I’ve made my voting decisions based on this Southern tradition before. But not this time. Electing Herman Cain as President would be a disaster. Here’s why.

• Herman Cain believes that government should be run as a business¹. Given that Cain is a successful businessman, it makes sense to me that he might think business principles can “save” the government by simply spending within its means. There’s a big problem with this: business and government exist for two entirely disparate reasons. Businesses exist to make profits, and if something cuts into profits they can simply eliminate it. Governments exist to provide services, and not all services can be cut (for example, it’d likely be un-Constitutional to dissolve the armed forces).
• Herman Cain supports a market-based health care delivery system². Despite the fact that malpractice issues only constitute about 2% of actual health care costs³ and the fact that Health Savings Accounts have been shown to do little more than reduce consumption of health care (even at the cost of employee health)⁴, Cain believes that a combination of tort reform and HSAs are sufficient to solve the health care delivery system problems in this country. Forty years of the development of a market-based delivery system say otherwise.
• Herman Cain supports the so-called “FairTax⁵.” The FairTax scheme, which involves ending all income taxes in favor of a 30% national sales tax⁶, is essentially trickle-down economics: it works by reducing the tax burden on the wealthy⁷ under the theory that they’d then spend the money on charitable contributions and job creation. Anyone who lived through “Reaganomics” should know better, although I’m not surprised to see a former corporate officer suggesting such an idea.
• Herman Cain is naïve about legislation and earmarks. I nearly burst out laughing when I saw the first headlines proclaiming that Cain would veto any bill longer than three pages; it was so unrealistic as to be incredible⁸. Under some circumstances, the definitions page alone can be longer than three pages. In addition, the SCOTUS decisions that give corporations the same right as individual citizens⁹, by definition, create special interests. Ignoring corporate constituents is as perilous as ignoring citizen constituents. Until we have true campaign finance reform, we will have special interests.
• Herman Cain believes we can sustain current energy consumption levels¹⁰. Not only has energy use consistently been on the rise since the 1970s, but energy costs cost is also rising¹¹. This is not sustainable, and “letting the market decide” obfuscates the real issue behind energy consumption: the rising costs (which are driven by scarcity) combined with the decrease in real income mean more and more people are simply getting priced out of the energy market. Anyone who’s tried to fill up their car recently can confirm that.
• Herman Cain supports prejudice. Over this weekend, he lost his cool at a reporter who asked him to explain some relatively controversial comments made about Muslims this past March. In his rebuttal, he explicitly said that he wouldn’t rule out “extra precautions” before including Muslims in government¹². There are already Constitutional protections to ensure that cabinet members and legislators are required to put Constitutionality before their religious beliefs¹³. Requiring Muslims to undergo extra scrutiny or deal with “special precautions” is treatment of them differently as a class. That is the definition of prejudice.

I’ve frequently seen Herman Cain compared to Ronald Reagan, particularly by Reagan admirers. It’s true that, under Reagan, the United States economy grew larger. But it came at a great cost: a ballooning deficit and a “bubble” that, when it burst, threw us into a series of recessions from which this country has yet to recover.

We can’t afford that again. That’s why it would be such a disaster to elect someone who would essentially go back to the use of methods that have been already tried and shown to be of questionable value. I see nothing new in Cain’s positions, and plenty to be worried about. That’s why I can’t vote for him.

Notes:

1. Interview with Sean Hannity, May 5, 2011
2. The Issues (Herman Cain for President web site)
3. Limiting Tort Liability (Congressional Budget Office)
4. Findings From the EBRI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Care Survey (Commonwealth Fund, citing a study jointly conducted with the Employee Benefits Research Institute)
5. The Issues (Herman Cain for President web site)
6. Unspinning the FairTax (FactCheck.org)
7. Ibid.
8. Indeed, as this link shows, he recognized that right away.
9. Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending (New York Times); also see Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
10. The Issues (Herman Cain for President web site)
11. Short-Term Energy Outlook (US Energy Information Administration)
12. Herman Cain Defends Controversial ‘Muslim’ Comments (Fox News)
13. See Article VI, Paragraph III, which also explicitly outlaws religious tests.

