Apple unveiled the next iteration of their Macbook, Macbook Pro, and Macbook Air laptop lines yesterday, but what was most notable about the announcement wasn’t new technology, features, or cosmetic changes, but rather what is lacking from the line. Apple has always been a manufacturer of high end computers with matching prices, but as they continue increasing their market share through a push into the mainstream, it makes sense to lower the barrier of entry for the brand. If they hope to continue expansion among students and consumers who don’t identify as tech enthusiasts, they need to extend their product line into a lower price bracket – not into netbook (low cost, modestly configured laptops designed for light tasks such as web browsing and basic word processing) territory, but low enough to compellingly compete with entry level offerings from PC manufacturers such as Dell, Acer, and HP.

Apple has always been about the high end

It is true that Apple has traditionally focused on, and seen it’s biggest success in, the $1,000+ segment of the market. There are a number of key advantages to this strategy that have benefited the company. For one, consumers who are more likely to spend more on a computer are going to be less effected by economic swings and trends than those who are looking for the least expensive solution. It’s no coincidence that Apple has been one of the few computer makers experiencing rapid growth during the beginnings of the recession that we now find ourselves in. Apple’s hardware and software engineers are also free to make a superior product with fewer compromises in the name of cost, and can afford to invest in R&D resulting in a wide array of projects that might never make it to market in their original form, but that will often yield technology that trickles down into subsequent products. One needs only look as far as the phenomenally successful iPhone, whose operating system, multi-touch technology, form factor, and user interface borrowed from projects like the OS X operating system used in all macs, a never released internet tablet, the wildly successful iPod line of MP3 players, and the almost forgotten Newton – an innovative device that helped spawn the PDA market.

Apple’s core strength is the user experience

Ask almost anybody with a Mac and they’ll tell you that it just works. Apple makes meticulously designed products that offer a continuously superior experience, from the initial unboxing to the point where you transfer all of your files over to a new machine years later. The hardware is gorgeous, with features and technology that are integrated into a sleek, minimalist package, as opposed to offerings from competitors that often feel cheap, bloated with unnecessary features that never get used, and are presented in a manner than inspires little confidence. The software is perhaps even more notable that the hardware. Not only is OS X much more stable and impervious to viruses and malware than any consumer flavor of Windows, but it provides a clean look that is consistent across almost all applications, and is designed with the end user in mind. Want to save a picture from a webpage? Simply click on it and drag it to your hard drive. Want to back up all of your files? Simply run Time Machine, an included program that will automatically archive your entire computer on a regular basis, allowing you to retrieve old files, or even restore your computer to the state is was in weeks ago at any point. Each Mac also ships with iLife, a suite of applications including iMovie, iPhoto, GarageBand, and several others that make every Apple computer a formidable multimedia workstation (for consumer-oriented uses) right out of the box.

Repeat Apple customers are willing to spend more on subsequent purchases

Apple’s growth has been fueled by “switchers”, or computer users who go from a PC running Windows to a Mac running OS X. This is particularly favorable to the company because once a user becomes accustomed to the Apple experience, they are often willing to spend more for a Mac when it comes time to purchase their next computer, and we see a lot of users moving up the product line. It’s not at all uncommon for a Mac using household to have multiple machines in service, as an initial Mac Mini purchase can lead to an iMac for the home office, a Macbook for a child who is going off to school, a Macbook Air for business travel, and so on. Once people experience the benefits of Apple hardware and OS X, the higher price of these computers becomes a much easier sell.

For example, when the time came for my mother-in-law to retire her old computer this year (a AMD Athlon 1.4Ghz machine that I built for her in 2002), I recommended she purchase an iMac. She was initially weary of the idea, as she has spent the last 10 years learning how to use Windows, but I was able to convince her that after a small adjustment period she’d find the new computer significantly easier to use, less prone to crashes and viruses, and virtually impervious to the annual slowdown that almost invariably requires me to come and perform a variety of maintenance, if not reformat the drive and reinstall Windows and all of her applications. As much as the thought of something completely new was daunting, the biggest challenge in switching her over to a Mac was the fact that an iMac would cost her several hundred dollars more than an equivalent PC.

