The Bush Tax Increase

One of John McCain's biggest campaign issues this election, and a favorite talking point among conservatives is the so-called Obama tax increase. But what I don't get is why they are blaming Obama, when it was their own man George W. Bush who signed the tax increase into law.

That's right. Our very own President Bush signed into law the tax plan that will result in taxes increasing after he leaves office. The only way he could make the budget math even sort of work was to put an end date on each of his tax cuts, expiration dates at which taxes would increase. Otherwise, the fiscal damage would have been even more obvious at the time and they never would have passed Congress.
And now the conservatives are blaming Obama for raising taxes even if he does nothing and lets some of the tax cuts expire. That's just plain dumb. George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are totally responsible for raising taxes.
So, Bush is a tax hiker. And we already know that John McCain is as well.
Barack Obama is proposing to follow the Bush tax plan -- letting the Bush tax cuts expire as Bush put into place. Meanwhile, John McCain has proposed a brand new tax (his tax on health care benefits). But don't worry, he tells us, it will only be a net increase on 5% of people, the people who can most afford it.

I smell hypocrisy here.

Sarah Blinked

Pretty cool, it turns out that Anderson Cooper reads my blog. How else would I explain this piece he did on Sarah Palin?

You see, Sarah famously claimed foreign policy experience based on the fact that Russia is visible from an island in Alaska. I, however, pointed out that she carefully worded her statement such that she never actually claimed to have been on that island. And I lamented that my faith in her foreign policy credentials hinged on whether she had actually look at Russia.

Well, the folks at CNN have now confirmed my words suspicion. Sarah has indeed never been on the island of Little Diomede and has never seen that nation that strikes fear in all of our hearts. So, Sarah, I must now say that you and your running mate (I forget his name) have lost my trust. I looked you in the eye, and you blinked.

Sarah Smile

When asked about her insight into Russian actions, Sarah Palin said:

They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

Now that's pretty impressive. I've certainly never seen Russia from Colorado. But here's the shocker: Notice how carefully she worded that statement. She never actually said she had ever been on that island, on a clear day, and looked in the direction of Russia. So, we really can't be sure she has actually ever really seen Russia. And, if she hasn't seen Russia, how can she really be sure that "they are our next door neighbor" or that we really need to have a "mutually beneficial relationship"? I think we need to see some proof. Maybe a snapshot on her cell phone, a picture on her MySpace page showing Russia in the background. Only then will I really be confident in her foreign relations credentials.

Oh, and did you watch her when she was talking about foreign policy with Charlie Gibson? She repeatedly said she wouldn't blink, but I counted at least twenty blinks during the times when she was talking about not blinking. Which is it, Sarah? Can you stare down those godless terrorists or not?

Winkin'

Blinkin'

Nod

Your Flag Lapel Pin Won't Keep You in Office Anymore

While digesting Congressional Digest
In the airport bathroom stall,
With a tap a flag with a pin on the back
was kicked under the wall.
I peeled that flag up off the floor
And stuck on my lapel,
And if I could have old Betsy Ross
I'd tell 'em all to go to Hell!

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overcrowded with liars, cheats and whores.
Now Jesus don't like hypocrisy, no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

I popped in the Senate this morning
And the lobbyist said to me:
Said, if you vote for my silly bridge
I'll give you ten of them flags for free (plus a boat).
Well, I didn't hestitate a bit,
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck those flags all over my suit
And one on my wife's forehead.

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overflowing with lyin', cheatin' whores.
Now Jesus don't like thievin', no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Well, I got my suit lapel so filled
With flags I could not breathe.
So when I wiped my nose upon my shirt
I poked my eye out with my sleeve.
By the time they calmed the doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standin' at the Pearly Gate said:

That your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven anymore.
We're already overcrowded from your 100-year-long war.
Now Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reasons for.
And your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven any more.

And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Any your flag lapel pin won't get out of China
Any
More

Why'd He Do It?

On my run today, I came upon a dead skunk in the middle of the trail, so far decomposed it no longer smelled. On the way back, I stopped to watched a green snake slithering through the grass.

No particular reason, but I started thinking about Senator McCain's presidential campaign. Have you seen any of his ads? I generally TiVo through them, but occasionally I can't, and I get to see how he's positioning himself for the biggest job in the world. And that is: By insulting his opponent and telling tales that are so close to being lies that the camera has to focus high on his face to not show the smoke curling from his pants when he approves the ads.

You know I used to have quite a bit of respect for the Arizona Senator, back when he really seemed willing to stand up to people on both sides of the political fence. He used to think the fundamentalist right was an evil influence on politics. Then he actively sought out the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who actually is working towards nuclear war with Iran so that Israel will be destroyed and he (Hagee) can proceed directly to Heaven without having to pass Go. He promised to nominate Supreme Court justices that would vote for evangelical causes. And then he went and selected fundamentalist Gov. Palin as his running mate.

Why did he pick her? Well, my theory is that he had to do something drastic to stop Obama's convention momentum. Democratic excitement, and the biggest on-site and television audience in political convention history, and all that stopped cold by talk about Sarah. Perhaps a good short-term decision, but he's going to have to live with this longer term.

