The California Supreme Court is no bastion of liberalism. Quite the contrary. Six of its seven justices are Republicans, and the lone Democratic appointment, made by centrist governor Gray Davis, is equally centrist. There are NO liberals on the court.
Nevertheless, this conservative court found that it was a violation of the principle tenets of the California Constitution to deny the right to marriage to same-sex couples. The opinion was drafted by Ron George, California’s Chief Justice, states that the “equal respect and dignity” of marriage is a “basic civil right” that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples. The court further confirmed that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution.
Right-wing hate-mongers took offense at the decision, and have embarked on a mean, grumpy, spiteful, narrow-minded and retrograde effort to amend the California Constitution to strip same-sex couples of the rights currently guaranteed to them by that same constitution. That effort, called Proposition 8 on the upcoming ballot, would be the first time a constitution within the united states was amended so as to strip rights from a group of people. There is no moral or intellectual basis on which to support these efforts. They are vile, and anyone voting in favor of Proposition 8 had better just hope the rest of the state doesn’t decide to take their rights away as well.
It would seem that the No on Prop. 8 forces should be able to easily muster a majority to defeat the proposition, but the advertising campaign engaged in by the No on 8 forces has been particularly ineffective, bordering on incompetent.
So, unless you’re a right-wing hate-monger, vote No on 8, and convince as many people as you can to vote no as well. A conservative court determined that same sex couples have a right to marry under the California Constitution, and any action to strip constitutional rights from a minority group must be resisted as decisively as possible.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Biden Palin Debate Leaves me Angry and Exhausted
Anger.
That is the overriding emotion I felt while watching the Biden Palin debate. Anger. I yelled at the screen. That Woman just kept prattling on: dodging the questions, let alone taking any actual positions. Who was I most angry at? I couldn't decide.
Was I angry at the moderator, Gwen Ifill, who was awful, throwing out silly, leading questions (a leading question is where one hints at the correct answer when asking), and failing -- utterly -- to get Palin to answer of the questions? Well, I was angry at her: come on, call that person on her abject failure to answer any question straight on. But that wasn't the main target of my anger.
Was I angry at Joe Biden, who seemed unable to talk to the camera, let alone smack down the generalized blather coming from his opponent? Now, I love Joe Biden. I have been a supporter of his for a long time. But he is not a great debater.
I thought I was angry at Biden and Ifill. There are too many people suffering today, these issues are too important for either of them to allow Palin to spew such bullshit. But my significant other pointed out the source of my anger was Palin herself. And, as almost always, my significant other was right.
What I was angry at was Palin: her refusal to answer the questions or to speak honestly to the American people. I was angry at her overrehearsed blather: she had a speech prepared for each five minute segment, but it had nothing to do with anything the moderator said.
Empathy. Barack Obama explains that empathy underlies all of his political positions. And I can relate to that. It is what makes us human: empathy. The ability to understand and sympathize with the plight of others. The desire to come together to make life better for each of us. Cooperation flows from empathy. Our greatest ability, cooperation, what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, flows from empathy: our ability to understand each other, to discuss and find paths toward a better world for all.
And these last eight years have been awful: people are suffering. There are people who can't afford a college education. There are people who lose their jobs, lose their homes, find themselves alone, ashamed, living off the good will of friends and family they never wanted to put in such a position. There are people who live will pain, small and big: illness, minor and major. They don't have the money to seek treatment, or are afraid that whatever treatment they do get will bankrupt them. Or they see their children, in crappy, underfunded, overcrowded schools, where the textbooks don't even mention evolution. And they wonder, how are their kids ever going to compete? How are they ever going to be able to build a better life for themselves if they can't even get out of the starting blocks?
And people feel dejected, defeated, like life is over, their fate sealed, before they ever really got started. I know that feeling. I know that torment.
And I want a champion: the American people want a champion. Someone who will forcefully say "enough!" And more, someone who will be able to explain why the path the country has been on is a failure, why it betrays everything about who we are and what we believe and what we strive to be.
No, my anger is not really at Joe Biden. Or even Gwen Ifill. My anger is at Sarah Palin, at John McCain, at those who defend and seek to prolong this downhill slope we are on, who seem indifferent to the pain they cause, or who even revel in it, as Bush and Cheney do.
