If You're Pissed Off About the Election

You're in good company.

It's Time to Do Something About it!

I'm also pissed off at being forced to choose between Hillary and Trump, and I view the system as being partial and rigged. This presidential election is an embarrassment.

If you feel passionately about having more than two parties, the time for action is now. The country is as ripe for a third-party candidate to sweep the polls as it ever was.

A Look at the Comparables*

Kind of like how Ross Perot did in 1992. Note that he started back in February of his year, though he did pull out and then re-enter. He ended up with 15% of the vote.

Well, there was also John B. Anderson, who had 13%-15% in August, and finished with 7%. He started early and worked hard throughout the season.

Even the most successful third-party presidential candidate ever, Theodore Roosevelt, who was already the incumbent (running incumbents have lost only 5 of the 14 elections in which they ran), only came in second, and still lost the election.

For reference, the guy most likely to come in third this year, Gary Johnson, has started early (announced his candidacy in January), but still only has about 10% of the vote - less than even John B. Anderson had at roughly this time during his race.

I Want a Third-Party Candidate, NOW!

Bad news: You'll have to wait.

If you feel passionately about the detrimental effects of a two-party system, talk to your representative and talk to your senator about the rules that prevent a third party candidate from being successful. Do it early, do it often. Ask your friends to do it. When the rules are fairer for third-party candidates, we can hash out which one it'll be.**

Pick the third-party candidate you think has the best chance as early as possible, and throw every ounce you have behind them. Be willing to support that candidate, even if you don't agree with them on a lot of issues, because you are passionate about having a third option.

This election is close. If you want a third-party option, figure out which candidate (Republican or Democrat) is most likely to help change the laws that prevent a third-party president, and vote for them. Don't throw your vote away on a spoiler effect candidate this time.

One More Thing

News flash: the meme you post may have value due to its humor, but you aren't changing anyone's mind with a meme, and you might offend people you're "friends" with. And you're wasting everyone else's "wall" space.

Since I mentioned that your third-party candidate isn't going to win, I should also mention that as far as I can tell, everyone has pretty much already decided who they're voting for. Whether it's "Dems-All-The-Way-Go-Hillary," "Reps-All-the-Way-Go-Trump," "Not-Trump-So-Hillary-I-Guess" or "Not-Hillary-So-Trump-I-Guess," we all pretty much know what we're doing by now.***

* Despite what spell-check says, "comparables" is a real word. It's a real estate term.

**Maybe it's my cynicism speaking, but you really don't expect to ever have a ballot with more than three names on it, do you?

***Except for those stubborn folk who just don't learn and are voting for a third-party candidate, anyway.

Please Stop Clicking That Link (Or, The Very Public Face of... You pt. 2)

Several years ago, I had a bad week. I had joined a charitable organization, found myself overwhelmed and unable to contribute, and tried to make a graceful exit. And things went sideways. After a lot of thought, I blogged about it.

I was angry. I received some bad treatment at the hands of some one I had trusted. So, I outed that person. I shared - in anger - the things that person said, and the things I had said. That person had made some racist comments, and I called that person out. In anger. Because poor treatment and racism make me angry.

Funny/sad thing is, it's one of my most popular posts. I keep hoping that it'll fall into obscurity, like my other posts. But the stupid thing is in my top-ten for any given month, and it's been my second-most-seen post of all time for years, beaten only by a knitting pattern.

So, when I was playing with my blog layout, I took that into consideration. Should I use a side-bar with my top-five? Should I just go delete that post? Is there anything in it I should be ashamed of?

I keep thinking about it, though. I T.H.I.N.K. Was the post True? Yes. Was it Helpful? Maybe, as a cautionary tale. Was it Illegal? Certainly not. Was it Necessary? So much of the internet isn't necessary. It was necessary for me to vent at the time that I wrote it. Was it Kind? No, but being a Dr. Who fan, I aim for "never cruel nor cowardly." I'm not sure I even want to aim for "always kind."

I could delete it... but nothing you put on the internet is ever truly gone. It would exist somewhere. Besides, it is a part of me. I really did that. It was me. Not my finest moment, but also not my worst (I don't put those on the internet).

I decided to put the top-five posts this month on the blog and hope that puppy stays down around 7 or 8. I won't hide from a years-old moment of questionable judgement. If I'm ever a presidential candidate, I'm sure some one will bring that up (unless they can dig up my really good dirt). Until then, please stop clicking that link.

Edit: Part 1 of The Very Public Face of... You was about marketing and privacy.

The Big Deal About Some Washington, D.C. Bike Lanes

If you're following me on Facebook, you've already seen most of this. This post lays out the background information, both sides of the argument, and my stance in it.

The Current Situation:

There are bike lanes all around this piece of Washington, D.C., but few that connect the areas with a lot of bike lanes to the areas with few bike lanes, and fewer continuous north-south bike lanes nearby. The marker is for New York Ave. and 6th street, northwest. Solid lines are bike lanes, dotted lines are "bike-friendly streets" - places where Google has noted there are bicyclists, though I question their equation of large numbers of cyclists to "friendliness." 6th street is like a bike-lane desert.

In 2014, 12 bicyclists and 16 pedestrians were hit along the stretch of 6th street under consideration, and 14 bicyclists and 7 pedestrians were struck along the portion of 9th street under consideration, according to FOIA data cited by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA). So, bicyclists and pedestrians do use the street, but not safely.

