08.04.09

The benevolent dictator paradox

Posted in Liberty at 17:28 by RjZ

Dictatorship is bad. Democracy is good. Everybody knows that. Free market guy that I am, I feel much the same way about control economy (like dictatorship) compared to capitalism (like democracy.) That’s why my trips to China have really thrown a wrench into works of my brain. I’ve spent some time trying to pull that wrench out. Here’s what I think it looks like.

China is a dictatorship. Actually, it’s an oligarchy, but what it’s not is a democracy. The social contract that the Chinese have signed with their government goes something like: we’ll let you make all the political decisions so long as you leave us alone to make money and buy things. And the government has heartily agreed. For the most part, people are allowed to pursue what looks quite a bit like free market capitalism and the government is allowed to rule by fiat and to make long term social and infrastructure decisions that even when the people don’t much agree, they keep quiet about it.

Most Chinese people don’t like things like the Three Gorges Dam, or the lack of a free press, but they do like their dramatically improved standard of living over the last thirty years. Of course there are a great many poor in China, but, today there’s more than a United States full of people, that is 300 million of them, who live, more or less, pretty much just like we do in the west. They have computers and cell phones, Nike shoes and Chinese MTV. They’re more interested in fads then federal government and they’re hoping to try the new mediterranean restaurant that opened up down the block sometime soon. Day-to-day life is fine. They’ve got software that sneaks around the government censors for internet and they speak openly about how they feel to friends and even tourists. They’re fiercely (and justifiably) proud of the great and varied nation in which they live.

How is this possible if dictatorship is so bad? It’s kind of like Microsoft Windows. Microsoft may be (or even have been, if you like) a monopoly, able to control everything in its market like a dictator can in his country, but as long as they make good decisions and make relatively good software that works and does what most everyone needs, there is little reason to complain. Macintosh users may (or may not) have it better, but the whiny minority (of which, in the name of full disclosure I belong) is losing out on all the advantages that centralized power truly brings.

In China, when the government puts its mind to change something, it is incredibly effective. Compare a simple example. Recently, they decided that all these plastic bags at grocery stores were a bad idea. And, by edict, all grocery stores were banned from giving them out. It’s a great idea and the people quickly adapted. Meanwhile, forward thinking San Francisco and a few Alaskan villiages are some of the few in the United States to do the same.

During a business trip to China I was struck by government authorities I met. Mid-level people who are clearly competent technocrats and nothing like politicians I’ve met in the U.S. I can’t even call them politicians. They spoke about items of substance and understood the topics as well as any of the technical people in the room. These technicians of government do not have to ask their constituents for approval, but they’re highly educated people who have been, by and large, making good decisions for the past thirty years and China’s ascendance is undeniable proof of their success.

All this is a huge dilemma for me. The whole concept of a control economy run by a small oligarchy is anathema to me. Were George Orwell, Ayn Rand, and Anthony Burgess wrong in all those books I read?  I struggled to find flaws in the system and prove myself right. First idea: even the Chinese will lament the lack of a free press. We have a free press in the United States. I run little risk of arrest by writing this blog. Except, that we Americans seem unwilling to pay for the press that we have and barely value what’s left of it. Newspapers are closing down at an alarming rate and editors are forced not to seek out the news that we need to hear in favor of what we want to hear.  Far from being biased towards the left or the right, the U.S. media is biased towards keeping its job, which means making money, which means whatever it guesses will sell the most ads. If the people love George Bush, the papers do to. If they hate him, so does the evening news. If the polls love Obama, then NPR thinks he’s the power of change. If they turn against him, CNN will join the fray. Whatever sells papers and justifies ad revenues is what gets the most attention. Who can blame them? We have a free press in the United States, we’re just not using it.

So what’s wrong with these benevolent dictators then? During a recent discussion in China, and Chinese colleague put it succinctly and it finally answered my dilemma.

China is governed by people, not laws.

The Chinese model has been successful because of the people in power. Apparently, they’re honestly talented and well-meaning, and they are not required to kowtow to special interests at every turn. The Chinese people are in good shape…so long as they have good people steering the ship. But what if they don’t? What happens when someone not so benevolent comes to power?

