Zeno's Paradox: A Conversation With Mr. Swartz

Zeno's Paradox

October 22, 2003 - A Conversation With Mr. Swartz

The following is a transcript of the e-mails passed between Aaron Swartz and myself regarding his Common Sense Party. Note the use of indentation to emulate e-mail quoting. I'm also missing a couple of my e-mails from last night -- they're stuck on the GF's computer -- though I'm hoping that Aaron will send them to me soon so that the record is complete. Anyways, read away and draw your own conclusions. [UPDATE: They are all here with the exception of the first mail, which I believe is quoted in Aaron's initial response.]

From: "Aaron Swartz"
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:04:44 PM America/Chicago
To: "Chris Karr"
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

How is your Common Sense Party planning on funding its programs when all industry of note flees the United States with the business and investor classes because of your taxing strategy?

What planet are you on? I'm not proposing a 95% tax rate, I'm suggesting that money be diverted from the military (and maybe some other useless government programs) and that taxes be raised slightly on the extremely wealthy. I don't think this will cause a mass exodus.

I seriously hope that you're being glib and not taking Michael Moore seriously.

Michael Moore mainly makes factual points in his book, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't take him seriously. But I was not being glib.

--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

From: Chris Karr
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:19:48 PM America/Chicago
To: "Aaron Swartz"
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 03:04 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

How is your Common Sense Party planning on funding its programs when all industry of note flees the United States with the business and investor classes because of your taxing strategy?

If you're proposing to redistribute wealth as you did in your prior correspondence, you will see a mass exodus. I don't think that you really understand the extent of redistribution you will have to do in order to provide the benefits you mentioned:

"We�re for giving you increased benefits. You�re an American! You should get free health care, free education, free food, free room and board � whatever you need. This will save you money."

It costs a lot to feed and house everyone and I doubt that taxing the rich at a level just shy of driving them away will raise enough to meet your tab. Even if you taxed the Gates and Ellison and Buffett at those levels, you would not be able to deliver on the the promise above.

Furthermore, to gain support for your movement, you'd likely be cutting little "useless" gov't programs. Remember that one person's pork is another's economy. If this was not true, Robert Byrd would not have been as successful staying in office for West Virginia as he has for all these years.

And to expand on my California counterpoint. They were not even offering what you mentioned above -- just mandating that businesses over (I think) 300 employees provide mandatory health insurance. There is definitely a flight of business from CA to neighboring states such as Utah and Nevada. This probably contributed more to Arnold's victory in CA than any sort of populist rhetoric.

I seriously hope that you're being glib and not taking Michael Moore seriously.

Michael Moore mainly makes factual points in his book, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't take him seriously. But I was not being glib.

The problem with Michael Moore is that he's been caught too many times in misrepresenting "the truth" in order to make himself appear to be a "down home" defender of the little guy. I point you to a Spinsanity critique of Moore's previous book "Stupid White Men":

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

And for what it's worth, here's a bit on the bit you're reading:

I'm just hoping that you're not thinking you are on the same planet as Michael Moore.

-Chris

From: "Aaron Swartz"
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:54:14 PM America/Chicago
To: "Chris Karr"
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

It costs a lot to feed and house everyone

If you had followed the link you'd see that the proposal is actually quite modest, and unable to particularly expensive. We're only paying for $2 meals and $15 motel rooms.

http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/welfare-reform.html

"""
Suppose that fully 20% of the U.S. Population had 2.5 free meals a day (at $2 each) and stayed in a $15 motel room. That's 50 million people times $20/day. A billion dollars/day or $365 billion/year. Congressional Budget Office figures show that our current welfare system cost about $324 billion in 1993. My open-handed system, though, delivers many more services. I'm much happier to pay taxes for the open-handed system because I can see myself as a beneficiary. If I just want to crash for the night when I'm out of town, why spring for a fancy hotel room? If I want a fast meal, why not let Uncle Sam give me back a couple of my tax dollars?

