The Blog of Jason "Jayce" Olshefsky

Dealing with complicated issues is a complicated issue. I find that it is impossible for a non-expert to rationally debate a complicated issue. Instead, it all comes down to belief.

Take global warming, for instance. There are people in the world who have spent their lives studying this: climatologists. As scientists (the real climatologists anyway) they posit a theory, test it against empirical evidence, publish the results, and let their peers (other real climatologists) analyze, critique, and collectively approve or reject it. The Wikipedia article references a separate page that cites hundreds of scientific organizations who collectively agree that the world is warming overall, the climatological system is changing, and that these changes are attributable to human activities. More conclusive, though, is that aside from four groups who stand by non-committal statements, “no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion” (the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists who updated their stance in 2007 with a non-committal statement.)

However, I am not a climatologist by any means. As such, I’m left to judge by belief alone: I believe that climatologists have studied this issue and agreed that humans are causing climate change, and that these climatologists do not have sufficient ulterior motives to lie. I don’t think it’s possible to predict exactly how these changes will manifest themselves, but as a believer that humans are well-suited to the current climatological situation, I can’t see any change being likely to give advantage to us — almost all climatological changes will be unpleasant to our situation.

Some people choose instead to believe what they hear through the media, or from someone they respect (regardless of their true expertise as a climatologist), or from a celebrity or public figure, or from their personal experience, or from their non-climatological-expert analysis. Some believe much more strongly in the predictions than the assessment. But in all those differences, people are trying to debate with insufficient information. Belief is irrational and can’t be debated: all that can be done is to explain one’s rationale and listen to another’s rationale and decide for yourself whether you want to change your mind.

Health care, on the other hand, has three sets of experts: one for the health facet, one for the money facet, and one for the moral facet: I have not encountered rigorous scientific analysis from any group, nor on the system as a whole. Doctors (while their medical practice is scientifically based) can only say that most people will live a comfortable life and may need temporary corrective care to maintain that, that any corrective effort is exponentially less severe the earlier it is started, and that a few people will require more constant care to permit a comfortable existence. Insurance companies and nations with nationalized health systems provide data indicating cost; as best I can tell, any system has approximately the same cost across its whole population. Finally, philosophers can provide the moral facet by asking, “is health valuable?” The answer transcends the other two groups as doctors’ Hippocratic oath implicitly declares it so, and it is certainly a lucrative proposition as no parent would keep any wealth or a specific possession in preference to their child’s life and health.

Without the benefit of a quality analysis, we are left to muddle through argument without full knowledge, again leaning on belief. Do we have more faith in government or corporations (as if they are different masters)? Should we help strangers? Will people we don’t know exploit our generosity? Would we be willing to watch our own child die? Would we wish that on someone else?

My point of this exercise is to say that we all select where we get our knowledge and we use our beliefs to decide which knowledge informs our decisions. Implicit in that statement is my own belief that rational, reasoned discourse is the superior form of changing opinions.

So I decided to go vote. I’m not as well-versed in the candidates than I’d like, and I wasn’t keen on the electronic machines, but I thought I’d go ahead anyway. We indeed have a new system in New York. Basically you fill out a bubble-sheet (color in circles on a sheet) to indicate your voting preference. Then you feed the machine into what I have described as the Ballot Disposal Unit™ — a device that supposedly scans your ballot to determine if it is readable, at which point it is dropped into a storage bin. I have no confidence that my vote was at all counted, and I had no opportunity to confirm that the machine read my choices as intended. I noticed that the machines had a number of simple seals on the door joints to indicate tampering, and some of them were removed or oddly placed.

According to my 2008 write-up, the scanning machines for the election this year are from Sequoia Voting Systems (221 Hopkins Ave., Jamestown) which is now warmly called Dominion Voting Systems, Incorporated. Originally, the machines were intended to display one’s intended selections and allow confirmation.

I did a quick Google search for “electronic voting new york” and the titles for the top hits are as follows: “Rough start for electronic voting in New York – Los Angeles Times”, “New York electronic voting machines experience problems – Boston.com”, “Worries About E-Voting Persist As Primary Looms – City Limits …”, “A Host of Monitors Will Watch the City’s Electronic Voting‎ – New York Times”, “New York Electronic Voting to Be Closely Watched – NYTimes.com”, and “U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting – New York Times”. Among the concerns of the experts from a sampling of these articles is the fact that up to 10 ballots can be successfully stuffed into the machine at the same time, and the exposed tamper seals can be cut leading to invalidation of all ballots inside. This is a comical joke — and at over $10,000 per machine, a blatant rip-off.

