cunning and discretion as their presence went undetected by all.

Within the neighborhood, the case was the subject of intense speculation. Who would dare to perform this brazen deed? Who could have snuck out and struck down the dreaded fence in the dead of night? A thorough canvasing of the neighbors was conducted as well as a full forensic investigation. My son held up a thin strip of orange plastic before me. "Look Dad. This was cut. With scissors." The culprit was never identified.

The new fence was erected within the week. This fence would not be so small or flimsy. Nor would the new fences be constrained by the dimensions of the missing segment. Soon the house behind ours was wrapped end to end in a 9 foot stockade, creating the general impression of a frontier fort meant to repel Apache. But it wasn't quite as ugly as the Fuck You fence.

With the lines of demarcation so firmly established, tranquility returned to the neighborhood. We thought this would the last time we would have to concern ourselves with the Browns. But, of course it wasn't the end. It was just the beginning.

During the winter of 2010 the nation was embroiled in a great debate about reforming the countries patchwork, expensive health care system. Contributing to that debate was a small but very vocal group of radical right-wing pseudo-revolutionaries that called themselves the Tea Party. At that time Scott Brown was a Massachusetts State Senator. Following the death of Ted Kennedy a special election was being held to determine who would fill the seat of the Lion of the Senate. Scott Brown aimed the win that seat. The Tea Party prepared to rally behind him.

At first glance, it is surprising that hard-line members of the Tea Party would make common cause with a moderate Republican like Scott Brown. The Tea Party was violently opposed to health care reform. Scott Brown has been an advocate and supporter of the Massachusetts health care reforms that had become the model for the national system. What could they possibly have in common?

That winter the Tea Party risked obsolescence. Without an electoral victory they would be forever branded an insignificant fringe movement. They were propped up by partisan media executives that hyped and magnified their every utterance. But their message was incoherent. Their numbers small. And they were seen as beholden to the paranoid ramblings of a crackpot television show host. If they could be seen as crucial to victory in Massachusetts it would catapult them to national prominence. More than anything, the Tea Party was enraged by what they saw as the systemic destruction of the barriers, carefully constructed by the Founding Fathers, between the rights of individuals and the powers of government. They turned to someone who was similarly enraged about the careful dismantling of barriers erected by fathers. They turned to Scott Brown. The Tea Party wanted victory. Scott Brown wanted revenge.

As a state senator Scott Brown's powers dissipated at the New Hampshire border. In the United States Senate he might hold the power to stop health care reform. From this mighty perch he would be able to strike our health, our pocketbook, and our ideals. His formidable will combined with the power of the Tea Party proved unstoppable. He won the election.

But would Scott Brown be too late to stop health care reform? In the weeks before the special election the reform bill had already passed the US Senate with an overwhelming majority. But Scott Brown was sure the Democratic majority would want to try and pass it through the Senate again. This time he would be waiting. With Scott Brown, the Republicans had a 41 seat super-minority. If they stood together they could not be overwhelmed. Heath care reform would be totally impossible. Because lots of people on television said so.

Panic ensued among Democrats and health care reform advocates. Suddenly the dreams of health care reform seemed to be unobtainable. The plan of Scott Brown and the Tea Party was working perfectly.

Just when it seemed that all hope was lost, a Democratic strategist discovered a little-known procedure called "reconciliation". This obscure parliamentary provision has only been used before by every single session of Congress to pass nearly every major piece of legislation in the past 30 years: including the Bush tax cuts, COBRA, and Medicare expansion. It was a bold gambit but it might just work. They tried it. It worked. Health care reform became law. Scott Brown would not have his revenge.

Are we safe? Or is it just a matter of time before this feud changes form and the battle is joined anew? Even as I write this words, I cannot say what the future will hold. I don't know what fate awaits me, my family, or health care reform. Will we ever be able to extend a hand across the barriers that come between us? I fear there are some rifts that can never be repaired.

Finally, Health Care Reform

2010-03-22T13:05:00.000-04:00

They passed it. The President will sign it. The Senate will debate and pass the clean-up "reconciliation" bill. But, mostly, the drama is behind us.

This law is the most significant piece of legislation in decades. It is also far less sweeping than it's critics claim and fear. It is comprehensive, smart, and essential reform. It is not a government take over of health care.

The irony is after a year of arguing and endless hour of debate and breathless news coverage, most Americans have little concept of what the law will actually do. This is a strange by-product of the process. The bill's broad framework has remained consistent, but the details have always been a moving target. In the media, and especially from the right-wing media, there been a relentless focus on the daily talking points, conflict, partisan hyperbole, and politics over policy. Misinformation crowded out information from the beginning. So, it bears repeating what this law will actually do.

The core components of health care reform are:

Private insurance companies can join health care exchanges that will be able to sell insurance nation-wide.
Health insurance companies will not be able to reject individuals because of their health history.
Some people who don't have health insurance will get a tax credit to help purchase it.
There are a number of policies and pilot programs aimed at controlling health care costs.
It will be paid for by extending the %2.6 Medicare surcharge to include income greater $250K.

Most Americans will see no significant change to their health care insurance, to their relationship with their doctor, or to their taxes. For most Americans this is no big deal. Health care reform is a big deal for the uninsured, for people (like my family) who buy individual insurance, for anyone who loses their job, or wants to change job, or wants to start a new business, and for anyone dealing with chronic illness. The safety net just got stronger and wider.

This is also a big deal for anyone who cares about the effect of rising health care costs on their personal, state, local, and business finances or who cares about the national debt and deficit.

For anyone craving more detail about what this law will actually do, I'll direct you to the excellent Ezra Klein who explains it all in great clarity and detail.

Unlike the policy details, the politics of health care reform have probably gotten too much attention. Nonetheless, I'll offer my thoughts.

A nice summary of the politics of health care reform comes from Lamar Alexander's comments during the President's conference:

'Your stories are a lot like the stories I hear. When I went home for Christmas after we had that 25 days of consecutive debate and voted on Christmas Eve on health care, a friend of mine from Tullahoma, Tennessee, said, "I hope you'll kill that health care bill."

And then, before the words were out of his mouth, he said, "But we've got to do something about health care costs. My wife has breast cancer. She got it 11 years ago. Our insurance is $2,000 a month. We couldn't afford it if our employer weren't helping us do that. So we've got to do something."

And that's about -- that's where we are.'

Lamar's friend from Tullahoma captures the sentiments from the right and much of the American electorate. Reform opponents have been so vigorous and relentless in demonizing health care reform that even those who need it most, and who will benefit the most when it become law, are terrified and angry about it.

It is my hope that when health care reform becomes law some of the smoke will clear. Americans will realize that these are sensible, centrist reforms that provide great benefit to all Americans at relatively modest cost. It's my hope that the American people will realize that the tales of tyranny, taxation, redistribution, rationing, death panels, and government takeover bear little resemblance to the policies being enacted into law. It's my hope that people will recognize who has been feeding them this pack of lies and stop listening to them. And stop voting for them.

The President and the Democrats should celebrate this victory. They should be proud of it. They have succeeded against mighty opposition from every quarter. They have prevailed where many have failed. This is good policy. It is also good politics. Victory polls better than defeat. The juicy sausage will be much more popular than the sausage making. I'm grateful for my own representatives Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter and Senator Jean Shaheen. Both of them stood tall through it all and kept their promises to all of us.

