Flying out of Albany International Airport has become a real treat. Newly renovated and clean airport. Fast lines. Not crowded. Efficient even at its busiest. Smaller airports are just that much better post-9/11. However, my iPod nano earned me a wanding and a frisking after I forgot it in my pants going through the detectors (my fault).

One thing that really bugs me about the uppity security these days is the incomprehensibly insane use of “randomness” to spot-check travelers with extra measures. Most TSA workers will let travelers who fall into the terrorist-typical demographic just pass by – usually for fear of legal reprisals instigated by Islamic defense foundations… while little old white men in wheel chairs who can barely walk are made to struggle to their feet for a wanding and frisking – all in the name of “not singling anybody out”.

Now, the fact is – not all Muslim men aged 17-33 are terrorists… not even half are… not even 1% percent are (I don’t think). BUT, almost all terrorists have been Muslim men aged 17-33. Doesn’t that tell us something about how we should protect ourselves? I mean… do we really have to jerk around the poor old man in the wheelchair just to feel good about how “fair” and “sensitive” we are?

Okay, so Tami and I walked the National Mall… which to my dismay was not a place to shop. The monuments were handsome and dignified. The memorials were plentiful and truly moving… I especially enjoyed the World War II memorial (always makes me want to watch Band of Brothers again… but that’ll be discussion for another post).

View the full gallery of Washington, DC pictures here.

While at the World War II memorial I could see a few scattered vets recounting battles, scars and lost friends to their families or even to strangers – whoever would listen. I was listening. A quote inscribed onto a granite wall says it best:

OUR DEBT TO THE HEROIC MEN AND VALIANT WOMEN IN THE SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY CAN NEVER BE REPAID. THEY HAVE EARNED OUR UNDYING GRATITUDE. AMERICA WILL NEVER FORGET THEIR SACRIFICES.

President Harry S. Truman

Yet, an inescapable incongruence gnawed at my gut as I stood at the World War II memorial. You see, we often hear the phrase “Support Our Troops” – mostly justified, but perhaps tossed about too flippantly at times… much like the American Flags purchased on September 12, 2001, that by September 20 were sitting atop their owners’ trash heaps. However, even more curious to me is the phrase “I support the troops, but I don’t support the war.” I don’t question the patriotism of this phrase’s speaker simply because of the phrase… but it seems that many of this phrase’s speakers actively disregard, dismiss and even loathe the military. I personally know a few of the exceptions… but the rule prevails easily. As I stood at these war memorials – and the feeling of national sacrifice and diligence stirred my insides – the inescapable incongruence gnawed at me. How can you “support the troops” while you are holding rallies “against the war” and calling out American soldiers as rapists and murderers? How can you “support the troops” when all your activism is geared towards raising money for partisan political organizations and for “impeaching Bush”?

I would be remiss not to mention the DC rail system – the Metro. I am spoiled with NYC’s subway system that is a flat $2 fee no matter where you go. The DC Metro fee system was nearly incomprehensible. I started laughing when I saw it… each stop has it’s own individual charge!? Check out the picture of the kiosk below to see what I mean.

And alas, while flying out of Albany is a pleasure, flying out of BWI is painful… very painful. The lines at security were retardedly and unnecessarily long. One guy got sick of waiting and started cutting in front of huge groups of people. The TSA checker nearest me saw the man doing this (mostly because a few justifiably angered travelers spoke up) and ordered him to stop and stand fast – but he told her “no” and said if she didn’t like it she could call her supervisor. She did, and her supervisor came over… and did NOTHING!? I could overhear him say that because the guy was really mad about the long line that they’ll just leave it be. Wait a minute – this guy can cut in front of people, swear at the people who object, disobey the lawful orders of a uniformed TSA worker… and TSA security does nothing? Whiskey tango foxtrot?

Anyways… I hope all my fellow Americans are having a great July 4th, and I just want to leave you with this Independence Day speech from July 4, 1946, given by a young John F. Kennedy (excerpted from his full speech as found in the JFK Presidential Library).

The informing spirit of the American character has always been a deep religious sense.

Throughout the years, down to the present, a devotion to fundamental religious principles has characterized American thought and action.