Being governed by people instead of a system isn’t just dangerous, it suffers from a limited attention span, too. The Chinese oligarchy is, indeed, very effective. Beijing was cleaner for the Olympics and those pesky plastic bags are gone, but there is only so much bandwidth for the authorities to enforce regulation and address new concerns. Pollution is a serious problem in China that no one denies, but little is done so far. The people and the government are both troubled, but frankly, they have bigger fish to stir fry. Three hundred million people may be living middle class western lives, but that leaves another billion in a falling apart shack.

The Chinese have every reason to be proud of their beautiful country and amazing progress. There is much to enjoy and appreciate and, even if it pained me to admit it, their system works far better than I would like to give it credit. My worry for them is if it’s sustainable. Can those billion people rely on replacing great technocrats with new ones who also make the right decisions? Is it even possible for a system which depends on the vagaries of people to even effectively address all the concerns and needs of the people they govern and the society they guide?

Continued success in China will depend on the tradition of government being passed on to the next generation of leaders. Each of those leaders will face greater and greater challenges with the same limitations on bandwidth that their predecessors faced. No one would describe the United States as a flawless gem, (alright, some right wing nuts might) but, even in the face of economic crisis and adventurous wars, we can be confident that we are not at the mercy of a few individuals, and that our system of laws, like a good user manual, guides the country forward, even if people sometimes forget to read it.

Whew. I almost had to delete this old post .

648 views Permalink 1 Comment

03.23.09

Simple math and world domination

Posted in Liberty, Society at 15:53 by RjZ

Alright, the modern world is based on a service economy and knowledge is a valuable export, but just the same, the 2008 import/export numbers published by the World Trade Organization seem pretty discouraging if you’re an U.S. citizen. While the U.S. is first in imports, it is third in exports.

Maybe much of that could be attributed to currency fluctuations. Too bad a some simple math (exports divided by imports) tell such disturbing story. China: 1.27; Germany: 1.22 and the United States: 0.60! Just looking at how much we buy and how little we sell, it’s pretty easy to see how we could be in such an economic crisis.

During my recent visit to China, it was pretty clear that United State’s economic system catching a cold ends up being highly contagious outside of the borders. And the Chinese aren’t too pleased about it either. Although, in our defense, I’d like to point out that these numbers were no secret around the world. The Chinese are as guilty of investing in Team America as anybody else who’s seen assets dwindle in the last few months of stock market crash correction. We all should have read the signs.

The Chinese trip raised another question. Namely, why would anyone, without an ego to protect, really care whether the United States remains the foremost economic, and therefore political, power? Actually, I’ve often wondered that. I am proud to be an American, but am not exactly sure that means everyone else enjoys our power, or that they should be expected to. Despite the propaganda to the contrary, China seems to be a pretty nice place, and at least as free as most Americans would ever actually notice anyway. (True, there is no free press in China, but would any Americans really miss it if our free press were gone? Have you heard about all the failing newspapers or Jon Stewart’s comedic railings against poor economic reporting of the past few years?)

A few surprising conversations with some, not necessarily representative, Chinese did give me some insight into just why we just might care where the U.S. is in the world pecking order. It seems many in China believe that the only thing stopping them from some serious border skirmishes, or worse, with traditional enemy Japan is the strong alliance between the Japanese and Americans. In spite of the Chinese party-line which preaches peace and non-intervention, as soon as China could neutralize retaliation from the United States, so goes the argument, they would be free to act without consequence on some deep seated (and justified, if outdated) anger still harbored for their neighbors.

Regardless of how credible we find this scenario, one fact remains true. The United States has transferred power 44 times without significant impact to the rest of the world. We’ve stuck our noses in countless country’s affairs but generally, the majority of countries have grown to trust that, even if we go astray (see for example, 2000 – 2008) we have a working system that kicks bad guys out and brings in new ones (hopefully better). It could be a new United States marketing slogan: Dictator -Free for over 225 years!

This track record may be the best argument for maintaining the United States preeminence. Unfortunately, it takes only some simple math to see how tenuous that position might be.