Furthermore, the open-handed system would clean up my neighborhood. There wouldn't be guys sleeping in the streets anymore.
"""

But the businesses weren't leaving the country.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html
says: "Michael Moore makes at least 17 factual errors or misrepresentations in his latest book,"

Oh no! _Seventeen_ errors or misrepresentations! Wait a second, only four (Clark call from WH, Powell BS, Oregon schools, % for war) of these are actual errors (many of the rest are (deliberate?) misreadings, misunderstandings, or just weird interpretations). Man, I must be some awful person to read a book with four mistakes in it. I mean, imagine if it had five mistakes -- my mind might be forever tainted! I better stick to those newscasts which are never...oh, wait.

Just reading a couple pages of this spinsanity site, I've counted more errors and distortions than they found in the whole book.

I'm just hoping that you're not thinking you are on the same planet as Michael Moore.

What does that mean? Moore does seem to be on this planet.
--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

From: Chris Karr
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:05:31 PM America/Chicago
To: "Aaron Swartz"
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 03:54 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/welfare-reform.html

Furthermore, the open-handed system would clean up my neighborhood. There wouldn't be guys sleeping in the streets anymore.
"""

Had you followed the discussion following the story that Greenspun had written, you would have realized that his plan is simply unworkable as it ignores real-world factors such as transportation to said McDonalds and Motel 6. It also ignores that there's little market incentive to sell these $2.00 meals. It also ignores things like the decrease in supply of hotel rooms as they are filled up with freeloaders. I can also attest to the fact that I've seen very few places offer hotel rooms under $30 a night -- and this is on the low end. Greenspun's plan is admiral for its intent, but it is unworkable given reality.

But the businesses weren't leaving the country.

That's because the rest of the country was not mandating that these countries were requiring mandatory health care. The unit of observation here is California. If there was a federal statute that did something similar on a national scale, you would see a similar result on a national scale. Or would your Common Sense party only implement its "Free *" in select states?

The point being that just because Michael Moore says something, don't take it to be gospel. His repeated behavior of knowingly misrepresenting facts may not bother you, but it sure as hell bothers me.

Just reading a couple pages of this spinsanity site, I've counted more errors and distortions than they found in the whole book.

Pray tell, what are those? I'm interested in seeing where they are incorrect.

What does that mean? Moore does seem to be on this planet.

Just a response to the "what planet are you on" bit you sent me. I'm just using it in the same way. No need to be obtuse.

-Chris

From: "Aaron Swartz"
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:45:08 PM America/Chicago
To: "Chris Karr"
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

real-world factors such as transportation to said McDonalds and Motel 6.

I don't see how this is a serious problem.

It also ignores that there's little market incentive to sell these $2.00 meals.

Huh? Why wouldn't you want to serve a dependable revenue stream to make some easy money?

It also ignores things like the decrease in supply of hotel rooms as they are filled up with freeloaders. I can also attest to the fact that I've seen very few places offer hotel rooms under $30 a night -- and this is on the low end.

Presumably things like homeless shelters would take part in the program offering rooms that are way below normal hotel standards.

But the businesses weren't leaving the country.

I think your presumption is wrong. The cost of leaving California is way less than the cost of living the country, and most other civilized countries have public health care, so where would they go? Anyway, it's irrelevant because the system can be paid for without outrageous tax hikes.

I don't take it as gospel, all I was doing was noting that I came up with this idea while reading his book. Anyway, I think spinsanity is making these misrepresentations out to be a lot more than they are; they seem to willfully ignore the humor and context they're presented in:

"falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun": Moore says the scene was completely real.

"How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?": taken out of context, he was talking about how Swift wasn't really claiming the Irish eat their young

'suggest critics [...] are "committing an act of libel"': in context what he said is true; saying Moore's book is false when it's true is libel.

'he denounces criticism of the film as "character assassination" and "make-believe stories."': again, taken out of context

"while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!": again out of context. it's obvious Moore is not claiming that the government provided free trips to Paris.