Yes, we can.

(GDW) Failure is Not an Option: Storytelling in Video Games

2010-03-21T16:05:00.000-04:00

The only disappointing Christmas that I can recall is the year everyone got an Atari 2600 and I didn't. I think my mother still gets guilt pangs. She shouldn't. In the nearly 30 years since then I've more than made up for any lost hours of my youth that weren't spent staring at a flashing screen.

I was there at the birth of video games and never stopped playing. They retain their allure and continue to consume embarrassing amounts of my free time. Over the years the games have grown. I remember when moving around white blocks was the height of sophistication. Today characters can leap from rooftop to rooftop and freely explore a simulation of 15th century Florence modeled in astonishing scope and detail.

As the technology has improved video games have started to come into their own as a storytelling medium. Their promise is that these are interactive stories. Rather than just observing the story unfold you can inhabit the character. You are the hero.

Interactivity is the secret to the magic of video game stories. It is also its bane. The author of a book or film has complete control over their protagonist. The hero follows the author's arc without fail. Video game designers walk a fine line between telling the story they wish to tell and giving the player freedom to steer their own path.

The task of the game designer is further complicated by the limitations of technology and the complexity of human relationships. Entire cities can be modeled and populated with all manner of objects and individuals. But actually establishing a non-trivial relationship between the inhabitants of this virtual world is more difficult. Worlds can be simulated. People are much harder.

The byproduct of this constraint is that designers typically choose points A and B and constrain players to deciding how dispatch the hordes of enemies found in between. The questions of whether and why they journey is taken is out of the players hands-- as is the relationship between the player and characters met along the way. The player controls the action but not the plot. Love, revenge, betrayal, hope, fear, loss and growth may be components of the story. Rarely can they be chosen or avoided. They are simply watched.

In most every game you are called upon to perform some heroics and save the day. A good game will work to set the stakes and ratchet up the tension. Inevitably, failure in not a option. And this is literally true. The story and scenes progress until all adversity has been overcome. When you fail, you go back and do it again until you succeed. Boredom, frustration, tedium, and abandoning the story to go do something else are all options. Failure is not an option. A good game will end with enough spectacle to create a sense of accomplishment. But since perseverance was the only criteria, victory feels hollow.

The idea of interactive stories holds immense promise. I spend so much time with computer games because even the limited interactions of games have a powerful allure that non-interactive media such as books, movies, and television can't match. But I recognize the older forms as vastly superior storytelling mediums. For now.

Some game designers are pushing against the medium's limitations for character and story development. They endeavor, within the structure of the game and hero's journey, to include options and questions of morality, romance, friendship, and loss. In my next post I'll look at what the best of them are doing and explore how to do it better.

Part of the Game Design Workshop series.

Game Design Workshop

2010-03-21T15:58:00.000-04:00

In addition to politics and policy another obsession of mine is gaming. Board games, card games, computer games. I play a lot of games. I spend a lot time thinking about games in general and aspects of game design in particular. Like any true gamer I've got some words of advice for the people making games today.

To further feed the gaming beast I'm starting a new feature on this blog: the Game Design Workshop. This will be an intermittent series where I'll analyze some aspect of a particular game, pitch game designs and explore the arcane art of making something fun.

Posts in this series will be marked GDW in the title. I'll keep this post updated with links to the other posts in the series.

Posts in this series:

Failure is Not and Option: Storytelling in Video Games
Building a Better BioWare Game

Tales of My Tax Return

2010-03-13T11:22:00.000-05:00

It's tax time. Last week I was preparing for the annual day of reckoning with my tax preparer. She is a charming Obama-volunteer who generally reckons the government owes us a sizable rebate check. So it's not such an unpleasant experience. But it got me thinking. For all my writing and arguing about taxes (it's slavery!) how much attention do I really pay to my own tax rates? Does anyone? Do you know how much of your income went to taxes last year? I had only a rough idea and I'm guessing I'm not alone.

We're a reasonable stand-in for the average, affluent American family. We've got two incomes (software architect and public school reading tutor), two kids, and own a house. We're doing well but aren't exactly independently wealthy.

Let's run the numbers:

% of our income paid in federal income tax: 12.7%
% of our income paid to social security and medicare taxes: 6.8%
% of our income paid to state and local taxes (mostly property because we live in NH): 3.6%
% of our income paid to medical costs (insurance premiums and expenses): 10%

% of our income paid to all taxes combined: 23%
% of our income paid to all taxes plus medical: 33%

There's some data. I won't try to draw any grand conclusions. Well, maybe one:

If this country got universal health care, and my family got a 75% income tax increase, we would still come out ahead.

FBB Part 4: Health Care

2010-03-09T18:00:00.000-05:00

Critics of health care reform claim that now is not the time for it. With massive deficits and in the midst of a serious recession this is the wrong time to reform our health care system. President Obama has said the opposite. "Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close." The president is correct.

For more than a decade, private health care costs have had an average increase of more than 10% per year. The federal Medicare program cost $217 billion in 2000 and accounted for 2.3% of GDP. 10 years later Medicare cost $453 billion which is 3.5% of GDP. For the government, medical costs are growing faster than then economy. For the private sector it is worse.

Rising medical costs wiped out median income growth over the last 10 years despite rising productivity. Employers are cutting back on medical benefits they can no longer afford and passing the extra costs onto their employees. State budgets are swamped by rising Medicaid expenses. Municipal budgets are being squeezed.

We need to control rising health care costs in this country. That won't happen without comprehensive reform. Here, the status quo can not help us. Things are bad now. On our current path they continue to get worse. Much worse.

It may seem impossible to reign in medical costs. But many other countries manage to attain similar outcomes and life expectancy at half the cost. The nice thing about having a bloated, inefficient, patchwork system with few market incentives, local monopolies and inadequate cost control is this: There's room for improvement.

As a first step we must enact the health care reform bills before Congress today. Making affordable health insurance available to all Americans is a moral imperative. It will be an achievement worthy of celebration. It is also essential to control cost. Broader access to insurance will mean fewer emergency room visits, fewer medical bankruptcies, and fewer unpaid medical bills that get passed on as cost hikes for paying customers. Giving Americans access to a national health care exchange will provide more options and break local insurance monopolies. Eliminating exclusion based on health care history will mean health insurers will no longer be able to compete via risk management. They will no longer make profits by finding healthy customers and barring those that might get sick. Health insurance companies will be forced to compete by providing superior products at attractive prices. Instead of competing to keep away sick people they will have to learn to efficiently take care of them.

Beyond the basics of the bill, authors of the health care reform bill deserve a lot of credit for their thoroughness and dedication to creative cost control. The bill introduces market-based reforms such as price transparency. It includes a number of technical measures designed to reduce cost without cutting benefits. And much of the bill's frequently-maligned bulk comes for a host of pilot programs and experiments. These are designed to be tested on a small scale before the most successful ones are implemented and replicated nation-wide.

This is essential reform. We cannot afford to let it fail.

There are critics from across the ideological spectrum who say the cost cutting measures in the health care reform bill are insufficient. They may be correct. The current effort is an indispensable step. It it a giant leap forward. But really taming health care cost inflation may require we do even more.