And speaking of Palin, what's up with her idea of teaching creationism in public schools? Suppose we did just that, put intelligent design on the high school science curriculum right next to evolution. To be intellectually honest, we would have to hold it up to the light and point out all the flaws in this so-called scientific theory. If you are a supporter of evolution (and who isn't), that might be intellectually satisfying. But, if actively supporting a specific religion in public school is unconstitutional (as it surely is), then actively pointing out the flaws in a specific religion is just as unconstitutional. Therefore, the science teacher would be prevented from saying anything negative about intelligent design, which would completely defeat the purpose of the "science" part of the science class.

Not to mention putting all those kids in the middle of the controversy, making them pawns in some religio-political battle. No, that should be done at home.

McCain Claims his Tax Increases will Hurt Economy

Senator McCain has told us that Senator Obama's planned tax increases will harm the economy. And he's promised us that he, himself, Senator McCain will raise taxes on nobody.

But here's the rub. Just like President Bush, McCain has proposed raising taxes as part of his health care proposal. The only thing is, he doesn't call it a tax increase.

It's not just a tax increase. The Senator from Arizona has proposed a whole new tax. In McCain's plan, employer-provided health insurance will be taxed as income. He has also proposed a tax credit to offset the cost of health insurance. But if an employer provides a really good plan, that tax credit may not be enough to offset the new tax.

Even McCain has admitted that some some people will see increased taxes because of his plan. But, he denies that this qualifies as a tax increase, since there are compensating tax reductions.

Consider, though, that Senator Obama's "tax increases" that "will hurt the economy" also decrease the tax burden on a large majority and increase on a small number. And, both plans claim that the tax increases are offset by the tax cuts.

So, Senator McCain, you have to tell us. Are you going to admit that you are proposing a tax increase just like Obama? Or are you going to give Obama a pass, because in reality he is proposing nothing different than you are?

Or are you going to continue these silly word games?

McCain Plays to his Base and Tortures Constitution

I wrote earlier about the positions that the Democratic Presidential candidates had taken in support of requiring the Commander in Chief to follow the dictates of the U.S. Constitution. Although I haven't seen a specific response from Senator McCain, his recent statements give a sense of where he stands on some of the issues.

A few days ago the Senator from Arizona, who himself was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, urged President Bush to veto a bill that would have made it clear that waterboarding and other torture techniques can't be used by the CIA. So, the presumptive Republican candidate thinks it important enough to play up the conservative base that he is willing to compromise his own principles and make this statement, claiming at the same time that it is consistent with his previous positions.

I'm sorry, John, but this doesn't bode well for your ability to convince independents that you truly think outside the Bush bubble.

So, how in the world did we get to the situation that the right to torture has become a liberal vs. conservative question? Isn't it obviously a question of common sense along with the guiding principles of the Constitution?

Well, one point in Sen. McCain's favor. He has promised not to follow the Bush lead of issuing signing statements on legislation he disagrees with and usurping the Constitutionally-granted powers of the legislative branch.

So now we know McCain's position on two of the ten issues on the Constitution-protection hot list. He's against torture but doesn't think that should be written into law. And he is against signing statements. Let's see if we can find out where he stands on the other eight points.

An Oath and a Pledge

When our next Commander in Chief is sworn in, he or she will make the same oath as George Washington:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, our founding fathers thought it so important that they made it explicit in this oath. Protecting the Constitution is more important than protecting the Flag, protecting the Citizens, and protecting the national interest.

And yet, not all Presidents have taken this oath seriously. Our current President, George W. Bush, has taken abuses against the Constitution to new lows. Yes, you can argue that he is doing the same things as his predecessors. No doubt that is true, although he has gone much further than any in recent memory.

That is why, to me, the most important issue in the Presidential race this year is the candidates' stands on protecting the Constitution. If a candidate can only keep us safe from terrorists by locking us all up, then I say, don't bother we'll take our chances with the bad guys. If the only way to maintain a healthy economy is by scrapping freedom, then we'll scrounge for bread crumbs. Remember, our founding fathers were willing to give up their security and risk dying to create this institution. We shouldn't be so ready to give it up to keep the securities we have collected over the years.

And that is why it's not surprising that a liberal group and a conservative group with very similar names have taken on this very issue. The right-wing American Freedom Agenda and the left-wing American Freedom Campaign have both created 10-point pledges for the candidates, outlining specifically how they will undo the damage done to our founding document by the current administration.

Rep. Ron Paul, whose campaign has gotten lots of interest but few votes, was the first to sign on. He even introduced a version of the pledge as a bill on the House floor. None of the other Republican candidates (neither McCain nor Huckabee) has followed. However, all of the Democratic candidates have signed the pledge (Obama) or issued similar statements (Clinton).

Here's the bottom line, and why the founding fathers felt so strongly about this. When it's your guy (or gal) in the White House, then abuses of power are all for a good cause. No harm, no foul. But beware. The other team is bound to get a turn in control. And when that happens, they are sure to use all of the same new powers, and are likely to push them even further.