We are so far off the path of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. We have become the Land of the Lazy Bully and the Home of the Simpering Fool. And, even more than John McCain, Sarah Palin represents that awful, destructive path. So I am angry that anyone would have the delusional arrogance to say the things Palin said, in the way she said it, as if the whole thing were just some episode of American Idol. The world, the pain of our people, is far to serious for such inanity.
That is the overriding emotion I felt while watching the Biden Palin debate. Anger. I yelled at the screen. That Woman just kept prattling on: dodging the questions, let alone taking any actual positions. Who was I most angry at? I couldn't decide.
Was I angry at the moderator, Gwen Ifill, who was awful, throwing out silly, leading questions (a leading question is where one hints at the correct answer when asking), and failing -- utterly -- to get Palin to answer of the questions? Well, I was angry at her: come on, call that person on her abject failure to answer any question straight on. But that wasn't the main target of my anger.
Was I angry at Joe Biden, who seemed unable to talk to the camera, let alone smack down the generalized blather coming from his opponent? Now, I love Joe Biden. I have been a supporter of his for a long time. But he is not a great debater.
I thought I was angry at Biden and Ifill. There are too many people suffering today, these issues are too important for either of them to allow Palin to spew such bullshit. But my significant other pointed out the source of my anger was Palin herself. And, as almost always, my significant other was right.
What I was angry at was Palin: her refusal to answer the questions or to speak honestly to the American people. I was angry at her overrehearsed blather: she had a speech prepared for each five minute segment, but it had nothing to do with anything the moderator said.
Empathy. Barack Obama explains that empathy underlies all of his political positions. And I can relate to that. It is what makes us human: empathy. The ability to understand and sympathize with the plight of others. The desire to come together to make life better for each of us. Cooperation flows from empathy. Our greatest ability, cooperation, what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, flows from empathy: our ability to understand each other, to discuss and find paths toward a better world for all.
And these last eight years have been awful: people are suffering. There are people who can't afford a college education. There are people who lose their jobs, lose their homes, find themselves alone, ashamed, living off the good will of friends and family they never wanted to put in such a position. There are people who live will pain, small and big: illness, minor and major. They don't have the money to seek treatment, or are afraid that whatever treatment they do get will bankrupt them. Or they see their children, in crappy, underfunded, overcrowded schools, where the textbooks don't even mention evolution. And they wonder, how are their kids ever going to compete? How are they ever going to be able to build a better life for themselves if they can't even get out of the starting blocks?
And people feel dejected, defeated, like life is over, their fate sealed, before they ever really got started. I know that feeling. I know that torment.
And I want a champion: the American people want a champion. Someone who will forcefully say "enough!" And more, someone who will be able to explain why the path the country has been on is a failure, why it betrays everything about who we are and what we believe and what we strive to be.
No, my anger is not really at Joe Biden. Or even Gwen Ifill. My anger is at Sarah Palin, at John McCain, at those who defend and seek to prolong this downhill slope we are on, who seem indifferent to the pain they cause, or who even revel in it, as Bush and Cheney do.
We are so far off the path of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. We have become the Land of the Lazy Bully and the Home of the Simpering Fool. And, even more than John McCain, Sarah Palin represents that awful, destructive path. So I am angry that anyone would have the delusional arrogance to say the things Palin said, in the way she said it, as if the whole thing were just some episode of American Idol. The world, the pain of our people, is far to serious for such inanity.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain scuttles bipartisan deal to save the economy
Well, it now looks like John McCain has singlehandedly scuttled any chance for a resolution of the credit crisis.
The deal, as it came together, was not the $700,000 blank check to Secretary Paulson that had originally been proposed by the Bush Administration, but was instead a deal that would see the money dispersed over time, with significant oversight to make sure it was actually doing and being used for what it was supposed to do. It gave the taxpayers some equity in the corporations it helped, and it limited extravagant pay packages for the executives of those corporations.
All things were moving toward an agreement, until McCain stuck his nose in where it didn't belong. By trying to take credit for a solution he had absolutely nothing to do with, McCain has apparently driven the deal into the ground.
I haven't witnessed such a selfish, petulant, pious, but ultimately wildly destructive act in my entire life. "Country first" my ass. John McCain has never been about anything but John McCain.
John "LOOK AT ME" McCain: Narcissus reborn.
The deal, as it came together, was not the $700,000 blank check to Secretary Paulson that had originally been proposed by the Bush Administration, but was instead a deal that would see the money dispersed over time, with significant oversight to make sure it was actually doing and being used for what it was supposed to do. It gave the taxpayers some equity in the corporations it helped, and it limited extravagant pay packages for the executives of those corporations.