Within 2 days of setting up the new iMac she already was declaring that this was the best computer she had ever owned. It took her very little time to adjust to the differences, and she found that she preferred the way the mac works in almost every case. Perhaps the best part is that in the almost 6-months since I set the computer up for her I’ve received only one tech support call, and she was able to resolve the issue on her own before I could even call her back. Her iMac works just as well now as it did the day she brought it home, and the next time she buys a computer she won’t so much as blink at the higher price of an Apple computer.

A lower cost Macbook will attract more switchers and take advantage of the “halo effect”, without cannibalizing sales of higher end models

The goodwill generated by Apple’s consumer products like the iPod and iPhone are responsible for something called the halo effect, basically meaning that these customers will be impressed enough by their experience with these consumer products that they will be driven towards Macs for future computer purchases. These consumers are the fuel beyond Apple’s past and future growth, and the biggest factor limiting this potential is the high cost of entry. An $800 Macbook with more modest specifications would attract more of this demographic, exposing them to the Mac user experience, and would result in more loyal, repeat business, actually increasing the sales of higher-priced Macs. Once users have grown accustomed to using Apple computers, they will begin to make purchasing comparisons and decisions from within the Mac line, with less consideration given to lower priced PC competition, which will lead more customers to mid and high-end machines. While some current Mac users would doubtlessly be enticed by a lower priced Macbook, the sweet spot in the lineup (in terms of price to value) would still lie in the mid range models.

The entry level Macbook must cosmetically match the rest of the line

Along with the new notebooks released yesterday, Apple dropped the price on the previous generation Macbook to $999, and will continue to sell it along side the new models. While this is a step in the right direction, much of the Apple allure is steeped in aesthetics and image. Even though customers now have a sub $1,000 option, it will increasingly be perceived as the old model and a compromised product, at least in the minds of lay consumers. New customers (who are likely comparing a Macbook to lower priced PC alternatives) should have the perception that they can buy into the current generation Mac line at a lower price point, not that they can have old recycled technology for a slight discount. By giving the option of a lower specced Macbook for $800, Apple could ensure future sales of mid and upper range Macbooks, continue to experience sales growth during this economic slowdown, and enjoy the fruits of an expanded, loyal user base who will continue to choose apple (often at a higher price point) once the economy turns around.

]]> http://stefancolson.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/apples-new-macbooks-a-missed-opportunity/feed/ 0 stefancolson Wheres the low-end Macbook? http://stefancolson.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/ca-proposition-8-bigotry-on-the-ballot/ http://stefancolson.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/ca-proposition-8-bigotry-on-the-ballot/#comments Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:11:58 +0000 stefancolson http://stefancolson.wordpress.com/?p=47 ]]>

On November 4th California residents will vote on proposition 8, which will add the following 14 words to the state constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”. Not only is this a thinly veiled attempt at socially condemning same-sex relationships, but it’s (incredibly) a measure that serves to do nothing beyond limiting the rights of a group of people. Proponents of the measure argue that this addition is important for several reasons, all of which are ridiculous.

Flawed argument #1: Allowing same sex couples to marry somehow undermines the value of all marriage

This argument has virtually no merit. If anything, the right for gay couples to marry will strengthen the institution of marriage by extending its boundaries to include everybody. We are all the same in many ways, and our relationships, be they gay or straight, are more alike than they are different. The challenges faced by marriage come from rising divorce rates and a populace that increasing takes the commitment lightly. A group of people who have been fighting for this right (which they have until recently been denied) will almost certainly treat marriage with a heightened degree of respect.

Flawed argument #2: Marriage is between a man and a woman

Says who? The typical reply is that this has historically been the case. Hasn’t it also historically been the case that people are persecuted for their religion? Hasn’t it also historically been the case that women are denied basic rights enjoyed by men such as suffrage, property ownership, access to education, and equal social status? Haven’t people historically been discriminated against on the basis of race? Don’t deplorable institutions such as slavery have a long, ubiquitous past? Shouldn’t we be able to evaluate the moral standards of history and choose differently as it becomes clear that they are unjust? Isn’t that the true history of the greatest among human civilizations?