I’ll reiterate my concerns from my older article: “what political parties does Sequoia make donations to? Who do they lobby in the Federal government? How much money do they spend on lobbying?” I’m assuming Jamestown is booming at this point, and maintenance fees alone will keep it a boom-town for some time.

This evening I was biking on my “tall bike” through The Lilac Festival today when I came to the South/Highland intersection. Police had stopped traffic to permit the pedestrians to cross. Once the people had completely cleared the intersection, I slowly rolled through next to the barrier blocking Highland before the cops released vehicular traffic. One of the cops said, “do you know I can give you a ticket for that?” I just smiled and he repeated his question so I just said, “yeah” and rode away.  [Admittedly, I made a terrible mistake: I should have stopped and answered him with, "am I being charged with a crime or am I free to go?"]

What the hell was that all about? He said nothing to the pedestrians who cut through the road, jaywalking outside the crosswalk. But once again I get to have a negative experience with the police. By riding a bike, I not only have to be responsible for a motorist hitting me [let's be real here: if I were killed by a car, you'd hear a lot of, "well, he was taking chances riding that tall bike"] I also have to deal with being hassled by the cops (just like last time).

If Officer Killjoy wasn’t just a power-hungry egomaniac awarded a badge by Mayor “More Cops For More Problems”, he would have actually stopped me and given me a ticket — after all, that’s his job. Along with all the jaywalkers. But he was out to ensure I “knew my place” — that he was the Authority Figure. I tell you what, pig: how about you ticket the myriad of SUV’s that get a tax discount for being a commercial vehicle, but that exceed the 3-ton gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on most residential streets, and I’ll start caring that you have anything to do with enforcing the law.

Why not? Here’s a thought: BP Oil.

Someone riding a bike says, “we don’t need oil.” It’s a statement that although the oil companies could go bankrupt and the economy could go to hell, people will be okay. Illegally using a commercial SUV as a commuter car is a statement of faith in infinite oil and in a vibrant and ever-growing economy. Guess which activity attracts more police attention? See, it’s only through ensuring people are terrified of something (in this case, gas shortages) that they stay in line and obey cops. After all, it depends on what you think is important: a viable future for America, or an easily controlled populace.

I found some time and stopped by The Kate Gleason Auditorium at The Rochester Public Library (115 South Ave.) for the presentation of a Center City Circulator Feasibility Study for Rochester by C&S Companies. They are surveying employees and full-time residents of the area inside the Inner Loop to determine if a circulator (a short, fixed transit route for moving people around a small area) is feasible. They presented the current survey results and asked for suggestions which they wrote on two large easels.

Their results indicated that they were surveying people on how they presently commuted to downtown. The vast majority (some 80%) drove alone in a car and used a parking lot. They unfortunately included Kodak so the results skew strongly toward Kodak’s behaviors.

More importantly, though, they seemed genuinely mired in the car-plenty, cheap-fuel, 1960′s thinking that inspired the city’s infrastructure. For instance, I was met with surprise when I suggested they examine the possibility of removing automobiles from the area in the Inner Loop, serving it only through a circulator and foot-traffic, perhaps starting with a trial area. My thinking is that fuel costs and the costs associated with a car-culture are going to increase, and it would be wise to examine options that look past the status quo. It becomes a question of whether we want to be more like Denver or more like Palmyra.

Most of the suggestions from others revolved around providing free parking (so I suspect C&S’s presentation to the City will strongly endorse free parking). I thought it unprofessional to watch one of the camera crews recommend that the media should be able to park with impunity without being ticketed. I’m not surprised on either front. In the first case, if you ask people what they want, they will start from what they know; it will take leadership to create a better situation that is not simply more of the past. In the second case, I have been nothing but appalled at the lack of quality in television news, and this is just more of the same.

So I was leaving The Flower City Habitat for Humanity ReStore (755 Culver Rd.) after doing my Saturday afternoon grazing when a police officer (I think his name was W-something) came up to ask some questions. I had not witnessed a crime nor was I involved in one. But I was acting suspicious. See, I was riding a bicycle with a trailer to do my Saturday shopping. Officer W. said there have been problems with people on bicycles with toolboxes on the back and totes stealing copper pipe from houses.

Although I was highly irritated by being singled out, I only revealed that fact by asking if he had also stopped cars and asked if the occupants were involved with such crimes because cars can carry a lot more material. He was respectful and ginger about the whole 4th Amendment and all, and only asked questions. Obviously, though, if I had not answered openly, I am certain I would have been further suspected, detained, and harassed.

