I was recently driving along one of Southern California's crowded freeways when I spotted a bumper sticker that read: "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."  Just below that sticker, another one read "War is not the answer."  I couldn't help but admire the idealism of the driver who fastened those stickers to his car, yet rebuke the naivete that necessarily defines such a person in today's world.

I admire idealists who would allocate the vast majority of the public budget on social priorities rather than issues of war and strategic defense. I too believe it would be a great day indeed when our schools get all the money they need and bombers would no longer be a priority. The world I live in, however, is not the idealists' utopia where defense can be ignored and diverted towards education.  Sadly, the world I live in is a dangerous one where many an adversary is ready and willing to kill for a cause and undermine the values I hold dear.

War is not the answer? What, prey tell, then is the question? 

How about "should Nazism be the defining world ideology?" That was the central question in Europe in the 1930's and early 40's. Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf  "The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."  In other words, a fanatic left unchecked will impose his will on those unable to defend themselves.  Was war not the answer then?

How about "will Communism take over the developed world?" That was the major question in the 1950's and 1960's. Joseph Stalin believed that "everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach." Clearly no one told him that war was not the answer.

How about something a little more recent? Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently had this to say on Iranian TV: "If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender." We all hope war is not the answer now, but is "bowing and surrendering" to Iran a better answer?

Of course, war should always be the answer of last resort.  A democratic people should always exhaust all conceivable alternatives before turning to war, however sometimes war is the only answer left short of surrender. As Andrew Jackson once warned, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."  Every generation of American has had to defend the Western ideals of freedom and liberty against some sort of external threat and our generation is no different.

Domestically, American politics are seemingly split down the middle, as almost all of the last decade's elections have proven.  Pacifistic idealism has been characteristically a hallmark of "the left," as have issues of increased social welfare in health care, public pensions, and assistance to the poor.  Pragmatic Individualism has been characteristically a hallmark of "the right," as have issues of increased defense spending, domestic surveillance, and an emphasis on "homeland security."  What often seems lost in the middle, however, is that neither left nor right has any monopoly on truth.

American society is growing increasingly polarized, income gaps are getting wider, and at the same time we are being increasingly threatened from abroad.  Both sides are right in focusing on these problems and neither side is right in ignoring the key issues of the other. Many believe that the lesson of the recent mid-term elections is that America is looking for centrists.  Where are the leaders who can grapple with both the idealism that defines American optimism, with the pragmatism that has kept Americans both secure and the economic envy of the world? 

I have often heard the phrase that "a man in his 20's and not a liberal has no heart, and a man in his 40's and not a conservative has no brains."  I wonder why it isn't possible to have both?  I long for the liberal ideals of pluralistic harmony while at the same time understanding the need to protect those ideals with force.  We must understand that our society can only be secure when those who threaten us recognize -- without doubt -- that we are stronger than they are.

While Democracy remains a right only to a relative few, and the four American freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly remain but a dream to much of the world, I will continue -- albeit reluctantly -- to support the vast spending on defense and weapons of war, for I know that they are what allow me to rest peacefully at night and maintain my way of life.  I will continue thus to prioritize defense while dreaming of the day that it is unnecessary and we can indeed divert our money from bombers to schools.  That day will be a great day indeed, but sadly that day is not today.

In perhaps the latest in the "what were they thinking?" department, Microsoft released its new "Zune" player this week to compete with Apple's remarkably successful iPod. Let's hope it fails miserably.

Once upon a time, product designers started with the question "What would potential customers want?" and built products that were likely to meet as many consumer desires and needs as possible. The Zune seems to have been designed with the initial question "How can we satisfy the recording industry enough to compete with Apple?" This key difference in approach seemingly dooms the nascent Zune to failure.

Both the Zune and the iPod are music player versions of "closed systems," in that they support formats that are proprietary and will not work on other devices. Apple calls their Digital Rights Management (DRM) system, "Fairplay," while Microsoft's DRM used to be known as "Plays for Sure." Both companies clearly went out of their way to name something that consumers don't want in ways that sound positive. If you've actually purchased any music with Apple's "Fairplay," from the iTunes store, you know that it will only play on an Apple device or within iTunes, and no where else. Microsoft's "Plays for Sure" will only play for sure in Mediaplayer and a handful of compatible music players and no where else. As it turns out, anyone unlucky enough to believe the hype and buy a "Plays for Sure" tune from Napster 2.0, Yahoo, MSN or other Microsoft compatible music site will soon find out that it surely won't play on the Zune.

