2014 MA Ballot Questions: Question 2 - Should We Recycle Water Bottles

Ok, I admit that those against the bill aren't anti-recycling, they just happen to not have the facts on their sides in terms of what gets people to recycle.

Let's start over.  Question 2 on the Mass 2014 ballot is to expand the bottle deposit system currently effect.  A yes vote would expand what the deposit applies to so that water bottles and some other bottled drinks would be included.

Summary of the sides:

• Proponents may be thought of being a bit cynical, suggesting people need a reward system in order to recycle.  
• Opponents are concerned about how much it will cost businesses to upgrade their bottle return machines to include the new bottles.

O.k., so, let's start with the opponents.  Yes, it will cost more to upgrade some machines.  You know what?  It costs something to improve situations.  It costs money to improve power plants with pollution-reduction technology... we should do that anyway, right?  So yes, it will cost money for businesses to improve their recycling machines.  The deposit itself doesn't cost companies anything though, so it's just a one-time cost plus some more maintenance due to the increase in recycling that they'd cover... because THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN RECYCLING.

Opponents suggest that instead of businesses spending more, the state and local governments should spend more on curbside recycling... and that today there's significantly more curb-side recycling so people don't need to go out of their way to do their recycling, as they did when the original bottle bill was passed.  Here's the thing, though, the facts point out just how wrong this argument is.  If people recycled based on ease, we wouldn't see a difference of 60 percentage points between how many deposit-bottles are recycled vs how many non-deposit-bottles are (80% of deposit vs 23% non-deposit)... this is now, after we've made recycling significantly easier.  The fact of the matter is that providing an incentive to recycle the bottles makes a huge difference.  Sorry, human beings are not as virtuous as we would hope.

Opponents also point out that the fund that was set up to help the environment, which is funded by the deposits on bottles that don't end up being returned, has been used by legislators for other purposes.  O.k., I can see how this would be a problem, but that doesn't change the simple fact that the bottle bill works for it's main purpose: getting people to recycle plastic bottles.  And today, bottled water is HUGE and the fact that 77% of water bottles are thrown in the trash is quite simply inexcusable.  Let's do something about it.

Please vote yes on Question 2.

"I'm not picking a side" nonsense

I'm so tired of people saying "I'm not a liberal or a conservative, I refuse to be labeled"... yes, o.k., so you're also not any of the following labels, right? heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual, religious/atheist, political, moral/immoral, male/female, human, alive, conscious.  Just because you make your own decisions about what is right/wrong and what the best options are in society/international politics/national economics/etc doesn't mean that you are not somewhere on the liberal/conservative scale.

Just because I self-identify as human, atheist, heterosexual, economic-liberal, social-liberal, and good-government (ask if you don't know), doesn't mean that I will always agree with those who self-identify the same way.  Yes, I am a registered Democrat, but that's only because Democrats tend to agree with me and Republicans tend to disagree with me.  I'm not therefore forced to vote Democrat, I'm just forced, in the primary, to indicate which Democrat I'd rather see in the general election instead of being able to say which Republican I would rather see.... and in my state, that means I more often will have a decision to make than otherwise.  If I were in another state, maybe I'd change my affiliation, but it wouldn't change the criteria by which I would vote in the general election.

Labeling isn't a bad thing.  In the case of politics, it cleanly and concisely gives us a starting place.  If you meet someone and they want to know about your political ideals, you don't have to go through every issue, you can just explain in a few, or even one, terms and deal in generalities at the start.

By the way, what kind of music do you like?  What?  You like a type of music?  Nonsense, I thought you refused to be labeled and I was sure that you would go through the entire list of artists you like.

Snow Rant - 5-Feb-2014

It snowed today.... a lot.  Holy crap that's a ton of heavy snow.