I mean, who gets stopped like this? Have you, dear reader, ever been stopped and questioned for no good reason? In my case, it was an unpleasant experience all around. I can see no “silver lining” in it at all: I was singled out for being different. And to add insult to injury, “different” in a way that promoted reuse of materials (the trailer is homemade and the bike was rebuilt from junk), healthy living, and a low impact on the world’s resources.

Of course, I forgot to ask the perfect question: “how many people have been convicted of stealing copper pipe on bicycles?” I did comment that I thought this kind of theft in general is a relatively rare occurrence and he replied that “it happens more than you think” — a statement that seemed lacking in factual backing.

I guess I could find a lawyer to search cases and see just how prevalent the problem is, but as a start, I searched “copper pipe” theft on Google and came up with some 15,000 hits. A couple other attempts, like a search for “stole copper pipe” bicycle came up dry, finding only theft of copper pipe and bicycles, not with them. Likewise, searching “stole copper pipe” on Google’s news search reveals only 55 hits — for the 29 year period from 1980 to 2009. By my guess, this is less of a problem than Officer W. thinks.

So I think back on the times when I’ve had non-trivial interactions with the police (i.e. more than just saying hello), none are clearly positive. Twice I’ve been through vehicle sticker checkpoints (and waved through), once through a breathalyzer checkpoint (blew far less than DUAI), and once when someone backed into my car (the cop failed to take an accurate report, omitting eye-witness evidence). And a few years ago I was terribly depressed and out for a walk and I was stopped by a cop because — and I swear this was not me — I matched the description of someone spotted trying to jump off a bridge in the area … that one I chalk up as just really really weird.

My conclusion is to have far fewer police. Sadly, we live in Mayor Former Police Chief’s land and his solution to any problem is “more cops”. I also realize that I’m either doing something very right or very wrong by daring to take visible action to help treat the planet better. It’s just another notch in my being ejected from society — from a lay-off to being rejected for a mortgage refinance (before the *ahem* real crooks [hint: driving Lexus cars, not bikes with trailers] ruined everything), some other similar bumps along the way, and now this.

I might as well get used to it because there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

I think I’m starting to see the boundaries of the next social revolution. Let me lay out a little context of recent references that I believe are related.

First, I talked last year about the “monkeysphere” idea.  The basic idea is that our primate brains can only accept about 150 people who we consider part of our clan, tribe, or village, and beyond that, all the other people are equivalent to “things” in the world.

Next is related to things I’ve seen in discussions about Burning Man and the idea of “community”.  To me, the notion of “community” is like a lot of words: they are there to provide a spectrum upon which to measure.  So when one says, “the community”, that is a reference to a specific group of people with traits that tie them together.  The thing that is important is that being “in the community” means you have the traits of the community — it does not mean that you must adapt your behavior because of your physical location.  In other words, actions cause description; description does not cause action.

Related to that, I recently found a new term: POSIWID.  According to Wikipedia at least, Stafford Beer coined the term as an acronym for “[the] purpose of [a] system is what it does”.  The underlying principle is that the intended function of a system is irrelevant: its purpose (or function) is solely defined by what it does.  If, for instance, you set out to create a community of people who share art and resources, you might end up with a big party in the desert: the purpose of that system is a big party in the desert, no matter what your intentions were.

I have observed (especially in the last 10 years) that people I encounter are much more polarized by political party or political views than ever before.  It is probably most attributable to whom I hang out with, but I also believe there is a trend.  What I mean, specifically, is that I was finding prejudice in myself concerning politics: that I would judge someone favorably or unfavorably solely based on their political party affiliation.  I thought this was interesting to observe, and generally not good.

I also see the strong opinions of people concerning socialized health care. Although there many facets to it, the one I find most interesting is the debate on whether an arbitrary stranger should be cared for.  I’m neglecting any specifics because you can create straw men to support either side (i.e. abusers of a taxpayer-funded system versus a hard worker who circumstantially loses access to care).  The question is: will you help someone you don’t know anything about?

So finally, what’s this next revolution?: it’s how we treat strangers.

I see people lining up along a spectrum.  On one side are people who are only willing to help those people they know personally (i.e. who are within their “monkeysphere”) at the expense of the well-being of people they don’t.  On the other are people who willing to support everyone equally, even if that means they may not have resources to help people they know personally.