Anyone wanting to buy a Zune will have to start over entirely and build a new collection from the Zune store. Of course, who's to say anyone will stick with that format and that your tunes won't be simply unplayable in the near future? In fact, Zune DRM'd songs won't play in Microsoft's Media Player either.

Confused yet? You should be, all of this proprietary DRM is meant to ensure that music you purchase can only play in one place under the full control of whoever sold it to you. Contrast this with the almost universal appeal of Mp3, a file format free of DRM, that will play anywhere and on any device including most recent home stereos, DVD players, your car, etc...

So why are all of these companies moving away from Mp3 and imposing their DRM'd music on unsuspecting consumers? The answer lies chiefly with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) who after shutting down the wildly popular Napster in 2001, have been banging the drums of DRM ever since. Desperate to do anything possible to prevent the sharing (copying) of music files, the RIAA has ensured that any music available for legitimate purchase would carry protections so that sharing would be strictly prohibited. The problem with prohibiting sharing is that you are also prohibited from sharing music you bought with yourself! Want to play that great new song you just bought on your home stereo? Sorry, it's DRM'd. Move the song from one music player to another? You better have stuck with the same brand otherwise it's not possible, it's DRM'd. Want to back up your music on your computer in case your player device dies? You had better buy another of the same player otherwise your music is useless, it's DRM'd!

Unhappy with being forced into purchasing things they do not want, many people have chosen to do away with DRM altogether. If you have a CD, you can use many free programs out there to rip tracks into Mp3 which doesn't support DRM and works on all players. If you purchase songs from iTunes you can burn them onto a CD and then rip them back onto Mp3 and also remove the restrictive DRM. Once free of DRM you can enjoy your music any way you want to, anywhere you want to, and anytime you want to.

So why buy a Zune? Perhaps the most innovative new feature is that the Zune is WiFi enabled and as such can communicate with other WiFi devices. Actually, that's not true. In a further move to restrict how you use your music, Zune's WiFi will only connect to other Zune's. In fact, if you try to send another Zune any music it will wrap that in DRM as well, even if you started with a non-DRM'd Mp3 file. Record your own music in your garage? Create your own podcast? Want to share your own musical talent with a friend? If you own a Zune, Microsoft will actually DRM your music for you so that your friend doesn't have to be troubled to delete your files within 3 days. Microsoft will do it for him automatically. That's right, any music transferred to another Zune auto-deletes after 3 plays or 3 days (whichever comes first). The Zune even recognizes what you sent and to whom so that you can never send it to the same person again. Now that's progress.

Why would anyone want this device? The key difference between Apple's closed iPod and Microsoft's closed Zune is that Apple got there first. There are plenty of ways around Apple's DRM and wonderful third party programs such as PodPlus allow you to transfer your own music back from an iPod if you so wish. The RIAA's control over our music has gone too far and Microsoft's caving into them has likely doomed their multimillion dollar investment in Zune to failure. As Forbes recently headlined: "Microsoft Zune stinks."

The sooner companies realize that consumers don't want DRM and all of the restrictions it imposes the better it will be for all of us. Stay away from DRM, stay away from Zune.

The mid-term elections are approaching quickly and in many states, including my home state of California, the list of candidates up for election seems dwarfed by the litany of propositions on the ballot. No less than 13 propositions are up for a vote in California, with yet more at the local level. Of those 13, 9 are either direct tax increases or bond measures (indirect tax increases). It's time for the voters of California to send their legislators a message: "Stop wasting your time figuring out how to take more of our money and learn how to wisely spend the billions you've already taken."