282 views Permalink Comments

02.04.09

Financial advice

Posted in Liberty at 11:32 by RjZ

Here’s a bit of financial advice. If your money or investments are in a bank that is receiving federal bail-out money, find another bank. That’s easier said than done right now, but I predict there will be a few popping up in near future. Among other bad omens, President Obama has decided to cap salaries for banks getting federal aid. I can see his point and it’s a populist move that I am sure will earn him favor but some unintended consequences are that any bank with a salary cap won’t be able to attract and keep the best people.

Here’s how it goes; if you’re on the board of a bank and the CEO retires, or gets hit by a car, how do you attract a new one just as good as the last? The other CEOs are already getting the top salary you can offer, so there’s no reason for them to leave their current positions and help you out. As a result, you get less than top quality executives at a critical time. Is this the best way to handle U.S. citizens investments? What sounds like a good idea has the unintended consequences of making sure we don’t have the best people watching over our money.

The good news is, once those smart folks can get their hands on some capital, which, admittedly, isn’t easy just now, they’ll start their own investment institutions, free from this government regulation, and also free to attract the best and the brightest. Investors looking to maximize their money after such a painful recession will flock to them, and the Obama administration’s plan won’t even have accomplished what it was intended to do in the first place-keep people’s money safe by regulating banks.

The fact is, government has to either control every single thing, a plan we’ve seen doesn’t work in places like, say, the Soviet Union, or we leave a loophole for clever people to get around the regulations and they don’t help in the first place. I wish we could have been avoiding credit default swaps and bad home loans in the past decade; it sure would have helped out my money, but if it hadn’t been these problems, it would have been something else.

306 views Permalink 2 Comments

11.24.07

What she’s really saying is this:

Posted in Liberty at 14:54 by RjZ

I’ve been learning about the candidates a bit. I’ve never thought much for or against Hillary Clinton. All I ever hear is that evangelicals don’t like her because they won’t vote for a woman, and I assume, because she had the gall to actually try to keep her family together. I thought evangelicals we’re for that sort of thing. Meanwhile, I was reading her website, and imagine she might write the following letter:

Dear business owner,

You know, I’ve had it with you. For more than fifty years I’ve asked you for a service and you’ve provided it. You’ve improved efficiency in your efforts and competed with others in the market, but the demand has been strong and you’ve been profitable. How dare you! What’s worse, is that even though demand is increasing for the goods you supply, you refuse to stop producing even when what you make is bad for us! How can you wantonly give us exactly what we ask for?

How you dare to invest money, year after year, just so that you can be successful at giving us what we want, without ever taking a moment to decide what’s best for us; to stop selling exactly what the market demands of you and drive yourself and all those who trusted you with their savings in to ruin, because you should know better.

I thought you knew, that in the United States we don’t have enough sense to know what is best for us. We want to be able to do as we wish. Ah, thank the Lord, I the government, am here, to ensure you do what is best for us all. No doubt, you’re excellent at what you do, and I am impressed. That you have made so much money is proof of your excellence; all you have to do is invest in something else, something you ought to be just as successful with. Sure there are small companies out there developing the technology on their own, but you, you’re a big and successful organization and I know that you can do it again, so long as you receive a bit of my help and advice.

So, this letter is to inform you that I hereby make you an offer you cannot refuse. Not legally anyway.

In 2005, Exxon Mobil’s CEO told Congress that his company’s investment in alternative energy technologies over the prior decade was “negligible.” Hillary believes it is time for oil companies to do their share in funding clean energy technologies. She would give oil companies a choice: invest more in renewable energy technology or pay into a Strategic Energy Fund. The Strategic Energy Fund would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share in royalties when drilling on public lands. This fund would jumpstart a clean energy future by injecting $50 billion over ten years into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels.