Our government was founded on the essential religious idea of integrity of the individual. It was this religious sense which inspired the authors of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Our earliest legislation was inspired by this deep religious sense:
“Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

Our first leader, Washington, was inspired by this deep religious sense:
“Of all of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Lincoln was inspired by this deep religious sense:
“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Our late, lamented President was inspired by this deep religious sense:
“We shall win this war, and in victory we shall seek not vengeance, but the establishment of an international order in which the spirit of Christ shall rule the hearts of men and nations.”

Thus we see that this nation has ever been inspired by essential religious ideas. The doctrine of slavery which challenged these ideas within our own country was destroyed.

Recently, the philosophy of racism, which threatened to overwhelm them by attacks from abroad, was also met and destroyed.

Today these basic religious ideas are challenged by atheism and materialism: at home in the cynical philosophy of many of our intellectuals, abroad in the doctrine of collectivism, which sets up the twin pillars of atheism and materialism as the official philosophical establishment of the State.

Inspired by a deeply religious sense, this country, which has ever been devoted to the dignity of man, which has ever fostered the growth of the human spirit, has always met and hurled back the challenge of those deathly philosophies of hate and despair. We have defeated them in the past; we will always defeat them.

How well, then, has DeTocqueville said: “You may talk of the people and their majesty, but where there is no respect for God can there be much for man? You may talk of the supremacy of the ballot, respect for order, denounce riot, secession–unless religion is the first link, all is vain.”

5 Myths About Turning Out The Vote

By Michael McDonald
Sunday, October 29, 2006

If you’re an upstanding U.S. citizen, you’ll stand up and be counted this Election Day, right? Well, maybe not. Just because Americans can vote doesn’t mean they do. But who shows up is what decides the tight races, which makes turnout one of the most closely watched aspects of every election — and one that has fostered a number of myths. Here are five, debunked:

1. Thanks to increasing voter apathy, turnout keeps dwindling.

This is the mother of all turnout myths. There may be plenty of apathetic voters out there, but the idea that ever fewer Americans are showing up at the polls should be put to rest. What’s really happening is that the number of people not eligible to vote is rising — making it seem as though turnout is dropping.

Those who bemoan a decline in American civic society point to the drop in turnout from 55.2 percent in 1972, when 18-year-olds were granted the right to vote, to the low point of 48.9 percent in 1996. But that’s looking at the total voting-age population, which includes lots of people who aren’t eligible to vote — namely, noncitizens and convicted felons. These ineligible populations have increased dramatically over the past three decades, from about 2 percent of the voting-age population in 1972 to 10 percent today.

When you take them out of the equation, the post-1972 “decline” vanishes. Turnout rates among those eligible to vote have averaged 55.3 percent in presidential elections and 39.4 percent in midterm elections for the past three decades. There has been variation, of course, with turnout as low as 51.7 percent in 1996 and rebounding to 60.3 percent by 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, in fact, is on a par with the low-60 percent turnout rates of the 1950s and ’60s.

I remember hearing back in 1996 and 2000, amidst the campus “Rock the Vote” slogans, all the rhetoric with regard to politicians “disenfranchising” the youth of America. The media were heartbroken that today’s youngsters were turned off by politics, and that somehow this meant that something was wrong with politics, and that politicians needed to start resonating with young skater punks and slutty beeper-chicks.

Frankly, modern culture has so cultivated a generation of fast-food entertainment addicts that the fact of the matter is young voter-eligibles don’t vote because it bores them. And of course, they believe they have the right to be entertained by all. Politicians in drag with little chirping LED buttons would “resonate” more, you see.

Personally, I’m glad when politics is wicked boring… because it keeps the easily distracted and the entertainment junkies away, and that produces a higher quality result (in general) in the election.

2 Other countries’ higher turnout indicates more vibrant democracies.

You can’t compare apples and oranges. Voting rules differ from nation to nation, producing different turnout rates. Some countries have mandatory voting. If Americans were fined $100 for playing voter hooky on Election Day, U.S. participation might increase dramatically. But in fact, many people with a ballot pointed at their head simply cast a blank one or a nonsense vote for Mickey Mouse.

Moreover, most countries have national elections maybe once every five years; the United States has presidential or congressional elections every two years. Frequent elections may lead to voter fatigue. New European Union elections, for instance, seem to be depressing turnout in member countries. After decades of trailing turnout in the United Kingdom, U.S. turnout in 2004 was on a par with recent British elections, in which turnout was 59.4 percent in 2001 and 61.4 percent in 2005.