All things were moving toward an agreement, until McCain stuck his nose in where it didn't belong. By trying to take credit for a solution he had absolutely nothing to do with, McCain has apparently driven the deal into the ground.
I haven't witnessed such a selfish, petulant, pious, but ultimately wildly destructive act in my entire life. "Country first" my ass. John McCain has never been about anything but John McCain.
John "LOOK AT ME" McCain: Narcissus reborn.
“Do Nothing” McCain seeks to delay the election?
With his poll numbers in freefall, and with his debate preparations not going well at all, John McCain yesterday announced he would skip the debate to return to Washington because of the economic crisis.
In his speech yesterday morning, Mr. McCain said the “crisis calls for all hands on deck.” He “formally suspended his campaign” (whatever that means), and confirmed he intended to skip the debate. “With so much on the line, for America and the world, the debate that matters most right now is taking place in the United States Capitol — and I intend to join it,” McCain piously claimed.
This despite the fact that McCain is not on any of the relevant committees -- not Finance, not Banking, and not Joint Economic – and thus has nothing to do with the government’s response to the credit market meltdown. (McCain is on the Armed Services; Indian Affairs; and Commerce, Science & Transportation committees).
Because McCain is not on any of the relevant committees, and because all the work is being done in committee, behind closed doors, McCain is returning to Washington DC to do nothing. He is not allowed to attend those committee meetings. None of the Republican finance folk have any respect for him. He returns to Washington with nothing to do but hope somehow he gets credit for whatever result the relevant committees come up with.
Though McCain trumpeted his immediate return to Washington DC yesterday morning, he did not in fact arrive back in the capital until noon today. He cancelled his appearance on David Letterman’s show at the very last minute yesterday, telling Dave he was needed immediately at the Capital, and then proceeded to remain in New York and give an interview to Katie Couric. Letterman was rightfully pissed off, and his show last night was extremely funny.
McCain says the crisis (which he has no roll in addressing) demands that he suspend his campaign and skip the first presidential debate. And he piously demanded that Obama do the same. But we’re not going to dely the election, are we? It’s clear McCain is just grandstanding – something he does whenever he gets flustered, which is often – trying to shift attention away from the fact that the whole crisis is his fault, at least in part, because he was one of the main backers of banking deregulation.
McCain fretted: “It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration’s proposal to meet the crisis. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.” Well, it looks like, once again, McCain had no idea what he was talking about. Consensus has emerged, entirely without his input or help, and McCain’s whole gambit is being seen for what it is – a desperate move by a flustered old fool. Ridiculous!
In his speech yesterday morning, Mr. McCain said the “crisis calls for all hands on deck.” He “formally suspended his campaign” (whatever that means), and confirmed he intended to skip the debate. “With so much on the line, for America and the world, the debate that matters most right now is taking place in the United States Capitol — and I intend to join it,” McCain piously claimed.
This despite the fact that McCain is not on any of the relevant committees -- not Finance, not Banking, and not Joint Economic – and thus has nothing to do with the government’s response to the credit market meltdown. (McCain is on the Armed Services; Indian Affairs; and Commerce, Science & Transportation committees).
Because McCain is not on any of the relevant committees, and because all the work is being done in committee, behind closed doors, McCain is returning to Washington DC to do nothing. He is not allowed to attend those committee meetings. None of the Republican finance folk have any respect for him. He returns to Washington with nothing to do but hope somehow he gets credit for whatever result the relevant committees come up with.
Though McCain trumpeted his immediate return to Washington DC yesterday morning, he did not in fact arrive back in the capital until noon today. He cancelled his appearance on David Letterman’s show at the very last minute yesterday, telling Dave he was needed immediately at the Capital, and then proceeded to remain in New York and give an interview to Katie Couric. Letterman was rightfully pissed off, and his show last night was extremely funny.
McCain says the crisis (which he has no roll in addressing) demands that he suspend his campaign and skip the first presidential debate. And he piously demanded that Obama do the same. But we’re not going to dely the election, are we? It’s clear McCain is just grandstanding – something he does whenever he gets flustered, which is often – trying to shift attention away from the fact that the whole crisis is his fault, at least in part, because he was one of the main backers of banking deregulation.