O.k., let's start off by dishing out the praise where it belongs.  Trash collectors and USPS workers work through the inclement weather and have to tramp through the foot high snow to keep aspects of our lives operating as if nothing were going on.  There's also something to be said to those civic minded folk that shovel out before required to.  I went out to shovel and found myself in good company.  I saw 3 people in nearby shoveling their walkways and several others had already shoveled out.

Praise provided where due, now it's rant time.

Let's start with those who shovel into the street.  I get it if you don't have a front yard, but there are many who don't have an excuse.  Shoveling into the street isn't just illegal, it's stupid and unneighborly. Why is it stupid and unneighborly?  You may not think about it, but where does the snow go once you've shoveled it into the street.... that's right, it gets pushed by plows into peoples' driveways and curb cuts.

Very similar to shoveling into the street is not shoveling out your curb cut.  Yes, it's great that you shoveled your side walk, but how are people supposed to get to it if you didn't shovel out the curb cut? I know the plow will probably come and load some more snow in the way, but at least reduce the amount of snow people have to crawl through to get to your pristine sidewalk.  I like to shovel out to the street on either end of my side walk.  That way if my neighbor hasn't shoveled out yet, or the next person down the way doesn't, there's an outlet to the street anyway.

O.k., two pet peeves down, what's next?  I know, how about neighbors who shovel out their driveway INTO YOUR SIDEWALK.  You know what?  If you shovel your snow onto someone else's area to shovel, you.... are.... a.... jerk.  Period.  No, really, I don't care if you don't think you have somewhere else to put it, I don't care if you're using a snow blower and it's just easier, that's it, you're a jerk and there's absolutely nothing that you can say to suggest otherwise.  Yes, I have a neighbor who does this EVERYTIME it snows.... and often they do it without shoveling their sidewalk, which is just inspired.

Now, before I wrap this up with a final anger based on my experience today, let me say that Somerville does an amazing job of plowing.  I hear about various cities and towns where the streets are not plowed to the pavement.  I drive through some of it.  While the last storm heaped more praise on Somerville's plowing than I thought it deserved (side streets had over an inch of snow on them and people were proclaiming "down to the pavement"), they typically do a pretty damn good job.  That being said, I typically have to shovel a couple feet to make my corner curb cut accessible to those crossing the street.  Today was even worse.  Today I shoveled out my car, I shoveled out my side walk, I shoveled about 2 feet into the street to get from the curb cut to the open pavement.... and then I had to shovel 6 feet from the edge of the sidewalk in front of my driveway, into the street, to reach where the street had been plowed.  In the time it took for me to shovel those 6 feet of street, plows came by 6 times to plow the other side of the street and 1 time coming the opposite direction (the one time coming back the opposite direction, it didn't push the snow toward the sidewalk).  Again, Somerville does a great job, I just wish they could plow ever so slightly closer to the curb on my side of the street... throwing the snow some 8-10 feet is hard on my back.

O.k., that's it, that's my rant for the day, hope you have been entertained :-)

A New Hope for Republicans

Recent events give me hope for the Republican Party.  I'm not talking about hope that Democrats will win all upcoming elections or that Republicans will see things my way.  I'm talking about an opposition force to the Democrats that is at least reasonable and doesn't attempt things such as holding the government hostage.

Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats recently passed a budget.  Yes a budget, not a continuing resolution, an actual budget.  The next step is to pass the omnibus bill, a large bill combining many spending bills into one.  The omnibus bill is how we actually spend the money.  I'll be watching anxiously to see if the moderate Republicans can maintain their self-governance and actually pass the omnibus.  This could be the turn in the tide that has been leading us toward an inability of Congress to get anything done.

I know I'm further left, politically, than just about anybody in Congress, and certainly further Left than any Republican there, but this gives me hope.  It's more important to me to take small steps in the right direction and keeping the government functioning than it is that the Democrats win big in small spurts.  Democrats need Republicans to help keep them in line and pushing forward.  What Democrats don't need is an opposition party set in stone to oppose anything Democrats put forth simply because it was put forth by Democrats.  That this latter path seems to be what the Republicans are moving away from now.  Not all Republicans are moving away from it, however, but the ones that are give me hope for the future.  Here's to you, mainstream Republicans, may you persevere and not be beaten by another wave of Tea Party candidates.