So, if you trust George Bush to decide who is an enemy combatant, would you also trust Hillary Clinton to make the same determination?

Here's the list from the conservative group. See if there's anything on here that's not a no-brainer:

• Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
• Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
• Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
• Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
• Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
• Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
• Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
• Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
• Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

Now, go vote based on your candidate's willingness to follow the Presidential Oath of Office.

Obama is Greater than McCain

Senator Barack Obama recently had a job interview, I mean spoke, at Google, hoping to impress the nerd crowd. And, just like he did previously with Senator McCain, CEO Eric Schmidt asked a trick technical question, although slightly differently this time. No doubt he read my criticisms of his earlier question and tried to tune it up a bit.

As I wrote, McCain lost a good opportunity to profit off his version of the question, "How do you determine good ways of sorting 1 million 32-bit integers in two megabytes of RAM?" He merely laughed it off. But, when Obama was asked for "the most efficient way to sort a million 32-bit integers", he actually made a reasonable but incomplete answer, "I think the bubble sort would be the wrong way to go."

Of course, Obama must have read my earlier blog post and knew that a question like this might be asked. He probably also prepared his answer in advance. But still, he didn't actually answer the question, he merely listed one incorrect answer.

So, what is the right answer. Well, Schmidt again didn't define all his terms. Primarily he didn't say what he meant by "efficient".

Well, to me, efficient means it takes me the least amount of time. So, if I were to be asked this question, the answer would obviously be, load the numbers into Excel and select the Data Sort menu option.

But that is probably not the right answer for candidate Obama. It would depend on exactly what the numbers are and why they needed to be sorted, but in most cases the best method would be to tell one of his interns to sort the numbers and come back with just the top three.

By the way, in my earlier post I said:

Full disclosure. This log is hosted by Blogger, which is owned by Google. So, if this post never shows up in any Google searches, I think I'll know why.

Well, it turns out that there was a huge spike in the number of people visiting my blog with search terms related to sorting of integers right around the time of Obama's interview. This can only mean that the folks at Google are using my blog to help them write better interview questions.

Does this mean I get a cut of the referral bonus?

And, Mayor Giuliani, are you paying attention?

What Sort of Sort?

I've heard that interviews at Google are tough. In fact, Senator John McCain was recently interviewed at Google, and he was indeed stumped by the opening question, which was about as geeky as you can imagine.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt asked "How do you determine good ways of sorting 1 million 32-bit integers in two megabytes of RAM?" McCain laughed it off as good natured fun at his expense. However, he missed out on a great opportunity to show those Googlers that they're not as smart as they would have us believe they are.

[Full disclosure. This log is hosted by Blogger, which is owned by Google. So, if this post never shows up in any Google searches, I think I'll know why.]

Oh, but if I were John McCain. Perhaps his days as a Vietnam POW softened him up to the vagaries of badly worded questions. The first thing I would say is, Eric, I would expect you, as the leader of one of the biggest computing companies in the world, to at least be able to ask a non-ambiguous question.

Do you mean, how would I find some ways that are good for sorting said integers in said limited memory platform? Or did you mean how would I decide on the goodness among various presented algorithms for sorting under these conditions? And, whatever do you mean by "good"? Do you mean the fastest? Least disk thrashing? Fewest license fees? Or, are you asking for my definition of good? When you say I get 2 megabytes of RAM, I guessing you'll also give me some disk space, and perhaps a bit of extra memory to put my hypothetical code into. Or maybe my code will fit in the space differential between two megabytes and two million bytes (almost 95K).

Suppose good old Eric laughed at my friendly jab, and clarified his question. Don't you think that the correct answer to the question would be, well, given that my college textbooks are long gone, along with all the textbook sorting algorithms therein, my first shot at finding a good algorithm would be, what else, Google. As in, type "memory constrained sorting algorithm" into my Google toolbar and see where it takes me. What do you want to bet it would take me straight to Wikipedia, and a catalog of all popular sorting algorithms?

What would I find there? Not sure. But I'm going to guess that my best bet for a fast sort would be to throw the first half of the integers into my limited memory and sort them using whatever fast sort is in fashion these days and save them, throw the second half into the same memory and sort them similarly, and then merge the two sorted lists.

Or perhaps I'd try something cute (in a geeky cute kind of way). I'd sort only the upper 16 bits of each integer. Then when I was done I'd only have to re-sort the small subset in which the upper 2 bytes were the same. Maybe I'd get a win there, but probably I'd just waste alot of time trying to figure it out.

So, how would I determine the goodness of the algorithms I came up with? Well, classically I'd count how many loops and nested loops there were, and use that to figure out how well they scale up. But since I have a very specific problem to solve (one file of one million numbers, two megabytes of memory), I'd really only have to know one measurement. I'd probably end up creating an Excel spreadsheet, put in 200 numbers, 2,000 numbers, 20,000 numbers. Then I'd write some freaky-looking set of formulas that implement my kooky algorithm and get out my stopwatch.

But only if I were a geek.

Senator McCain, any thoughts?