McCain fretted: “It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration’s proposal to meet the crisis. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.” Well, it looks like, once again, McCain had no idea what he was talking about. Consensus has emerged, entirely without his input or help, and McCain’s whole gambit is being seen for what it is – a desperate move by a flustered old fool. Ridiculous!
Friday, September 12, 2008
McClatchy Still the Best
I have said it before and I'll say it again, pound for pound, the McClatchy news organization is by far the best in the political business.
While everyone else is falling back on their heels in hopes of avoiding the Republican attack machine, if not already in the pocket of the RNC (that means you Fox News, Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, and the like), McClatchy is consistently hard-hitting and no nonsence. Keep up the great work!
While everyone else is falling back on their heels in hopes of avoiding the Republican attack machine, if not already in the pocket of the RNC (that means you Fox News, Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, and the like), McClatchy is consistently hard-hitting and no nonsence. Keep up the great work!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
“How many times do you have to be hit on the head before you figure out who's hitting you?”
One can’t help but think of Harry Truman’s famous question in light of the rise of the McCain/Palin ticket in the polls. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that distinguishes the policies (economic, education, taxation, warmongering, religion-pushing, damn the infrastructure, damn the people) of the McCain/Palin ticket from the same old Republican Party approach to government that has driven this country into the ground over the past eight years.
John “Country First, Damn the People” McCain and Sarah “Let Them Eat Moose-Turd” Palin offer nothing but further economic decline, further reduction in opportunities for a good education, further decline in scientific and medical research, ongoing wage stagnation, continued outsourcing, increasing inflation, further reduction of a woman’s right to chart the course of her own life, ever-higher health care costs, ongoing lies and disinformation and secrecy and bullshit ... in essence, the ongoing dumbing down and highway robbery of the American people.
“You can put lipstick on a pig,” Obama said today, “It’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still going to stink after eight years.” And so it is with the Republican Party’s approach to government. They appeal to ignorance and hate, suggest the best way to get ahead is to hurt the competition, grab hold of power and line their own pockets, all the while leaving life a little more difficult for the citizens of this country. The standard-bearers may change, but the rotten fish underneath still stinks.
Unless you are a narcissistic, spite-filled, mega-millionaire (like McCain), you’d have to be a damned fool to vote for McCain/Palin.
So what can we do? Well, we need to make sure Obama/Biden have the resources to get the message out. And we need to get that message out too. In his final complete book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan (the great American scientific educator) warned of the dangers of mixing ignorance with power:
Sagan challenged us all to not sit quietly in the face of ignorance, falsehood and bluster, particularly when coming from persons seeking power, but to speak out in favor of truth, to vocally correct false theories and unsupportable assertions, to insist on intellectual honesty.
Bob Herbert gets into this mind-set in his column today: “Hold Your Heads Up.” Liberals have done a hell of a lot to make this country better. Name one thing the current strain of Republicanism has done. The only thing you could possibly say is “cut taxes”, but lets be honest, you’re paying for those tax cuts ten times over with higher education costs, higher health care costs, higher gas prices, lower home values, lower savings rates, dirtier skies, dirtier water, less-safe products, and that’s just the start of that list.
So donate, volunteer, write, speak out, do whatever you can.
John “Country First, Damn the People” McCain and Sarah “Let Them Eat Moose-Turd” Palin offer nothing but further economic decline, further reduction in opportunities for a good education, further decline in scientific and medical research, ongoing wage stagnation, continued outsourcing, increasing inflation, further reduction of a woman’s right to chart the course of her own life, ever-higher health care costs, ongoing lies and disinformation and secrecy and bullshit ... in essence, the ongoing dumbing down and highway robbery of the American people.
“You can put lipstick on a pig,” Obama said today, “It’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still going to stink after eight years.” And so it is with the Republican Party’s approach to government. They appeal to ignorance and hate, suggest the best way to get ahead is to hurt the competition, grab hold of power and line their own pockets, all the while leaving life a little more difficult for the citizens of this country. The standard-bearers may change, but the rotten fish underneath still stinks.
Unless you are a narcissistic, spite-filled, mega-millionaire (like McCain), you’d have to be a damned fool to vote for McCain/Palin.
So what can we do? Well, we need to make sure Obama/Biden have the resources to get the message out. And we need to get that message out too. In his final complete book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan (the great American scientific educator) warned of the dangers of mixing ignorance with power:
“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces... I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.”