Moore argues that TIA is silly because terrorist can pay with cash. They point out that some terrorists used credit cards. This is completely irrelevant! Do you really think terrorists would pay with credit cards if they knew TIA was watching them?

What does that mean? Moore does seem to be on this planet.

Just a response to the "what planet are you on" bit you sent me. I'm just using it in the same way. No need to be obtuse.

Ah, sorry.
--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

From: Chris Karr
Date: October 21, 2003 6:23:53 PM CDT
To: "Aaron Swartz"
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 04:45 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

real-world factors such as transportation to said McDonalds and Motel 6.

I don't see how this is a serious problem.

It's not a problem if you live in a Chicago suburb and you can't throw a rock without hitting a McDonalds. It is a problem in areas like Northeastern New Mexico where people live in the country and the nearest McDonald's (or any population center that would support a restaurant) is an hour's drive away. Also, even in Chicago, how far to the suburbs would you have to drive to find a motel that charged $15 a night? I was wondering where Philip Greenspun was finding $15 a night motels in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

It also ignores that there's little market incentive to sell these $2.00 meals.

Huh? Why wouldn't you want to serve a dependable revenue stream to make some easy money?

If I was running a restaurant, my initial reaction would be to jack up the price of everything $1.95. The consumers love it because they're basically getting $.05 off food the food they purchased before and I would love it because I get to pocket a $1.95 per item that I didn't before. Since there's no incentive to not use the $2.00 per meal, so everyone will use it, consumers and vendors alike. Also, see the comments under Philip's entry that explains why restaurant owners would not like this.

Presumably things like homeless shelters would take part in the program offering rooms that are way below normal hotel standards.

Why bother with hotels then? Why give people $15 for lodging when they will end up in the shelters anyways because no motels actually charge $15 a night? Why not just give homeless people vouchers for shelters and try to use the $15 in a more effective manner? Do you mandate that the $15 must be spent on lodging? Or is this more of a credit for folks staying at hotels that is redeemed upon purchase?

They would go to places like Mexico or Russia where American manufacturing jobs are fleeing for exactly the same reasons. All you need is one state (or nation) that declares itself business friendly and the monied will flock there. Look at all the companies incorporating in the Bahamas for this exact reason.

I'm still not convinced that this is as cheap as you say it is. Given that everyone will use their $2.00 when eating out -- rich and poor alike -- the costs of the freeloaders have been drastically underestimated.

The only thing is that SpinSanity is not the only group bothered by Moore's statements. There has been criticism of Moore from the right and the left. I chose SpinSanity because their agenda is clear and I feel that it's one of the more fair treatments of Moore's distortions.

"falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun": Moore says the scene was completely real.

He said, she said. I've heard this scene and the events leading up to its performance argued both ways.

'suggest critics [...] are "committing an act of libel"': in context what he said is true; saying Moore's book is false when it's true is libel.

If I'm not mistaken, these lines applied to Moore's "Bowling for Columbine". There are provably false bits in that movie, not the least being Moore imposing text over the Willie Horton ad as if that were the way it actually appeared. Charges of lying and deception would not be libel in the least.

Echelon has been common knowledge for how long? Yet the 9/11 hijackers did use credit cards. Anyways, I could go on about Moore, but that isn't the point. It's unfortunate because he does have some points, but due to his spinning of things, he has lost all credibility and has damaged the credibility of the points he has that are actually worth something.

In any case, to get back to your original posting, if this way that you have to win elections is so sure -- I'd like to encourage you to try it. Nothing like a live test to to show what's worth something at the end of the day. I do think that it would be shot down rather quickly though. It's basically populism you're advocating and politicians who have tried to use such tactics tend to get shot down. (Look how far Pat Buchanan got on his Reform Party populist platform a few years back.)

