03.19.00
R A N D O M  S N I P P E T S   < <  rants  <  the_board   ||

election 2000: a whole lot of blathering about nothing.

so, isn't this interesting. a whole bunch of people who have made their entire lives revolve around laws and making the laws are now finding themselves entangled in a decision-making process so archaic and complicated and completely ineffective... that they can't manage to count the votes of the citizens they're supposed to know so much about.

i don't know who's right in this mess. a light reading into the extensive letters of election law details a process of closer tabulation, in the even that an election is, to quote the networks and the lawbooks, "too close to call".

the recount the law called for was a hand recount. i've seen many arguments in editorials and on the news that call into question the validity of hand-recounting. Simple human error -- and intentional human deception -- will skew the results, they say. but an excellent point was made by a civics professor i know: machines have a margin of error just as high as humans, but there is a difference. Machines, in this case, reading physical punch-hole ballots, will *always* fail to properly dicipher certain types of votes. and that failure will *always* swing the same way. mechanical failure, physical failure, interpretive failure is predictable in a way that human failure is not. and human failure... it's at least random enough to cancel itself out.

when 100 people sit down to count 10,000 ballots, a small handful of them will likely be immoral enough to unfairly advantage a particular candidate. it's human nature. we know it. the best way to balance this out, as any good statistician knows, is to increase the size of the sample, make it more likely that the do-badders will cancel each other out. with the numbers we're talking about already, the wayward republicans and democrats with intentional disregard for what's right are probably just keeping each other in check. random human error -- it's also that very same thing -- random. not preferring one candidate over another, completely driven by chance. exhaustion, the inability to distinguish one punch from another, even miscounts and forgotten calculations... these things too, will happen with human recounts.

but what hand recounts are *missing* -- and what they're designed to catch -- is repeatable definable error. A ballot punch that is blunted or improperly assembled will leave an impression in the punch card, but not clear the tiny chunk of paper from the hole. yes, the ever-important "chad". a lever that is misaligned can punch a hole in the wrong spot, in-between two readable areas. every ballot from that machine would follow this pattern, and none of them would be properly counted. it's a physical malfunction of the process, something that, also, over a larger geographical sample with many polling places, would also negate itself.

however, when the results are so close to necessitate a recount, the law states that the ballots be selectively recounted by hand -- that is, ballots where the deciding race was cast as a no-vote will be re-examined, and batches of ballots will be spot-checked for visible error (mispunched or incomplete punches as a result of physical error). now, this isn't the law *everywhere*, and it is often left up to the discretion of the local voting boards when, how, and how extensively to carry this out. a candidate -- the loser -- can request the recount be abandoned, and either candidate can request a recount be begun. an automatic recount is recommended when the margin of victory is less than 1%. this was easily the case in many Florida counties.

i suppose it may just be my democratic heritage talking, or my absolute and irregardless disdain for one George W. Bush... but even if I thought Dubya was God and Al Gore the anti-Christ, I'd still say that there doesn't seem to be any reason not to simply follow the law and proceed with a carefully orchestrated recount. yes, there will probably be court decisions and government mandates -- election is, if anything, an occupation ruled by the lawyerly class. it's a profession rife with former prosecutors and states attourneys, and they will want to dissect every possible statistic and poll, explore carefully every loophole, and give the decision to those they deem wisest in THEIR legal system... and come to some sort of decision. it may not be the right one -- but good gods, with every decision any of us make there is always that moment of... stepping off the edge. taking action. we never really know if we're doing the right thing -- we just do the best we can.

and i imagine the florida justices and supreme court justices and government workers and election ballot-counters are, for the most part -- good-intentioned people who are simply trying to get to a satisfying conclusion for as many people as possible. the situation is unusual, the cause blatently obvious -- but nothing about it is cause for panic or violent demonstration.

or, if i might add, useless blustering and boasting. i watched about 5 minutes of a speech bush gave a night or so ago, declaring himself the president and decrying the recount efforts in Florida as some sort of... underhanded tactic. calling the same law he signed in his own state an invitation to voter fraud. standing there, baldly, with his shrunken head and half-cocked grin... oh, i can't seem to believe he's likely our next president!