Sagan challenged us all to not sit quietly in the face of ignorance, falsehood and bluster, particularly when coming from persons seeking power, but to speak out in favor of truth, to vocally correct false theories and unsupportable assertions, to insist on intellectual honesty.
Bob Herbert gets into this mind-set in his column today: “Hold Your Heads Up.” Liberals have done a hell of a lot to make this country better. Name one thing the current strain of Republicanism has done. The only thing you could possibly say is “cut taxes”, but lets be honest, you’re paying for those tax cuts ten times over with higher education costs, higher health care costs, higher gas prices, lower home values, lower savings rates, dirtier skies, dirtier water, less-safe products, and that’s just the start of that list.
So donate, volunteer, write, speak out, do whatever you can.
Presidential Ages
Lots of muttering this week about Obama's age. So here are some interesting facts:
George W. Bush was 54 when he became president.
Bill Clinton was 46
Jimmy Carter was 52
Nixon was 56 (and he had been vice at 40)
LBJ was 55
John F. Kennedy was 43
FDR was 51
Calvin Coolidge was 51
William Howard Taft was 52
Theodore Roosevelt was 42
Grover Cleveland was 48
Chester Arthur was 49
Ulysses S. Grant was 47
Lincoln was 52
So, don’t buy the bull that Barack Obama’s 47 years of age is some unusually young age. It isn’t. He’s right in the same age bracket as our very best presidents (and some others who weren’t so hot). On the flip side, no president has ever been over 70 at the start of his term. Reagan came the closest, at 69. And in our entire history, only three have been over 65 (Reagan, Harrison and Buchanan).
George W. Bush was 54 when he became president.
Bill Clinton was 46
Jimmy Carter was 52
Nixon was 56 (and he had been vice at 40)
LBJ was 55
John F. Kennedy was 43
FDR was 51
Calvin Coolidge was 51
William Howard Taft was 52
Theodore Roosevelt was 42
Grover Cleveland was 48
Chester Arthur was 49
Ulysses S. Grant was 47
Lincoln was 52
So, don’t buy the bull that Barack Obama’s 47 years of age is some unusually young age. It isn’t. He’s right in the same age bracket as our very best presidents (and some others who weren’t so hot). On the flip side, no president has ever been over 70 at the start of his term. Reagan came the closest, at 69. And in our entire history, only three have been over 65 (Reagan, Harrison and Buchanan).
Friday, September 5, 2008
Apples and Moose-Turd
The line of attack keeps coming up that Obama is inexperienced. It continues to be false. As I mentioned in an earlier post (March 5, 2008), Obama has twenty two (22) years of relevant experience: five (5) years as a community organizer dealing with voting rights, three (3) years as an associate at a big law firm, ten (10) years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve (12) years now as an elected official.
Also for those who compare Obama’s community organizing experience to the largely ceremonial duties of the Mayor of Wasilla. Here are the duties of the Mayor of Wasilla, as defined by the Wasilla Municipal Code:
2.16.020 Power and duties of mayor.
So there you have it, the sum total of Palin’s pre-2007 experience. No trade or foreign policy or economic issues dealt with, no laws written or even considered, no public policy to set. Nothing. A figurehead. Now does anything really think that being a United States Senator is also a figurehead position? Or that the two are in any way comparable?
Also note that when Obama was community organizing, Palin was still in college, and then working as a sportscaster on some small local station. Palin didn’t start serving as governor until after Obama had already announced his run for for the Presidency. Apples and oranges. Or rather, apples and moose-turd.
Also for those who compare Obama’s community organizing experience to the largely ceremonial duties of the Mayor of Wasilla. Here are the duties of the Mayor of Wasilla, as defined by the Wasilla Municipal Code:
2.16.020 Power and duties of mayor.
A. The mayor is the chief administrator of the city, has the same powers and duties as those of a manager under AS 29.20.005, and shall:
1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;
2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;
3. Sign documents on behalf of the city;
4. Appoint, suspend or remove city employees and administrative officials, except as provided otherwise in AS Title 29 and the Wasilla Municipal Code;
5. Supervise the enforcement of city law and carry out the directives of the city council;
6. Prepare and submit an annual budget and capital improvement program for consideration by the council, and execute the budget and capital program as adopted;
7. Make monthly financial reports and other reports on city finances and operations as required by the council;
8. Exercise legal custody over all real and personal property of the city;
9. Perform other duties required by law or by the council; and
10. Serve as personnel officer, unless the council authorizes the mayor to appoint a personnel officer.
B. The mayor may appoint a person to the position of administrative assistant and deputy administrator. If appointed, the positions may not be eliminated during the mayor’s term of office without prior consent of the mayor.