In any case, keep up the good work. I'm glad to see that there are still people willing to put forth an idea and defend it in the face of opposition. I expect that you'll do well at Stanford. Just a suggestion though, please take some politics and economics courses while you're there. You'll learn a lot and when blowhards like myself give you hell, you'll have a much more impressive arsenal of tools to use to shoot them down.

-Chris

From: Aaron Swartz
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:12:17 PM America/Chicago
To: Chris Karr
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

It is a problem in areas like Northeastern New Mexico where people live in the country and the nearest McDonald's (or any population center that would support a restaurant) is an hour's drive away.

How do these people survive if they don't have a house or money or a restaurant or a means of transportation to a city?

It also ignores that there's little market incentive to sell these $2.00 meals.

Huh? Why wouldn't you want to serve a dependable revenue stream to make some easy money?

If I was running a restaurant, my initial reaction would be to jack up the price of everything $1.95.

So now you're saying that there's too much market incentive. That's a security problem. I'm pretty sure it's addressable (e.g. spot checks and high penalties for fraud, plus rewards for tipsters), but I'd like to get the other problems out of the way first.

Presumably things like homeless shelters would take part in the program offering rooms that are way below normal hotel standards.

Huh? It goes like this:

Bob to Shelter: I'd like a room.
Shelter to Bob: Sign this.
Shelter to Gov: Bob signed this.
Gov to Shelter: Here's $15.
Shelter invests money in building more homeless shelters or something.

Given that everyone will use their $2.00 when eating out -- rich and poor alike -- the costs of the freeloaders have been drastically underestimated.

No, you don't understand -- the rule is that $2 _meals_ are free, not everyone gets $2. Rich people won't want $2 meals. (Yes, you have to work to enforce this.)

"falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun": Moore says the scene was completely real.

He said, she said. I've heard this scene and the events leading up to its performance argued both ways.

Here's a Chicago Sun-Times article: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/suntimes_20010128.php

Here's a transcript: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/transcript_bankemployee.php

With no evidence from the other side, I'm tempted to give this one from Moore.

'suggest critics [...] are "committing an act of libel"': in context what he said is true; saying Moore's book is false when it's true is libel.

It's hard to find the source material on the Internet (just anti-Moore people quoting it) but what Moore was saying was that everything was true and saying it was false was libel. If you claim that not everything is true, then that's fine, but that's not what they said -- they said it wasn't libel. If it was true then calling it false would be libel, so what Moore said was correct.

Echelon has been common knowledge for how long? Yet the 9/11 hijackers did use credit cards.

Wha? Echelon doesn't monitor credit cards.

if this way that you have to win elections is so sure -- I'd like to encourage you to try it.

How?

It's basically populism you're advocating and politicians who have tried to use such tactics tend to get shot down. (Look how far Pat Buchanan got on his Reform Party populist platform a few years back.)

Pat Buchanan may have used populist rhetoric but his highly-conservative platform was hardly populist. (The majority of America supports a woman's right to choose, supports gays, supports free health care, supports drug decriminalization, etc.) He's practically the opposite of a populist platform. (Although I just saw a website which seemed to use populist to mean pro-laws, which seems bizarre.

In any case, keep up the good work. I'm glad to see that there are still people willing to put forth an idea and defend it in the face of opposition.

Thanks.
--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

From: Chris Karr
Date: October 21, 2003 9:53:31 PM CDT
To: Aaron Swartz
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 08:12 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

How do these people survive if they don't have a house or money or a restaurant or a means of transportation to a city?

Many survive by working menial jobs such as cutting and selling wood, or working day to day for whoever will hire them. I guess they are not technically unemployed, but they are way below the poverty line and live in substandard conditions. I don't see how your Greenspun's proposal addresses these problems. And for what it's worth, I am speaking from direct personal experience here.

Given your explanation below that it's a virtual voucher and not a cash handout, I'd agree that it'd make some sense from a market perspective. I don't see many existing restaurants supporting this though as they would fear that the "riff-raff" would drive away the higher margin customers. I can see a subindustry of "free meal" places opening up, but at this point, I wonder how this is any different than the gov't contracting out feeding the homeless?