Do you consider yourself patriotic? If so, how do you express it?

I do consider myself patriotic, but I also get very irritated when it comes to expectations of “traditional” expressions. I don’t have to wave a flag or recite meaningless (and false) words or blindly defend my country.

My country is stronger than that. It includes being strong enough to withstand the fact that this particular citizen does have a higher allegiance: to God. I don’t make the mistake of combining the two; the United States is not, has never been, and never will be a Christian state.

But I see nothing wrong with working to help my country reach an ideal that is informed by those values. That means I express my patriotism by rolling up my sleeves and trying to help the poor and under-served; by calling out errors in the country’s practices or morals and promoting alternatives; and by standing in solidarity with others who choose to express their patriotism by working toward improving our society versus giving what almost amounts to worship. It doesn’t matter to me if their underlying reasons aren’t informed by faith; what matters is that they want to improve our society.

If I had no patriotism, I wouldn’t care about the current state of the United States. But I am patriotic, and I do care. Very much so. We’re a world leader and we should lead by our example. This country doesn’t deserve anything less than the most admired, and I mean to do everything I can toward reaching that goal.

That, in my mind, is just as patriotic as waving a flag or observing a minute of silence on Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day. It’s also far more lasting.

How do you feel about corporal punishment?

I don’t think it’s appropriate for any but the youngest of children.

With respect to parenting, if it’s necessary for a child over about five or six, I’d be asking the parents why their child hasn’t yet learned that actions have consequences. At that point, I feel it’s best to tie the punishment to the crime.

In the adult world, stealing candy doesn’t lead to getting hit…but it sure does lead to paying the store owner back (with fines).

I’ll agree that children under that age tend to not always understand this kind of punishment, and in those cases I agree with spanking, but only as a last resort and only when administered in certain specific ways. In other words, getting a spanking must be a Very Big Deal.

If a child is spanked for every little thing, the punishment itself loses its effectiveness. If the spanking leaves any sort of a mark or bruise, no matter how temporary — even if it’s just a few minutes — then in my opinion it was not done appropriately. They should sting, not hurt.

They say that cats have about the emotional and intellectual development of a two-year-old human. In six-plus years I think I have used corporal punishment on Emily eight or ten times. This isn’t failure to correct; people compliment me on how well-behaved and friendly she is.

I just use some basic psychology instead: if her claws scratch my skin, no matter how mildly, I put her down and ignore her for at least half an hour. If I catch her sharpening her claws on her scratch post, she always gets verbal praise and might get a treat. She has enough cognitive ability to figure out those associations.

I do firmly assert that only the parents have the right to determine who does and does not administer corporal punishment. School corporal punishment was still normal when I was in the elementary grades¹, but those of us who had to deal with parental phone calls instead (parents could forbid paddling, and mine did) tended to behave better.

I categorically oppose corporal punishment for adults. I cannot think of a single situation where it seems that corporal punishment would serve any use except, perhaps, to offer a more convenient alternative to something such as imprisonment or fines.

I’m not entirely sure I want to mix the word “convenient” with the phrase “criminal sentence.” Criminal sentences are supposed to be inconvenient. Those who can’t be trusted in society (or with themselves) need to be restrained, but that can be done without deliberate infliction of pain².

In all honesty, I tend to avoid any sort of interaction that involves unwanted or painful physical contact. That’s the exact definition of corporal punishment. I’ve seen it go over the line more than once and feel like the more prudent action is to make sure you don’t get too close.

There’s no need to hit someone to get your point across, especially since the most common result is fear, not understanding.

1. It is still legal in North Carolina but its use has mostly, if not completely, ended.
2. It does hurt to struggle against a physical lock, handcuffs or a straitjacket, but that’s not deliberate.