Flawed argument #3: For the love of god, what about the children?

A number of television commercials have aired recently expressing fear at the thought of teaching our children about gay marriage. This extends no further than “boys and girls, two boys or two girls who love each other now have all the same rights as a boy and a girl who love each other”. Seeing as a percentage of these children will one day grow up and identify as gay or lesbian themselves, shouldn’t it be a positive thing that they won’t have to face the same self doubt, alienation, and lack of understanding that homosexuals have traditionally faced? Why must we hide the idea of alternative lifestyles from our children and pretend that they don’t exist? Nobody is suggesting we delve into the nitty-gritty of sex or behind-closed-doors behavior with kindergartners, only that we teach tolerance and address issues that are real and relevant.

I believe that this fear (as well as many others) originate from the thought that there might be some underground gay agenda to convert our children or ourselves over to the other side, that our children might somehow be tempted at the idea of homosexuality. This is laughable. Every straight person I’ve known sees little personal appeal in intimacy with another person of the same sex. We are all beholden unto ourselves in that we cannot healthily live a lie. If your son or daughter is straight, they will not be somehow turned gay through any circumstance or imagined conspiracy, just as if you son or daughter is gay, it is impossible to forcibly beat (verbally, physically, or through denial) the gay out of them.

Flawed argument #4: Civil unions are sufficient

This sounds suspiciously to me like separate but equal. We all decided long ago that this notion is not grounded in reality, and is not to be tolerated. What if we decided that interracial couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry on the basis that it would not have historically been accepted, and tried to disguise this bigotry by granting them a similar set of rights under the umbrella of a separate institution?

Flawed argument #5: Gay marriage goes beyond tolerance by forcing “mandatory compliance regardless of personal beliefs”

Could I argue that the integration of the school I teach at goes beyond requiring me to tolerate children of different racial backgrounds by forcing me to comply regardless of my personal beliefs? I’d be rightly shunned from society if I made that statement, yet this flagrantly bigoted speech is tolerated when it comes to same-sex marriage. Nobody is suggesting that you must personally accept the lifestyle of any other person, only that you must not discriminate on the basis of a certain set of uncontrollable factors, including race, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

I’ve also heard the argument that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages, even if they are incongruous with the teachings of that respective religion. This is preposterous. As an atheist, I could not have a catholic wedding, as the legal institution of marriage is secular and religious institutions may reserve the right to perform ceremonies for whomever they please. Exercise your right to practice your religion and express your beliefs all you want, just don’t try and use your beliefs as a basis from which to deny the rights of others. If you have a problem with homosexuality or gay marriage, don’t get gay married.

Flawed argument #6: Gay marriage will open the floodgates for marriages to animals, polygamy, incest, etc.

Same-sex relationships have been present throughout all of recorded history, in significant numbers. The idea of monogamous homosexual couples is not a new one, and to compare it to bestiality is downright insulting. Allowing gays to marry will not result in a dilution of marriage to include every possible ridiculous coupling anymore than granting women and minorities the right to vote resulted in the extension of those rights to animals.

Stand up for equal rights, and against hate and discrimination

Strengthen your freedom by extending it to all people. You don’t have to approve on anybody or any lifestyle, but we should all learn to live and let live. We are much more alike than we are different, and the sooner that we can embrace our similarities and focus on what we have to offer each other, rather than allowing ourselves to be threatened by that with which some are uncomfortable, the sooner we will transcend the bitter hatred that has for too long made enemies of brothers and sisters. A world where gay couples are extended the same secular marriage rights as straight couples is richer for its acceptance of diversity, and is a world where countless children, adolescents, and adults might much sooner embrace their own identity without having to battle societal notions of normalcy. I have faith in humanity, but grow increasingly fearful of our collective tenancy to destroy and suppress that which is different. I hope that November 4th will be an example of the best in us, rather than the worst.

Under the McCain tax plan, John and Cindy McCain will recieve as large a tax break as almost half the town of Wasilla, Alaska.