It has always amazed me just how different the state budgeting process is from our personal budgeting. When figuring out a household budget, we first determine how much income we have. Then we figure out how much of our spending is obligatory. Finally we decide to save, invest, or spend any excess funds. State budgeting, however, seemingly works a little differently: First the legislature determines how much it spends. Then it determines how much more it wants to spend. Then it figures out how much it actually has. When, inevitably, it has less than it wants to spend, it doesn't cut back on expenditures, rather it creates committees to determine how to raise taxes and get more money. When raising taxes is not politically expedient, the state can instead sell bonds and borrow more money, knowing that they can always raise taxes later when the obligatory spending to repay that borrowing becomes due (often conveniently in a successive political term).

Using this method, politicians can (disingenuously) claim that they have avoided cutting back popular programs and avoided raising taxes. This would be wonderful, if only it were true. If you needed to spend more money but continued to earn the same income and pay the same basic expenses, that deficit would probably translate into credit card (or other forms of) debt. You would simply be paying later (with interest) what you spent today. In California, the almost $20 billion in "infrastructure" bonds that Gov. Schwarzenegger is backing will do exactly that.

California's current total debt is approximately $78.7 billion. Servicing this debt costs about $3.3 billion a year, or about 4.5% of California's annual budget. If the voters in the state approve another $20 billion in bonds -- a staggering additional 30% more debt -- maintenance would rise to over $4.5 billion a year or more than 5% of the budget.

During the last special election, the issues on the ballot were predominantly about fiscal constraint and Gov. Schwarzenegger famously spoke of "living within our means." The voters resoundingly rejected living within our means after organized labor, led by the California Teacher's Unions, realized that living within our means might impact them. No problem, the governor simply changed his mind completely and decided to "rebuild California" and issue $20 billion in debt for infrastructure, all "without raising taxes," he promises.

Selling bonds for spending today -- essentially mortgaging tomorrow -- is particularly insidious, because the repayment falls disproportionately on one segment of society: Homeowners.

According to the Wall Street Journal more than two thirds, or (a record) 69% of American families now own their own homes, up from 65% in the 1990's. Unfortunately, this is precisely the reverse in Los Angeles, as well as other large metropolitan areas. Approximately "61% of L.A households don't own the places where they live, one of the highest rental rates in the country, according to the 2000 census." So about two thirds of the population thinks that by issuing bonds, they are in essence forcing the one third of the population who are homeowners or landlords to pay for all the new debt. This would again be very convenient, if only it were true.

In 1978, California's taxpayers revolted and passed a landmark proposition, known to this day as Prop. 13. The proposition famously limited property tax to 1% of the assessed value of property and ensured that the state could not raise the assessed value more than a maximum 2% a year. Prop. 13, however, exempted "voted indebtedness" (bonds) from this maximum. Limited in their ability to raise property taxes, the state and various localities have been resorting to bonds ever since. The interest on those bonds has, in some areas, literally doubled the allowed property tax rate to 2%. California homeowners feel this hit directly as their property tax gets paid in two lump sums throughout the year. California renters, however, feel the effects of this borrowing and taxation only indirectly: when landlords pass these costs on in the form of higher rents. The average rent in Los Angeles is now $1,750 a month, a jump of 82% in the past 10 years. Clearly renters are not getting a free ride (unless they're rent-controlled), however most don't see the effect of their ballot decisions until long after the elections are over.

Perhaps the most insidious of this year's crop of propositions is Prop. 88. For the first time since the 1970's, Californians are considering scrapping one of the key reforms of Prop. 13 and amending the state constitution to allow direct parcel taxes. Misleadingly marketed as a "save our schools initiative," Prop. 88 would establish an "initially modest" $50 per parcel tax on all property in California. What it really does is open the door wide open for the legislature to begin creating all sorts of new parcel taxes; precisely what they'll need to pay for all the borrowing they're hoping to do. Are we really willing to allow the reversal of one of the most important tax reforms in state history or are we simply being misled by glitzy television advertising?

California's infrastructure clearly needs improvement: Our schools are in trouble, our roads are a mess, our hospitals and prisons are overflowing. We all have a vested interest in dealing with these problems. The question is, do we want to deal with them directly today by creating a responsible budget or do we again want to allow our politicians to take the easy way out by simply taking more money from the taxpayer? Let's make our politicians earn their salaries by finding ways to spend the money they have better, not by spending their time thinking of creative ways to raise our taxes or borrow more money. Let's "just say no," across the board, to all the state ballot propositions.