What’s a water footprint? Simply put, it’s the amount of fresh water an individual (or business, or community) consumes through their daily activities. The definition includes indirect use, which means that it covers far more than just the water used for drinking, bathing and cleaning.

The amount of water required for many things is often staggering. When I was first exposed to this idea back in 2003, I had a hard time believing some of the numbers. 1900 gallons to produce a pound of beef? 360 gallons to produce a pound of rice? A pound of beef and a pound of rice, which are amounts I commonly purchase, result in three or four meals for me. In other words, for a single meal that I make for myself, I consume somewhere between 565 and 753 gallons of water.

On reflection, though, I began to understand the figures. How much water does it take to raise a cow to the point where beef can be harvested? Even divided into the cow’s number of pounds, it’s pretty high. Rice grows in water. How much water does it take to irrigate enough rice for a pound after it’s dried? I’m no expert but discussions of irrigation frequently involve thousands of gallons.

At eight ounces a glass, I take about 5,200 drinks of water every time I cook a meal.

There’s plenty of water in the world, so I wouldn’t worry about this, and for the most part I don’t. But when I consider that nearly a billion people don’t have access to sufficient fresh water — something that the United Nations has defined as a human right — it makes me stop and think. The average person needs about a gallon of water a day. If I reduced the water I use to cook by one percent, I’d free up enough water for one person for almost week…for every meal I cook.

I think I can manage to reduce my use of water by one percent per meal.

I’m not naïve enough to think that doing so would mean that the water actually might go to someone else. But it could make a difference during political arguments about human rights.

If there’s enough to go around, then there’s no excuse for anyone to go wanting. The lack of water becomes a simple lack of equitable distribution. That’s an entirely different concept than, “there’s not enough to go around,” and it turns the issue into a true human rights issue.

Given that I agree with the United Nations — I can imagine what lack of fresh water would do to me, and it’s not a pleasant idea — I don’t mind contributing to a reduction in scarcity. Especially if it just means a nearly un-noticeable decrease in the amount of water I use to cook.

Blog Action Day is an annual event that unites the world’s bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day. Our aim is to raise awareness and trigger a global discussion around an important issue that impacts us all.

As demonstrated, it’s also less “messy” in terms of environmental impact. A couple of related ideas are shown but the major efficiencies shown here are related to the trip.

This is the the value of the sustainability movement. I only see one major lifestyle change here: giving up the idea of using a car to get everywhere.

Of course, realizing this idea will mean a big change for a country where car addiction isn’t just tolerated, but celebrated. But it’s the kind of thing I look forward to anyway. Most of the technology for this already exists, and development of the infrastructure is technologically possible. (It’s also partially done.)

Who wouldn’t want less stress and less mess?

Do you believe in global warming? Do you think the sustainability concept is undervalued, valid, or taken too far?

I don’t “believe” in global warming; I accept the scientific evidence that it is fact. The cause of it, however, is somewhat in question. My personal opinion is that human behavior has accelerated a climatological trend that already existed.

As such, I think it does behoove us as a society to be mindful of those actions that affect the environment. There’s no need to accelerate the trend any further. At the same time, I applaud the idea of finding technological solutions to the problem. We have minds for a reason.

So I do think that action is necessary. I’m not sure whether we even should attempt to reverse it given that at least part of global warming is a normal environmental cycle. There’s no reason, however, to simply allow it to devastate human society.

That’s where I see the sustainability movement coming in.

It will improve humanity’s overall health to eliminate air pollution, and one very significant way to do that is to explore alternative fuel sources for cars. It will improve humanity’s health to eliminate preservatives and similar chemicals from our body, and a significant way to do that is to eat more locally and lower on the food chain. It will improve humanity’s health to have better built indoor spaces, and a significant way to do that is to build “green.”

But it can be taken too far.