There is a deep divide between the left and the right on the proper solution to health care cost inflation. Reformers on the right claim the insurance model itself is the source of the problem. Because consumers of care are separated from its cost they consume more than they otherwise would. People over-utilize and overpay because the bill is paid by someone else.

Reformers on the left point to model used in Europe, and Canada, and well, most every country on Earth. The public health is treated as a public good. The government provides for the health care of its citizens and manages the cost. It can control cost via massive purchasing power and regulatory authority.

If it to comes to Health Care Reform Part II (Secret of the Ooze?) the recommendation from Bank Slate health care economics team is that the American solution should borrow from both the left and the right. Do both. The government should offer a variety of public options and Medicare buy-ins. Some of these options should control cost aggressively. Some public plans should be less constrained. All plans should be priced to consumers to reflect their actual cost. Private health insurers should also be free to offer HSAs, high deductible plans, and other options that do more to put health care choices (and cost burdens) in the hands of consumers. Everyone gets their mandate. Poor people get their vouchers. Americans get to vote with their dollars and their feet.

Of all the budget problems we face, rising health care costs pose the greatest risk to our nations financial health. The one thing we can least afford to do is nothing at all.

Part 4 of the Bank Slate Federal Budget Blueprint series.

FBB Part 3: Military Budget

2010-03-04T17:39:00.000-05:00

Part 3 of the Bank Slate Federal Budget Blueprint series. The goal of this series is to make realistic recommendations that would allow the US to balance in the budget within 10 years. The basic tenants of the the Bank Slate Federal Budget Blueprint are:

The year 2000 should be used as a policy baseline. Tax and spending policies should be reset to the levels and rates they had in 2000.
Any policies enacted since 2000, that we wish to keep, need to be funded.

In the year 2000 U.S. military spending was $311 billion. Ten years later, the US defense budget has more than doubled and stands at $685 billion. Included in the $685 are the operating costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That number does not include other defense-related spending such as Homeland Security and Veteran's Affairs. If those are included, total defense spending hits $1 trillion.

In 2010 defense spending in the US will be roughly equal to the combined military and defense spending of every other country on Earth.

Despite the massive expenditures, elements of the US military have been overextended by 7 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army, Army Reserve, Marine, and National Guard units have all been called up for multiple overseas combat deployments. Both of our ongoing wars have been plagued by the fact that our resources (primarily troop counts) have been insufficient given the magnitude of the missions. We've needed more, not less.

And then there's that $1.56 trillion budget deficit. What to do?

If there's one lesson to be drawn from the wars of last 60 years it is this: The age of empires is over. Historically, a great nation could increase its power and enrich its citizens via military conquest. In recent decades, in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Lebanon, Afghanistan (again), Iraq, and around the world insurgencies with minimal funding have been able to draw great nations into pointless, bloody, protracted stalemates. "Victory", if it comes at all, comes with a price well in excess of its value. The conquering of nations no longer serves anyone's economic purposes and may no longer be viable for anyone. Global economic interdependence makes conventional warfare between nations increasingly pointless and its likelihood increasingly remote. We have the power to destroy any nation's armed forces, but there is not much call for it. We lack the capacity to pacify any country at a price worth paying.

After a decade of asking to US military to do more and more with more and more it's time to change our motto. The military should be asked to do less with less. We should maintain our conventional superiority, but we can do this with less than we have now. We should recognize that militias, gangs, and warlords can wreak localized havoc and be prepared to be a strong and active partner in peacekeeping and stability operations. We should recognize that large scale military occupation and nation building is a fruitless activity that comes at great cost, and not much benefit to the American taxpayer.

The 2010 budget allocates about $128 billion to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should continue the withdrawal from Iraq this year. We will add more troops the Afghanistan this year. But we should follow through plan to begin withdrawing troops and winding down the war in 2011.

The baseline budget for the military should be maintained at around $550 billion and left there for the foreseeable future. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and avoid new overseas adventures. Freeze the remaining budget at current levels. With inflation and economic growth this will mean, effectively, a slow reduction in spending. Without a blank check, the military will have do a more rigorous analysis of our actual needs and adjust expenditures appropriately. Years of spending increases have gotten us to a $1.56 trillion deficit. More and more is a luxury we can no longer afford. It is also something we no longer need.

FBB Part 2: Taxes

2010-02-28T14:24:00.000-05:00

Part 2 of the 'Bank Slate Federal Budget Blueprint series. The goal of this series is to make realistic recommendations that would allow the US to balance in the budget within 10 years. The basic tenants of the the 'Bank Slate Federal Budget Blueprint are:

The year 2000 should be used as a policy baseline. Tax and spending policies should be reset to the levels and rates they had in 2000.
Any policies enacted since 2000, that we wish to keep, need to be funded.

Politicians and the good citizens they represent always think taxes should be lower. If times are bad, or maybe they aren't so bad, but we want them to be better-- we can stimulate the economy by cutting taxes. And if times are good and there's a budget surplus-- well then that's not the government's money. That's your money! You should get it back.

For Republicans there is no problem that can't be solved by cutting taxes. Even today they all promise to "cut taxes and reduce the deficit". There is no political cost to uttering this nonsense.

Even the Democrats have gotten in on the act. Clinton and Obama both realized that calls for spending increases will be met with protest. But everyone likes a targeted "tax credit". These are much easier to pass even if the result is pretty much the same.

Nobody like taxes. I don't like taxes. I don't like paying my credit card bills either. But if you're going to spend the money you've got to get it from somewhere. Somewhere means income or debt. Conservatives say they don't like the government spending all this money. But their commitment to tax cuts is not matched by a commitment to spending cuts.

After a decade of tax cuts for all seasons, we're looking at a $1.56 trillion 1 year budget deficit. There is no party willing to enact tax hikes. And there are no Americans who are going to demand it.

Fortunately, there is a simple solution. In fact, it's the simplest of all possible solutions. Congress should do nothing at all.

In their wisdom, the Bush Administration and its congressional supporters, scheduled all of the Bust tax cuts to expire this year. At the end of 2010 all the Bush tax cuts -- income, capital gains, estate etc.. are scheduled to reset to their 2000 level. Obama's tax cuts are also scheduled to expire in a year or two. Obama has suggested that congress should extend some of the tax cuts that go to "working families". Congress should not do this. The projected deficit is $1.56 trillion. We can't afford the tax cuts. Not even the ones that go to me.

The other tax that congress should to nothing about is the AMT. The AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) was enacted in 1969 and designed to make sure Americans with high incomes couldn't hide all of it in tax shelters. The problem with the AMT is that it didn't account for wage growth over time. What was considered "high income" in 1969 counts is considered to be "middle-class" today-- although we still mostly talking about couples with income over $200k.

Every few years congress "fixes" the AMT by bumping up the level where it goes into effect. But the AMT is a simple, progressive tax system. So, we should leave it alone, even if I end up paying it some day.

Raising taxes is always a bitter pill to swallow. But reverting to year 2000 tax policy will be much less nasty than ongoing $1.56 trillion dollar deficits. And all congress has to do is nothing at all.