"Compromise" and the Tea Party

"Compromise!"  This is the current face the Tea Party Republicans are presenting to the public.  That being said, their tactics were extremely public just days ago.  They said, in a very public way, that they were going to hold the Federal Government hostage in order to try to do what they've been trying to do for the last 3 years: remove the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from law. 

So, what do they mean when they say that the President, and Democrats in general, aren't willing to compromise?  They mean that Democrats aren't willing to completely fold and give into the demands of the Far Right.  Yep, that's compromise.  Do it my way or you're not willing to talk about compromise.  It falls very much in line with the origin of the Tea Party where, in reaction to Obama being elected, they gathered and called forth the standard the Massachusetts residents generated originally (yes, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire) "No taxation without representation."  The Tea Party members who were asked what they meant by this stated that, since they didn't vote for Obama or some of those in Congress, they were not being represented.  The problem, of course, being that we live in a representative democracy and we elect our representatives in Congress and President by popular vote, after a fashion.  Even if you don't vote for the person elected, you had a vote, and you have someone representing your residential area, and you can lobby that person and vote for someone else in the next election and work to get that person not elected next time.  I know I joked with some friends during W. Bush's Presidency that he wasn't elected because of the issues in Florida, but that couldn't be claimed with Obama and I wouldn't have made the same joke about Reagan or Bush senior.  So, essentially, we've come to a point where we have a large group of people speaking a different language than the rest of us, and it's not Spanish, it's not French, it's English, but contorted with different definitions than those the rest of us use. 

O.k., so the Republican House finally submitted a bill that "compromised" by only delaying certain aspects of the law.  Too little too late in my opinion.  I applaud the Democrats for not taking them up on this option.  Enough is enough.  While it's horrible for many many people to be sent home without pay and with no knowledge of when they will be paid again, simply because Republicans in the House can't accept a law that they have been attempting to overturn time after time for the last 2 years, this is how you stand up and say "no! no more!" to a bunch of rebellious misfits who time and again act as the tale wagging the Republican Party, er, dog.  And maybe, just maybe this fight will prevent us from having the battle that is likely to come shortly over the debt ceiling.

Republicans and Democrats switched places, deal with it

The past week saw the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, one of the great events of the civil rights push of the 1960s.  I saw a Facebook meme about how the Republicans were the ones that were fighting for African American rights and Democrats were the ones arguing against them.  The meme suggested that Democrats are wrong when they attack Republicans on racism grounds.

This is an interesting argument.  What it doesn't take into account is that the Democrats and Republicans essentially switched sides on this issue in the early 1900's.  They also switched strongholds.  Democrats used to be stronger in the South and Republicans in the North.  Then in the early to mid 1900's, that flipped too.

These days, Republican establishment and the Tea Party trend toward being racist and Democrats tend to be liberal.  For evidence, all you have to do is look at the recent elections, the comments made by various Republican candidates, and the attendance of the 50th anniversary celebration in D.C.  No Republican leader (and there were more than a few, including every member of Congress) came to the 50th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington.  Yep, none, zip, zilch, zero, nada.  "Well, there probably weren't that many speakers, right?"  Hm, how does approximately 35 speakers, including 3 Presidents (all Democrats) sound?