I think it is more noble to lean toward helping everyone, and a testament to the superiority of humankind.  However, I also know that such civility is frail: a small percentage of people working to their own advantage can poison the whole system.  All societies have blind-spots and points of leverage for the advantage-seeker, but civility is maintained by the unspoken agreement among people that they not take advantage at those points.  And in America, there are socially-acceptable points to find advantage: that permission is specifically what allows capitalism to work.

Anyway, I find myself playing both sides of the fence for the time-being.  I have a network of friends who I help freely (with my time, skills, money, and resources) and who will do likewise for me.  I also strive for a better solution that is more inclusive because I feel better when my behavior also helps other people.

I headed out to [LOCATION REDACTED] to see a show with some bands. Up first was Colonel Parmisan who did some slick looping noise and feedback. Oliver/Reeg was next in a more electronic form (which I guess is called “AC-DC”) and they played a sort-of experimental-alternative rock instrumental kind of thing. Next was Autumn In Halifax who are still a strong favorite of mine … the poetic lyrics over equally-interesting electrically-modified acoustic is just the ticket. Finally was out-of-towners Deleted Scenes who also put on a good show with their experimental-alternative rock.

Unfortunately, I can’t really talk about where I was because it’s a secret. See there’s that fairly new law that the City has been using to shut down non-commercial music events — as opposed to out-of-control house parties as it was “intended”. As such, the shows are quietly announced through word-of-mouth, and only friends get told where to go.

So now it’s July 1, 2009 — just short of 233 years since the United States of America declared its independence from England. And, you know, I don’t believe in it anymore.

I was raised with the notion that America was a place where the smart and the hard-working were rewarded. Taught that we control our government, not the other way around. [In Soviet Russia, government controls you!] That anyone can step forward and change the country for the better.

But what I’ve found is that none of that is true.

There was a confluence of several things that got me here.

The “Cash for Clunkers” law is the poster child for everything that’s wrong with the legislature today. The goal set before them was to set America on a path to reduce pollution and consume less oil. What they did was to create a law that caused more consumption: building a new car consumes more energy and creates more pollution than keeping an old one on the road. And all because the actual problem won’t fit in a sound-byte. Plus, the law reinforces the new American model of mass consumerism.

Then there was a discussion I had about class reunions. It’s rare that you get a truly random sample of America, but people who came from the place you did is a pretty good random sample. I mean, just because our parents chose to live in the same place doesn’t mean we’re anything alike. Anyway, when I think about my reunion, I realize that — unlike my self-selected group of friends — that in fact, only about 5% of people even remotely believe in the same ideals as I do. Most are thrilled that America is at war all the time and that we do things bigger than other countries.

Finally, there’s the curious case that American’s, by-and-large, don’t hold mass protests, and certainly don’t get violent (police excluded). When you watch other countries people deal with things they disagree with in the government, it’s friggin’ serious. But here, it’s just a bunch of jobless hippies who protest. The reason is that we have a superior government where you can simply write to your representatives and they get the same message. If you don’t like what they do, just vote them out. The truth of the matter is that our representatives do whatever they please, and it’s good marketing (with lots of money) that gets them reelected.

So the illusion is over. America is what it is. Have a good birthday, old man.

In a more bloggerly mode, I thought I’d just post a quick link to Why I’m voting for Barak [sic] Obama … and I hope you will too. Reason 5: The Sacredness of Life by Brian D. McLaren. He’s [apparently] a Christian who opposes abortion, but argues that we should work toward effective means of reducing the number of abortions by eliminating some of the key reasons people get them. Further, he goes on to say that overturning Roe v. Wade will not be effective for it will revert to state-control of abortion laws, of which he estimates that 16 states will ban abortion, netting a maximum possible reduction of the number of abortions in those states — about 10% of the national total. And that doesn’t count the possibility of crossing state lines to get a legal abortion.

So I went ahead and downloaded a copy of the ballot for my district today. I try to do this every year so I can tell who I’m voting for and figure out for whom I would like to elect. Obviously we’ve got a presidential race, along with quite a few local big-money races, as evidenced by the irritating volume of advertising going on. But what about the rest of them? And did you know there’s a proposal for an amendment to the State Constitution?

I’m pretty sure everyone has made a decision about the Presidential race. Barack Obama and Joe Biden seem to represent rational argument and a hopeful future — with the caveat that Obama is as new to Washington as John F. Kennedy was. John McCain and Sarah Palin stand by their maverick, wildcard approach to change — with the caveat that McCain may change his platform once elected just as he did when he became the Republican Party candidate, and he selected a vice presidential running-mate who (as best as I can tell) is approximately as qualified as I (or anyone) is to be lead the United States.