---

Hillary’s got a different way to show that she loves corporations just as much as Bush does. Where the Bush administration maintains handouts to oil companies earned over democratic and republican administrations; the future Clinton administration will rightfully eliminate the handouts, but only by extorting corporations to fund programs she deems best. The tried and true method where companies were required to earn their success in the market place; the pattern that’s been successful for generations of industrialists, from railroad tycoons to today’s oil companies, is clearly a tired old model. Today those companies who are already successful will be forced to re-tool in the hopes that if they’re good at drilling oil, they’ll be equally good at building solar cells. All the while, companies who’ve plied their technology for decades aren’t even given the opportunity to make the money they’ve worked so hard for.

At first glance, taking from the rich oil companies to help fund a green future sounds like a great idea to get votes. But it’s anti-American to take fairly earned profits from companies just because the government doesn’t think what they’re doing is such a good idea any more, and it’s inefficient to expect those same companies with no prior experience to be more successful than the upstarts who already have the expertise to finally make renewables viable. It’s a clever plan, because she’s pandering both to the those folks who think profits of the rich are theirs for the taking simply because they don’t have them and at the same time, the rich corporations know that if they buy in to her policy (whether they want to or not) at least they’ll be protected from real competition, because the government will use their own money to fun their new “clean energy initiatives.” It’s just unfortunate that the ill gotten governmental gains won’t be better spent on companies that are better suited to success.

500 views Permalink Comments

08.20.07

Hang up and drive and other myths

Posted in Liberty at 15:53 by RjZ

Most likely you’ve seen the bumper stickers: “Hang up and drive!” It’s such a common sentiment that several states (and nations) have laws banning individuals from operating a cellphone while driving. Typical nanny-state attitude; control what people do and they won’t hurt themselves. It’s also entirely inconsistent. We don’t ban smoking in cars, even though a dropped cigarette is an accident waiting to happen. We don’t ban radios or iPods although fiddling with them has gotten me into some close calls (and I am sure I am not alone). We don’t ban screaming children in the back seat or puppies in the front.

Worse still, while many think cellphones contribute to accidents, new evidence doesn’t bear this out. According to the New York Times, a University of Berkeley study shows no increase in accidents in spite of the great increase in cell phone use.

I saw another bumper sticker once: “I drive like you do.” We all make mistakes out there. It’s your responsibility to drive carefully and pay attention to those who are not. Let’s hope everyone else does when you’re the one not paying attention.

411 views Permalink 2 Comments

06.25.07

I don’t care what you wear, unless you want to buy something

Posted in Liberty, Society at 13:50 by RjZ

I remain perplexed about what is right and reasonable for religious and cultural practices. As I wrote here, in cultures such as Egypt where it is the standard, women don’t actually abide very strictly by the religious tradition that motivates wearing a veil. All across Europe, however, while the number of women wearing the niqab (full face covering) is dramatically fewer than in Cairo, the impact is greater. Particularly in Britain, where no laws have yet been passed restricting this behavior, many people on both sides of the debate are feeling the challenges.

What do you think? Should women in Britain, or the United States be entitled to wear the niqab if the so desire? Sounds like an easy question. Perhaps you think: of course they should, it’s their right in a free country to express themselves. It’s freedom of religion! Even the most conservative amongst us have a hard time justifying making the headscarf illegal simply because these people ought to fit in and integrate just as they ought to (whatever that means) learn English. Oh sure, they ought to; like our grandparents did, but must we have a law restricting clothing?

On the other hand, we already do! People may not claim that it is their religious rights to walk around naked, because, that right would offend the prude majority. Satan worship is allowed, but virgin sacrifice isn’t, regardless of your religious persuasion or beliefs. But what’s the harm of women covering their faces? In a society where women are discouraged or prohibited from closing contracts without male family members, there really isn’t any problem not being able to identify them. In the west, women are provided with rights to buy cars and houses, so it’s not unreasonable that those closing those deals might wish to verify the identity of their business partners.

What about teaching, withdrawing money from a bank, being caught speeding, using a credit card? It disturbs me to limit someone’s freedom, certainly their religious freedom (a theme on which the United States was founded) and especially for such a trivial notion as clothing, but the customs, and economic function of Western society make it difficult to do otherwise. At some point during nearly all of these transactions, we’ll need to see her face.