Bank Slate Federal Budget Blueprint

2010-02-24T17:19:00.000-05:00

One of the many reasons to condemn the Bush administration is its record of fiscal irresponsibility. In the final year of the Clinton presidency we had a 236 billion dollar budget surplus. At the end of the Bush administration, after a few unfunded entitlements, massive tax cuts and 7 years of warfare, the days of surplus were long gone. In 2008 the budget deficit was 454 billion dollars. The Bush record was one of constant tax cuts and spending increases. The result was predictable. He even oversaw the disintegration of our financial system left a pending depression as little parting gift.

Obama inherited a budget awash in red ink and an economy on the brink of collapse. He responded by cutting taxes and increasing spending. A lot. Well respected Keynesian-economic orthodoxy says this was the exactly right thing to do under the circumstances. Facing an economic crisis, the government should borrow a lot and spend a lot to get the economy moving again. The debt is worth incurring if it gets people working and prevents stagnation. And the theory worked. Sort of. The economy and unemployment stabilized. It's bad but it could have been worse. Much worse.

Stability came at a great cost. The 2009 budget deficit was a jaw-dropping 1.35 trillion dollars. In the first year of the Obama administration the government ran up 1 year deficit that was three-times that of the worst Bush budget. Still, it was a crisis. Now the worst has passed. Obama has been in office for a year. Earlier this month he unveiled his own budget plan. The Obama budget for 2010 projects....

... a 1.56 trillion dollar deficit.

In 2010 we'll see more tax cuts and more spending. Naturally, the Republican party finds these runaway deficits to be completely intolerable. If they were in charge they would... um... cut taxes even more!

We have a big problem.

With a total federal debt over $12 trillion it won't take many years of trillion plus deficits before this country is in big trouble. In the long term runaway spending will be ruinous. But in the short term cutting taxes and increasing spending is always popular. Cutting spending and raising taxes is political suicide. Especially with a battered economy and unemployment over 10% -- any party that calls for belt tightening will get run out of town.

What to do?

Here is my solution. There are some relatively simple measures we can take that should be politically palatable, would put us on a sustainable path to a balanced budget, and are vastly preferable to national bankruptcy.

I'll dive into some specifics in future posts. But the basics are pretty simple. Remember the year 2000 when we had a surplus of $236 billion? That wasn't so long ago. Were you crushed by the weight of over-taxation in 2000? Did you find the federal government of 2000 to be overly stingy with the public purse? 2000 was an Ok year, right?

The Bank Slate Federal Budget Blueprint:

The year 2000 should be used as a policy baseline. Tax and spending policies should be reset to the levels and rates they had in 2000.
Any policies enacted since 2000, that we wish to keep, need to be funded.

A lot has changed since 2000. Not enough had happened to justify perpetual trillion dollar deficits. But there have been changes. As the Bank Slate Federal Budget Blueprint series continues I'll dive into the big-ticket changes and how we can bring them back a sensible baseline. Specifically, I'll look at:

Stay tuned...

Do Vampires Believe in the Supernatural?

2010-02-15T13:10:00.001-05:00

Recently, I was writing a fiction piece for the Vampire CCG Storyline. In the story there is, naturally, a dark and twisted conspiracy of unspeakable evil that goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. And I wanted to depict a character, a vampire by the name of Angelo, as a skeptic. I wanted Angelo to be someone who didn't believe in this mythical mumbo-jumbo. But this got me thinking. If someone is essentially supernatural wouldn't that influence their views of the supernatural? Wouldn't an undead vampire have to believe in God or magic or something?

Suppose an individual possesses superhuman strength or has the ability to transform into a bat. They would be well aware the existence of forces beyond their ken. There must be something in his world that allows Angelo to merge with his fellow Blood Brothers into a coagulated entity -one monstrous heap of undead flesh. Is that force necessarily divine? What else could it be?

What about us? I can't borrow the limbs of my brothers and use them to smite my enemies. My powers are much more mundane. I can ponder vampiric epistemology while folding laundry. Still, the hows and whys of what makes this feat possible are beyond my understanding.

In his wonderful book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" Bill Bryson tries to describe a single living cell.

"The cell has been compared to many things, from "a complex chemical refinery" (by the physicist James Tefil) to "a vast, teeming metropolis" (the biochemist Guy Brown). A cell is both of those things and neither. It is a like a refinery in that it is devoted to chemical activity on a grand scale, and like a metropolis in that it is crowded and busy and filled with interactions that seem confused and random but clearly have some system to them. But it is a much more nightmarish place than any city or factory that you have ever seen. To begin with there is no up or down inside the cell (gravity doesn't meaningfully apply at the cellular scale), and not an atom's with of space is unused. There is activity everywhere and a ceaseless thrum of electrical energy."

I can't spontaneously grow limbs. But if I cut my finger, I do expect the trillions of cellular nightmare-cities that comprise me to recognize the trauma and coordinate the reconstruction effort. And I expect them to get this done while they flawlessly carry on with the pumping of my blood, the digestion of my food, moving of my limbs and every other task involved with the business of being me.

The composition and coordination of cells may be mind-blowingly complex. But at least here we have physicists and biochemists who can observe what's going on and offer explanations. We can't really understand the explanations, but we we're happy to know they are out there. If we step up to the big question of what makes us us we don't even get that. Nobody has a good explanation for human consciousness. And nobody seems to be on the verge of finding one. It just is.

I have no idea how we manage to do what we do. The more I learn about it the more absurd and impossible it all seems. And yet, we exist. Therefore there must be some set of circumstances that make this possible.

So, maybe we're not so different from dear Angelo.

The State of Our Union

2010-01-31T19:53:00.000-05:00

For President Obama's first State of the Union address he was confident, competent, steady, smart, and relaxed. He acknowledged the charged partisan atmosphere, but still seemed to stand above it.

I admired the performance. I felt deflated afterwards.

Obama has to make a choice.

He can rally his side and lead his legislative majority to enact his agenda. This is the partisan path which will lead to likely legislative accomplishment but will come with even more acrimony.

Or Obama can continue to push for compromise and bipartisan solutions. This is the high road. Ultimately, breaking the culture of politics-as-bloodsport is the best bet for the future of this country. But Obama can't travel this road alone.

After the year we've had I, and many others, have urged Obama to take the partisan path, to stand up for his party, to stand against the entrenched and obstinate opposition-- to get it done.

In his State of the Union address the president took the bipartisan path.

During his speech the president did not promise to steamroll the opposition. He did not commit to passing health care reform, financial reform, and a new jobs program by any means necessary. He defended his record and endorsed his priorities. He called for new ideas, shared solutions, and a common purpose. Instead of a call to arms it was a call for disarmament. On Wednesday, in the face of a loud and heartfelt plea from the left, and vitriol and disdain from the right, Obama chose the center road.

Something interesting happened on Friday.

Obama was invited to the House Republican Retreat in Baltimore. He came to speak to the Republican members of the House of Representatives and spent some time answering their questions. The event was extraordinary. The Republicans were sincere and respectful even as they let fly with their questions, proposals, and complaints. The president held his ground and explained his positions. It was a real and substantive debate.