John McCain has made taxes one of the major talking points of his campaign. The problem with this is that he’s lying to your face. While many of his claims that Barack Obama is going to raise various taxes are true, his is leading people who will NOT be affected to believe that they will. The vast majority of us will actually pay MORE under a McCain-Palin administration. Let’s take a look at each claim individually:

Federal Income Taxes:
It is true that Barack Obama will raise federal income taxes – if you make more than $227,000 a year. If you make less than that, you will receive a tax break. Under John McCain’s plan everyone will receive some tax relief, but the benefits are grossly skewed towards the upper class. For example, someone making $38,000 will pay 0.8% less in federal income taxes under McCain. Someone making $112,000 will pay 2.3% less. Someone making $227,000 will pay 3.46% less. If you make $603,000 you’ll pay 7.52% less, and someone making 2.9 million dollars a year will pay a whopping 9.28% less of their income to the federal government. If you make less than $112,000 a year, you will receive a bigger tax break under Barack Obama’s plan, and even though you’d still see a tax break under McCain, at $40,000 a year you’ll get $319 back while someone making 3 million a year will get more than a quarter of a million dollars back. Under the McCain tax plan, John and Cindy McCain will recieve as large a tax break as almost half the town of Wasilla, Alaska.

The Burden on Small Business:
One of the major talking points of both John McCain and Sarah Palin’s stump speeches is that small business will suffer under Obama’s tax plan. Their reasoning for this is two-fold: firstly, Obama has vowed to raise payroll taxes for those employees making more than $250,000 a year. Right off the bat I think we can agree that most “small” business don’t pay any of their employees more than a quarter of a million dollars a year (certainly not the small businesses that they are inferring in small town America). Secondly, they are making this claim based on the fact that many small business owners file as individuals. What they aren’t talking about however, is that only the top 1.4% of small business owners are in the tax brackets that will be affected by Obama’s tax hikes. I would venture to guess that most of the businesses in the top 1.4% aren’t struggling to get by.

The Estate Tax:
As it stands (and would remain under an Obama Biden administration) the estate tax (or “death tax” as the republicans have chosen to characterize it) affects only estates worth more than 3.5 million dollars, though admittedly it comes in at a hefty 45%. John McCain proposes raising that cap to 5 million dollars, and lowering the rate to 15%. Not only is McCain trying to make a political stance on an issue that affects fewer than 400 people each year, but it’s a move that would also cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue over the next decade.

Health Care Tax Burden:
Here’s one that neither candidate is talking about, but that is extremely important. John McCain wants to count any money your employer pays towards your health insurance as income, and tax you on it. The average plan for a family costs about $12,000 a year, and the average employer pays more than $8,000 of that. That means that on top of the $3-4,000 you are already paying towards that health insurance, you will now pay federal income tax on an additional $8,000 of income. For someone making $35-60,000 a year, that will amount to more than $100 a month that you will be paying in new taxes – an amount that is significantly greater than the $319 you’ll be getting in tax relief under the republican plan.

To put it simply, under John McCain all those making more than $112,000 will see their true tax burden go down. If you make less than that amount and don’t have employer provided health coverage, you will see a SLIGHT decrease in your tax bill. If you make less than $112,000 and DO have employer provided health coverage, you will actually pay more in taxes than you do today, while those making millions will get a nice $269,364 break from the McCain Palin administration. This is the opposite of the Obama plan, wherein those making less than $227,000 will see a dramatic decrease in their tax bill while those making more will see an increase (the big increases don’t start until you earn more than $603,000 a year).

How can anybody making less than 6-figures vote for John McCain on the basis of taxes? What really frightens the republicans and their supporters is wealth redistribution, because they have it and want to keep it. If you’re not wealthy, you are hurting yourself by supporting the republican ticket, yet somehow they manage to convince the general populace that Barack Obama, the guy who would lower the average person’s tax bill, is a tax and spend menace. It’s time to listen to the facts and not the sound bites. If you’ve used the term “death tax” or argued against it and you don’t stand to inherit more than 3.5 million dollars, then you are a misinformed fool.