Women must be allowed to dress anyway they wish (men too) whether they are motivated by religion or mere style. It’s just that the government and business partners have a reasonable expectation to expect to see more than eyes behind a veil. Do what you wish, but don’t expect to participate in society at large without some compromises.

What do you think?

414 views Permalink Comments

12.28.06

Snowglobes prohibited: do you feel safe now?

Posted in Liberty at 12:16 by RjZ

The TSA has added snow globes of any size to its list of items prohibited as airplane carry on. Do you feel safe now? Does it help you to know that the alleged “‘Terror Plot’ foiled on the morning of Wednesday, 10th August 2006″ of jihadists bringing down planes destined for the United States armed with a sports drink, nail polish remover (acetone) and an MP3 player has not amounted to convictions, or even proof of a real plot?

Most of the media has been pretty silent about it, but NBC news did report that a “an attack was not imminent” as had been suggested by police. This commentary discusses various sources and revelations about the likelihood of this latest terrorist attack. It’s very interesting reading, so I won’t repeat it here. Not only was the attack not imminent, it wasn’t plausible. If that doesn’t convince you, here’s another source, (with still more links) that explains that the suggested explosive, TATP, would sooner kill the alleged terrorist than bring down a plane.

So why all this attention on inconveniencing air passengers when the supposed plots aren’t feasible, reasonable, imminent, or even likely? Simple answer: politics. Elected officials have a better chance of winning if they’re doing something that keeps you safe. Even if we don’t agree, well, at least “he’s doing what he can.” It isn’t true only for elected officials and it isn’t true only in the United States. When NY Subway officials said they would perform random searches, travelers did not cry out about the stupidity of it all (they’d catch 1 in 10,000, even there were terrorists boarding the New York subway.) British authorities raised the “threat level” to critical after the alleged plot in August, even though there turned out to be no threat at all, and they didn’t retract their warnings after the investigation proceeded, because, well, it’s safer if people keep vigilant.

Lobbyists chasing after ever growing Homeland Security dollars, aren’t motivated to search out the truth of their claims that Red Bull and nail polish remover are the next major threat–it might endanger something more important than the freedom to travel: their jobs. A system where we reward politicians for the appearance of safety and action in spite of their effectiveness costs us more than inconvenience. It strips us of liberty, privacy and money.

The TSA isn’t cheap. They requested $5 billion alone for aviation risks in 2006. Compare that with $69 billion for the United States mandatory and discretionary budget for education. It seems strange to me that education is only seven times the budget for people who won’t allow us to bring shampoo or snow globes on planes which, of course, does nothing for our safety. But at least we feel safe, don’t we?

So why aren’t we complaining? Because there is a huge disconnect between those demanding our toothpaste and those making the policy. When we’re about to step on a plane we have no choice but to endure the indignity of removing shoes and showing off our “personal lubricants” in “a clear one quart zip-lock bag” we can’t really complain because they have every authority to keep us from flying if we do. Meanwhile, the policy makers are keeping us safe and hording Homeland Security dollars at our request.
Keep this in mind when politicians tell you they want to keep you safe and protect you from terrorists. Ask them not only what they’re going to do, but how they’re going to see if what they’re doing actually works! If your auto mechanic said he was going to change your oil every 50 miles because it’s better for your car, you’d question his motivation. It’s probably not bad for your car to change oil every 50 miles, but it’s not going to make it last any longer either. And it is going to cost you a fortune and loads of inconvenience.

There are hundreds of ways to blow up a plane, and hundreds other terrorists plots that could scare us, but we let our governments do the scaring instead. We really are letting the terrorists win. Keep this in mind while you shuffle through airport security getting your socks dirty. Snow globes are hardly our biggest threat.

471 views Permalink 2 Comments

12.11.06

Boulder liberals can be scary

Posted in 2¢, Liberty at 16:51 by RjZ

During a recent interview, the creators of South Park had this response to Reason Magazine:

Reason: When you say libertarian, what do you mean?

Stone: I had Birkenstocks in high school. I was that guy. And I was sure that those people on the other side of the political spectrum were trying to control my life. And then I went to Boulder [Colorado] and got rid of my Birkenstocks immediately, because everyone else had them and I realized that these people over here want to control my life too. I guess that defines my political philosophy. If anybody’s telling me what I should do, then you’ve got to really convince me that it’s worth doing.