There’s no reason to eliminate cars or forbid the eating of meat altogether. There’s no reason to live “off the grid” and use no prepared materials of any kind to build your house (though I don’t object to either concept). There’s nothing wrong with wearing clothing made from synthetic materials; and truthfully, “organic” has become something of a business concept anyway.

In general, I do think that our society would benefit from moving toward a more sustainable lifestyle. But I don’t think we need to go to extremes. Global warming isn’t entirely humanity’s fault so there should be no blame; but at the same time, we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand.

Regardless of cause, we’ll have to deal with the effects sooner or later, and it benefits everyone to be prepared.

If the Bible is the word of the actual Creator, I would expect to give Her an A+ for historical methodology and moral philosophy in the same way that I would give Her an A+ in Physics, Chemistry, mathematics, astronomy and other sciences.

The explicit purpose of Scripture is to sway the mind and heart of the reader. In other words, it is persuasive writing. The writers’ intent was to prove a case, not chronicle a series of events. As such, historical and scientific accuracy were secondary considerations, when they were even considered at all.

Bear in mind that since we are speaking of the alleged ‘infallible word of God’ it shall be insufficient to justify ‘some’ of the Biblical contradictions; in order to justify the infallibility of the Bible, ‘all’ of the contradictions must be justified.

This doesn’t match the dictionary definition of infallible: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint. My source here is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, not the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Does that mean Scripture isn’t the Word of God? No. What it means is that the writers were humans who worked under the influence of God. There is absolutely no evidence that He dictated Scripture word-for-word. We are humans with free will, not oblivious puppets.

With that, I’ll go into not a point-by-point refutation, but more of a general answer.

Were to go back in time to meet the authors of the Bible, we would probably consider them to be primitive and overly superstitious blood sacrifice cultists; whereas to them we would seem as if gods; our science would give them the impression that we had great magical powers; our weapon technology would make us invincible.

The same is true if those living two thousand years in the future came back to meet us. We’d be awed and dumbstruck at their science and technology, and they’d consider us little more than illiterate primitives. Depending on social evolution, their reaction would be amusement, amazement or possibly even negative judgment.

When George ‘God told me to invade Iraq’ Bush’s god is clearly the god of state terrorism, narco-terrorism; a god that lusts for oil, opium, money and human slavery; a god that drops depleted uranium ion women and children for the purposes of Capitalist imperialism. Clearly Bush’s Capitalist is most people’s definition of the Devil.

Where in Scripture can you find any evidence that George Bush has a proper understanding of God? There are many Christians who consider him to have totally perverted the concept. I wouldn’t go so far as to call him the devil. But I certainly don’t think his behavior (or that of most politicians) is necessarily an expression of God’s will.

I don’t think I have the perfect interpretation either. I wouldn’t presume to know the mind of God; it’s too big and complex for a mere human mind to understand it (if we did, God would be a human being). That’s why words like “mystery” come into play in faith-related matters.

The article then launches into a long list of historical inaccuracies. I’ve noted above that any intelligent interpretation of Scripture recognizes its historical basis as questionable. In most cases, the Scriptures themselves were written years after the actual events. Before that, history was passed down orally. Any student of history, no matter how superficial, understands that the exact accuracy of oral histories is questionable. But that doesn’t make them untrue.

I’ll use an example from my own family. Its oral history states that the date on my grandmother’s grandmother’s birth certificate is incorrect. Can we prove it? No. But do I believe it? Yes. I’ve chosen to believe that the people who were in the room know more than the register of deeds.

The larger question, though, is what does it matter if my great-grandmother’s mother’s birth date is or isn’t wrong? Is that really as important as who she was?

On moral philosophy with regards to the justifications for rape, genocide, infanticide, human and animal sacrifice cultism, cannibalism etc., [...] I would consider Her to be criminally insane and the definition of ‘evil.’ I would also consider it to be the case that anyone who believed that this was the ‘word of God’ was also criminally insane, and a morally (i.e., the discernment of good and evil) worthless individual.

