Turn Left

Oooh, it’s a “Washington Takeover!”

2010-05-13T14:52:00.000-07:00

Anti Net-Neutrality folks are running a set of ads warning that net neutrality would mean a “Washington takeover” of the internet.

Never mind that the internet was invented by the government, and that net neutrality, far from being any kind of “takeover” would actually enhance competition and internet access for American.

Instead, I just want to say, why is a “Washington takeover” considered automatically a bad thing? (well, I know why, because of the hard work of decades of right-wing demagoguery)

I want Washington to “takeover” certain things. I kind of like the “Washington takeover” of national defense, the national park system, child labor laws, consumer protection regulation, and civil rights laws. And more recently, the “Washington takeover” of Wall Street and GM (as unpopular as the bailouts were) was the only thing that saved this country from a second Great Depression.
The jury’s still out on the so-called “Washington takeover” of health care, but I’m pretty optimistic the mild set of regulations that were part of health care reform will certainly do better to bring quality health care to more people then the unregulated private insurance industry did.

I have philosophical appreciation for libertarianism, but in the real world, it is like communism — something that is appealing in theory but can never work in practice because of human nature.

I don’t think the government can – or should – do everything. Economic innovation belongs to the private sector. But making the rules and enforcing them do belong to the government.

I am glad a private company called Apple invented the iPhone. The government never could have. But I am also glad that the government is regulating the frequency spectrum the iPhone uses and making sure the internet traffic that flows to it is treated fairly.

(this post was cross-posted from my personal blog, Red Letter Day)

Lest We Forget

2010-04-18T15:53:00.000-07:00

Like many people, I was stunned on April 19th, 1995 to hear about the truck bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I also figured that it was the work of a foreign agent. The 1st bombing of the World Trade Center was still fresh in my mind, and the idea of a terrorist cell trying a kind of soft target attack in a place like Oklahoma City.

I was surprised to find out that this attack was the work of Americans. And it could happen again. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been monitoring the radical right for decades, "Patriot" groups are back.

I can see why. Much like the 1990s, America is under the leadership of what by American standards is a more liberal government. What makes things different now is that the "liberal" President is African-American. If the idea that a member of a right-wing outgroup sitting in the White House wasn't bad enough, the fact that Obama got such strong support from younger people could be seen by those on the right as a sign that their ideas are losing support with the next generation.

These events could be leading to the notion that can lead people to turn to rebellion and revolt. The idea that the political process has failed them. For the right, it may be more a case that their ideas have lost resonance with the American people. The elections of 2006 and 2008 should have sent a message that right-wing ideas need to change to reflect an America that is more diverse, tolerant and urban.

But rather than change their ideas, the right has turned to tactics of obstruction and fear. The "Town Hall Mobs" and "Tea Party" movement are both examples of these tactics. With FOX News seeming to provide factual backup for the rhetoric of folks like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh, these ideas are echoed and amplified.

The "Patriot" and other armed movements, some of which will be ironically gathering in DC on the 19th for a rally, represent this fear taken to it's highest levels. The idea that the American Government would turn on its own people, ludicrous as it may seem to most Americans, seems plausible to those who buy into the rhetoric of people like the Hutaree Militia.

Is another Oklahoma City likely to happen, perhaps not. But the incident in Texas, where a tax protester crashed a plane into an IRS building, the shootings at the Holocaust Museum, or the killing of the doctor in Kansas show that the ideas that fueled the Oklahoma City bombers may be alive, well, and perhaps even in some form, part of the ideas of the American Right. Even one of the Hutaree's legal counsel said that statements their leader made on tape were no worse than what was heard from the mainstream right. A statement made to rationalize a groups efforts to start a revolution should perhaps be seen as a warning.

The Price Of Failure?

2010-03-14T15:10:00.000-07:00

I volunteered to do some phone banking tomorrow (March 15th) in support of Obama's Health Insurance Reform Package. I have other things I could be doing, but see this as something I need to do.

I'm not really thrilled at what I see as a "starter kit" that has been watered down to make points with allies of the Insurance, Drug and likely even the low-wage service sector; McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc. But as Rick Smith said on his program today, it's better than what we have and could be a base to build on.

But I also see what the price of failure could be. The main one is the boost this will give to the obstructionists of the GOP, their media allies and of course, their followers. Limbaugh, Beck and their loyal teabaggers would see this, rightly so, as a major victory. The letdown this would give to the Democrats, especially the young people who don't seem to get that politics isn't an every four-year event, would likely set the stage for more obstructionist Republicans running and likely winning.

But perhaps the group who stand the most to gain from the defeat are corporations and their CEO's. As defeat of reform would be a demonstration of the power that corps hold. Through their support of the Tea Partiers, the town hall mobs, and advertising on programs like Beck and Limbaugh, combined with their newly expanded political power, other corporate interests could easily follow suit. Energy policy would be derailed by campaigns from the oil, natural gas, and auto industries. The low-wage service sector would put efforts into killing the Employee Free Choice Act.

So, I urge all of you, please check out Organizing For America, sign up for a phone bank etc. Do we really want to see Beck, Limbaugh and their corporate handlers win?

Still A Lot Of Game Left

2010-01-20T08:27:00.000-08:00

As a sports fan, there's nothing more frustrating when your team, seeming to have all the pieces together, can't seem to do anything. What's even worse, is when the opposition utilizes this to their advantage. Very often, it takes a big play to wake things up.

What happened in Massachusetts is just that big play. I can imagine there's a lot of panic on both the progressive and Democratic side, and that panic is just what Beck, Limbaugh, FOX News(?), and the teabaggers and town hall mobs are hoping for.

But it's still early, and there's no need to panic. Instead, all that I see necessary is to regroup a bit.

To start with, Obama needs to get back to basics a bit. Even those who rely on AM-Radio and it's cable affiliate for news and opinion realize that the 2008 election was a referendum on the economy. Making job creation and economic growth key points of the agenda for 2010 could go a long way in getting a few small victories for Obama as well as showing how the GOP continues to let corporations and CEOs set their agenda.

Next, Obama needs to get his "ground game" going. Somehow, the young volunteers, who put tireless effort into getting him elected, need to be reactivated to help advance his agenda. The GOP, since they lack any new ideas, will likely make any legislation seem like a campaign. These activists could provide a strong counter to the AM-Radio and FOX News nation that works at the bidding of the GOP and their handlers.

Which brings up the need for communication. The GOP has Beck, Limbaugh and FOX News to tell their followers what and how to think. What Obama needs to do is tap into the web as a way to get the truth to his supporters and point out the lies and fear that have been the tools of the right. Also the web, much as it was during the election, can be a way to co-ordinate activism.

There also may be a need to make some changes at the party leadership. Bring people in who are closer to the model that won the Democrats Congress in 06, and the White House in 2008. Would Howard Dean accept his old job back? Would Obama be willing to look to MoveOn or United For Peace and Justice for party leaders.

Finally, sometimes you gotta take what you can get. On the Health Reform bill, as controversial and as distasteful as it may be, it may be better to reconcile the bill and sign it. As most of us remember what happened after the last attempt to reform Health Care failed.

Israel and Palestine

2009-06-09T05:53:00.000-07:00

There's a thread on the board in which some members are making (I hope) facetious suggestions about solutions to the problems in Israel and Palestine. (Why is it that 'Mideast' has become shorthand for this tiny area?) I understand the frustration and impatience of those who are thoroughly sick of the seeming inability of the governments and people there to act like reasonable adults. What Genesis sang in "Blood on the Rooftops" three decades ago is still true for many of us:

Let's skip the news boy (I'll make some tea)
Arabs and Jews boy (too much for me)
They get me confused boy (puts me off to sleep)
And the thing I hate - Oh Lord!
Is staying up late, to watch some debate,
on some nation's fate

But as Obama pointed out in his excellent Cairo speech last week, the road to good relations with nations dominated by Muslims runs through Israel and Palestine. So, I'll make some tea, but not skip the Arabs and Jews this time, and make some serious suggestions for going forward.

Chili chocolate tea--pretty good. Okay, the "mideast":

1) Security is a perfectly reasonable concern of the Israelis, and it's not negotiable. They're surrounded by hostile Arab nations. Yes, yes, I understand the hostility, but there is no way the Israelis will or should rely on the good will of their neighbors. Their neighbors hate their guts. The US has to formalize the implied security guarantee of our patronage with a treaty that obligates us to come to the defense of Israel if attacked. It's the only guarantee strong enough to induce them to make the concessions I'll describe below which are a necessary part of the deal. The UN should make similar guarantees, but that may take a while and is less important anyway, the UN being what it is.

2) Israel has to give up its nuclear weapons. There is no way we have the standing to demand that Iran or anyone else stop trying to get the bomb while Israel has over a hundred warheads and the capability to deliver them as far as Teheran. Obama was brilliant to have brought this up in Cairo. It's a key point that has repercussions all over the world.

3) Justice for the Palestinians has finally got to happen. The past can't be erased. Reparations are not going to be paid. But the occupation must end, and the settlements be dismantled or Palestine be adequately compensated for them, in the judgment of the Palestinians. Any settlements over the 1967 border are illegal. The Washington Post ran an editorial recently advocating for "natural growth" for established settlements. That's bullshit. Say your neighbor, at gunpoint, appropriated part of your yard for a shed. He keeps expanding his shed--"natural growth"--to accommodate more lawn equipment. When the subject of compensation comes up, he talks about giving you part of his yard. If you would rather have that land than the land he stole, then fine. But if you don't like that deal, and he isn't willing to accept any alternatives you propose, then he needs to give you back all your land, however uncomfortable it is for the thief. It's not as though the "settlers" didn't know they were moving into stolen land. That was the whole point for most of them--they figured it was their duty to take the land away from its legal owners for the higher purpose of reclaiming the promised land. But their continued presence can only be allowed if the Palestinians agree to adequate compensation in land and perhaps money. If they don't agree, the settlers have to go, or no treaty and no deal. I would hope that an arrangement could be made for some of the more populous settlements, but there are no guarantees and the Israelis need to accept that.