I think they may have a point.

460 views Permalink 5 Comments

10.24.06

It’s a party, but not everyone’s invited

Posted in Liberty at 15:29 by RjZ

Political debates look like formal official affairs. With all the fanfare and importance attached to them it would be easy to assume that they’re a certified, legal part of our election process. We don’t even think about who arranges political candidates’ debates.

Is it the media?

Is it the government?

Nope. Acually, it’s the candidates themselves who arrange the debates. There is no public authority responsible for these things at all.

It goes something like this. One of the candidates, the democrat say, announces in one of his media events that he hopes there will be an opportunity to speak about the real issues with his republican opponent in an open forum. He sounds very serious and confident about this and challenges his opponent to a debate.

But that certainly doesn’t guarantee one. What happens next is that the two campaigns negotiate the details of their meeting. Will it be a formal debate with point and rebuttal? (Answer: not likely!) What kinds of questions will be asked? Who will moderate? Will the media be allowed time for commentary or analysis? Will the candidates have to field questions from the audience? Who, exactly, will be allowed in that audience? In short, every possible scenario will be negotiated to ensure that the candidates can’t embarass themselves, and that nothing of substance will happen. Once the campaign managers have agreed what they’ll allow their candidates say, they can present it to the media as a take-it-or-leave-it affair. Follow our rules, or you don’t get to show the debate at all. The all-powerful, left leaning but biased to the right, corporate owned, media doesn’t have nearly as much say as the candidates imply.

One more point that’s all but certain: the Libertarian (or Green or independant for that matter) candidate will not be invited. Even though each of these candidates has jumped through all the necessary hoops to have her name legally on the ballot in her state or district, we won’t hear her views debated by the two main candidates. Even though she’s convinced the requisite number of citizens to sign petitions nominating her and she’s met all the legal requirements, no one is going to call.

Inviting alternative opinions to the debate is just another chance for the candidates to actually have to answer a real question or address a diferent topic and there is simply no motivation for either candidate to do this. It’s a lose-lose situation for them.
Is there anything we can do about this? A few, mostly ineffective ideas come to mind. For example, we could start by informing ourselves about all of the candidates. It’s easier these days, thanks to their websites. Then we can vote for whom we think best meets our principles and ideas, regardless of which party they are in and their chance of winning. It’s a novel idea, I know, but perhaps it will slowly send a message to the media that there is interest outside of the front runners and then, when these other parties come asking about debates the media might just start thinking they could sell some ad time by letting these folks speak.

It’s our party. We should be able to invite whoever we want!

384 views Permalink Comments

10.17.06

The choice between bad and worse

Posted in Liberty at 17:30 by RjZ

According to the map in the sidebar of Traveling Hypothesis people come here from far and wide and, in general, places outside of Colorado. When it comes time for folks in various forms of democracies to vote, we’re frequently faced with a choice that could most easily described as bad or worse. Perhaps the following discussion will be instructive for those outside as Colorado as well.

On the 7th of November, Colorado will elect a new governor as Bill Ownes (R) steps down due to term limits. It’s not an easy choice. We could vote for Bob Beauprez (R). He claims to be fiscally conservative and plans to uphold the Tax Payer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Furthermore, he understands that while we need alternative forms of energy a “stop-everything” approach is neither tractable nor wise.

Mr. Beauprez is also a strong supporter of faith-based initiatives that take state tax dollars and invest them in churches. If you’re Catholic, you can be sure that some Evangelicals, many of whom are outspoken in their claim that Catholics belong to a cult, are getting that money. Evangelicals can be sure that some Mormons and Unitarians might even have access to it. If you’re not religious, well, you’re out of luck. No matter who you are, If you’re a Colorado citizen, your tax dollars are being invested to do wonderful things for people, but also to proselytize folks, who are often weak and vulnerable, to believe in something you don’t. That’s unconstitutional and it’s also un-American.