It’s alarming to me that 80% of the population now favors increased drilling offshore and in currently restricted areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Of all proposed solutions to our crippling foreign energy dependence, increased drilling is poised to make the smallest impact on our level of oil imports, and will serve to do nothing more than delay an imminent change. By focusing on alternative energies, we can dramatically cut our oil imports – a move which will strengthen our economy, improve national security, boost national morale, and preserve some of our most important national treasures.

Lately I’ve been hearing more and more of the argument that if the mere mention of dramatically increased drilling served to drive oil prices down, then imagine what actually drilling would do. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The drop in oil prices that we experienced on the back of an American majority chanting “drill baby drill” is based on speculation. Unfortunately the reality is that it would be impossible for us to drill enough oil, or do it quickly enough to make a serious dent in our reliance on imported crude. I’m sure the opening up of ANWR and our coastlines would result in an immediate decline in prices, but once the reality sets in that the change is negligible (outside of oil companies, who WILL be thrilled to boast a new set of domestic revenue streams), prices will quickly bounce back to their pre-expansion highs.

It could also be argued that the drop in price we’ve been seeing has been at least partially driven by a drop in demand. Increased focus on petroleum alternatives would result in dramatically decreased demand, resulting in a significantly larger cut in our oil imports than would upping production by 3-4% by 2030 (that figure is an estimate by the US Energy Information Administration if we open up offshore drilling). A 10% decreases in consumption would result in a 5X greater drop in oil imports than would drilling offshore (1.08 million barrels/day vs. .2 million barrels/day). It would also funnel billions of dollars into American companies with purely domestic interests; unlike the oil companies who will benefit from increased drilling which are multinational corporations with significant investments overseas, be they financial, in infrastructure and production, or through employment. The point is that drilling offshore will NOT be the boon to our economy that investment in alternatives will be.

Ultimately, oil is a finite resource. At some point, it becomes ridiculous to focus our resources and energy on new infrastructure for a rapidly diminishing supply of oil. We must face the reality that the days of relatively easily attainable oil will not last forever, and may in fact be mostly behind us, and redouble our efforts to develop new technologies that will allow us to march forward into a way of life fueled by resources that are renewable. Furthermore, it would be absolutely insane to trade some of the jewels of our nation, our last untarnished wilderness and our wealth of biological diversity, for a solution that isn’t a solution at all. We can make more of an impact on our foreign oil dependence and reclaim more of that wasted money by focusing on alternatives than we can by drilling, and we can do it in a shorter time span. Even if the US Energy Information Administration has underestimated our production potential by 500%, we can still reduce our imports more by cutting our use by only 10% – without sacrificing some of our proudest treasures.

What the writhing mobs of “drill baby drill” proponents must realize is that drilling offshore and in ANWR is a distraction that we can’t afford to support. It will increase complacency and recklessly ease concerns about a very serious issue. It will divert our focus, energy, and resources from solutions that would be significantly more beneficial to our economy, infrastructure, national security, national pride, and environment. It will drive back our pursuit of alternative energy sources to a point in time when oil is even more scarce and expensive. We absolutely must acknowledge the impending end of the oil age, and began preparing ourselves for an era of alternative energy. If we do not, we will almost certainly risk our position as a global economic leader, and our current way of life. Now is the time to focus on our future. We must sacrifice now in order to ensure greater prosperity later. We cannot wish our problems away, and by procrastinating we are setting ourselves up for a struggle that will be exponentially more difficult than the one we are so reluctant to undertake now.

The American Dream: that intangible, nebulous mashup of ideals and lifestyle that’s credited with everything from driving millions of people to risk their lives and illegally move to this country, to our oft-vehemently self clamored superiority in most every conceivable area, over pretty much every other nation on the planet. There was a time when it’s mere mention conjured up visions of a bootstrap-led rise through the social and economic hierarchy; a move from roots to goals, driven by hard work, self sacrifice, and the freedoms afforded only by the great American beacon of liberty and democracy. Unfortunately this luster has worn thin, and entire generations are beginning to see the mascot of American opportunity and accomplishment for what it has become: a life defined by the attainment of material possessions, empty workplace ambition, never ending competition with our neighbors and perceived benchmarks of achievement, and a pervasive, soul crushing undercurrent of suffering, unfulfillment, and apathy.