As a supporter of the president, it was refreshing to see him stand up to the opposition and confront them directly. And coming from the House Republicans I heard a clear sense of frustration. They do feel like their proposals are not getting a fair hearing. They did not sound content being the party of "no". They do want to offer solutions. Obama acknowledged their frustration. He seemed well-informed about their proposals. He seemed ready to hear more.

I don't know where we go from here. I don't know if this president can achieve legislative success or forge real bipartisanship. We might get both. Or neither. What is clear is that President Obama is committed to staying on the high road, despite the obvious off-ramp.

Shoot the Hostage

2010-01-22T17:35:00.000-05:00

Alright, pop quiz. You're President of the United States. You've almost passed health care reform. You're past the House. You're past the Senate. You're almost there. You can taste it.

But you've got problems.

You've got two bills. They're about the same. They do what they need to do. But all you hear about are the flaws. Everybody is yelling and screaming. You need everyone to agree on everything or you're screwed. And Joe Lieberman might just screw you for the sake of screwing you.

You've a special election in Massachusetts coming up. And you've got your big State of the Union speech coming right at you. Like a bus.

Got that hotshot? What do you do?

Throw the special election. Take the Senate out of the equation. Have the candidate insult the Red Sox. They won't be able to drag her across the finish line. You can pass health care with a majority in the House. Clear shot.

It gets better.

After you throw the election, you watch everyone panic. Act like big reform is impossible now. What happens then? All the lefties that have been blasting you coming running to the rescue.

That Senate bill starts to look pretty darn good when the alternative is complete failure. Sullivan, Klein, Krugman, DailyKos, the single-payers, the public opters, the Medicare expanders, the bloggers, and the papers. Everyone is singing the same tune. The Senate bill will cover the uninsured. The Senate bill will cut costs. The Senate bill will sort out the insurance companies. The Senate bill is what we need. Everyone is on your side and singing the praises of your health care plan.

Just in time for your big speech...

Massachusetts Politics Get Even More Stupid

2010-01-20T12:15:00.000-05:00

"I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform. Because I do not think that the country would be well served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process,"

- Barney Frank.

Wow. Barney, I love you, man. But this is batshit insane.

The Senate passed a health care reform bill with 60 votes. The rules are stupid. The rules are paralyzing this country. But we played by the rules. The Senate passed health care reform. This already happened.

The House can, and should, vote for the Senate bill and send it to the President to sign into law.

You should do this because:

It would be really good for the country.
We need to fix our dysfunctional health care system.
It would be the greatest legislative accomplishment in my lifetime.
We've been fighting for this for decades.
A large majority of American voters sent you to Washington to do this.
Democrats will get annihilated in the next election if they fail. Again.

Do you and your colleagues think you can improve on the bill in some way? Would you like to, say... change some of the tax formulas or add a solid Public Option? You should pass a new bill and send it to the Senate for consideration. If members of the Senate support these changes, the Senate can -- still playing by the rules -- pass that bill through the reconciliation process. This, according to the rules, requires "only" 51 votes. This is also known as a majority.

That's the game. Those are the rules. You're winning. We're winning. Unless we decide to lose.

Oh, and read this...

Update: Frank has backed away from the statement quoted above. Thank you Barney.

Memo to Massachusetts

2010-01-18T11:56:00.000-05:00

To all my good friends in Massachusetts:

You may have found the last year to be, politically, somewhat disappointing. You were probably happy to see Bush leave office. Now we have President Obama and very substantial Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. And yet it seems like not much has changed. However lofty the goals of the Obama administration, however high our hopes for hope and change, the results have been... what... uninspiring?

Part of the problem is that governing, and trying to solve big problems, involves lots of compromise, horse-trading, and some raw politics. Necessary, but uninspiring stuff. But there's more at work here.

In the aftermath of the Bush era, the GOP had employed a very deliberate, simple, and systematic strategy.

In the media, and especially on right-wing radio and TV, the GOP has relentlessly hammered Obama and the Democrats without much regard for the actual truth of their allegations or the actual source of our woes. They are much more interested in demonizing Democrats than solving our problems. They are very good at it.

Meanwhile, in the United States Senate it is easy to for the minority to keep the majority from getting anything done. By refusing the play ball, not allowing votes to proceed, and vilifying everything that comes before them, the Senate GOP has quite successfully gummed up the works. In order to do anything at all, each and every Democratic Senator and both independent Senators (one of whom is Joe Lieberman) must agree to it. Forging this kind of consensus has been ugly business.

It's something of a historical fluke that it's even possible for one party to be able to scrape together 60 senate votes on its own. Margins like that don't happen often.

If the voters of Massachusetts, if you, elect Scott Brown it will be impossible for the US Senate to do anything at all without Republican votes. The Republicans, including Scott Brown, have promised that they will not get those votes.

This will be the ultimate vindication of the GOP strategy of paralysis, paranoia, foot-dragging and vilification.

I'm not very familiar with the politics or history of Martha Coakley. My sense is she is something of a machine-candidate mediocrity. You probably deserve better.

Will Scott Brown be better?

On the Care and Feeding for Your Tree of Liberty

2010-01-06T20:13:00.000-05:00

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-Thomas Jefferson

The above bit of colorful phrasing first came to my attention on the day the President came to town. President Obama was in Portsmouth for a town hall meeting on health care reform. A gentleman by the name of William Kostric won himself some notoriety by showing up among the crowds of protesters and supporters carrying a sign that read "It Is Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty!" He was also openly carrying a loaded handgun. The incident occurred roughly a mile from my home and maybe 15 feet from my wife, who was there carrying a sign with rather different sentiments. Mr. Kostric caused quite a stir.

I assumed Mr. Kostric was indulging in a bit of performance art to highlight some imagined offenses against the first and second amendments to our constitution. To the best of my knowledge he faced no legal consequences. Whatever tyrannical measures have been implemented by the Obama administration, apparently bringing a loaded weapon to a public event attended by the President of the United States and making a not-very-subtle threat against his life, is still permissible.

I assumed this was the last we would hear on the subject of the of the care and feeding of the Tree of Liberty for a while. But the words of Mr. Jefferson recently reappeared on a Politico post (a site where I am now a semi-regular forum poster).

Geo1342 writes:

Thomas Jefferson has said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". He recognized that the passion that would have to exist behind such an uprising, regardless of whether driven by intellect or ignorance, was necessary to keep the republic free -- for otherwise, lethargy in the public regarding matters of government would set in, and the Government would grow unchecked.

Today, while it is true people are making a lot of noise about the abhorrent and tyrannical behavior of our government, our representatives view it as just that -- noise. Few, if any, believe the public would rise up violently against them. And thus they are emboldened.

Is it too late? Has the Tree of Liberty already died, it's leaves just waiting for a breeze to carry them away?

This poster seems to be advocating the violent overthrow of our government. Its is generally unwise to impart too much importance to an anonymous internet post. And both sides have their lunatic fringe. But these kinds of sentiments are not hard to find. In the last year, at the local and national level, the extremists and Republican core became increasingly intertwined. An undercurrent of implied violence and revolution is now a common feature of political discussions. What does it all mean?

Perhaps the talk of violent revolution isn't meant to be taken literally. Maybe even those who speak of rising up in the face of "abhorrent and tyrannical behavior" would be disgusted and repulsed by the treasonous idea of actual violence against our elected officials. I don't think the founding fathers advocated for the murder of King George III. And we can assume that Thomas Jefferson did not mean for his bloody arboreal advice to be literally applied to democratically elected presidents of the United States, like say... Thomas Jefferson.