That's all I got for now. Jerusalem can be shared or split; I don't see it as the main issue. Palestine needs to be an independent state, presumably getting a big hand up from its Arab brethren who have been crying crocodile tears and using the Palestinian refugees as cheap expendable labor. I see no reason why it couldn't be at least as successful as the Arab autocracies in the area like Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

The Best Never Rest

2009-04-14T04:41:00.000-07:00

A recent thread on the notion of "American Exceptionalism" on the Turn Left Interactive forum got me to thinking about patriotism, nationalism and the need for nations to raise their game.

First, I think that the notion of nationalism is becoming an outmoded notion. The idea that any nation can exist above the rest of world is incompatible with a world that is more interconnected than ever before. In a world where economic crisis resonate across the globe, and people from any corner of the globe can communicate at a moments notice, the idea of any nation being above all seems like a relic of a past. Now the fact that that past is one of absolute rule may explain why this notion is so dear to the Right Wing of so many countries, including the US.

So where does that leave patriotism? There's nothing at all wrong with having pride in ones country, but one also needs to be looking at ways that one's country can elevate its game.

Champion teams and athletes know this need; The Pittsburgh Steelers are scouting the players they wish to draft to fill gaps and prepare to defend their Super Bowl championship, North Carolina and UConn will be visiting camps and clinics in search of young men and women to set themselves up to retain their NCAA Basketball titles. A nation needs to do much the same.

But for those on the right, there doesn't seem to be a belief that anything needs to be done. They stand there and howl, "We're number 1" and pound their chests. Countries that question or criticize us are shouted down or made to be an enemy.

The left takes a different look at things. They look at where a country may lag behind it's neighbors and allies.

For me, the two areas I see the United States needing work are sustainability and secularity.

I look at America and I see a country that has created a culture of consumption. Much of the current economic crisis has possible roots in a notion that we Americans need to have more and more. This wasn't how our country was, generations ago, we lived more within our means and in communities that supported each other, we practiced thrift too. There are places in the world, especially in Scandinavia, that seem to still have this notion as part of their culture. Recent hard times in the US has seen a return to these values a bit, but I wonder what will happen where prosperity returns.

I also find it odd that a country that has been fighting religious fundamentalists seems to be in the grip of fundamentalists. The debates over gay marriage, stem cells and evolution all make us seem backwards to our fellow industrialized nations that have embraced science, tolerance and what Karen Armstrong calls 'Secular Modernity'.

But there is one thing that Americans truly can take pride in--our energy. This is a nation that was started by an act of dissent against the leading imperial power of its day. And we've kept that spirit alive; when a region of our country decided that keeping a race in bondage was an economic necessity, others rose up to abolish the practice, when many of those same people codified discrimination, those affected joined with others to gain rights to vote, among other rights, when one of our leaders and his cadre decided to use fear to justify empire, the people rebuilt a movement that has made strides to getting America back on the road to rejoining the world as a whole.

Is America the best country in the world? In some ways, yes, but we're a work in progress, and need to look to where we need to make that progress.

Norm Coleman: We Need Activist Judges So I Can Win This Damn Lawsuit

2009-02-13T20:44:00.000-08:00

When a Republican lawyer starts arguing that his case has created legal "penumbras" (yes, a direct quote) around certain laws, and that His Corrupt Highness Al Franken "would have you sit in a vacuum, strictly interpreting a statute," you know up has finally become down and liberal Jews really do control the weather.

A historical footnote: let's all remember that "penumbras" are official Republican no-noes ever since Griswold v. Connecticut, still their favorite Exhibit A in supposed judicial overreach.

15 Yards For Excessive Celebration

2009-02-13T20:40:00.000-08:00

Seriously, the Republicans are partying over Judd Gregg backing out as though they've won a major victory. What's the big deal? It reminds me of a backup tight end wiggling his package and taunting the safety, only to have the safety point to the scoreboard where it's now 45-10.

Elderly Abuse Prevention: To Their Credit, Most Republicans Voted Yes

2009-02-13T20:26:00.000-08:00

Being from the great state of Arizona has its perks. Our driver's licenses, thanks to a deregulation kick a few years back, don't expire until we're 65. We grow up with a natural tan. We usually have a healthy respect for the outdoors. We're in spitting distance of both California and Mexico without the high cost of living or the rampant fraud. We have the Grand Canyon.

Unfortunately, we also have Trent Franks and Jeff Flake, who joined 23 other brave souls in the House to vote against -- I kid you not -- funding an elderly abuse prevention program.

The House took up H.R. 448, the Elder Abuse Protection Act, which would establish specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs to aid victims, and would provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement personnel related to elder abuse prevention and protection, and establish programs to provide for emergency crisis response teams to combat elder abuse. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), passed on a 397-25 vote. [roll call 62] All members of the Nevada Congressional delegation voted in favor the measure. Our neighbors to the south may be interested to know that Congressman Flake (R-AZ) and Congressman Franks (R-AZ) were among the lonely 25 voting in opposition.

When a granny-kicker joke is actually on point, you know we've lost the battle that day.

Obama and the Stimulus Bill: A Muddled Tale

2009-02-07T11:45:00.000-08:00

I'll have many occasions to praise Obama rather than bury him, but over at the boards we've been having a somewhat heated discussion about his handling of the stimulus bill and I felt like I should fire the first salvo here.

I think his problem was that he didn't understand at the outset that he had to sell this thing. The idea that he let the House go about its business in the awkward way that it did in order to lay some kind of groundwork for a grand final outcome in the Senate. . . I just don't buy that he controls the weather to quite that extent. He didn't get publicly involved in the slightest until very recently. Obama, like everyone, has flaws, and I think we shouldn't be blind to the fact that he's a little conceited about his own ability to get things done. The final bill will be pretty good -- Paul Krugman's pleas for much more spending notwithstanding -- but look at what he's given up for no apparent reason other than chasing the grand bipartisan compromise he's always talked about in such glowing terms:

$40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization
$16 billion School Construction
$1.25 billion project-based rental
$2.25 billion Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminate)
$1.2 billion in Retrofiting Project 8 Housing
$7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants
$3.5 billion Higher Ed Construction (Eliminated)
$2 billion broadband
$1 billion Head Start/Early Start
$5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity
$2 billion HIT Grants
$1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees
$4.5 billion GSA
$3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening
$100 million FSA modernization
$50 million CSERES Research
$65 million Watershed Rehab
$30 million SD Salaries
$100 million Distance Learning
$98 million School Nutrition
$50 million aquaculture
$100 million NIST
$100 million NOAA
$100 million Law Enforcement Wireless
$50 million Detention Trustee
$25 million Marshalls Construction
$100 million FBI Construction
$300 million Federal Prisons
$300 million BYRNE Formula
$140 million BYRNE Competitive
$10 million State and Local Law Enforcement
$50 million NASA
$50 million Aeronautics
$50 million Exploration
$50 million Cross Agency Support
$200 million NSF
$100 million Science
$89 million GSA Operations
$300 million Fed Hybrid Vehicles
$50 million from DHS
$200 million TSA
$122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use
$25 million Fish and Wildlife
$55 million Historic Preservation
$20 million working capital fund
$200 million Superfund
$165 million Forest Svc Capital Improvement
$90 million State & Private Wildlife Fire Management
$75 million Smithsonian
$600 million Title I (NCLB)

There are a lot of good-sounding construction and science programs being shredded or eliminated in that list.

As I wrote on the board, I think Obama failed to anticipate the type, scope or magnitude of the Republican resistance. I don't put all the blame solely on his shoulders, but there's a difference between the best bill he could have passed and the best "bipartisan" bill he could have passed. The country is still very ready to see him take charge. Instead I think he believed all along that this would be fairly easy and that he wouldn't need to get his hands dirty. These initiatives, most of which are uncontroversially good ideas, were sacrificed on the altar of his unpreparedness and his desire to look like he's working with all sides no matter the cost. That's my read.

Yes, this bill will do plenty of good. But the way it was handled didn't inspire me. Obama looked to be content letting the thing go to Hell only to realize he had to make an appearance at the eleventh hour. I don't think he planned this all along. I think it's important to take note of how this bill went down when we're looking for clues to explain both his successes and his shortcomings in the months and even years ahead. He seems like someone who learns lessons from experience but also someone who genuinely believes his way is best even when everyone is telling him otherwise. We'll have to wait and see which tendency wins out, but that doesn't mean we should stay quiet or passive in the meantime.

Maybe, in the end, we'll all call this the useful mugging Obama needed to see what he's really up against. I just wish it hadn't taken place on such an important bill in a way that made him seem so unprepared. As even David Brooks observed in his latest column (which I won't link to), Obama had little impact on the bill's evolution as it proceeded. That's the real source of my confusion. Why did he hang back?

One Man's Take On The Cabinet Picks

2008-12-19T13:05:00.000-08:00

I know they haven't taken office yet, but it's not too early to have formed a few opinions, so here's my take on the Obama cabinet, now more or less complete. I'm treating rank incompetence or outright venality as an F, so forgive me if it seems like I'm grading on a curve. I can't give someone an F just because they're not Mother Jones.