Mr. Beauprez will inject a serious dose of religion into politics. His running-mate believes “All religions are welcomed in schools except Christianity” and that creationist mythology should be taught as science at taxpayer’s expense. If Mr. Beauprez is elected governor, he will oppose granting rights of marriage for all Coloradans (which is alreay a statute) and he will strongly oppose a woman’s right to choose (which isn’t a law yet.)

Well then, we could vote for Bill Ritter (D). Mr. Ritter supports important priorities. He wants to invest in education, and invest in health care for all Coloradans. For the most part, he’s a very smart liberal and you’re likely to agree with just about everything he’d like to do. Unfortunately, he’d like to do a just about everything. He “will bring every government agency with a role in economic development together with business and education leaders to create a coherent economic development strategy.” He believes in “streamlining government to be more responsive” but he wants to add more offices such as a ” a Colorado Jobs Cabinet as part of the Executive Branch.” How does that streamline government?

Mr. Ritter’s website barely mentions that he’s pro-life (although he does not propose changes to women’s rights in Colorado) and that as Attorney General he has a track record of a prosecutor who questioned the rights of juries because they thwart convictions (isn’t that the point of a jury?) Mr. Ritter seems to beleive that more power for the government is always a good thing. Mr. Ritter believes in forcing immunizations on children (he claims this will save money, and he may even be right, but how is he going to pull all this off without increasing government services, costs, offices, people and bloat?)

One of the biggest mistakes U.S. Americans make when they try to select a candidate is that they assume that they have to agree with everything on the candidate’s platform. I won’t vote for this guy because he wants us all to drive potato powered vehicles. I can’t vote for that guy because he thinks SUVs are our inalienable right. There are issues that are deal-breakers for us, but in general we have a representative republic. What we should be searching for are people who, when faced with the complex, often competeting, issues, will choose, most of the time, they way we would. We don’t have the time to look at every nuance of every vote, but we actually pay our elected officials to read and understand them for us. We must attempt to select a person who we think represents us best, not simply someone who agrees with our hot-button issues.

Many of us are smart enough to see that we can’t completely agree with our candidate. After all, there are only two to choose from and it’s not likely that we would agree with one of the other. We’ve grown accustomed to picking the lesser of two evils. There’s good news. We can send a message to all the incumbants and vote our conscience at the same time!

The Boulder Weekly seems to have fallen into the trap that many of us face. They have decided to back Bill Ritter even though he’s not their type of liberal and “Ritter’s record as Denver D.A. is equally concerning for some, who remember … the 70 cases that involved questionable police force and resulted in citizens being either injured or killed by cops.” That’s OK, “he’ll be a vast improvement over Gov. Bill Owens’ conservative extremism”

Eventhough the Weekly mentions her almost completely without comment, perhaps we should have a look at Dawn Winkler. Unlike the other candidates Ms. Winkler believes that you should run your life, not the government. She is the only candidate who does not believe that the state should decide the definition of marriage (and that churches shouldn’t, because when the state claims that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman they accept a claim that other religions may not. Unitarians, for example, oppose this strict view of marriage and regularly marry homosexuals.)

Winkler is the only candidate that believes, and will fight for, a woman’s right to choose.

Read Ms. Winkler’s issues. You may not agree with all of them, but ask yourself if you would like her to represent you. Would she represent what you believe and would she contribute to a government that would be manageable and understandable by all of us.

Beauprez says he’ll shrink government but he thinks government should enter our churches and get in between a woman and her doctor. Ritter wants to streamline government but he makes promise after promise about all the things government should do to protect you and make Colorado stronger.

Meanwhile, Ms. Winkler has something none of the other candidates has. She has faith in her constituents that they will make a stronger Colorado on their own and that they know what’s best for themselves without the help of a select few in Denver.

Whatever you do, try to vote on the 7th.

Check out the candidates websites:
Bob Beauprez
Bill Ritter
Dawn Winkler
Don’t miss God’s candidate: Clyde Harkins. It’d be funnier how misguided their reading of the U.S. Constitution is if it weren’t so scary.

You can also hear each of the candidate speak on KCFR.

498 views Permalink 3 Comments