It seems that we’re losing the ability to look inward for direction in life, that we increasingly seek out a path to happiness in the pages of self help books, through the words of self described experts, or worst of all in the standards (real or perceived) set by popular culture or the misleading image presented by many of our peers. A couple of days with a television, stack of magazines, or a radio will make a very compelling case that the prescription for content is instant gratification and the constant inundation of material wealth. Any hole you feel inside can be easily filled by a designer bag, new pair of shoes, or luxury car. Even more conveniently, you won’t have any time to feel that pain when your life is consumed by a desire to make more money (to afford all of this stuff, of course). What you’ll never hear mentioned in the commerce-driven media is that your income is compensation for your time, or to put it bluntly, a portion of your life.

When viewed from this perspective, a high salary (though there are exceptions) is truly indicative only of a large amount of time invested in work. While there’s nothing wrong with this, unless you are fortunate enough to be filled with a desire to spend most of your time on work for reasons beyond external metrics, you are essentially trading personal fulfillment for cash. Few people ever take the time to truly consider the relative value of the free time to pursue that which is interesting and satisfying, vs the acquisition of a nicer home and fancier car. The argument can be made that increased monetary wealth provides the freedom and opportunity to pursue our interests, but consider the life of a person working 60+ hours a week in a high paying job. By the time we factor in the time spent each morning preparing for work, the time spent working at home, the time spent commuting, the time spent of familial obligations, and the time spent on everyday tasks such as eating, grooming, etc, we are left with as little as 15-20 free waking hours each week.

Now consider the life of somebody who works 30 hours a week in a moderate paying job. This person will likely perform significantly fewer work related tasks outside of the workplace, and will likely require less at-home preparation for their job. Even after adding in their other weekly obligations, we’re left with 60+ free waking hours each week. The person who chooses time over money is left with ample time to devote to whatever interests them. Whether that means volunteering in their community or at their children’s school, taking on a personally rewarding task such as writing a book or learning to play a musical instrument, or simply playing Madden ’09 for as much time each week as a lawyer spends at the office, they are free to define their own life however they see fit, as opposed to having it defined for them by an employer within the confines of a high-stress career. I don’t know about you, but I’m willing to drive a Toyota and cook my meals at home in exchange for almost 8 hours a day to spend as I see fit.

The people I know who are living the current version of the American Dream are mostly people I don’t envy at all. Sure they might have more stuff than I have. They live in nicer homes. They make more money. They have an iPhone, big flat screen TVs, and endless wardrobes. They eat out at nice restaurants all the time. They have subordinates at work. But they also tend to be single or in strained relationships. They don’t have time for their families. They have lots of projects that they’d like to take on, but simply don’t have the time. They are teetering on top of a mountain of debt and financial obligations that would bury them should something happen to their high-paying job. They are stressed. When they do have leisure time, they seem to be burdened by a need to cram months of fun or relaxation into a couple of days. Most of all, their identity is defined by what they do to make a living.

I choose to work as a bartender because it affords me the lifestyle that I want. I spend lots of time with my wife. We go on lots of small trips together. We go hiking and camping. We have time to talk to each other. I’ve written two books on topics that interest me. I teach music at a local high school and elementary school. I play gigs when they come along. I dabble in computer programming. I draw, paint, and create digital art. I write music. I have time to see movies and watch TV. I read a lot of books. I cook. I build furniture. I have a blog. I have time to spend on things that I like to do. I am happy. I am not poor. Most importantly, my life is defined by my personality and interests. I’m not a bartender, that just happens to be my steadiest source of income. I am living my own American dream, and it doesn’t involve a mercedes and a white picket fence, and it certainly does NOT involve a 9-5.

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain

The republican party seems to bestow upon its candidates the incredible ability to turn their stunning weaknesses into perceived strengths, and to thrust them upon their opponents. At this point anyone with even a passing interest in this year’s election is familiar with the talking points about the republican nominee and his running mate: He is presented as the national security candidate, the moral values candidate, the fiscally conservative candidate, the America first candidate, the “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” candidate, the straight-talking candidate, the “character” candidate, the low taxes candidate, the “service to one’s country” candidate, the maverick candidate, and an all around media whipping boy, among many other things. All of these characterizations are laughable, as I’ll outline in a series of upcoming posts.