Labor, Hilda Solis -- I can say, from my dealings with her and her office as a journalist, that she's seriously, ass-kickingly good. She pays attention to the street-level details that most Congressmen snooze their way right past, especially where obscure concepts like environmental justice are concerned (the idea that pollution disproportionately affects the poor, which is true pretty much everywhere). So she gets an A. More here.

Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki -- An easy A. Not only does Obama give the last laugh to Paul Wolfowitz's whipping boy, he finds a decorated military man whose first priority is the troops rather than contractors or the fun of war or the neoconservative agenda.

HHS, Tom Daschle -- Another A. Daschle will sell Obama's health care plan to the Senate like no one else could, and he'll make sure the final version is as good as it can get. He's become a geniune wonk on the issue since leaving Congress, and it seems pretty clear that he was the consensus best choice. Howard Dean would have been an interesting pick, and I still think he also would have made a good Labor secretary, but Daschle will do an excellent job.

Defense, Robert Gates -- I know Daily Kos was kind of pissed about this, because it supposedly reinforces the "Republicans are tougher" mantra, but it was the smartest thing Obama could have done at this point. Gates has famously done a good job of cleaning up Rumsfeld's gigantic mess, and military continuity is key in 2009 if only to give Obama cover while he tries to fix the economy. (If he'd brought in someone like Wesley Clark, on the other hand, I think you'd see more nitpicking and second-guessing in Congress and the media, fairly or not). Gates will be gone in a year and we'll be able to talk about a longer-term pick then. Until that day, I give this an A-. I'd give an A for an outside-the-box pick who nonetheless silenced the critics from day one, and who promised to cut back on military spending, but I'm not sure where you'd find anyone like that. As with the financial meltdown and the Treasury pick (see below), we need to think about the short term first.

HUD, Shaun Donovan -- B+, from what I've read. More information here. It's a little hard to judge without knowing more of the nitty-gritty, but he's obviously eminently qualified and seems to have good ideas.

Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano -- Somewhere between a B+ and an A-. She understands the need for immigration reform of the not-racist variety, and she cares about the fate of immigrants and border populations, which is a huge step up from Michael "The Undertaker" Chertoff and his non-existent agenda. Hopefully she can get the various agencies under her umbrella working together better, and from seeing her in action in Arizona, she can definitely pull it off. She's just the right kind of tough: serious without being off-putting, smart without being superior, personable without being a pushover. I think she could actually do a lot of good in the next four years.

Treasury, Tim Geithner -- Hard to say until we see him in action, but I'd give him a B. Everyone agrees he's solid and has the needed expertise. I know he's "one of the people" who steered the economy where it is in the first place, but his role in the real screwups never seemed to be central and he's obviously committed to fixing it rather than dawdling or covering his ass. A really transformational figure would have been great, but we need triage first.

Attorney General, Eric Holder -- About a B. His apparent priorities are good: he's against the death penalty and joined an amicus brief in favor of DC's city-wide gun ban (which the courts overturned, as we know). He's represented a few turds in private practice (Chiquita Foods, Merck) but from what I've seen and heard of him, his legal and political instincts are worth our trust until he proves otherwise. His main job will be to restore the peoples' trust in the department and the staff's trust in the higher-ups, and I think he'll do well.

Commerce, Bill Richardson -- Right now, a B. I'm not sure what good the Commerce Secretary can do independent of the president's wishes, frankly. Richardson is there because he's good at shaking hands and doling out jobs and largesse in a friendly way, which is what a president wants in his chief commercial point man. The department is a weird hodgepodge of employment stimulus, patent oversight, NOAA (yeah, NOAA), the National Institute of Standards & Technology, minority employment programs, the census. . . It's a real grab bag. In general, this is a glad-handing, business-savvy post where you need more personality than brains, and Richardson is ideally suited to it for that reason.

EPA, Lisa Jackson -- She has such a limited profile that I'm tempted not to give a grade, but I'll give this one a B- for now. That may seem low, but there were a lot of better candidates out there. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a premier outlet for governmental whistleblowers, thinks she's a bad choice, although one of their reasons (the federal EPA took over some Superfund cleanups in New Jersey) is disingenuous because it happens in a lot of states. The Sierra Club thinks she was a good choice, but they like the totally uninspiring Vilsack for Ag too so their opinion isn't of enormous value. We'll have to wait and see. I would have picked someone like Jan Schakowsky, a Rep. from Illinois, who sits on the House environment subcommittee of Energy & Commerce and is a big ally of the progressive wing of the party.

Agriculture, Tom Vilsack -- Meh. B- as well. He's not going to completely screw the pooch, but there are a lot of environmental as well as economic issues that Ag needs to sort out, and while somone like Vilsack probably knows the agriculture "players" just fine, he doesn't strike me as a guy blowing in on the west wind with a lot of fresh ideas. There's little reason to think that on his watch, the Ag department will set out rules for fully sustainable agriculture, and that's what we need right now. It's also unclear what he and Obama will do about ethanol, and I wish they'd talk more about what a big piece of the environmental puzzle ag reform is going to be.

Interior, Ken Salazar -- Gotta give this a C+. Raul Grijalva from Arizona would have been a clearly superior choice from an environmental standpoint. Salazar is a conservative Democrat and no watchdog of the mining industry in Colorado. He's worked with environmental groups on mitigating the worst abuses they bring to his attention, but he's nothing like the new sheriff the department needs (or Grijalva would have been).

Energy, Steven Chu -- Mixed: A- for policy, C for personality. The guy is basically a genius, and clearly knows what needs to be done on global warming, but he's also got more than a whiff of scandal about him that I don't like and could end up embarrassing Obama unnecessarily. He accepted unusual and unreported honoraria from the University of California, and his partnership with BP (already on hold when he was announced) could be viewed as a greenwash, although I'm not convinced he completely sold out. I think he could end up being a great mind on alternative energy but a potentially indifferent manager of the department's various other responsibilities, including the nuclear weapons stockpile and the environmentally disastrous national labs. He's probably one of the best choices Obama could have made for the post, but he comes with a few risks.

State, Hillary Clinton -- I honestly don't know, not because I like or don't like Hillary but because I don't know what Obama's priorities will be and how she'll carry them out. The job, although everyone thinks of it as a marquee post, is basically to be the president's traveling salesman, and doesn't allow for a lot of day-to-day freelancing the way a lot of other departments demand of their managers.

Transportation, Ray LaHood -- NA/Impossible to grade. The story line emerging is that he was picked because his part of Illinois is undergoing massive highway renovation and he understands the need for the scale of infrastructure Obama is proposing, plus he's a fairly moderate and non-crazy Republican to grease the skids in Congress on certain things. And he's good friends with Rahm Emanuel, which should help further. But still, kind of bizarre.

Education, Arne Duncan -- NA. Someone else, maybe Bently, will have to weigh in here. I don't know what the Education secretary does for a living. Duncan seems like a smart guy, but whether he's suited for the role Obama will ask him to play, I'm unqualified to say. E. J. Dionne has a fairly in-depth look at this question here.

Thread of the Week - 12/16

2008-12-16T14:46:00.000-08:00

Replacing Hillary

A rose by any other name is still a rose, unless it's got the word "Kennedy" in it.

The situation in New York is forcing many liberals to look, once again, at the role of political dynasties, and whether they hurt or help us. Obama's success against Clinton, ironically, served as a blow against dynastic politics. But with her ascent to the role of top diplomat, some see an opportunity to get a big name in office quick while others see it as an all-too-convenient way around the democratic process.

Blagojeviching All Over The Place

2008-12-09T13:56:00.000-08:00

One of things I've always loved about the left is that its greatest virtue is not loyalty.

I like to say that, when it comes to ideas and politics, loyalty is highly valued but very much overrated, and when people who screw up in a pretty major way, like power-hungry twit Rod Blagojevich, there's typically a race to ditch them rather than circle the wagons.

That's hardly loyal, but usually in the best interest of the people and their government.

Lately, we've seen fellow corrupt politician William Jefferson get dropped on his head by the electorate as well.

Compare that to Larry Craig, who is still desperately clinging to his seat, or Ted Stevens, who was convicted of several felonies and then lost a close election in Alaska, and then amazingly left office to a frickin' standing ovation, and we see a clear difference in standards.

The only question mark remaining for the Democratic Party is Charlie Rangel, who probably should give up his chairmanship, if not his seat, after some of his recent screw ups. He may be innocent until proven guilty, but public office is not about how innocent you are, it's about what you can do for the people you work for - and anyone with that kind of shadow looming over them loses significant cred in the political world.

Thread of the Week - 12/9

2008-12-09T00:24:00.000-08:00

Hell and the Holocaust

Tucked away in a thread about Bill Maher's "Religulous" is an exchange between two of our own: Lapp (Kaunis Laatja) and Samnell. The topic: Are Christians worse than Nazis?

Sounds crazy to even consider, I know. Sam's almost entirely on his own on this one - but the debate is worth it because the logical wrangling between these two brains has a level intellectual power behind it missing from most hyperbolic slobbery you'll usually encounter on the Internet. There's a little huffing and puffing, but for the most part, each others' arguments are actually being considered.

Sam's case is, essentially, that the idea that some deserve eternal torture is worse than the idea that people deserve finite torture confined by the nature of life and death. Lapp's case... is probably what most of you are thinking already. But Sam has a talent for stacking up extreme if not inconceivable arguments with levels of logic, and we're not here for a popularity contest. So as far as I'm concerned, it's recommended reading.

2008-12-06T23:12:00.000-08:00

Solstice Sign--Good or Bad Tactic for Atheists?