Americans are asked to vote more often — in national, state, local and primary contests — than the citizens of any other country. They can be forgiven for missing one or two elections, can’t they? Even then, over the course of several elections, Americans have more chances to participate and their turnout may be higher than that in countries where people vote only once every five years.

This one really speaks for itself. However, I don’t think voting once every two years is even approaching the level of voter fatigue. For crying out loud, it’s only once every two years?!

3 Negative ads turn off voters and reduce turnout.

Don’t be so sure. The case on this one is still open. Negative TV advertising increased in the mid-1980s, but turnout hasn’t gone down correspondingly. The negative Swift boat campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) apparently did little to depress turnout in the 2004 presidential race.

Some academic studies have found that negative advertising increases turnout. And that’s not so surprising: A particularly nasty ad grabs people’s attention and gets them talking. People participate when they’re interested. A recent GOP attack ad on Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), a Senate candidate, has changed the dynamic of the race, probably not because it changed minds or dissuaded Democrats, but because it energized listless Republicans.

We’ll have to wait to see whether the attack on Ford backfires because voters perceive it as unfair. That’s the danger of going negative. So campaigns tend to stick to “contrast ads,” in which candidates contrast their records with those of their opponents. When people see stark differences between candidates, they’re more likely to vote.

I saw the Ford ad he speaks of and thought it was hilarious. I think the attack ads are effective. I think they mobilize the “base”, even though I only partly even agree with the concept of “mobilizing the base” in the first place.

Now some apathetic or undecided voters may be turned off by the negative ads, but not many… and when you hear people tout numbers claiming the voters want positive campaigns, don’t believe it. People, because we are a miserable lot of pulp-lovers, are drawn to salacious details of impropriety and corruption. It’s like a reality show or a soap opera. If the negative ads didn’t work they wouldn’t be used… it’s that simple.

4 The Republican “72-hour campaign” will win the election.

Not necessarily. You can lead citizens to the ballot, but you can’t make them vote.

Republicans supposedly have a super-sophisticated last-minute get-out-the-vote effort that identifies voters who’ll be pivotal in electing their candidates. Studies of a campaign’s personal contact with voters through phone calls, door-to-door solicitation and the like find that it does have some positive effect on turnout. But people vote for many reasons other than meeting a campaign worker, such as the issues, the closeness of the election and the candidates’ likeability. Further, these studies focus on get-out-the-vote drives in low-turnout elections, when contacts from other campaigns and outside groups are minimal. We don’t know what the effects of mobilization drives are in highly competitive races in which people are bombarded by media stories, television ads and direct mail.

Republican get-out-the-vote efforts could make a difference in close elections if Democrats simply sat on the sidelines. But this year Democrats have vowed to match the GOP mobilization voter for voter. So it’ll take more than just knowing whether a prospective voter owns a Volvo or a BMW for Republicans to eke out victory in a competitive race.

This election is the first I’ve ever heard about this super-whamo-dyne GOP 72-hour race for the cure. Sounds like more of a mystical Dem-demoralizer to me… make’em think you’ve got magic pixie-dust that’ll hack into voting machines untraceably.

5 Making voter registration easier would dramatically increase turnout.

Well, yes and no.

In 1993, the Democratic government in Washington enacted “Motor Voter,” a program that allowed people to register to vote when they received their driver’s license or visited a welfare office. Democrats thought that if everyone were registered, turnout rates would increase — by as much as 7 percentage points.

But while many people registered to vote, turnout didn’t go up much. Subsequent studies found only small increases in turnout attributable to Motor Voter, perhaps 2 percentage points.

Sizable increases in turnout can be seen in states with Election Day registration, which allows people to register when they vote. This may be related to the fact that lots of people don’t make up their minds to vote until Election Day, rather than months in advance when they get a license.

Personally, I hate anything that makes it easier for people to vote… including (and especially) lazy people. Or easier for people who don’t plan for the future (i.e. election day). Chances are, if registering ahead of time to vote – and looking up ahead of time where you need to go to do so – is too much work for you to be bothered with, then your vote most assuredly should NOT count.

The best election results are during periods of inclement weather and heavy reality show programming.