Anyway, here’s a breakdown of the other candidates that I’ll be voting for:

• State Supreme Court Justice, 7th Judicial district (vote for two)
  • Joanne M. Winslow (Democrat, Independence)
  • Paul M. Riordan (Democrat, Independence)
  • Robert Lunn (Republican, Conservative)
  • Elma Ann Bellini (Republican, Conservative)
• Representative in Congress, 28th District
  • Louise M. Slaughter (Democrat, Independence, Working Families)
  • David W. Crimmen (Republican, Conservative)
• State Senator, 56th district
  • Richard A. Dollinger (Democrat, Working Families)
  • Joseph E. Robach (Republican, Independence, Conservative)
• Member of Assembly, 131st District
  • Susan V. John (Democrat, Working Families)
  • Jeffery R. Morrow (Republican)
  • Rafael Colon (Independence)
• County Court Judge
  • Frank P. Geraci, Jr. (Democrat, Independence, Conservative, Working Families)
• Family Court Judge
  • Joan S. Kohout (Democrat, Independence, Conservative, Working Families)
  • Gail A. Donofrio (Republican, Independence, Conservative, Working Families)
• County Clerk
  • Thomas M. Hasman (Democrat, Working Families)
  • Cheryl Dinolfo (Republican, Independence, Conservative)

and “Proposal Number One, An Amendment”

Amendment to Article 5, section 6 of the Constitution, in relation to additional civil service credit for members of the armed forces of the United States

The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement that veterans who were disabled in the actual performance of duty in any war be receiving disability payments from the United States Veterans Administration in order to qualify for additional points on a civil service examination for appointment or promotion. Under the proposed amendment, the disability must only be certified to exist by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The proposed amendment would also update the reference to the “United States Veterans Administration” to instead refer to the “United States Department of Veterans Affairs” to reflect current federal government structure. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

The race I knew the least about was the 7th Judicial District for the State Supreme Court — an important race indeed and I’m glad to not be blind-sided by it. I was comforted by a September 30, 2008 Democrat and Chronicle article which outlined the positions of the four candidates: they all appear to be suitably qualified and respectful of the power and responsibility they would hold. The Democrat and Chronicle endorses Robert Lunn and Elma Ann Bellini, and Joanne M. Winslow was the subject of a favorable article at the Gay Alliance of the Genessee Valley website. My detailed (but imperfect) search on Google didn’t yield any other primary sources, although a website called MPNow offered a bland but favorable article on Paul M. Riordan from the Brighton-Pittsford Post, and an article from the Daily Messenger summarizing the candidates.

In the 131st District Assembly race, three candidates are competing. The 500 results of a Google search for the candidates was so dominated by incumbent Susan John that I opted to search for the challengers, but even that search did a poor job of narrowing the results as “Rafael Colon” appeared often in results unrelated to the 131st District. Anyway, Project Vote Smart offered a fact-sheet style “biography” of Susan V. John, but no useful information on Raphael Colon nor Jeffery R. Morrow. So … I just shrug at this one — Susan John has not been on my radar as doing a bad job or anything.

And then there’s the New York peculiarity of voting for County Clerks — in my mind, a position that should simply be appointed as part of the cabinet of the County Executive. Thomas M. Hasman is running against incumbent Cheryl Dinolfo. You’d think this would be the perfect kind of job anyone could be appointed to as a favor [and I'll be damned that I can't remember the term for that kind of "payback" job ...] because it just involves moving information around, keeping things organized, and making sure the government is accessible to the people.

But still there are huge problems with the Monroe County Clerk’s office. In an October 27, 2008 article on RochesterTurning, author “stlo7″ points out that it’s not just the thousands of social security numbers posted on the Monroe County website [that's right: publicly available and ripe for picking for identity theft], but now it’s erroneously reporting people as criminals. Dinolfo is proving herself totally incompetent, while Hasman has a fully stocked resume for the position: “background in computer security and records management with the National Security Council,”[Rochester Turning, October 28, 2008], and “experience in information-technology security, records management, and administration — including several years in the White House during the Clinton administration”[City Newspaper, October, 2008]. Anecdotally, I recently needed to have a mortgage company clear up a title search problem on my house, and when the person I spoke with looked to the Monroe County website to find some forms, she commented that it was one of the worst organized county government websites she’d ever seen. Monroe County is dysfunctional enough, but we can at least fix the Clerk’s office — and hopefully foster some positive changes.

Don’t forget to vote, damn it!