I must confess to mixed feelings over the Freedom from Religion Foundation's sign in the Washington state Capitol Rotunda. Nobody detests the unconstitutional lack of separation between church and state more than I do. I understand the feelings and the passion behind it. Whenever a religion tries to use government property as a means of promoting their religious opinions, I am offended. So, if the state government is going to insist on sponsoring religious messages on government property--something that I vehemently oppose--then it only seems fair that an anti-religion group post their own message. The idea is to give Christians a taste of their own medicine, to show them the cost of using the public commons to shove their views down my throat.

Now, what is so bad about a secular sign that celebrates the Winter Solstice? This one was put up for those of us who do not want the government to be seen as pushing the idea that we ought to believe in any god, let alone the god of Christians. The problem in my mind is that most nativity scenes and other Christmas displays do not carry overt messages that one ought to believe in God. That message is somewhat more subtle. The very fact of a nativity scene on public property is a little bit of a victory dance for some Christian groups, and that is why they push for them. But this FFRF sign had the statement: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Ouch. Yeah, I believe that, but I don't want to shove it in people's faces. Especially not in the holiday season. It doesn't make people stop and think "Well, gosh, I never realized how religious messages on public property must be like for nonbelievers!" It makes them stop and think "Well, gosh, I guess those atheists really are nasty, angry people!" Object lessons are designed to make the message giver feel better, not the message receiver.

That said, I have to admit that the FFRF sign has as much right to be in the Capitol Rotunda as religious symbols. I really do, although I would rather that there were no religious messages on public property. And I'm glad that they made an issue of putting something up. I just wish that they had thought of a message that was a little gentler, a little more in tune with the holiday spirit. After all, I want people to respect and tolerate my beliefs. Sometimes that means that I have to make the extra effort not to let my frustration with intolerance make me seem intolerant of their beliefs.

Thread of the Week - 12/2

2008-12-02T02:35:00.000-08:00

What makes you a liberal?

Any thinking person usually struggles with the weighty labels American politics traps its citizenry in. There's no avoiding this - all words are labels, and we need words to describe how and what people think. So why do we label ourselves liberals? Or is there something else out there that feels more accurate?

Narrating The Sarah Palin Turkey Slaughter

2008-11-25T21:22:00.001-08:00

Do yourself a favor and give yourself six minutes to watch Keith Olbermann narrate the Sarah Palin turkey "pardoning" as he watches it for the first time live on the air. Mystery Science Theater couldn't have done much better.

In Defense of a Word - A Turn Left Thesis Statement

2008-11-24T14:12:00.000-08:00

In the '90s, it was the time of the Clintons, and a period of robust love for American centrism. Conservative talk radio blew hot, ideological gas into cars throughout the country, Gingrich and his Republican legions had freshly stomped the old Democratic machine in the House, and everything seemed new yet old. It was a time of change in which. . . nothing really changed.

And during that time, a debate was spawned by the prominent bloviators. The right took aim at the word "liberal" and framed it as a modern-day curse word. The corrosion continued through the Clinton years and worsened under Bush.

Today, very few high-profile political figures dare associate themselves with this word. It takes a rare bird among Demorats - a Wesley Clark, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken or Robert Wexler - to stand up and claim the word and all it represents.

Everyone else hides behind euphemisms. They become "progressives," or they get caught up in partisan games and call themselves "moderate Democrats." And the open liberals - the ideological roots from which progressive movements grow - are left at the fringe of the party, to breathe fire from the sidelines while the supposed moderates do all the work.

The mission of this blog is to declare this condition of our political dialogue unacceptable.

This period of phony moderation and wishy-washy centrism must end, and liberals must no longer shy away from their ideas and values. This means being unashamed of our own open-mindedness. It means being willing to understand that taxes, in the right hands, can be an investment into our own well-being. It means being unafraid to fight for rationality and science in the face of a dogmatic government. It means finding room to welcome the vocabulary of our movement, accepting the fact that we are liberals, and that is something to be proud of.

This blog is made up of individuals, all of whom can be called liberals, many of whom have a long history of arguing for the cause. Most of us are Democrats, but we count among us some who are not. Most of us are not religious, but since our values and spirituality can coexist, we count among us a man of deep personal faith. We work in this troubled economy, unionized and not, public and private, young and old, financially comfortable and feeling the strain of our recession.

So welcome to our place. Sometimes we disagree with each other, but in the end we are all lovers of peace, intelligent government, the betterment of humankind and tolerant policy. We hope that you might join in on the conversation.

--Sinistral--

All I Am Saying, Is Give Him A Chance

2008-11-19T22:48:00.001-08:00

Reading the liberal blogosphere lately is like watching a unshaven, manic-depressive cannibal try to eat its own foot.

So first, Obama picks Rahm Emanuel, and people go: "OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD so much for bipartisanship!!! Rahm's gonna eff up EVERYTHING with his fuzzy haircut and big, fat, sharp-elbowed 'tude!!!!!1"

Then Obama steps in to spare Lieberman's chairmanship and people go: "OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD he's isn't being partisan enough!!! He's gonna be such a wuss and sell his soul to Dick Cheney!!!!!1"

Then Obama starts making a case for bailing out the auto industry, and people go: "OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD he's being a big careless spender and trying to Sovietize America and OMF'nG maybe that be-beehived genius Sarah Palin was right about the socialism business and I'm so disappointed in life I can't stand to watch the Wolf Blitzer show any more because my liver hurts from how drunkenly depressed Barack Obama is forcing me to be!!!!!1"

Then people notice that Obama's making a few hires with experience under Clinton and people go: "OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD he's not really going to create change! He's just going to be Clinton No. 2 and he's going to hire Terry McAwfullife to be the Secretary of Selling Out To The Man!!!!!!!1"

And, you know, talking about issues is fine, sure - but, PEOPLE, COME ON, none of this is an indictment on his whole bleepin' presidency! He's not even president yet! He won't be president for two months even!

We just won the election, folks! Liberals nationwide should be reveling in this! Having to decide what to do with our newfound immense power is an excellent problem to have, after all. You know, the kind of problem that's you want to have.

This is part of what drives me nuts about my fellow liberals sometimes. (And I suppose I'm not helping with this post... but ah well!) There's so much nervousness, and panic, and worry, and freaking out over who did what the wrong way before they even began, that you'd think the Republicans were not only still in control, but Bush had just dissolved the constitution and declared himself Grand Poobah/Eternal Warlord of North America, Baskin Robbins and the Moon.

At least give these people a chance to fuck up before you tell them they fucked up, kay?

Post-Election Reflections

2008-11-18T17:16:00.000-08:00

First, a shout-out to the pollsters. They got it right. All that fuss about the Bradley (/Wilder/Dinkins) Effect was just gas. Every race went the way it was called, and the tossups really were tossups. It was the same in 2006. Those guys have it figured out. Believe them.

I've read a lot of gloom and doom stories about the Republican Party's future. Many of them are true. Demographics is destiny, and the Reps skew old, white, and religious. Those are all falling stocks. But there is a chance for them: they need the Democrats to screw up, or at least that circumstances conspire against Obama. You've gotta admit that's not entirely implausible.

But mainly, this is the hard part. Already, two weeks after the election, I'm starting to feel disappointed that Obama isn't doing exactly what I'd do. Eight months ago, I was inveighing against Hillary Clinton's candidacy on the grounds that she'd just appoint a bunch of Clinton Administration veterans. Well, that's exactly what Obama is doing so far.

But what the hell, he hasn't been inaugurated yet. All is possible. And George W. Bush is not a hard act to follow.

Don't Bail Out The Car Companies

2008-11-17T22:20:00.001-08:00

I'd have liked to see the financial industry slapped with harsher regulations and perhaps even temporarily socialized for their screw ups, although I do think some form of government assistance was necessary to keep our economy afloat during this crisis.

But GM? Chrystler? You kiddin' me? Are we going to bail out Microsoft if things get rough? How about Wal-Mart? Disney? Hess?

This recession is going to have some casualties, and I'm saying that as a liberal. Some of the greedy companies that have been using the American workforce are going to die - and it will be their own damn fault. Giving GM a couple billion won't make their cars better, or their business practices more responsible. It will be a waste.

And then, maybe, some smart Americans can put together a car manufacturer who will actually make energy-efficient vehicles that fit with the times.

Actually, Anti-Immigration Is A Dying Cause

2008-11-11T13:12:00.000-08:00

Exhibit A in the decline and increasing irrelevance of the Lou Dobbs, too-scared-to-leave-the-house sliver of the country: the Minutemen, a bunch of armed yahoos I remember very well from back home in Arizona, are basically dead. This New Republic article explains things very clearly. The phenomenon was running on fumes and a fake sense of importance from the beginning, and its demise has been written on the wall for a while now. Zvika Krieger writes:

In this environment, Gilchrist's movement is falling apart, overtaken by new members whom he describes as "troublemakers with personality disorders and criminal propensities." In contrast, he insists that the group's original members were able to give voice to the immigration concerns of ordinary Americans because they demonstrated "a passionate allegiance to the United States of America and its priceless principles." There is no doubt that the Minutemen--aided by sympathizers in the media like Lou Dobbs--drove the national conversation in 2005. But whether the enormous wellspring of American anger over illegal immigration that they claim to have tapped into actually existed is another question.

[...]

The press eagerly latched on to the Minutemen as representative of those hundreds of thousands of supposedly angry Americans as the battle over comprehensive immigration reform heated up on Capitol Hill. "The majority of Americans are fed up with illegal immigration and want something done about it, " declared Bill O'Reilly, who hosted Gilchrist numerous times. "Three cheers for the Minutemen!" Sean Hannity, toting night-vision cameras, went on border patrols multiple times with the Minutemen, trips he then used to scold McCain, one of the bill's primary backers. "It's a devastating problem down there," he told the senator.
Minutemen today fondly reminisce about this brief, golden period of influence. Luca Zanna, co-founder of the Mohave County Minutemen, breathlessly recounts the time he spent on the border with Gilchrist and his fellow activists. "That spontaneity, that independence--it was beautiful," he says. "When you control the show, you decide what will be on the show. We had that for a moment."