So there you have it, the sum total of Palin’s pre-2007 experience. No trade or foreign policy or economic issues dealt with, no laws written or even considered, no public policy to set. Nothing. A figurehead. Now does anything really think that being a United States Senator is also a figurehead position? Or that the two are in any way comparable?
Also note that when Obama was community organizing, Palin was still in college, and then working as a sportscaster on some small local station. Palin didn’t start serving as governor until after Obama had already announced his run for for the Presidency. Apples and oranges. Or rather, apples and moose-turd.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Gas-Bag Palin’s Underwhelming Speech
Well, I have to admit, I was one of those 37 million people who tuned in to watch Gov. Palin give her speech last night. And I must say, I was underwhelmed. It was really not very good – long-winded, snarky, filled with empty boasts and outright lies and yet still managing to drag and lose focus.
If you have read all the stuff about Palin’s rise, you know that she got to where she is today by applying the republican formula: guns, abortion, oil, born-again Christianity, paint the other person as unpatriotic (thus also tarring anyone that votes for them with the same label).
Wedge politics – devoid of meaning. Empty, vacuous, petulant and cruel. It continues to stun me that so many people in such different parts of the land can apply that formula and be elected no matter how big a moron they are. But it happens over and over, again and again: people who really have no expertise at all, nothing to offer their constituents in the way of solutions, keep getting elected.
Palin is a perfect example. As far as I have seen, read and heard, Palin has not come up with a single interesting idea in her entire brief political career. She studied “communications” in college - widely seen as one of the less rigorous majors. No graduate work. No deep thought about anything. Just all surface. Typical gas-bag republican. Nothing really to see.
I am stymied as to why the media thought that was such a great speech. Do they feel obligated to say so? Chris Matthews statement that “The Republicans have found their Obama” strikes me as particularly tone deaf. Maybe they saw a different speech than I did. Or maybe (and this is more likely) substance and thoughtfulness do not matter at all to them (it seems not to matter to Matthews).
But all of this shows that we need to keep the pressure on, keep getting the message out, the race is going to be close, and we have a way to go. Keep up the good work.
If you have read all the stuff about Palin’s rise, you know that she got to where she is today by applying the republican formula: guns, abortion, oil, born-again Christianity, paint the other person as unpatriotic (thus also tarring anyone that votes for them with the same label).
Wedge politics – devoid of meaning. Empty, vacuous, petulant and cruel. It continues to stun me that so many people in such different parts of the land can apply that formula and be elected no matter how big a moron they are. But it happens over and over, again and again: people who really have no expertise at all, nothing to offer their constituents in the way of solutions, keep getting elected.
Palin is a perfect example. As far as I have seen, read and heard, Palin has not come up with a single interesting idea in her entire brief political career. She studied “communications” in college - widely seen as one of the less rigorous majors. No graduate work. No deep thought about anything. Just all surface. Typical gas-bag republican. Nothing really to see.
I am stymied as to why the media thought that was such a great speech. Do they feel obligated to say so? Chris Matthews statement that “The Republicans have found their Obama” strikes me as particularly tone deaf. Maybe they saw a different speech than I did. Or maybe (and this is more likely) substance and thoughtfulness do not matter at all to them (it seems not to matter to Matthews).
But all of this shows that we need to keep the pressure on, keep getting the message out, the race is going to be close, and we have a way to go. Keep up the good work.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
McCain throws another temper tantrum
John McCain has thrown another temper tantrum. This one over a particularly good bit of questioning of McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds by CNN's Campbell Brown. Here's a link to the video.
Bounds was extolling the vast experience of McCain's V.P. pick, Governer Sarah Palin as "commander in chief" of the Alaska National Guard. So Brown put it to him "Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, just one?"
Bounds responded by trying to duck the question: "Any decision she has made as the commander of the National Guard that’s deployed overseas is more of a decision Barack Obama’s been making as he’s been running for president for the last two years."
Normally, CNN anchors don't go in for the kill. Wolf Blitzer is perhaps a worst offender at refusing to pursue the obvious follow-up. But Brown (who is now unquestionably the BEST newsperson on CNN), persisted: "So tell me. Tell me. Give me an example of one of those decisions." Of course, Bounds was not able to give any example at all, and the whole thing devolved from there.