Modern-day sociologists insist that we can’t judge one culture’s morals by those of another culture. What is this statement except exactly that? There are cultures today that practice all of those obscene practices. Based on this statement above, we as a “morally enlightened” people should step in right now and put a stop to it. There’s a name for that kind of behavior: imperialism.

It’s also interesting to note that it’s Christians who more actively promote moral absolutism. Moral relativism is primarily a secular belief.

The evidence given for objectionable practices such as blood sacrifice is exclusively based on the Jewish Scriptures (what some call the Old Testament). Christian belief is that Jesus’ sacrifice eliminated the need for all of those other sacrifices. It follows that they should no longer be practiced; or, in other words, there is now a complete proscription against blood sacrifices.

Before you argue against “changes” in Scriptural instruction, let me point out the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments to the United States Constitution.

We all must bear in mind, the nazarene [sic] was the ultimate human sacrifice; also “eat his body and drink his blood” is repeatedly recited during nearly every Christian mass/service around the world.

While this statement was intended to be sarcastic, from a Christian standpoint it’s entirely true — and I said so earlier.

Jesus’ own sacrifice was horribly bloody, but explaining the bloodless sacrifice that is the Eucharist would take an entire blog post on its own. That being said, there’s a logical way to explain the Real Presence using Aristotelian philosophy. Was Aristotle a Christian?

In my mind, the more important question is, am I? If I profess Christian belief, shouldn’t I be aware of its own teachings? As a human being with free will, shouldn’t I have thought those through instead of blindly accepting them? And shouldn’t I actually practice them?

That’s why I read Scripture despite its known historical and scientific inaccuracies. When viewed as what it is — the account of God’s gradual revelation to mankind — the intent and instructions for practice are perfectly clear. We have to understand where we come from in order to understand where we’re going.

It’s an interesting juxtaposition because, while neither side seems to be explicitly bringing this up, there are free speech issues involved.

Should a group of Muslims have the right to build a center to promote their beliefs? Or should the owners respect the emotional impact of Ground Zero? Should gay couples have the right to demand use of the word “marriage?” Or should they respect the deeply held beliefs of many secular and religious groups, and limit their formal relationships to exercises in contract law?

There are very few limits on free speech in the United States, but they do exist¹ and, in general, are situations where restrictions have been found necessary for the public good. The question, then, is what constitutes the public good.

Is it protection of the public good to prevent a minority of citizens from expressing their religious beliefs? Is it protection of the public good to protect a minority of citizens who hold a belief that homosexual relations are acceptable?² The entire idea behind freedom of speech is protection of a minority, but where does minority protection cross the line into a danger against the public?

I don’t believe that two persons of the same sex can marry before God³, and my opinion is that the mosque near Ground Zero is, at minimum, tasteless⁴. But when I consider both of these issues in the light of freedom of speech, I’m reminded that the minority opinion doesn’t threaten the public good in either case. That line hasn’t been crossed.

Since I support freedom of speech, it would be hypocritical for me to oppose either action. It doesn’t matter whether or not I agree; what matters is protection of the civil liberties that Americans value.

1. There’s a dense but readable PDF document that nicely outlines First Amendment restrictions at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.
2. Proposition 8 wouldn’t have passed if gay marriage supporters were a majority.
3. Call me homophobic if you must, but I don’t have a problem with secular civil unions. It’s the word “marriage” that makes me drag my feet.
4. I have no problems with Islam or the mosque, either; but I also wouldn’t think it smart for the NAACP to build a center next to an Aryan Nation stronghold.

What is your opinion of the death penalty? How important is this issue in deciding which political candidates you support?

I am absolutely, completely and totally opposed to the death penalty; and yes, I consider it very important when selecting among political candidates.