Anyone who's followed local politics wherever they are knows how this sounds: a one-issue obsessive with a decent bankroll grabs the headlines with an election-year crusade or referendum and thinks they're on top of the world. Back home we had dueling ballot initiatives year in and year out about how to use, apportion and clean the dwindling drinking water supply in one of the country's driest states, and one year an RV dealer with a dream became famous for backing a winning proposal that put the state in a real bind but sounded good to frightened, thirsty voters on paper. He had his own golden period of influence. But like Bob Beaudry, Jim Gilchrist and the Minutemen have already had their fifteen minutes.

This year, there has been more evidence that, while immigration remains a legitimate issue, the supposed nationwide furor was a product of media hype. With the congressional debate over and the press increasingly ignoring the Minutemen, most Americans are professing moderate views on the issue. As of June, the percentage of Americans who want to reduce immigration levels has fallen within a percentage point of the 20-year low, while 64 percent of those polled say that immigration is a good thing for the country (the second-highest it's been since September 11). Even on Super Tuesday, the height of the presidential primary, exit polls found almost 60 percent of Republican voters favoring immigration policies that Lou Dobbs would deride as "amnesty."

The whole article is worth a read, if only as a window into how a small group that shouts loudly enough can make itself look twenty times as big and a hundred times as popular.

The Elephant In The Room?

2008-11-11T08:48:00.000-08:00

A week ago, we watched as the GOP, to be nice, took one on the chin. It was more like a slash to the throat if you ask me, but with losses in the House, Senate and the White House, the GOP is definitely in a rebuilding mode.

And over the last few days, I've heard on NPR and read online about what the GOP is trying to do in an attempt to restructure itself for 2010 and beyond. What I have yet to hear mentioned is that the GOP needs to abandon it's policy of "outgroups." The idea of creating an idea of an "other" that can be blamed for problems and divide people that would otherwise be united.

This notion may date back to the 1940's when Strom Thurmond and his fellow Dixiecrats bolted the Democratic Convention over the inclusion of a Civil Rights plank. Nixon with his Southern Strategy continued this trend of painting the South red. Reagan's "welfare queens" was a further advancement, and perhaps a way to take the idea beyond the South.

It goes well beyond African-Americans too. While the religious right may have many of its roots in the efforts to maintain racial segregation; the Equal Rights Amendment may have been what truly catapulted them into prominence in the 1980's. Gays and lesbians still struggle today for recognition of their equality, as California's Prop 8 shows.

The scapegoat of the hour for the right as of now though seems to be latinos, with folks like Lou Dobbs, Lou Barletta and the "Minutemen" acting as antagonists.

All of this exclusion seemingly serves two purposes. One, it shows how far out of step the GOP is with an America that is becoming more diverse and tolerant, though the oddity of blacks and latinos overwhelmingly supporting 'Prop 8' comes to mind. Two, it creates more potential voters for Democrats. While on a canvass of an apartment complex with a sizable Latino tendancy, I found a large number of Obama voters.

But will the GOP see that discriminatory initiatives and looking to xenophobes as their "rising stars" is a prescription for disaster, and can the GOP risk losing their "base" in the effort?

Prop Hate Will Do Itself In

2008-11-11T00:27:00.000-08:00

Did the camel's back just break?

It stuck out like a gangrenous, blistered, sore thumb. On an election day in which progressives struck the political scene with an earth-shaking thunderclap, one vote in normally liberal California remained the sound nails on a chalkboard. And now, with our vision cleared, we the people are finally pissed.

I can't think of any time I've seen so many people so angry and so horrified about the gay marriage issue since Proposition 8 was approved in California. I can't think of any time there has been so much awareness that not allowing gays to marry is the new "separate but equal" - and, as true now as it was at the time that phrase was the norm, the two concepts are irreconcilable.

There's already talk of a rematch if the proposition survives the court system. There's serious talk of boycotting the Mormon Church for sticking its nose where it did not belong. There's talk of forming a pro-gay-marriage political machine, to put together a ground game similar to the one that elected a man to the presidency in a manner that shattered all cynical presupposition.

People are angry. And that's good. Angry people get things done.

How does 1994 compare to this year?

2008-11-09T17:31:00.000-08:00

The congressional elections this year are likely to invite comparisons with 1994. How to do the two stack up?

Senate

The Republicans made a large one-election shift in the Senate in 1994, winning eight seats and going from 44 to 52. The final numbers, after some seat swapping: Republican 53, Democratic 47. That year there were six open seats so the Republicans defeated only two incumbents.

This year the Democrats won at least six seats, going from a majority of 51 to at least 57 (with three seats still undecided). The Democratic flip was smaller (so far) but more significant in terms of voting power within the Senate.

House

In the House in 1994 the Republicans also had a big shift with a 54 seat win, moving the power from D 258, R 230 to D 204, R 230 and defeating 34 incumbents.

The balance of power this time will be at least D 257, with a few seats still undecided, meaning that Dems have restored the power they had before 1994. This year they have won at least 20 new seats after gaining 31 in 2006. The Democratic advantage in the House is 82 votes, compared to the 26 vote advantage the Republicans had in 1994.

They did not have a 'revolution' but steadily re-grew their majority over the last few election cycles. Approximately 20 incumbents were defeated in this election cycle with 22 defeated in 2006.

What does this mean in policy terms and the mood of the country?

The 1994 Republican 'revolution' was the result of two factors. One was the historical realignment of Southern voters who rejected the Democratic Party label. The "Democrats" elected in the South for decades were highly conservative with policy positions that fit better with the new Republican brand. With the second factor, Newt Gringrich's "Contract with America" to inspire them, Southern Democratic voters finally changed their party.

The election advantage for the Republicans was similar to that in 1946 when the country, discouraged with Truman's leadership, shifted the House by an eerily similar 54 seats. In fact, the Republicans gained the majority of votes for Congress seats for the first time since 1946.

But the Contract with America did not achieve what it had promised. For instance, a November 13, 2000 article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, "... the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." (Wikipedia)

The relative failure of the Contract, the downfall of Gingrich, the unpopular impeachment, and the steadily growing extremism of the Republican Party, made the party lose its edge in both the Senate and the House, declining steadily (except for a slight bump when Bush was elected) since that time.

The majorities in both the House and the Senate when the new Congress convenes will be unassailable since the Dixiecrats are almost all gone, with only a few right-leaners like Landrieu still in place. The Republicans will be able to mount almost no defense in the House and will risk using the filibuster only rarely in the Senate since it will easily earn them the 'obstructionist' label and weaken their chances for a resurgence in 2010.

It is likely that the Democrats will make compromises with the Republicans to keep the bipartisan promise Obama made (unlike Bush breaking his promise in 2001) but we are still likely to see major movement on the issues Obama promised to work on in his campaign.

Pure Glee

2008-11-08T21:35:00.000-08:00

Last night, I hunkered down for almost two hours straight and browsed YouTube for people celebrating on Election Night. It's not very hard. Just type in "Obama celebration" and any given major city or college campus and you'll find tons of videos of young Obama supporters romping about, immersed in pure glee, singing, dancing, howling, crying, chanting, honking their horns and leaning out car windows.

I can't think of any time in recent history that so many masses of people gathered in streets across the country to party. It was like we'd just won World War II all over again. It was crazier than New Year's Eve. When was the last time a presidential election sparked so much pure exuberance?

It gives me a lot of hope. I'm not talking about campaign-stamped-and-approved-of-hope, so much as hope that we are witnessing the end of one of my greatest pet-peeves. Political apathy.

I was a teenager during the '90s, and fell in love with politics in the middle of high school. I frequently went on political rants and was frustrated by the utter disinterest of many of my peers. That continued afterward, during and after college. But Bush continued stepping on things people cared about, and finally we've seen a fundamental change in how we as a people think.

Thanks largely to the ineptness of Bush, political discussion has transformed from an annoyance to the norm.

People care about and are talking about ideas again. That is the mark of a great period in history. Times of great ideas spark civil rights movements, revolutions and periods of progressive transformation. Renaissances. Those times are where the values that are worth fighting and bleeding for come from in the first place.

So, while we're riding this wave of glee, let me just say: Don't lose out on this chance to be a part of a world-wide conversation. It is here. It is here now. And it won't last forever.

Election Day Victories For Animal Rights

2008-11-08T11:20:00.000-08:00

As a vegetarian, I don't often get to see one of my biggest pet issues hashed out in an election year. But Nov. 4 brought with it two major wins for animal rights, and may point the way to further victories in coming years. The Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are wising up big time about electoral strategy, using the pocketbook rather than an infrequently successful moral appeal as their weapon of choice. The New Republic has the story:

I spoke with Michael Markarian, Executive Vice President of the Humane Society of the United States, who said that such ballot measures, introduced in states where they are likely to pass, do much more than reform a single states' animal treatment laws. They are a message to American industry as a whole that considering animal welfare is increasingly within their economic self-interest. California agribusinesses, fearing a rise in operating costs, spent heavily to combat Proposition 2 and have nothing to show for it. Markarian is hoping that all animal-related businesses will draw the lesson that it is simply cheaper to improve animal treatment of their own accord, rather than risk a costly political fight they will probably lose.

Proposition 2, which passed with 63 percent of the vote (63 percent!), says that confined animals must now be able to "lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely." If you've ever seen a vegetarian information pamphlet, you'll know how impossible this currently is given factory farming practices.