Bob to Shelter: I'd like a room.
Shelter to Bob: Sign this.
Shelter to Gov: Bob signed this.
Gov to Shelter: Here's $15.
Shelter invests money in building more homeless shelters or something.

Again, I can see homeless shelters popping up that support themselves completely through these gov't subsidies. Again, I question how these are any different than the gov't contracting out housing for the homeless. Also, if you leave this up to the market, what incentive is there for people to build these types of places in sparsely populated areas? Or is the idea that the poor would migrate to the cities?

No, you don't understand -- the rule is that $2 _meals_ are free, not everyone gets $2. Rich people won't want $2 meals. (Yes, you have to work to enforce this.)

Rhetorical Question -- when is the cost of enforcement is higher than the benefit being gained over a traditional welfare program? This is a problem that Greenspun identifies -- are people that determine necessity necessary for the system to function?

With no evidence from the other side, I'm tempted to give this one from Moore.

A lady working for the bank says that the bank scene was staged and misleading:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm

As I said before, he said, she said. Who is telling the truth here, Moore or the bank employee? We really have little way of knowing from our current positions.

If the scene was not incorrect in the theater showing, why did Moore alter the DVD version? If it was exactly as he said, he would not have altered anything. However, I think that the public record is firmly in favor of the thesis that Moore did alter that ad.

In Moore's favor, he apparently did release the "correct" version in the DVD release. But only after much criticism about him altering the text. This is not acceptable behavior for anyone making a documentary.

Echelon has been common knowledge for how long? Yet the 9/11 hijackers did use credit cards.

Wha? Echelon doesn't monitor credit cards.

That's what they want you to think. <Insert pinky tip in the corner of the mouth.> Echelon monitors communications. And if I were a paranoid terrorist, I would assume that the all communications were monitored. (Surely not just the cypherpunks think that there isn't some sort of quid pro quo where the British monitor the US and vice versa to get around silly privacy laws.) In any case, the critics are right (unfortunately). Had a working TIA been in place prior to 9/11, it may have caught the 9/11 hijackers. (Of course this makes the assumption that the FBI et al. were not sleeping at the wheel in investigating a Minnesota [I believe] agent's intelligence about a potential aircraft attack.)

if this way that you have to win elections is so sure -- I'd like to encourage you to try it.

How?

You wrote a whole article on it. Run on a platform promising free stuff to the lower and middle class and finance it with higher taxes on the rich and cut the military. Enlist Greenspun as your vice president.

You forget the large number of red states out there. I would take issue with the statement that the majority of America supports gays, free health care, and drug decriminalization. If this were the case, we would see legislation to this effect. Thus far, we've seen Vermont legalize civil unions and that's about it. If there were such popular support for these causes, some enterprising politician would have already ridden that crest to gain national office. I'll agree with your statement about "most Americans" when we see a President and Congress in power that enacts the relevant legislation.

In any case, keep up the good work. I'm glad to see that there are still people willing to put forth an idea and defend it in the face of opposition.

Thanks.

No problem.

-Chris

From: Aaron Swartz
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:26:54 PM America/Chicago
To: Chris Karr
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

How do these people survive if they don't have a house or money or a restaurant or a means of transportation to a city?

Wow. How do they eat?

Also, if you leave this up to the market, what incentive is there for people to build these types of places in sparsely populated areas? Or is the idea that the poor would migrate to the cities?

Yeah, that's the idea. (They do seem to have migrated already to a large extent.)

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm

This is believable; I don't really think it changes the point of the scene.

If the scene was not incorrect in the theater showing, why did Moore alter the DVD version?

Obviously I'm not getting through. I agree the scene was incorrect. I only argue that what Moore said ("it's libel") is true and what SpinSanity implied ('he said "criticism is libel"') is misleading.

He was made aware of a minor error and corrected it at the first available opportunity. What are you objecting to?