The authors of these sentiments are playing rhetorical dress-up, pretending to be patriots. The attempts to link their grievances to those of the founding fathers is pure artifice. They know nothing of actual tyranny, actual revolution, or actual violence. By claiming equivalence they cheapen the actions those who have fought, and those who are still fighting, for democracy and against dictatorship. They dress up their argument in innuendo and metaphor for effect and talk vaguely of "abhorrent and tyrannical behavior" but decline to offer specifics. Were they do do so, any actual listing of "grievances" and "acts of tyranny" would be laid bare as petty, and partisan, and totally unworthy of the bombast that accompanies them.

Is the talk of revolution just noise? Even if the rhetoric of violence is just rhetoric we should still be appalled by it. Why should anyone who lives in this country, shared in its opportunities, been protected by its laws, and enjoyed its freedoms tolerate an argument advocating for its destruction? What's the difference between a Muslim extremist, or left-wing extremist, or a right wing extremist who calls for for the destruction of this country and the murder of its citizens? Is it Ok to clap along until someone actually pulls a trigger? Any person, any political party, any TV station, anyone who advocates violence against our elected officials should receive our scorn. The are not entitled to call themselves patriots. With threats of violence against it, they disrespect this country, its constitution, it history, and its citizens.

NH and the Gay Yuletide

2010-01-02T13:36:00.000-05:00

In their end of the year Conventional Wisdom watch Newsweek Magazine notes:

Gay marriage, coming to a state near you... but only if you live in New Hampshire.

I do live in New Hampshire! As the clock tripped over to 2010, gay marriage has come to a state very near and dear to me. Compared with our neighboring states, it has come with remarkably little screaming and fanfare.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued their ruling that same-sex marriage was a constitutional requirement. A few years later, the Supreme Court in neighboring Vermont affirmed the right to Civil Unions. Both of these events were causes for celebration and signs of progress. Both events provoked an ugly backlash that highlighted the cultural divide and laid bare persistent ignorance and intolerance.

In 2007 New Hampshire passed its own Civil Union law. Last year we followed up, approving Same-Sex Marriage. These were not court mandates. In both cases they were laws passed and approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor.

From Massachusetts and Vermont we had already heard the apocalyptic predictions of destruction of marriage and imminent moral collapse. We had also seen that permitting same-sex couples to marry resulted in none of this. We saw the giddy, goofy couples smooching and celebrating recognition and rights the rest of us had taken for granted. There were voices of protest. But when the final votes were cast, same sex-marriage came to New Hampshire, via the ballot box, with a smile and a shrug. This morning the local paper carries the news of New Hampshire's first gay marriages. It's on page A7. After "MTA to hold 'exchange of information' meeting on York tolls".

It's a pleasure to see this state recognize civil rights for its gay and lesbian residents. I'm glad we can be one of the bright spots in the ongoing struggle for equality. It's unfortunate there aren't more new club members (Seriously. Maine. What happened?). New Hampshire hasn't always been at the vanguard. I remember, growing up, a game called Smear the Queer was a neighborhood favorite. We've come a long way.

But the march for equality continues. Federal law still does not acknowledge same sex marriages, civil unions, or any basic rights for gay couples. Our gay and lesbian soldiers are forced to live in secret even as they sacrifice to to defend our nation. Even in the Granite State there is more work to be done. New Hampshire's adoption laws have not yet been updated and lag behind. Legally married same-sex couples are not recognized as both being parents to their own children. These and other oversights and inequities need to be corrected before we can claim true equality.

The road may seem endless, but we can still stop and acknowledge how far we have come. I raise a toast to you, New Hampshire. Happy New Year.

Left Wing Blogger Seeks Worthy Adversary

2009-12-20T10:05:00.000-05:00

I've had a lot of fun since I started up this blog a few months ago. It's nice having a soapbox from which to respond to current events, make my case, and share my observations about the world. Feedback has been good. But I don't feel like I've reached a lot a people that didn't already agree with me.

I am more interested in having a lively debate than in just basking in the wisdom of my own opinions. I feel that Obama is an excellent president and that the health care reform bill is entirely worthy of support. I am told that these views are not universally held. Real engagement between people across the vast chasm of our political divide is sadly rare. Common ground is elusive. In a vast sea of opinion it's unusual to see someone forced to consider the arguments from the other side. But that's what I want to do. I'm looking to start a new blog with a different format. Something that would be more interesting to read and to write. I want to start a debate blog.

But first I need a worthy adversary. A nemesis. A yin to my yang. A Lex Luthor to my Superman. Or at least someone who disagrees with me and wants to write about it.

The basic idea is a kind of Crossfire in blog form taking on whatever topics interest the participants. This would be a new blog with a new name. Maybe: Dawn Pistols, or Rapiers at Dawn, or Preaching to the Convertible. Or something else.

For the format I'm thinking of a simplified, casual Lincoln-Douglas format: Affirmative post, Negative Post, Affirmative Rebuttal, Negative Rebuttal. 4 posts total on a topic, 2 from each side, maybe 300-1000 words per post. We spend about a week on a topic. Then we move on to a new topic. The other guy starts off with an Affirmative post that can be a spin on the old topic or something entirely new (or whatever you want).

So, I start with:
Obama's Health Care Plan is Great: blah, blah, blah
You reply: No, its not...
I reply: Really, it is...
You post: No its not...

New topic, your choice.
You say: Obama is a Terrible Commander in Chief
I say, no he's not...
etc, etc...

Sound like fun? The offer is open. Somewhere out there there must be a right-wing blogger with opinions to spare looking for a lively debate. I await you. Terms are negotiable.

My Take on the "Whole AGW Scheme"

2009-12-19T09:23:00.000-05:00

Recently I've been poking around on some political sites, looking for a lively debate (I'll post more on this adventure very soon). I wandered over to the forums on Politico where I was asked about my "opinion of the whole AGW scheme". I obliged. Here it is.

Regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming there are two main questions before us:

1. Are we human beings causing a rapid increase in global temperatures?

2. What, if anything, should we do about it?

In this post, I'll just look at question #1. This is not really a political question. Regardless of what I think, either all that carbon we're burning is causing the atmosphere to heat up or it isn't. Is this real or not? The honest answer is: How should I know? I don't spend my time examining polar ice cores or tracking ocean temperates.

There are a wide array of factors that have changed the earth's climate over the years. There were ice ages and warmer epochs long before humans were around. We are not the only agent of climate change. But we should take no comfort from this. The natural forces that have caused the earth's climate to change have occurred over a much longer span -- tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of years. On those occasions where the climate did change rapidly, the record suggests this was very bad news for the creatures who had the misfortune to be around at the time.

Let's just concern ourselves with the next 100 years or so, a blink in history, but it's our blink. Climate worrywarts estimate the average global temp will maybe increase around 5° F by 2100. That sounds like a small change. You'll never detect it standing in your yard. It's certainly not a threat to all human life. But still, if we believe the climatologists, even a 5° bump will trigger massive coastal flooding, crazy weather system, fresh water shortages, agricultural disruption and a host of other problems we might prefer to avoid.