The matter might have died with little attention, but McCain decided instead to throw another conniption fit, and cancelled a long-scheduled interview with Larry King to "punish" CNN for its surprisingly excellent reporting. Here's the link.
Campbell Brown kicks ass. CNN earns its reputation (perhaps briefly) Republican bullshit is exposed. The ever-petulant McCain throws another temper tantrum. Good stuff indeed!
Bounds was extolling the vast experience of McCain's V.P. pick, Governer Sarah Palin as "commander in chief" of the Alaska National Guard. So Brown put it to him "Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, just one?"
Bounds responded by trying to duck the question: "Any decision she has made as the commander of the National Guard that’s deployed overseas is more of a decision Barack Obama’s been making as he’s been running for president for the last two years."
Normally, CNN anchors don't go in for the kill. Wolf Blitzer is perhaps a worst offender at refusing to pursue the obvious follow-up. But Brown (who is now unquestionably the BEST newsperson on CNN), persisted: "So tell me. Tell me. Give me an example of one of those decisions." Of course, Bounds was not able to give any example at all, and the whole thing devolved from there.
The matter might have died with little attention, but McCain decided instead to throw another conniption fit, and cancelled a long-scheduled interview with Larry King to "punish" CNN for its surprisingly excellent reporting. Here's the link.
Campbell Brown kicks ass. CNN earns its reputation (perhaps briefly) Republican bullshit is exposed. The ever-petulant McCain throws another temper tantrum. Good stuff indeed!
Republican V.P. Pick’s 17 Year Old Daughter Pregnant (Again?)
The media is abuzz with the fact that the 17 year old daughter of Republican V.P. pick Sarah Palin is pregnant, and intends to marry the 18 year old father.
This follows on the heels of a report about Sarah Palin’s most recent child. Gov. Palin is 44 years old, and recently had her fifth child, who suffers from downs syndrome. Reports out of Alaska were that Palin never showed with this most recent pregnancy, nor did she announce it at the customary times. Add to this the report that Palin’s eldest daughter (the one who is pregnant now) was out of school for five months leading up to the birth with an “extended case of mono.” Questions arise, do they not?
Now, Barack Obama has emphatically stated that family members should be off limits, and I agree to an extent. They should be off limits as targets for the rival party’s political machinery. And it is really never appropriate to attack someone’s kids. But that doesn’t mean the family lives of the candidates are also off limits, particularly when the issue is what it says about the candidate themselves.
Everyone who is over 17 (and most of those who still are that age) know what a serious mistake it can be to become a mother or father at such a young age. People live with their mistakes all the time, and it certainly doesn’t make the daughter out to be some kind of bad person. She was young and careless. Now she and her family will have to live with the repercussions of that carelessness.
But there are several aspects of this that go directly Gov. Palin’s character and wisdom (or rather lack thereof). The first is this: Gov. Palin is a staunch anti-choice advocate. Her stance on choice and contraception is a big part of why she was chosen over McCain’s preferred picks, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge. Because Gov. Palin herself has made her stance on these issues so public, her actions bear scrutiny where the country otherwise might agree that the matter remain private.
Were Gov. Palin given the choice, she would forbid women the right to obtain an abortion, even in the extreme event where a pregnancy results from rape and even if the victim is a minor. As Richerd Cohen suggests in today's Washington Post, Gov. Palin is trumpeting her daughter's "choice" to have the baby, but would deny that "choice" to all other such similarly situated children, requiring them to have the baby no matter the cost.
Gov. Palin is also against contraception, and strongly advocates an “abstinence only” education program for our nation’s children and teens. Some would call her stance hypocritical, but I think what it really points out is that Gov. Palin’s approach to teen pregnancy is just plain wrong. It doesn’t work. Pure and simple. It is a fool’s approach, requiring equal parts wilful blindness and embittered nastiness.
If something doesn’t work, and repeatedly doesn’t work, you have to reject as a failure. To refuse to recognize the failure in your own actions, to refuse to engage in that most basic level of self-analysis or soul-searching, is a fundamental character flaw. It prevents growth, and indicates a petulant ignorance. And to advocate a failed program that you know is a failure, to seek to guarantee such failure through the legal system, is the absolute worst form of government imaginable. Is that what the nation really wants in a Vice President? I think not.