Run on a platform promising free stuff to the lower and middle class and finance it with higher taxes on the rich and cut the military. Enlist Greenspun as your vice president.

I don't think that would be a test of the platform, since I'm not currently electable (politically or constitutionally) and Greenspun would be a damage control nightmare. I think advising a campaign would be much more effective and enjoyable, but I don't know any easy way to do that. (An important requirement for this to work is that the candidate be someone average Americans can associate with, like Bush or Clinton.)

I would take issue with the statement that the majority of America supports gays, free health care, and drug decriminalization. If this were the case, we would see legislation to this effect.

Michael Moore presents the stats in his book; the majority isn't vast but it's there. The reason there's no legislation is because of various forms of political corruption: the Religious Right (and the rest of the right) hold disproportionate sway, the health care industry donates heavily, many Americans don't vote or vote on trivial aspects ("he seemed friendlier").

--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

From: Chris Karr
Date: October 22, 2003 6:52:44 AM CDT
To: Aaron Swartz
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 11:26 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

Wow. How do they eat?

Generally food stamps and the like.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm

This is believable; I don't really think it changes the point of the scene.

I think that the root of us not connecting is whether you see Columbine as a factual documentary or a leftist humor piece. If it's a humor piece, then that's fine. If you're looking at it as a documentary and trust that Moore is not taking liberty with the facts to buttress his agenda, then we have a problem. If Moore is trying to show that you can go get an account and walk out with a gun an hour later, and that's not the case, he should acknowledge that.

He was made aware of a minor error and corrected it at the first available opportunity. What are you objecting to?

I'm objecting to the fact that he altered the ad in the first place and attempted to pass it off as unaltered. This is not a minor error by any standard.

Given that I don't see any parties embracing this platform, save maybe the Green Party, your platform will get no test unless you start one. From your posting, I was under the impression that the idea was to start a new party since the existing ones are so corrupt and entrenched.

Though I would encourage you to become politically active when it is Constitutionally acceptable as too many in the US simply don't care enough. Of course, I'm not running for any sort of office or helping a campaign, so maybe I should shut up now. :-)

Can you do me a favor and send me the sources of those stats? I've done some coursework in political polling and I'm interested in seeing if these are honest numbers or spinning of some sort.

Just another question. It seems that Howard Dean probably best embodies the ideals that you and Moore think most Americans hold. However, reading into any discussion about the electability of Dean versus Bush, it's often brought up that Dean's support for civil unions and state-provided health care are "too leftwing" and would clinch him the Democratic nomination, but torpedo his chances in the general election. Is the problem that these people (some of who study this for a living -- see Cogito's posts on The Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com)) are simply wrong, or that Dean's stances will torpedo his chances in the red states and contribute to an Electoral College defeat (though winning the popular vote), or that most Americans don't hold these opinions? Again, I'd like to see the polls and the methodologies used by Moore to make case that "most Americans" agree with him and you.

It also appears that you've hit on another problem. How can someone enact these changes in face of the obstacles you mentioned below? Suppose you elected a charismatic Common Sense Party president. How now is he going to get his ideas through a corrupt Congress?

Anyways, I appreciate the back and forth. If this is getting annoying and pedantic, please let me know.

-Chris

From: Aaron Swartz
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:33:10 AM America/Chicago
To: Chris Karr
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

Wow. How do they eat?

Generally food stamps and the like.

You don't think food stamp redemption places would take part in the program?

Can you do me a favor and send me the sources of those stats? I've done some coursework in political polling and I'm interested in seeing if these are honest numbers or spinning of some sort.

They should be up at http://michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/notessources/index.php (Chapter 9) soon, but a look at the copy in the book doesn't seem so suspicious:

Health care: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health, Feb. 12, 2003
Drugs: national survey for the ACLU by Belden Russonello & Stewart, Jan. 22, 2001
Gays: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Gallup, Newsweek

Just another question. It seems that Howard Dean probably best embodies the ideals that you and Moore think most Americans hold.