but i suppose this is the game of politics -- take a position and stick to it. gore is preaching a different tune, but preaching just the same. the need for the recount is real, but i don't believe the conspiracy and fraud extends nearly as far as some in the democratic party would seem to think. it is entirely possible that bush carried florida, and thus won the election, but i think a recount would do to make us absolutely certain of that.

the fact that the republican party -- and a significant portion of the public -- seem to feel this is some sort of newsworthy national emergency says to me that the american public is woefully ignorant of the process by which elections and judicial proceedings are carried out. it is not a drive-through dinner or a full-service oil-change... it's people sitting down and considering evidence against written experience (laws and other court proceedings) and deciding a course of action that is in the best interests of not only the petitioning parties but also the entire country. give them a little time to mull it over already, to read over the research, to check the case logs! national elections give us until the spring to make up our minds, let these people go home to their families and have some turkey. and i'm not talking about the politicos. i'm talking about the attourneys and lawyers and legal secretaries and law students interning in congress. the people that do the transcripton, the election office workers who are getting bomb threats or worse, the manual vote-counters who have been screamed at and roughed up. they deserve some human decency, some reasonable work hours, and not to have to pay for our indecision. i'm sure al gore and george bush can both manage to assemble their armies on their own, without the federal funding, over a carved-up bird or two. it'll mostly be an assembling of their closest friends and biggest fans, a few phone calls, some handshakes. whoever loses will be prime for a run in four years, with their opponent an incumbent but an incumbent under a black-clouded microscope -- a definate possibility for success. neither of them will be hurting for income or employment, no matter what the outcome. and we're not gonna die while we wait for the decision. get over wanting everything immediately already. we're so spoiled.


R A N D O M  S N I P P E T S   < <  rants  <  the_board   ||


on SUVs

okay, so a friend pointed me at a *hilarious* website the other day.

http://www.changingtheclimate.com/ is an anti-SUV activist's haven -- the URL is included on bumper stickers that environmentalists protesting the proliferation of Surburban Utility Vehicles plaster on particularly shiny oversized tot-toters. While I agree whole-heartedly with the zealot's motivation... I'm not quite so certain I support the methodology on my nicer days.

today, however, is not one of those 'nicer' days.

i took a drive around the parking lots in the business complex where i work (in my 2000 honda civic -- a fuel-efficient, emissions-friendly, often-used-for-carpooling-to-work-and-elsewhere sensible automobile). companies nearby (my own included) are a endless source of yuppie-types. some are more stereotypical than others, and the astounding number of huge, sparkling, never-been-on-a-dirt-road-EVER SUVs speaks to that. and, frankly, i find it disgusting. and dangerous.

i have friends who own SUVs. my parents own SUVs, and have for a long time. my younger brother drives an SUV -- my parents bought it for him this past summer. some of these vehicular purchases were valid. at one time, my father had a boat, and he used the Cherokee to haul it. he also coached a soccer team, and the goals and cones and balls fit in the back -- he needed the storage room. he doesn't have a boat anymore, and my brother and his soccer teammates are all graduated and moved away. he doesn't need the huge gas-monster anymore, it's just what he's always driven. that's sort-of a valid reason. (hey, he's my dad. i have my blind spots, too) and some of my friends... either live out in the country or simply like to get away into it. an aquaintence with one of those behemoth Explorers takes his vehicle out into the desert to go biking. tents, coolers, bikes, supplies... he needs the 4 wheel drive just to get where he's going. that's what those monsters were made for.