Animal rights aren't by any means a political issue per se, and in posting this here I don't want to court the perception that I consider the question part of a new Democratic political agenda. There are a few notable Republican animal rights activists (even a Bushie or two). It's a good day for everyone when we outlaw veal crates and battery cages, no matter who you voted for.

Cheers And Floating

2008-11-07T11:46:00.000-08:00

Many of the posts here have been long, thoughtful looks at issues and what kind of policies and dialogues we're going to need in the next four years. For my inaugural post, I thought I'd change it up a little. I'm not sure how widely the news videos spread around the country or how many people saw the images, but I was at the all-night White House street party that broke out on election night, and for the curious, here's how it went.

I've seen crowd estimates settle around 1,000, and although I have no talent for estimating these things I'd say it was more like double that, especially considering the stragglers and people at the margins of the glut. I'd also say, from the time I spent there, that it was about 90 percent college students, something I'm not sure has been mentioned in the press reports. So, enough with the dry statistics. . .

It was fun as hell. Knots formed in the generally milling crowd and started chanting or singing at the drop of a hat. A lot of girls were riding around on guys' shoulders, and pot use was pretty open, but there was none of the stupidity and tawdriness of spring break shitkickers. Everyone was there to celebrate, not just to get wasted, and people were for the most part sober except for being really happy. I found the best way to enjoy the whole thing was to make my way back and forth through the crowd from one end to the other, stopping whenever I saw a group I wanted to join or it looked like one would form. We sang "Ole, ole ole ole" and the national anthem (a lot) and God Bless America. On too many occasions to count, people would start up cries of "Yes we can!" or "No more Bush!" or "O-ba-ma" or the occasional "Si se puede!" and the next twenty people in each direction would join in. One game that emerged was spotting the bright white glare of a television camera and trying to get through the crowd to make it into the shot. No one pushed. There were no fights. It was all in good fun. I never got interviewed, but I'm positive I ended up cheering and chanting on one Canadian broadcast. After the correspondent signed off, everyone in the crowd went nuts around him with cheers and he smiled and, frankly, joined the party for a moment before having to leave.

As the night wore on I started to see a few middle-aged and older people in the crowd, including one guy who was shouting "You fascist motherfucker!" and balling his fists with victorious glee, facing down the White House like the Scots taunting the British in the middle of "Braveheart." I ended up on a home video being made by Frank from Winona, Illinois, who asked me as I passed him why I'm so happy to be rid of Bush. My answer, as best I can recall (with a big grin on my face): "Oh, man, there are a million and one reasons, I could never get to it all. I thought I wouldn't have a job when I graduated college. I thought there would be a hole in the sun by the time he left. But now, not only are we getting rid of Bush, we're replacing him with someone who actually knows what he's doing. Save this tape. You'll remember this." Then we introduced ourselves, shook hands, he said he totally agreed with me and we kept going our separate ways.

Most of the fun came from just being there. It felt good. Everyone was partying for the best of reasons. A few people carried Obama cutouts above their heads, making for good photo ops when they lined up nicely with the White House. Two or three people crowd-surfed, prompting someone next to me to say to his friend, "Come on, this isn't a Hootie concert." At one point a big group had formed and started singing, of all things, the Georgetown Hoyas fight song. I was standing right there but didn't know the words. One college guy was smoking a cigar and sprayed his Heineken beer foam over his head, splashing everyone around him, but no one seemed to mind very much.

For the record, there were a lot of sexy coeds. I spotted a few guys I thought might have been there to pick up chicks, but I didn't see anything happen. Everyone there seemed to be with a group of friends, and people would often link hands and go through the crowd in fours and fives. I never saw anyone I knew, so I was free to kind of roam the scene and stop to sing or whatever or, once, join a temporary drumming dance circle. The snipers were visible on the White House roof despite it being the middle of the night and completely overcast, but they didn't ruin the picture for us -- everyone seemed to take it all in good fun, as if to say, "Ha ha, we get that roof now." At one point, I think probably around 1:15, the White House floodlights went off for the night and everyone took it as a chance to start chanting "No more Bush!" at the top of their lungs. I shouted "Address the nation, George!" and a few people laughed.

Anyway, I could go on, but you get the picture. When I left at 1:30 it showed no signs of slowing down, and several hours later, watching the local news hoping to get some late Senate election returns, I saw that by 4:00 it had finally petered out. Every account I've read of it includes quotes from security guards or police or whoever saying they'd "never seen anything like it." I hope we keep seeing that kind of jubilation on election day from now on, because that's how people should feel.

First, last and only plug: this is cross-posted at my (currently slow-moving) personal blog, Lapplander.

It's time to go, Joe

2008-11-07T00:49:00.000-08:00

Dear Joe,

You first came to our attention as the protege of William F. Buckley. This was not a good sign, but it's a big tent party. Ten years ago, you were the first Democrat to give aid and comfort to a partisan witch hunt against a president of your own party, and hardly an extremist member at that, for his personal failings and his regrettable attempts to hide them. But it's a big tent party and the GOP never had the votes to convict and remove. It is thus exceptionally displeasing, but can be forgiven. Indeed, you may remember that you ran for vice president in 2000 despite all the events of 1998 and 1999.

But then, Joe, you left the party because it chose someone else instead of you in the primary. That's not polite. It's a big tent party, but if you're prepared to leave the party and run anyway because it rejects you (which your primary opponent pledged not to do) then you really have no loyalty to the party at all.

Still, many things can be forgiven. Joe, you've been voting with the Republicans like crazy. You're a big Bush supporter. You campaigned for the other guy, and repeated the worst lies and smears leveled against the guy who was supposed to be your guy. Then you went to the other guy's convention and foamed for them on command.

Joe, the party can count to 51 without your help now. It doesn't need you and you haven't given it good reasons to keep you around. Frankly, a lot of the Democrats pretty much hate your guts and it's not because they're assholes. It's you. Now it's time for you to accept some consequences of your actions. This is personal responsibility.

Unfortunately for the Connecticut Senator, it is highly unlikely that Democrats would act against the wishes of Majority Leader Reid, who wants Lieberman to give up his chairmanship. Moreover, progressive activists have been anticipating this move for months, and have organized efforts to pressure steering committee members to strip Lieberman of his perks.

Two Days Left

2008-11-02T21:19:00.000-08:00

I am beyond any hint of a desire to be bipartisan.

After these last 8 years? The truth is more evident than ever. Roughly 85% of Republicans work to get in the way of progress, and roughly 98% of their politicians serve the same purpose. The result of 6 years of giving them unbridled power and the two following years of lame-duck impotency have given us the biggest steaming pile since the 1930s.

We don't need to strike deals with them. What we need is the frickin' opposite of them. So fuck 'em. Let's bust some proverbial heads and chase them out with town with torches and pitchforks. Liberals have been right all along. Conservatives are more obviously wrong than any time in living memory. Debating them is time better spent making cupcakes. You may as well try to spit into your own eyeball.

Enough. They must go down.

Reaganomics and neo-conservatism must drown like a pair of starved rats that abandoned a sinking ship in the middle of the arctic ocean, with no land for miles. They must cling to each other, gasping for air, while their limbs go numb with the chill of the water. A great wave must pull them under the surface, as the icy touch of Mother Nature grips their tiny, panicking lungs with inevitable mercilessness. They must blink helplessly as they continue to sink, in their last fleeting seconds of mindless fear, before finally being swallowed live by a giant fish (that looks suspiciously like Barack Obama). They must hear nothing but their own final heartbeats in their final moments in the dark, burning yet also freezing belly of the Obamafish. Then, in an effort to let out their last, hapless squeak, they must leave their mortal coil to be dissolved into naught but nutrients and waste.

Go Obamafish go.

Obama Wins!

2008-10-30T08:03:00.000-07:00

I am not predicting future tense, but past tense in this election.

Obama has already won it people, he is way too far ahead. McCain has all but conceded while Republicans are flocking to Obama. Powell, Goldwater, Buckley - even Bush's press secretary. Rumor has it that McCain's mother plans to vote for Obama.

If you think I am overconfident, I'd suggest looking out your window, and you will see pigs and guess what they'll be doing.

Obama will win and win big: 396 electoral votes and a double digit victory in the popular vote. (10 points to be exact). He will win Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia and all the other tossups and blue states. It doesn't look there will be an October surprise, but what about a November surprise? Perhaps Obama will win Arizona, Arkansas or even Texas.

Not likely? Maybe not, but neither is a victory for McCain. We will not be seeing a woman president any time soon.

Oh, and by the way, Obama is going to win in 2012 also.

It's Getting Real Ugly Out There

2008-10-10T19:36:00.000-07:00

I came across an AP story just now that is chilling:

Presidential candidates are accustomed to raucous rallies this close to Election Day and welcome the enthusiasm. But they are also traditionally monitors of sorts from the stage. Part of their job is to leaven proceedings if tempers run ragged and to rein in an out-of-bounds comment from the crowd.

Not so much this week, at GOP rallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and other states.

When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait.

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

He had drawn boos with his comment: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

The anti-Obama taunts and jeers are noticeably louder when McCain appears with Palin, a big draw for GOP social conservatives. She accused Obama this week of "palling around with terrorists" because of his past, loose association with a 1960s radical. If less directly, McCain, too, has sought to exploit Obama's Chicago neighborhood ties to William Ayers, while trying simultaneously to steer voters' attention to his plans for the financial crisis.