Not really, Dean is rather too conservative.

it's often brought up that Dean's support for civil unions and state-provided health care are "too leftwing" and would clinch him the Democratic nomination, but torpedo his chances in the general election.

I think this is pretty silly, but I'm not an expert.

Well, you'd need lots of Congressman to join the party too. I think that if you picked up the Democrats, the Greens, and the moderate Republicans you could do it.

--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

From: Chris Karr
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:50:40 AM America/Chicago
To: Aaron Swartz
Subject: Re: How to Win Elections

On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 09:33 AM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

Wow. How do they eat?

Generally food stamps and the like.

You don't think food stamp redemption places would take part in the program?

Again, see my problem with respect to the transportation issues. The problem (using NE NM as an example) is that the only places that honor these things may be more than an hour's drive for some folks. So, the $2.00 for a meal is easily more like $5 - $6 a meal if you account for the transportation, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle, and the gas price.

Another question -- would people be allowed to pool their $2.00 and use the pool to purchase things like groceries? Or is the $2.00 for one-shot meals? If you do allow them to pool the money, how do you guarantee that the rich are not also freeloading and pooling their credits also? For what it's worth, if you don't allow pooling and don't take into account the transportation to the meal, the $2.00 a meal is useless as it would cost the redeemer more than its worth. Of course this is in rural parts of the country.

Can you do me a favor and send me the sources of those stats? I've done some coursework in political polling and I'm interested in seeing if these are honest numbers or spinning of some sort.

They should be up at http://michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/notessources/index.php (Chapter 9) soon, but a look at the copy in the book doesn't seem so suspicious:

Health care: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health, Feb. 12, 2003

http://www.kaisernetwork.org is an awesome source for data about these things. A few things I noticed. First of all, Americans support the federal gov't providing the uninsured with insurance (43%) and states less so (20%). It should be noted that this applies to uninsured Americans only. It's not clear at all if the American population favors a nationalized health care system for ALL Americans (as opposed to the presently uninsured). (My apologies for not being able to find a question about the gov't providing insurance / heath care to all Americans.)

Does the Common Sense Party (or Michael Moore) advocate nationalized health care, or just gov't assistance to those without insurance?

(For what it's worth, Reason has an article online with the candidate's proposals - http://reason.com/links/links050503.shtml)

Drugs: national survey for the ACLU by Belden Russonello & Stewart, Jan. 22, 2001

I found surveys saying that Americans favored a different approach to the war on drugs (no surprise) and support for medicinal marijuana, but I didn't find any such polls suggesting the public supported complete drug legalization. Rather the poll suggested that we stop sending non-violent offenders to prison and impose more lenient punishment such as mandatory job training and community service. Looking at your original article, the point is moot as you don't seem to be talking about complete decriminalization.

Gays: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Gallup, Newsweek

I found results of polls stating that Americans thought that gays should have the same health care as everyone else, but in their Inside-OUT page, it appears that a majority Americans so not favor gay marriage though they apparently support civil unions and adoption, which is strange to me. I don't know if this supports or detracts from the idea that the majority of Americans support gay rights. To me it seems like it's all or nothing -- either you support equal status or you don't. Since I can't find the questions for the polls this is still ambigious for me. I guess you could make the statement that a slim majority Americans support equal rights for gay individuals, but not for gay couples.

Also for what it's worth, USA Today is running a story showing support for gay causes dropping in light of the Lawrence v, Texas fallout: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-28-poll_x.htm .

Just another question. It seems that Howard Dean probably best embodies the ideals that you and Moore think most Americans hold.

Not really, Dean is rather too conservative.

Too conservative for you or too conservative for what the majority of Americans think?

Again, thanks for the mental exercise. It's been a while since I've been in an honest back and forth debate with someone. Too many sheeple in the USA...

-Chris

Posted by br284 at 03:57 PM

Trackbacks

Comments