I haven’t always been opposed. In fact, I used to support it. That was until I started working with the North Carolina Division of Prisons and met former death-row inmates (their sentences had been vacated to life due to Furman v. Georgia.) Make no mistake: these men had done horrible things. They had proved they could not function in society, and absolutely should be in prison for the rest of their lives. But I generally found them quite ordinary and, at times, decent. They weren’t the bug-eyed, hate-filled psychopaths the media likes to portray.

They also provided a useful economic service. At the time I worked for Prisons, the most an inmate could earn was $1 per day. That’s a whole lot cheaper than the cost of a cleaning crew at minimum wage. In addition, there was a prison farm; the cost of inmates’ food was not fully borne by the taxpayers. It seemed to me to be a good situation: the state benefited economically (offsetting taxpayer costs), and the inmates were given meaningful and relevant work.

As my adult conscience has continued to form, I’ve discovered that there’s really no reason to support what is, in actuality, legalized homicide. Modern technology can indeed prevent most prison escapes. When it does happen, prisoners can be, and often are, recaptured. In other words, life in prison can, when properly sentenced, mean prison for life.

This accounts for other issues such as the cost of appeals for death-row inmates (a process I believe should be continued) and the costs of the executions themselves. There’s also the issue of human error; prisoners have been exonerated more than once.

In the United States as it is today, the death penalty is not necessary to protect society. Thus, its drawbacks far outweigh its benefits.

The reason I consider it so politically important is because of the phrase I mentioned above: “legalized homicide.” Applying the death penalty means that the government is using my tax dollars to murder a person in cold blood. That runs counter to everything I’ve come to believe as an adult. Only God has the right to decide who lives and dies.

Life and death are too vitally important to not consider them when making choices. In fact, I consider them to be the most important issues. Application of that isn’t always easy, but for the death penalty, it’s a no-brainer. Politicians who support it are supporting death, and will not receive my vote.

Yet nobody has really opposed turning the air conditioning off. Down, perhaps, but not off. Part of this is justified as we do have a rather large server farm in the building. But part of it is because air conditioning has become something we consider a necessity.

The Washington Post recently printed an opinion article opposing the use of air conditioning, and as someone who lived in a house without air conditioning (in the South!) for a few years while growing up, I agree that it’s not a necessity. It’s a luxury, and a relatively recent one at that¹.

I’ll admit that I do use my air conditioning, but my use is definitely in line with Georgia Power’s recommendations for saving money². Even in the midst of this heat wave, my central air is set on 80°. Most people shudder at that thought. I shrug and turn my fans on.

So the backlash against Mr. Cox’ comments is pretty startling to me. Apparently the “right” to air conditioning is something that many people hold near and dear to their hearts.

I’m not particularly sure that’s a good thing.

“We found that going in and out of air conditioning always made you feel like it was too hot outside, so you ended up sitting in your easy chair eating pretzels,” he said. But being uncomfortable indoors forces them out [...]

“When it’s too hot to just sit here we might go swimming or ride our bikes or walk along the canal path,” said Mr. Focazio, who noted that he usually loses about six or seven pounds each summer, which he attributes to an appetite diminished by the heat, and an increase in exercise³.

The interesting thing is that so many people pine for the “easier times” of the 1950s and 1960s. Air conditioning certainly wasn’t universal then, and houses were often built to account for that. These days, high ceilings and large porches are considered quaint, old fashioned — and luxurious. Many people don’t stop to think that they might have been practical.

After all, there was still plenty of living possible without locking ourselves into refrigerators just because it was hot. Sometimes I actually even send up a little prayer of thanks that I had to “suffer” without air conditioning for a few years; and yes, I do plan to turn my air conditioning off next week while I’m out of town.

1. http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mvigeant/therm_1/ac_final/bg.htm
2. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/electricity_sav.php (Georgia Power’s site has the recommendation, but it’s embedded in a rather bandwidth-heavy flash application.)
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/garden/23air.html?pagewanted=2&fta=y