I've been reading this sort of thing for at least a week now. On a conservative bulletin board I post to, a moderator was angry with McCain for not going with the tone set by the more rabid Republicans. It's obvious these people do not like McCain--hell, they're booing him. They're motivated by hatred and fear. This, "my friends", is how fascists think and act. Their behavior is most easily explained by racism, but it isn't just that. Not all racists are ready to kill their political enemies. They've been trained to consider everyone to the left of Mussolini to be a "socialist". There's no thought involved in this labeling; indeed, few of the people we're talking about could define socialism if asked. But they know it has something to do with the government and taxes, and it's real real bad.

So where does McCain go from here? He despises his new base and they detest him. Most want him to win and then promptly die so Palin can become President and presumably bring about Christ's reign on Earth. The piece of him that is still honorable (and it's there--look at the above quote) has come to the realization that Obama should be President, because McCain can win only by the triumph of the worst impulses and worst elements in the US. But what will the yahoos who are calling for Obama's murder do if he becomes President? We know what Timothy McVeigh did. He will probably have imitators, although I hope they aren't as successful.

With all the fussing from the right about how "hate-filled" the left is concerning George W Bush, I have never, in a dozen or so protests (some of them huge and spirited) starting with his first inauguration, heard anyone say "kill him". And Bush was responsible for over a hundred thousand needless deaths. Obama is just a smart black Senator--and Democrat who is ahead in the Presidential race. The people who are most opposed to Obama are, apparently, disposed to violence and have no respect for democracy or their society. "Country first" my ass--it's party first and last for this crew.

Do you remember the feigned outrage at the "shocking display" at Wellstone's funeral? The right managed to parlay that ploy into Norm Coleman's victory six years ago. Well, where are those tender sensibilities today? Drowned in bile, it seems.

Every Obama hater I encounter (there seem to be no McCain supporters) has the same line of patter, handed to them by their masters: ACORN is stealing the election for the terrorist-loving socialist. The black guy is the racist, not us. The Media is burying the real issues because they are on the side of the socialists. When Obama is elected they'll turn America into a communist dictatorship. And so on. And on, and on. No facts are necessary. Logic need not apply.

As sad and twisted as some of these people are, they're Americans and aren't going anywhere (they don't know how and have no passports). We have to live with them. I just wish I knew how to reach them. I bet McCain does too.

Hooray for My Team!

2008-09-30T16:21:00.000-07:00

No one who posts to an internet bulletin board could have been surprised by this article in the Washington Post yesterday, which includes the following:

There is another piece of evidence that party identification rather than ideology is behind the growing polarization of the electorate: On a variety of unrelated issues -- gun control, the economy, war, same-sex marriage, abortion, the environment, the financial bailout -- the views of Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly monolithic. There is no reason someone who is against abortion should necessarily also be against gun control or for economic deregulation, but that is exactly what tends to happen among committed Republicans. Loyal Democrats have similarly monolithic views on unrelated issues.

"Party identification is part of your social identity, in the same way you relate to your religion or ethnic group or baseball team," said Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego. This explains why, on a range of issues, partisans invariably feel their side can do nothing wrong and the other side can do nothing right. By contrast, moderates don't feel there is a yawning divide on issues because they don't identify with one party or another. Moderates, in other words, are like people who are uninterested in sports and roll their eyes when fans of opposing teams hurl abuse at each other.

One of the most dependable reactions on the net is the impulse of a netizen to support a fellow partisan, to concentrate on the areas of agreement with him/her, and to attack those identified with the "other side". It's disorienting to see those who agree with one on the Iraq occupation take a position contrary to one's position on gun control, abortion, religion, NAFTA, or same sex marriage. I like to think I handle this sort of cognitive dissonance better than most, though; I often see fellow liberals become irate over a former comrade's apostasy on some issue, almost to the point of claiming he's forthwith drummed out of our club. It's even worse on the conservatives' side; their big boards (like FreeRepublic) are famous for banning anyone who deviates from orthodoxy in the slightest.

So, the cited article says this tendency has become more pronounced over the years in the US, and I believe it. But how smart is it? My answer is, not smart at all, if you care about a civil society and a functioning democracy. There is no good reason a person can't be a free trader, pro-life, pro-gun control, and for universal health care. But those people would not have a home in either major party today. They'd have to keep half their opinions to themselves when among friends. And we haven't even started talking about religion.

I don't know how we can improve this situation. The major parties and their politicians keep talking about "big tents" and such, but it makes no difference. The hoi polloi still needs their culture wars. And I definitely feel this urge too. "President Sarah Palin" makes me want to retch. To me, she stands for a return to the Dark Ages and a repudiation of the Enlightenment. Everything about her and her family strikes me as trashy and destructive, from the snowmobile fixation through hunting and beauty pageants and religious fundamentalism to the shotgun marriage of her daughter to an unemployed high school dropout. If they were neighbors I'd avoid socializing with them. And I'm sure I'd be called a "hater" by Palin, as she terms all those who don't think as she does.

Maybe it'll take a realignment to shake up this very stable dichotomy. If one party becomes substantially more numerous, the other's exclusivity would have to weaken if it were to have any chance of regaining some parity.

But maybe we're all beyond that. Americans tend to move to areas whose values they share. And the net allows us to select our own communities. You can always be in the majority somewhere in cyberspace, and somewhere in the real world, if you're willing to move.

I don't know how much further apart we can get than Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and Michael Moore. Conservatives usually have (take you pick) no sense of humor or a very different one from me. They are not open to new experiences. Many of their moral choices are repugnant to me--and vice versa. I often think we're doomed to a cycle of shoving each other's faces into the ground as we gain temporary ascendancy in politics or popular culture, all the time nurturing our fears and resentments about each other.

We can try to be civil, and we often succeed. I hope that this does not become impossible.

The Meaning of a Western Strategy

2008-09-20T11:46:00.000-07:00

In any strategy which focuses on the importance of winning certain swing states, the Western States of Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona are states which should be looked at. I mention all five of these states however, because they have all swung at least once in the last four elections.

Although Arizona is not considered a swing state in 2008, it could be critical in 2012 depending on how the electoral votes are re-allocated.
In general, the blue states are likely to lose electoral votes as a result of the next census, but most of the above mentioned states will grow at a faster rate than other states; therefore, it is more significant that these swings states will gain electoral votes than that the blue states will decline in relative electoral strength.

The candidates tend to chose a strategy which ignores states that are not competitive. But is this really the best strategy? By ignoring California and Texas, Obama and McCain might be making a mistake, since they could be raising a lot of money in these states.
Finally look at Alaska: once considered a swing state, although it has leaned Republican, it has moved more into the strong states column for McCain because it is Palin's home state. But Alaskans for Obama know more about Palin than most of Obama's supporters and a visit there could be beneficial for Obama.
It wouldn't change the likely outcome of a McCain victory there, but it would accomplish at least three things.

1. He could raise money there.
2. It would make a good story on the evening news.
3. It could increase his chances of winning the popular vote, which doesn't help him win the election, but would make the fairness of the electoral college more of an issue.

The counter argument, is, of course, that such a visit would limit his time in critical states like Colorado.
By the way, if Obama does better in Nevada than in Colorado it would increase the likelyhood of a 269-269 tie which would result in Obama being elected by the House of Representatives and Biden being elected by the Senate, assuming a decisive victory for the Democrats in both bodies in November.
If such a scenario occurs and McCain gets more popular votes that Obama, don't be surprised to hear key Republicans talk about abolishing the electoral college and replacing it with a popular vote. Don't forget, however, that in all likelyhood this would mean that the election could be based on a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote which I see as being opposed to the principle of being ruled by the "consent of the governed".

(adding Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and New Hampshire to the blue states results in a 269-269 tie)

Values and Pride

2008-09-09T22:56:00.000-07:00

This blog is tied to a forum with some history behind it called Turn Left Interactive, and while there's a lot of typical web board bullshit that goes on there, every once in a while something pops up, in this rabid microcosm of the national talking-points war, that's very revealing.

One of our members posed the question, "What are small-town values?" a la the Sarah Palin quote: "We grow people with good values in our small towns."

Here are two of the answers Republican participants put forth, when they actually bothered to try to answer:
"I think much of what makes small town values seem more appealing is the presumption of a more caring and cohesive society -- one in which your neighbors are "known" -- not only to and by each other, but known within the community. In many cases, for generations."

"You're 2 times as likely to be murdered by the morally enlightened members or our nation's urban communities. We upstanding urbanites improve a bit when it comes to forcibly raping our neighbors, only outpacing our rural counterparts by about 30%."

So, in essence, small-town values are knowing who your neighbors are and having a lower crime rate?

Both attempts at this answer are earnestly made, but fail when confronted with logic. You can know your neighbors in any community, rural or urban, (Hell, some cities even have a sampling of the recently maligned "community organizers"), and if anything has served to isolate us in our communities, it's television, computers and cars. As for the crime rate, it's doubtful anybody really believes Sarah Palin was talking about not getting mugged.

The reason the boat is missed here is because "small-town values" is just code for small-town pride.

Small-towns throughout the country have seen massive losses recently. The family farm is disappearing. Rust-belt cities where life revolved around one or two industries are falling apart as those industries abandon them. These places are full of people desperately in search of pride.

The reason the neo-conservatives don't use the word "pride" is because pride itself is not enough to be proud of. There has to be something you have, intrinsically superior to the alternative, available to make pride possible. And values are where that's at.

"Our schools may be struggling, but I can be proud that I'm a hunter."

"I may not have health insurance, but at least my neighbors share my cultural roots."

"I may have lost my job, but I'm going to Heaven."

This is the tricky part, that Obama has, for the most part, been very conscious of. This is not something to lash out at with anger and sharp tongues. Small-town folks are already beaten down. The situation is actually just sad. When all you have to turn to is your heritage and the afterlife, then you've given up any hope that you can control your own life at all.