On 6th street and M street (jut north of the marker on the above map) is a large church of long-time congregants, the United House of Prayer. The New Bethel Baptist Church is at 9th and S. Northwest D.C. has seen a lot of gentrification.

The United House of Prayer enjoys street parking, where about 75 cars can park diagonally on Sundays. The proposed changes to 6th street would allow only parallel parking, meaning the loss of an unknown number of parking places.

The Proposals:

There are four proposals for adding bike lanes to either 6th or 9th streets in northwest Washington, D.C. They all allow for some street parking, at least at "non-peak" times, which would presumably include Sunday mornings.

Here's my favorite proposal, which provides for protected bike lanes in each direction, two or four lanes of travel (four in peak times), and 2 lanes of parking during non-peak times. The plan for 6th street north of New York Avenue looks the same as this, which shows 6th south of New York Avenue:

The Conundrum:

Gentrification has forced many of the congregants to the suburbs. The churches may see a concerning situation where congregants are far from their church and have trouble parking once they get there. They are arguing that this loss of parking impinges on their freedom of religion.

The city has adopted Vision Zero, which aims to eliminate traffic deaths. Protected bike lanes are a major portion of this vision.

The Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) asserts in their post on the recent public meeting that while concerns about gentrification are valid, using the proposed bike lanes as a proxy for this argument is inappropriate.

My Stance:

As Christians, we are told to protect the vulnerable. This extends to vulnerable street users, such as bicyclists and pedestrians. The benefit of being "strong" (in the majority, supported by your environment, and physically secure) is that you can afford to help the weak. As Christians, we are commanded to do so, even at the expense of our comfort.

As Christians, we are told that we are the stewards of our environment. While biking isn't free from environmental harm (tires are a petroleum product), it is more responsible than driving. As Christians, we should be encouraging bicycling and walking as means of transportation.

As Christians, we are told to love one another, above all else. The importance of community and inclusiveness is reinforced through scripture. Our public policies and behaviors should reflect these values.

Unfortunately, the behavior of the those representing the churches at the public meeting did not represent Christian values. Besides holding their right to park above others' right of physical safety, they shouted down and cat-called opposing viewpoints.

I hope that should my church find itself in a similar situation, that we will demonstrate the Christian values we claim as our own.

The Very Public Face of ... You.

Why would anyone trust a system designed to increase communication and increase the sharing of our information to do the opposite of that, especially when millions of dollars are at stake?

Okay, I know there's more stuff out there about FB using you for advertising or using your friends for advertising or some such... and here's the thing: These sites were designed to share your information. If someone is willing to pay them to do the thing they're already designed to do, can you really expect them to do otherwise?

Further:

If you don't want to be seen doing something embarrassing, do your embarrassing things at home, alone. If you don't want something you say overheard, don't say it where people can hear you. And if you don't want people to see what you write, or the picture you took, don't put it on the internet. Not in a private message, and not on your FB page, not even if you "restrict access."

Let's all take a moment and reflect on
public vs. private embarrassment

If you put a picture on any picture sharing site; or words or a picture on any social media site; if you publicly "like" or +1 something, you really should just assume that it's being datamined at best, and used against you and your friends at worst, and that's just from the marketing angle. It's like making the assumption that if you say something in a room full of people, you might see it on CNN later.

Just pretend you're Beyonce, and that 

someone cares what you say in a crowded room

And maybe that sucks - we're being told to choose between sharing everything we do on the internet, in every way in which it can be shared, and not sharing anything (or, hardly anything), and that is a tough choice. Kind of like the choice you make between keeping your thoughts to yourself, and maintaining a constant out-loud stream-of-consciousness.

Yes, I realize that allowing FB to access my location, or allowing my phone to transmit information to the Google network means that my motions can be tracked. But I'm trying to think of how many people I know or stories I've heard of where bandits used that data to mug someone on their way out of the swanky new bar they just checked into... And I can't. Mugged, sure. Due to a FourSquare check-in? I don't think so. It's still easier to stalk the old fashioned way - by tailing someone. So, the police can find me. My government can find me. Presumably, bandits could find me. But I have to say, that's a risk I'm willing to take to brag about the Bat Cave awesome restaurant I just went to.

Little-known fact: I'm actually the Mayor of the Bat Cave
on FourSquare. (No, not really)

So, maybe the choice isn't about sharing everything and not sharing anything. Maybe it's about how much faith you have in the good will (or apathy) of your fellow human beings (and corporations) and about how important it is to let everyone know what you had for lunch and which facial moisturizer is your latest favorite.

Deep Thoughts: A Friend's Worth

Recently, I was concerned that a friendship was threatened. I consulted another friend who has really excellent judgement. She put it into clear perspective: Is the thing threatening the friendship worth more than the friendship? How long do you expect the friendship to last? Just how much are you willing to sacrifice for this friend, and are they worth it?

Thank God, it all came to naught, and the friendship survived mostly intact.

Now, in a much different friendship, I'm finding myself asking the same types of questions. I've invested a lot of time and emotion into this friendship. The friend went through some major life events - and maybe I wasn't there like I should have been? - and now that life seems to have calmed down a bit, doesn't show any outward signs of wanting to continue the friendship at all. Messages have gone unanswered, expectations completely unfulfilled. And I'm pretty crushed about it.

Do I continue hoping that our friendship will revive at least a little? That requires an investment of hope, and hope is a bigger investment than time. Even if the friendship were a different shape, that would be welcome - the silence is killing me. Has this friendship reached its natural termination? Just how dear to me is this person still?