Well, surely that's just because of scheduling conflicts.  I wonder if we can find any other examples of the leaders of the Republican party being racist.  Surprisingly, I can.  Here's a couple interesting articles on this exact topic that I definitely suggest you read:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/56437/it-s-bizarre-and-ridiculous-how-racist-republicans-are
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/correcting-rand-paul-on-t_b_3064617.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/legendary-gop-strategist-_b_2132029.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/tea-partiers-battle-racis_b_564211.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/21/1225346/-Yes-The-Republican-Party-Is-Racist#

Seriously, though, look at Congress and tell me there's proper Republican representation by minorities.  Look at what was said in response to Obama getting nominated and then elected.  Look at the fact that Congress reviewed studies and confirmed that various Republican controlled states still need to be overseen when it comes to voting laws and redistricting (yes, the Supreme Court said the states don't need to be watched, but they said that the reason was because Congress hadn't changed the laws enough.... so, something hasn't been resolved and you stop trying to resolve it?)

I'm not saying Republicans are racist, I'm just saying their leaders are, both those in government as well as those in the media.  O.k., I'm also saying that a vast majority of the more socially conservative Republicans are too ;-)

Public Meetings - How To Keep The Discussion Progressing

Someone recently asked my mother how we can work better with others to make sure we don't come to a point in public discussions where the sides are so polarized and unwilling to work with eachother that the atmosphere is toxic and unmanageable.  To explore this question, I thought I'd write my thoughts on it.

The most important thing you can do is to keep an open mind and think before you speak.  This is simple when you say it, but there are a lot of things to consider both in keeping an open mind and thinking before you speak.

Think Before You Speak: Consider your audience.  Their desires are likely at odds with yours if you're considering these steps.  As such, you must consider a few things before you speak your mind.

• Is there a rationale you haven't found yet?  Don't just assume that whatever they're saying is to be taken at face value or interpreted the way you have taken it.
• What's their current emotional state?  Yes, arguing and getting angry comes easy and naturally when having heated discussions, but keep in mind that the more angry and heated you become, the more angry and heated they'll become for a number of reasons, and the less forward progress you'll make in the discussion.   You should also keep in mind that there are a couple different reasons that things you say may cause a rampant increase in anger and a rapid closure of dialogue:
• "They're not listening to me." - When people feel that you're talking past their concerns without addressing them, they start to wonder what the point in talking is.
• "They're treating me as an inferior." - Nobody likes to think that others think poorly of them.  When they do feel that way, it can lead them to not speak up about their position or explain themselves in a manner that's helpful.
• "They don't care about my concerns." - Similar to not being listened to, when someone just dismisses out of hand what another person cares about, it creates a confrontational barrier that will likely be harder to bring down than it was to build.
• What's YOUR emotional state?  Are you getting upset?  Are you getting fed up?  Chances are that others are too.  Chances are also good that you're not communicating as well as you could be and starting to unintentionally act hostile.

Open Mind: We've covered preventing others from locking down, now we'll cover why you shouldn't lock down either.

•  You're not the expert on everything.  Even if you're the expert on one subject matter, every discussion has many facets and as such there are others that will be experts.  Additionally, even experts sometimes disagree.
• You haven't heard everything.  So help me, I swear to you that you have not heard everything, so listen and you may learn of a different perspective or a different study that you haven't read or a different issue effecting the discussion.
• What's their emotional state? (revisited)  When you have an open mind, you're asking questions, you're listening to the concerns of others, you're delving deeper into those concerns.  All of these activities help those others that may oppose you (and even those who agree with you) feel like they're being more productive and listened to.  It's so much easier to keep everybody talking in a helpful way and progressing the conversation when everybody feels like they're being heard and understood.
• What's your emotional state? (revisited)  Asking questions and consciously trying to keep an open mind can help you be more agreeable as well.  Don't forget that your anger will put up the walls just as quickly as theirs does.

In short, keep the walls down both on your end and theirs by actively paying attention to others and trying to understand their point of view.  The more you learn about their concerns, the better you can address them and move the conversation forward.  If you let the walls come up on their end before you address their concerns, they may never accept that their concerns have been addressed and may not allow the conversation to progress.

Let me know if you have other thoughts on this matter, I'd certainly welcome input.