National Security

John McCain graduated from the Annapolis Naval Academy in 1958 in the bottom 1% of his class. He was subsequently commissioned as an ensign in the Navy, and quickly became a pilot (a position awarded only to the very top tier of the applicant pool). The first 9 years of his military service was defined by 3 plane crashes caused by pilot error, and his pre-POW military experience was perhaps best summed up by Senator McCain himself during his acceptance speech at this week’s Republican National Convention: “I liked to bend a few rules, and pick a few fights for the fun of it. But I did it for my own pleasure, my own pride. I didn’t think there was a cause more important than me.”

In 1967 John McCain was shot down, and began a five and a half year stay as a prisoner of war. He was undoubtedly subjected to horrific conditions and deplorable treatment, and this rousing story (and the McCain camps insistence on interjecting it into every conversation, regardless of topic or relevance) forms the basis of his entire campaign for the presidency. After his release and rehabilitation, he attended the National War College in Washington and was given command of a Florida training squadron (and thusly heavily insulated from any form of combat or interaction with international forces). After only one year at this post, McCain began service as the Navy liaison to the U.S. Senate – an appointment that lasted only until his new marriage to the deep-pocketed, politically connected beer heiress Cindy Lou Hensley set his sights on public office. Before they had been married for a year John McCain retired from the Navy (admittedly out of frustration at not achieving the rank of admiral) to run for congress.

When I look at Senator McCain’s military record, I see no experience that would exceptionally qualify him to lead our armed forces. Before he was a POW, he (at his own admission) was concerned only with personal pride and his own self interest. After his capture and release, he was insulated from foreign affairs, and begin a course of duty that prepared him for a run at public office. If anything, I see a man whose service was defined by a strikingly narrow focus, and a favor bestowed upon the son and grandson of men who earned the title of hero through their actions and leadership, not through circumstance (as opposed to Senator McCain whose heroism is defined by imprisonment).

Furthermore, it’s very telling that the self branded national security candidate is the guy who wants to spend all of our money and deploy all of our resources in a country that poses no direct threat to American national security. McCain has also made such stunning guffaws as referring to the Iraq/Pakistan border (yes, it’s called Iran), and calling Al Quaeda a shia organization multiple times(they’re sunnis). These are understandable mistakes, but they are unacceptable coming from someone who makes himself out to be a foremost expert. McCain also insists on repeatedly voting against benefits for our veterans, and shows a stubborn insistence on characterizing our World as incredibly dangerous, at a time when human beings are safer as a whole (Americans included) then we ever have been in the entirety of recorded history. John McCain is representing himself as the foreign policy and national security expert because his greatest asset is his tale of imprisonment, and because the Republicans again will have to resort to shameless fear-mongering to win the election. I’m absolutely terrified of a leader whose idea of national security is furthered involvement in a series of expensive, deadly, un-winnable wars against intangible ideas, and occupations of sovereign nations.

Over the next few days I’ll be posting a series of articles addressing the other misleading self representations of the McCain Palin ticket.

Last night the presumptive presidential candidates took the stage at the Saddleback church in Lake Forest, California. The appearance was billed as an open forum, where the senators would be given a chance to express their views on faith, as well as a number of secular issues. Both men answered many of the same questions, and the differences in both ideology and approach between Senators Obama and McCain have become abundantly clear.

When Barack Obama appears publicly, one gets the sense that he is actually thinking about his answer before he replies, and his response often takes into account more than one of the many facets inherent in complicated issues. For example, even though he is admittedly pro-choice, Obama is without a doubt more committed to stemming the flood of abortions through a focus on bipartisan efforts to address the root of the problem: unwanted pregnancies. Women (particularly young woman) are not getting abortions “because they can”, they are getting abortions because they do not want to be mothers. Banning abortion outright will serve to do little more than drive desperate people to desperate, risky behavior. It will do NOTHING to reduce unwanted pregnancy and flies in face of logic and reason.