A considerable majority of the people who spend their time on this issue are in agreement, and have been for years now. Global warming due to human activity is real. And it's going to cause some big, big problems for us humans if we don't do something about it. The question for us is, should we believe them?

Even if climate change is happening, it is happening at a pace that's hard for us as individuals to perceive. Gradual changes that happen over decades may trigger big environmental changes. But as we live day to day, we don't see it. We can't see it. But if we think about aggregate human activity, it's not that hard to imagine. For over a century now, we've been extracting oil and coal and other carbon-rich fuels from the ground, and burning them as fast we can. Currently, we burn about 85 million barrels of oil a day. We have massive operations going to pull these fuels out of the ground and we use them to run our cars, and heat our homes, and power our power plants. We've been doing this on massive scale for a while now and have every intention of continuing to do it. 85 million barrels. Every day.

Even if we don't know the exact net effect of releasing all these greenhouse gasses is, we know the basics of how these gasses trap solar radiation and keep the planet warm and habitable. We also know that we are extracting and burning fuels, creating more greenhouse gasses, as fast as we can. And that's pretty fast.

And why wouldn't we? Oil is great stuff. From the industrial revolution to the information age-- modernity, life as we know it, is made possible by energy. Power. Oil, and its carbon-rich fossil fuel friends, are the cheapest, most efficient, most scalable, most plentiful sources of energy we've got.

It is precisely because fossil fuels are so wonderful that we really don't want to hear about the nasty side-effects. It would be really, really swell if we could just burn all the oil we want as fast as want, for as long as we want and not ever have to worry about all that additional carbon in our atmosphere. That's a pleasant thought. But wishing won't make it so.

Wishful thinking will make us want to listen to those who tell us what we want to hear. As usual, there is no shortage of people willing to tell us there is a free lunch, that we don't have to sacrifice or work together. You can do what you want. Al Gore is a jerk, and bore, and Democrat. Don't trust him. Look, newly reveled emails show us that some scientists are cleaning up and spinning some of their data. Now we get to ignore everything they and their colleagues have ever done. And every other climate scientist is probably doing the same thing. Let's ignore them too. They can't even get each and every scientist, pundit, blogger and ex-vice-presidential candidate to agree there is problem! Clearly this is very controversial at best. We should probably just hold off and study the problem some more. Let's wait until everyone agrees. We'll do something then.

Unfortunately, the AGW deniers have a lot more media attention than scientific credibility. There are over 180 countries taking part in the Copenhagen conference. All of those countries are populated by citizens that don't want to be told to cut back, pay more, or use less. All of those countries have scientists who are telling their leaders that this is real, and we need to do something about it. I hope they are wrong. But I believe they are right.

Quick Health Care Reform Note

2009-12-19T09:05:00.000-05:00

The bill going forward is a good bill. It's an important bill. It's not perfect but it is the best bill we'll get. Anyone who says they support health care reform but think this bill should be killed is a fool. Or they are lying. Or both.
Hate Joe Lieberman if you want, but there's really no reason to hate him more than the 40 other non-Democratic Senators who aren't even negotiating on this. They are the ones really working to kill it dead.
Read Ezra Klein's blog. He is doing fantastic reporting on health care reform and is just about the only writer who seems to really know what is in the bill and why it matters. He also explains it clearly and frequently.

Obama: Best President Ever

2009-12-10T09:36:00.000-05:00

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post up on Salon comparing Obama admirers the relentless defenders of George Bush and Sarah Palin. He writes...

Those who venerated Bush because he was a morally upright and strong evangelical-warrior-family man and revere Palin as a common-sense Christian hockey mom are similar in kind to those whose reaction to Obama is dominated by their view of him as an inspiring, kind, sophisticated, soothing and mature intellectual.

I view Obama as an inspiring, kind, sophisticated, soothing and mature intellectual. He's also a great president. I am inclined to rise to his defense against critics to his left and right. There are several Bush-era policies that appalled me at the time of their introduction. Because I trust him, I am willing to grant Obama lot a latitude to continue those same polices. I'm stunned by the rationalizations of Bush and Palin defenders, but I fit Greenwald's profile of a pie-eyed Obama fanboy rather closely.

Is there something wrong with that?

Before I defend myself, allow me to dig this hole deeper. Not only do I consider Obama, who is not even through his first year in office, to be a great president -- I hear-by anoint him with the title of Best President I Have Seen And Am Likely To Ever See In My Lifetime.

Overblown? Blinded? Bombastic? Consider the competition. These are the human beings that have in my lifetime ascended to become President of United States -- I'll even thrown in the near-presidents: Carter. Regan. Mondale. Bush. Dukakis. Clinton. Dole. Bush. Gore. Kerry. McCain. Obama's virtues stack up well. A president who is an inspiring, kind, sophisticated, soothing and mature intellectual is very rare bird. We have the good fortune to have one at at time when we really need one. Why not be grateful? Why not admire him? Isn't that something to be cherished and defended?

Criticism of Obama from the right is certainly voluminous but it has such an incoherent kitchen-sink quality to it that I have a hard time taking any of it seriously. He's a socialist. He's a Nazi. He's a coward. He's a tyrant. He's hasn't done anything. He's trying to take over the country. He's too intellectual. He's an empty suit. He's a ruthless Chicago pol. He's naive and in way over his head. If there's a coherent right-wing critique of Obama I've yet to encounter it*. I always feel like telling these people to just turn off the Fox News. Pay attention to his actual words and the policies he proposes. Measure his actions against the principles you claim to have. These feelings of incoherent rage will pass.

The criticisms coming from the left are more pointed and, to my ears, better grounded in reality. The most frequent of these are that Obama is too centrist, too moderate, too conciliatory, doesn't know how to play political hardball, and that he's insufficiently aggressive in denouncing Republican chicanery. If these are flaws, they are flaws that I admire. Obama seems to be genuinely committed to forging consensus, exploring the options, prioritizing policies over politics. On issues from health care, to the economy, to Afghanistan, to climate control we see an administration that is patient but persistent. The president should set the national interest above the interests of the Democratic and Republican parties. If more politicians did this we would all be much better off.

Greenwald blasts Obama defenders saying...

These outbursts include everything other than arguments addressed to the only question that matters: are the criticisms that have been voiced about Obama valid? Has he appointed financial officials who have largely served the agenda of the Wall Street and industry interests that funded his campaign? Has he embraced many of the Bush/Cheney executive power and secrecy abuses which Democrats once railed against -- from state secrets to indefinite detention to renditions and military commissions? Has he actively sought to protect from accountability and disclosure a whole slew of Bush crimes? Did he secretly a negotiate a deal with the pharmaceutical industry after promising repeatedly that all negotiations over health care would take place out in the open, even on C-SPAN? Are the criticisms of his escalation of the war in Afghanistan valid, and are his arguments in its favor redolent of the ones George Bush made to "surge" in Iraq or Lyndon Johnson made to escalate in Vietnam? Is Bob Herbert right when he condemned Obama's detention policies as un-American and tyrannical, and warned: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House"?

Greenwald is entitled to his questions and his criticisms. And the individual issues merit direct answers. I will decline to address all of them now, but hope to address these issues in future posts.