NOT for the daily commute. NOT for hauling the kids. and certainly NOT for showing Mike and Janet down the street that you can afford to pay as much on your cars as you do on your house.

soccer moms are another story entirely. they bother me for more reasons than one, mostly because they yammer on about their children as though all of their brains have been replaced with play-doh. but the soccer mom who puts desmond and molly-jo into an SUV and insists she's doing so to "protect the children" is truly brain-dead... in the sense that she's absolutely incorrect about the safety ratings on her status symbol auto. SUVs, though admittedly more likely to *survive* in the event of an automobile accident, are also nearly 5 times more likely to be involved in a wreck in the first place. and when the accident occurs at a high rate of speed, the SUV's impact ratings drop drastically, mostly due to the roll factor. because of their ungainly size and top-heavy build, SUVs flip over when not handled properly. can you, soccer mom, maneuver that huge vehicle in the event of a high-speed crash? i've seen you having trouble parking the thing at the local grocery co-op. I highly doubt your ability to drive this specialized vehicle. get out and go get a volvo. a volvo station wagon if you have lots of kids, a van if you're mormon. an SUV isn't going to protect them any more than that.

and now that i've appealed to the public's somewhat sickening 'for the children' pulse, let's delve into the bottom-line reasons. SUVs are fucking dangerous. Soccer Mom and Status Secretary and Small Penis Man don't know how to drive these things any more than I do. and their propensity to get into violent wrecks and virtually destroy smaller cars disturbs me. yeah, you're safer if you get into an accident, maybe by a percentage point's worth or more. but you're gaining that percentage point advantage off some poor schmuck who -- through his carelessness or yours -- found himself at a supreme disadvantage simply because you had the disposable cash to spend on this obsequeious battering ram of a car. and i've watched people -- people i know and thought i respected -- get into their gigantic vehicles and drive *recklessly* because, simply said, they felt invulnerable. well, why shouldn't they? they're several feet higher than anyone else around, and beneath their foot is power of pretty amazing magnitude. driving a big car is fun -- i learned to drive, in part, in my Father's Cherokee. but it's scary, too. scary to be that... big. to have that much power and that little control. it takes more skill than i have to drive a car like that, not without practice, and i realize that. i just wish all these status-conscious idiots would reconsider their own skills and choose something safer for everyone. 'cause, for gods' sake, i don't want to be the poor soul you squash with your unskilled socioautomotive fetish.

and not only are the beasts ungainly and dangerous, but they, as all cars do, pollute the air and destroy the ground beneath them. four-wheeling destroys natural habitats, crushing plant growth and damaging fragile ecosystems in the few natural areas we have left. though i appreciate the urges for exploration, there are places that are set aside for that sort of muscular play. yet insistant SUV drivers seem hell-bent on churning their way across any number of non-appropriate terrains, primarily the nation's already endangered beaches. driving on the beach packs the sand, and exacerbates erosion. many NC beaches are open to vehicles in the wintertime, to facilitate fishing and boating. but now the beach patrol is seeing an entirely new kind of four-wheeled visitor -- the thrill-seeker yuppie in his or her SUV -- and are having to close the sands to everyone. a few bad apples spoil things for everyone.

and even those owners who pamper their cars are still doing a bit more than their fair share of the ecological damage. SUVs consume vast quantites of gasoline, and with oil being a limited commodity, seem to be a groundless waste of natural resources. Emissions ratings are adjusted for larger vehicles, so not only does the SUV owner take up more of the road, and more of the gasoline supply, but in return, they also contribute more to pollution and smog and traffic problems.

not that i'm completely logical about my loathing for the things. i do hate SUVs with a certain unquenched passion. every time i find a high ding on my pretty purple paintjob or have to squeeze inbetween two double-wide drivers on the highways, i seethe. or when i go to the parking lot and find no empty spaces, but see several of those Amazon Yukon things taking up two places. it disturbs me to watch young mothers and urban professionals stepping out of a local natural eco-friendly grocer's to hop into one of the things -- don't they see the inherent contradiction there? it smacks of hypocrisy, and though i count myself guilty of that most human of conditions, i still harbor a certain vehement disgust for it.

maybe it's racism, some sort of modern-day corporate classism, but when i see a co-worker clambering up into a pristine Pathfinder, i immediately associate that individual with a sort of... groping struggle for popularity that i found so distasteful in high school. even more so when i know -- as is the case with several of the up-and-coming socialites in my particular circles -- that the expense of the vehicle is a pretty hefty burden. status symbols don't come cheap.