Preaching about "small-town values" does nothing but encourage the same bad habits many Americans developed as a result of Republican policies. It's the same cycle that we've seen for years, and it will continue until enough people snap out of the funk, at least for that necessary brief window of time, and stop it in the voting booth.

Abstinence-Only Fails, Contraception Works

2008-09-02T16:37:00.000-07:00

While obvious inferences might be drawn from my title to the recent scandal regarding the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate's family, aside this notice I'm not especially interested in talking about them. I suspect I will be the odd man out on this blog, since I find the daily news cycle a bit tedious and thus am rarely inclined to do straight, topical posts. We all have our different strengths and weaknesses. My interest is more issue- and idea-oriented.

It has for some time been a standard Republican policy to support one and only one form of sex education in the schools: "Don't do it!" This approach is the darling of social conservatives, who can correctly point out that abstaining from sex is a most efficacious way to avoid being pregnant or contracting a sexually-transmitted disease. It's even fair to say that recommending teenagers do not have sex because they lack the life experience or emotional maturity to handle the personal and interpersonal issues involved in that decision. One does not want teenagers to have sex for the same reasons one does not want them drinking, smoking, or any number of other things.

However, there's an element of equivocation I often observe in the social conservative appeal to abstinence. Yes, abstinence is a 100% effective way to avoid ending up in unfortunate situations that only arise from having sex. If a disease can only be transmitted sexually, refraining from sex will spare you any risk of the disease. But this simply ignores obvious reality that teenagers will have sex. Not all of them, certainly, but some percentage will. This has likely been a constant for the whole of human history, so the notion that a few teachers and parents telling them to do otherwise is breathtakingly naive.

Yet this is exactly the position one must endorse in order to favor abstinence-only education. Yes, abstinence works for those who remain abstinent. However, teaching abstinence and abstinence only leaves those who do elect to have sex as endangered as they possibly can be by their conduct. Closing our eyes and hoping for the best is not just bad policy, but an abrogation of our responsibility to the next generation.

Given that some teenagers will have sex, whether we tell them to or not, what can we do about the resultant pathologies? The answer is obvious to anyone who has read my title. We can teach teenagers about contraception. We can educate them about proper condom use. We can inform them about birth control pills. These are all simple, common sense solutions that also happen to work, as this just-released study demonstrates:

“The United States seems to be following the recent patterns in other developed countries where increased availability and use of modern contraceptives and condoms have led to remarkable declines in teen pregnancy,” said lead author John Santelli. “If most of the progress in reducing teen pregnancy rates is due to improved contraceptive use, national policy needs to catch up with those realities.”

Clearly we are enjoying a decline in teen pregnancy, and we have not abstinence-only education but greater access information about contraception to credit for it. So why do we have social conservatives pushing the exclusion of education about contraception from the curriculum? Are they devoted to increasing teen pregnancy? Is there a sexually-transmitted disease lobby plying them?

No. Rather it seems that the social conservatives have decided that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong in itself and doing anything to aid those who elect to have such sex is only aiding a sinner in escaping punishment. If one accepts this premise, then one must conclude that abstinence-only education is working exactly as intended.

I have sometimes heard from conservatives who will admit to some of these facts that whatever the case may be, sex education is not the place of the schools. Having them involved means that children could learn things contrary to the values or beliefs of their parents. Isn't questioning your opinions, however cherished, the thing a good education is supposed to be about in the first place?

As I fail to see how teaching children about abstinence and contraception in the schools prevents parents from also teaching children about abstinence, condoms, or anything else they wish to teach their children, I see no grounds on which to make an objection except the notion that sex is a dirty thing that you should only give to one you love enough to marry and those who think otherwise deserve hardship and disease. I find it impossible to make a moral defense of any such position.

Pregnant With Controversy

2008-09-01T22:49:00.000-07:00

Who'd have thunk it? In a mere three days, the John McCain campaign has transformed into an episode of Jerry Springer.

Obama rightly scolded his own out-of-control troops and told them to quit the frothing, and now that we've had a good full day of Preggersgate, the dust is finally starting to clear a little bit. What do we see?

There is a real issue buried under all the slop: Teennage pregnancy. Bristol Palin's issue is an issue for a lot of families in America, enough so that most other first world countries outrank us in keeping their horny young ones from an early end to childhood. That distinction includes Russia, which, if you follow the link to the Wikipedia article, you'll see has a teenage birth rate of 30 out of 1,000 - compared to our birth rate of 53 out of 1,000.

If all the frantic mudslinging leads to an honest debate on this issue it may have all been worthwhile. As an added bonus, teen pregnancy is irrevocably tied to abstinence education and religious indoctrination, which also direly need to be addressed.

So gear up for another God vs. condoms debate.

There's also a secondary issue with major ramifications hidden beneath the tabloid trash: Abortion. For example, let's read this already famous line:

"We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."

Bristol's decision? Really? That's an odd choice of words from someone who would like to see one of her options taken away. And for all we could possibly know, it may not even be true. Parental and social pressure is a powerful thing.

So my point is, the issue goes far deeper than the young daughter of a surprise VP choice. This situation could become a symbol for every other kid across the country facing the same trial, and the challenges they face when confronted with their family, religion and upbringing.

That is, it could become a symbol if we have the national maturity to allow it to. That much has yet to be seen.

All Spin, All the Time

2008-09-01T17:55:00.000-07:00

It's become fashionable to decry partisanship these days. I see commercials featuring elephant/donkey hybrids kicking graphics representing intractable problems, implying that if we could only forget about those silly policy and values differences and work together, we could make short work of global warming, the energy crisis, and inadequate health care. Well, that's pretty silly. there are fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals on most issues of importance. And that's OK.

But what does bother me is that partisans today seem to consider facts as soldiers and analyses as campaigns in the political war. There isn't even a nod to truth. The editorial pages are schizophrenic. Half of the commentators seem to live on different planets from the other half.

There are many examples I could point to, but let's take the experience debate. I'm a Democrat supporting Barack Obama, but I'm not about to tell anyone that I'm confident he would come through in a pinch. I think he would, but he hasn't shown that he would. It's a genuine issue. Why not just admit it and address it?

Well, because it's got to the point where if you show any weakness or doubt, the opposition will pounce. They're not going to reciprocate by admitting that McCain's first few years in the Senate weren't so hot, or that his best days are behind him and he really hasn't done all that much in over two decades. They'll take your admission and run with it, overpraising McCain in comparison. You can take comfort in your openmindedness and fairness, but your opponent will outpoint you.

However, what good are those points? The idea, it seems to me, is not to win points or even arguments, but to win votes. Is 24/7 propaganda doing it? I don't know. In one-on-one conversations with leaners or undecideds, my sense is that it doesn't work. Admitting the other guy's strong points does establish some good faith basis for further discussion, and may make space for a real conversation. Just a thought.

Whose Side is God on?

2008-08-31T00:49:00.000-07:00

During the past week, I found myself fearing the worst. When James Dobson's Focus on the Family called for people to pray for rain during that convention, I thought that the entire event would be spoiled. Hallelujah and Hosanna! Praise the Lord, it went off without a single bolt of lightning, although the fireworks were spectacular. So I figured that God had ignored the good pastor, as he often ignores the prayers of holy people, lest they get too complacent with their cozy relationship with Him.

Now I'm beginning to wonder what is up. A new hurricane is heading for New Orleans and all those off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf. Mayor Nagin has imposed a mandatory evacuation. And the Republican Convention is about to start. Is this a sign from God? I remember the talk about the last time having something to do with homosexuals and questionable activities of an immoral nature in the Latin Quarter. What is the message this time?

I have a theory. Given the timing, it must be that God has decided to support the candidacy of Barack Obama. After all, the Republican Convention is scheduled to start just when Gustav is predicted to blow into all those offshore oil rigs and come ashore at New Orleans, with all its ugly symbolism for the Republican Party. President Bush was scheduled to speak that night, but he is now rumored to have canceled.

Coincidence? I think not. Look at the past eight years. The Bush administration has continually ignored all the evidence of impending environmental disaster brought on by global warming. The signature energy policy in the McCain save-the-planet campaign is more offshore drilling. But most of all, it must be GOP elected officials like Larry Craig that finally made God decide to switch parties. I think that God may have been tired of all that hypocrisy from the GOP. I swear on the Bible. That must be the answer.

Kicking It Off

2008-08-30T22:56:00.000-07:00

This is the budding version of a blog that shall embody the new Turn Left, a distinctively old Internet liberalism community that harkens back to the olden days of 1995.

I know. Ancient, right?

Seriously, in Web terms, this group of politics junkies is pretty damn old. Essentially, a bunch of us who met through Turn Left and used to post on its wild, free-wheeling forums kept in touch when the site went AWOL around the turn of the century. We formed a mailing list, and then our own forum, which has given us a place to yammer on in our spare time, as well as attract a whole new generation of red-eyed neo-conservatives to spew garbage in our back yard. (Some of them are OK, though, really.)

There's more to come soon once we get our members in action and ducks in a row. But this project will be in the fledgling phase for a while. As it matures, hopefully a clear mission will rise to the surface - likely it will be about first-and-foremost about liberalism (which transcends elections and national borders) which would be very much in the tradition of the original TL. But we plan to touch on a lot of angles on the way.

In the meantime, thanks to Mike Silverman, the original founder and owner of turnleft.com, not just for making this new endeavor possible, but for bringing us all together in the first place.

Test

2008-08-30T21:33:00.000-07:00

First post. This is only a test. Please don't panic. This is only a test. I repeat. This is only a test.