John McCain, on the other hand, tends to speak in short, uncompromising statements that demonstrate very little understanding of the issues and how to go about dealing with them. Abortion should be illegal – period. McCain offers no insight into the complexity of the issue or his plan of action. We get nothing more than an empty, black & white worldview. Similarly, when asked about evil John McCain tells us only that Islamic extremism needs to be “defeated”, and that he will follow Osama Bin Laden to “the gates of Hell”. I’m assuming that he doesn’t literally intend to follow the man to a tangible set of gates that stand at the entrance to a realm beyond our mortal grasp, which leaves us with a silly, empty soundbite. I’d also like to hear McCain define the word defeat, seeing as he claims we defeated communism at a time when we are neighbors with a communist country, we are attending the Olympic games in a communist country, and communism continues to thrive in two places where we fought wars in the last 50 years (Vietnam and North Korea).

In contrast, when asked about evil Barack Obama spoke not only about terrorist regimes, but also about evil on our own streets and in our own homes. Considering that since (and including) the attacks on the World Trade Center I’d have a 40x greater chance of being killed by an American in America than by a terrorist, I’m happy that at least one candidate seems to still care for actual facts. It’s heartening to hear a politician speak about the challenges we face in combating evil at home and abroad, and shocking that people can still trumpet out and out defeat of an idea. It’s strange to now see idealism and pragmatism coming from the same party, while high profile Republicans continue to offer solutions that manage to be both compromised and unrealistic, while showing a lack of foresight beyond the pollsters and ballet boxes.

In closing, I’ll let the politicians own positions speak for themselves:

(The following is heavily paraphrased)
On abortion:

Barack Obama: While admittedly pro-choice, it’s important that we work together in a bipartisan fashion to meaningfully reduce the problem of unwanted pregnancy through education, reform in our adoption system, and a variety of approaches without driving already desperate women to risky and desperate action and making criminals out of our citizens, doctors, and nurses. We can all be proud to see abortion rates decline.

John McCain: Abortion is wrong.

On evil:

Barack Obama: We must confront evil head on, in all of it’s forms. Be it terrorism, violent crime, vicious child abuse, or rampant white collar theft, we have to work together (even if sacrifice is involved) to show those who would see us fall that we are united and strong.

John McCain: I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

It seems backwards to me that a society based on freedom and individual rights and liberty would seek to solve our substance abuse problems with outright restriction. Drug abuse is a significant problem for millions of Americans, but turning these individuals into criminals will do nothing to help their situation, or that of society. I would propose that instead of this illogical, unrealistic “war” on drugs, we focus our efforts on educating people about the real risks and effects of substance use, and rehabilitating those that have succumbed to addiction yet seek change, ensuring that citizens can make their own decisions about what they do with their own bodies. This would mean an honest, peer-reviewed scientific presentation of facts, without bias or outright deceit. The government’s job is to protect its citizens from external threats, not from themselves (and certainly not to push its own agenda through misinformation and the warping of facts). I should not be forced to rely on any judgment save my own about what best serves my personal well being.

In addition to wiping out the drug cartels (and putting a stop to much of the associated violence), the legalization of street drugs would free up significant monetary and law enforcement resources to be re focused in other areas. Unbiased educational and rehabilitation programs could be financed through taxes levied on substance sales, allowing users to be a drain on other users, as opposed to all taxpayers as a whole. If the problem can’t be made to go away through the barrel of a gun, then we need to re-evaluate the real effects on individuals and our communities, and act intelligently toward the reduction of these effects.

It’s time we stop throwing billions of dollars at a war on drugs when we are the creators and facilitators of the illegal drug market. It’s time we stop throwing those battling with abuse and dependency (conditions listed in the DSMIV alongside things like depression, schizophrenia, and other psychological disorders) in prison, instead of providing the assistance they need. It’s time for an honest appraisal of the motivations behind prohibition. I’m ashamed to live in a society where I can legally obtain alcohol, opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, NDRIs, barbiturates, anaesthetics, and a host of other pharmecuticals in quantaties large enough to kill myself 100s of times over, without appreciable risk of legal recourse or social stigma, yet in many states I can be incarcerated at length for the use of something that grows in the ground.