but those sorts of people don't make me so much angry as simply... bemused. i wonder about a world that wants to "protect the children" and "provide a better tomorrow" but at the same time seems completely besotten with material, ostentatious wealth and immediate, complete gratification. sure, we want it all and we want it now, but how much are we willing to pay for it? a lot, it seems, especially when the cost is mostly bourne by others.

so, i hate SUVs, eh? i can hate them all i want, but if all i say is why i don't like them, i'm not helping very much. if i think they're such a problem, you might ask, then what is my solution? good question.

i'm not much for the government legislating what kind of vehicle i can own and drive... i mean, it is rather difficult to argue legalizing drugs, retaining the right to bear arms, and reproductive autonomy alongside a bill that declares all vehicles larger than a dump truck completely illegal. so that's not exactly an option. but i do feel it's possible to legislate fiscal responsibility for a poor environmental choice.

that's ridiculous, you say! but is it? industry does it all the time. factories pay a pollutant tax if their emissions are too high. the government moniters the levels of harmful chemicals being put out by the company's smokestacks and water systems and if they're above certain levels, fines them accordingly. the companies know ahead of time what the limits are and what their outputs are, and though there are risks associated with knowingly violating the EPA's regulations, many take the risk and calculate the amount of fines so that they can continue to operate at what they percieve are optimal levels. cost versus profit.

we already charge people $20 for the additional 'priviledge' of having a custom license plate. if that tiny bit of vanity is worth $20, then what's the cost of a bigger share of practically every public service involving automobiles? (more parking space, more road space, more emergency services vehicles, more pollutants, increased oil needs...) i say an SUV fee should be tacked on to property tax calculations. i'm no actuary, but i'm sure the state has several who could calculate the increased fiscal responsibility of the average SUV-owner. if it's really a large number (and i imagine it will be), the SUV-retailers can add an additional SUV fee at purchase time. SUV-drivers who complete a safety driving course (hey, the DMV could have *cool* jobs for the first time ever! it'd be like flyboys for trailer trash!) can perhaps have a discount off their SUV purchase fee; those who take the course AND can provide a rational business need for the large muscle-truck can be spared the fees or perhaps enjoy them as a deductible on income tax. i'm sure some lawyer can come up with acceptable terms for this, rules and such.

there will, of course, be some angry rich white men. people who need the SUVs to haul their boats (which are, incidentally, already slapped with a luxury tax all their own, depending on the size of the boat and where it is moored. the tax goes to pay for coast guard units and other water and coastline conservation projects. to offset the damage done by the boats. so this sort of fee is not without precedent.) or want to SUV to show off to the neighbors are going to be very unhappy. especially when i suggest that it be a graded fee, not flat. you pay more for the second SUV you own. and more than that for the third.

and i don't think that legislature alone will solve the problem. we need to encourage moderate consumption. we're steeping ourselves in a commercialized consumer world, one where what we own defines who we are. i admit, i'm guilty of it. i like the playstation. i love my computer. and, i have to say, those PDAs are quite handy. (it's now my real brain. i'm never without extra AAA batteries.) i don't *need* a great apartment with tons of space and crown moulding. i don't need the technology toys. but those advancements don't come at the expense of anyone but me. i'm paying my fair share for those 9-foot ceilings, synchronizable datebooks, and the 24-hour clubhouse and pool. few other people are at a sizeable disadvantage because of my position, but for the few that perhaps are, i pay out appropriate property, earnings, and social security taxes. all based on the amount that i, through years of costly education and frugal edification, have paid out to gain them. i simply think that, insofar as SUVs are concerned... if you wish to own one, you should at least pay your fair share of the expense.

and, quite honestly, the feeling is extensible. it also applies to several other luxuries we seem to emotionally classify as 'necessities'... most notably offspring. but that's an entirely different rant.

R A N D O M  S N I P P E T S   < <  rants  <  the_board   ||