Instead, I offer these general defenses:

In many of these cases Obama inherited huge problems for which there are no good solutions. The proposed policies are easy to criticize, but do you, the critic, have an alternate plan that you think is better? If you offer your own counter-proposal I may disagree with you. If you can't think of any other plan which you like better and you are prepared to offer and defend, then perhaps the criticism is unfounded.
Many critics point to some action (or some lack of action) as evidence of some glaring character flaw. Obama did (or didn't do) X, therefore he is weak/cowardly/craven/ unprincipled/incompetent. Often the case for the flaw following from the act is very weak. In such cases, it us not unreasonable to rise and defense and point out the weakness of the case and the absence of the flaw.
Some critics don't argue with a policy per se. Instead they argue that the policy seems or could be seen as an indication that Obama is cowardly/craven/ unprincipled/incompetent. Do you fault the policy? Do you feel the flaw is real? Everyone should support politicians that pursue sound policies especially when those policies are politically risky and subject to unprincipled demagoguery. Every policy can be seen as evidence that one is cowardly/craven/unprincipled/incompetent-- especially when there are so many partisans so bent on seeing them that way.
As President of the United States, Obama is responsible the efficient function of the entire federal government including and especially the vast national security apparatus. He has never been president before. In many cases he is pursuing his principles and campaign promises cautiously. He is moving at a pace that will not disrupt the function of, or his relationship with, those organizations that he needs and we need to rely on. But he is moving forward.

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion. And blind devotion to a politician is always unwise. Blind skepticism is also unwise. We live in a age of skepticism, criticism, and ironic detachment. We are not used to finding virtues in our leaders. We are unfamiliar with politicians worthy of defense. We are afflicted by fierce partisanship and vast political divides. We have a president willing to stand in the center, look at the big picture, and steer us towards real solutions. We should offer an honest critique. But when the president is doing something right, we should rise to his defense.

* For right-wing critique, there is this. Pretty thin gruel. Anyone got anything better?

Curtains for You 'Buster

2009-11-24T17:32:00.000-05:00

Health care reform passed a major milestone on Saturday. After much pressure, arm twisting, and some outright bribery, the Senate voted 60-39 to allow themselves start debating health care reform. Isn't that great?

Of course, it's not great. It's pathetic.

We hear a lot about the need for 60 votes, and cloture, and filibuster threats. What happened to passing a vote via will of the majority? The talk of "60 votes" is so persistent you might think the filibuster is some sacred institution, enshrined in the Constitution. It's not. It's a gimmick. The filibuster and its ilk the last refuge of those philosophically committed to government inaction. It's time for them to go away.

The authors of the U.S. Constitution were deeply concerned about they tyranny of the majority, and the separation of powers. The system they devised, with three branches of government, and two legislative houses was designed to be inefficient. It was not designed to encourage paralysis. It was not designed to allow a minority to dictate terms to the majority. It was not the founders intent that any action in the Senate would require 60 votes.

The Constitution does specify times when a super-majority is required. If the Senate wants to convict the President of impeachment or remove one of their own members from office then more than 51 votes are required. There are other extreme circumstances where the Constitution requires more than a simple majority. Motions to start or end debate are not among them.

The Constitution does state that the legislative houses get to set their own rules. And that is where the trouble started. The idea that 3/5th of the members should agree to consider an issue or cease debate is predicated on a base level of civility and common sense. The Senate rules were conceived to insure sufficient debate on important issues. Now the rules are routinely abused to insure debate never takes place and that bills are never voted on at all.

Our legislative process is already deliberately inefficient. On top of that, we have entrenched interests willing to spend a lot of money to insure that status quo. We have a political minority that puts party ahead of principles, and considers any compromise to anathema. We have mobs and media outlets dedicated to spreading misinformation and discontent. We also have a lot of problems. Our country faces a multitude of challenges. We need to find a way forward if we're going to confront them. We need to end the gridlock.

Most of our problems aren't going away anytime soon. But there's a way to get rid of the unnecessary filibusters and friends. The Senate created these barriers for itself. It has the power, the right, and the obligation to take them away.

Dear Senator Gregg

2009-11-13T17:36:00.000-05:00

Dear Senator Gregg,

I am writing to you once again, to ask you to support the health care reform. I do not doubt that you are under a lot of pressure to oppose reform. You may have the sincere intention of opposing the current bills. But supporting reform now is the right thing to do. I think you know this.

I do not claim to be a steady supporter of yours. I do think of you as a moderate, sensible voice in the Senate. I appreciate that you are not prone to the partisan hyperbole that seems to permeate so much our national debate. There was a time when you sought to be a member the Obama administration and when they sought to have you. You know they are not monsters. You also know the severity and extent of the problems this administration faces. As you enter your final year as US Senator you have a unique, historical opportunity to do something important.

In your Washington Times editorial of 7/17/2009 you wrote:

"Our health care system is broken and must be fixed. We also agree that we must reform how we pay for this system, and, at the same time, reduce the number of people who lack coverage without disrupting the coverage that insured people already have.

We must encourage quality of care and reduce the skyrocketing medical bills so many families face. These are goals President Obama has endorsed and these should be the center of our bipartisan health reform efforts."

In that article and in subsequent comments you have been highly critical of ongoing reform efforts. Many of these criticisms are legitimate. But you were correct in recognizing the failings of our current system. These problems must be addressed. You should also recognize that the proposed legislation does, however imperfectly, address these concerns. It will vastly reduce the number of uninsured. It will not disrupt current insurance systems. It will not add to the budget deficit. It does make a first, tentative, but essential, attempt to control skyrocketing medical bills. These are important reforms. They are essential for controlling state and federal budgets. The are need by New Hampshire families and business facing ever-escalating costs. They are necessary for the millions of Americans who can't get and can't afford insurance.

Our system is broken. It must be fixed. If we do not reform this system this year when will we? How will we control medical costs in the future? In what year, under which administration, will tens of millions of uninsured, working Americans be able to obtain health insurance? How many more years will pass before we can put a stop to the medical-bill bankruptcies? What will happen to state, federal, business and household budgets during those years? I work for a small company. In the past two years my family's health insurance premiums have increased by 55%. Most insurers in New Hampshire won't sell insurance to my family because my son has a "pre-existing condition". In what year will there be a system that works for my family?

If you are opposed to health care reform out of your own self-interest, or because for political reasons -- if you are voting to maintain the status quo because you think it will hurt one political party or advance another -- then you must realized your reasoning is inadequate and sad. Do you believe that the current health reform bills will make things worse for citizens of this country? Do you think perpetuation of the status quo will be good for my family, and your family, and the people of New Hampshire? Even if you believe this, you know this system is broken. You know this administration is willing to compromise. You know there are deals to be made. You can work to produce a bill that is worthy of your support. You know that all laws are a product of compromise and are all imperfect. You know that the worst thing we could do is nothing at all.

Fixing our health insurance system is not easy. Easy or not, it is broken. It must be fixed. You serve the citizens of this state in the United States Senate. You have the power to fix this. You have the responsibility to fix this. You have been given the opportunity to fix this. The people of this country are relying on you to do what is right. Easy or not. Politically expedient or not. We have put our trust in you.