This follows on the heels of a report about Sarah Palin’s most recent child. Gov. Palin is 44 years old, and recently had her fifth child, who suffers from downs syndrome. Reports out of Alaska were that Palin never showed with this most recent pregnancy, nor did she announce it at the customary times. Add to this the report that Palin’s eldest daughter (the one who is pregnant now) was out of school for five months leading up to the birth with an “extended case of mono.” Questions arise, do they not?
Now, Barack Obama has emphatically stated that family members should be off limits, and I agree to an extent. They should be off limits as targets for the rival party’s political machinery. And it is really never appropriate to attack someone’s kids. But that doesn’t mean the family lives of the candidates are also off limits, particularly when the issue is what it says about the candidate themselves.
Everyone who is over 17 (and most of those who still are that age) know what a serious mistake it can be to become a mother or father at such a young age. People live with their mistakes all the time, and it certainly doesn’t make the daughter out to be some kind of bad person. She was young and careless. Now she and her family will have to live with the repercussions of that carelessness.
But there are several aspects of this that go directly Gov. Palin’s character and wisdom (or rather lack thereof). The first is this: Gov. Palin is a staunch anti-choice advocate. Her stance on choice and contraception is a big part of why she was chosen over McCain’s preferred picks, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge. Because Gov. Palin herself has made her stance on these issues so public, her actions bear scrutiny where the country otherwise might agree that the matter remain private.
Were Gov. Palin given the choice, she would forbid women the right to obtain an abortion, even in the extreme event where a pregnancy results from rape and even if the victim is a minor. As Richerd Cohen suggests in today's Washington Post, Gov. Palin is trumpeting her daughter's "choice" to have the baby, but would deny that "choice" to all other such similarly situated children, requiring them to have the baby no matter the cost.
Gov. Palin is also against contraception, and strongly advocates an “abstinence only” education program for our nation’s children and teens. Some would call her stance hypocritical, but I think what it really points out is that Gov. Palin’s approach to teen pregnancy is just plain wrong. It doesn’t work. Pure and simple. It is a fool’s approach, requiring equal parts wilful blindness and embittered nastiness.
If something doesn’t work, and repeatedly doesn’t work, you have to reject as a failure. To refuse to recognize the failure in your own actions, to refuse to engage in that most basic level of self-analysis or soul-searching, is a fundamental character flaw. It prevents growth, and indicates a petulant ignorance. And to advocate a failed program that you know is a failure, to seek to guarantee such failure through the legal system, is the absolute worst form of government imaginable. Is that what the nation really wants in a Vice President? I think not.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Will.i.am gives good advice to McCain
I'm watching the final night of the Democratic Convention, and just caught Luke Russert interviewing the performer Will.i.am. Luke asked Will.i.am about McCain's charge that Obama was a celebrity. Here is Will.i.am's advice to McCain:
That just hits the nail right on the head. Good for you, Will.i.am!
Don't be jealous just because you can't move the emotion of America.
That just hits the nail right on the head. Good for you, Will.i.am!
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
No Way, No How, No McCain
That was a hell of a speech Hillary gave last night, wasn’t it? That’s the Hillary I thought we would see on the campaign trail (and that’s the Hillary that would have won). Shed of Mark Penn and all those other ridiculous people she surrounded herself with during the primary, Hillary shined. She made the case for the party, and for progressive politics. And we all know it is a good, strong case. It was nice to hear someone make it so masterfully.
And did you catch the vibe of the convention hall during her speech? Absolutely electric. Resonating with energy. If you haven’t yet heard Hillary’s speech in its entirety, go check it out on the NYTimes website. "No way, no how, no McCain!" It certainly raises the bar for Bill, Joe, Al and Barack.
***
And did you also catch Michelle Obama’s speech to open the convention. That was a home run as well. Warm, personable, intelligent, thoughtful. Good stuff too!
To all those people who contend Obama is too foreign, Michelle reminded everyone that Obama has spent more than half his life in Chicago. They are both Chicagoans. And if you’re going to tell me that a Chicagoan is too foreign, to outside the mainstream to be elected president, then I would invite you to pack your bags and move to Russia, where they appreciate that kind of silliness.
***
Meanwhile, the republicans are acting more and more the petulant, spoiled little rich brats we know them to be. Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney were “dispatched” to the Democratic convention and encharged with running around like drunken frat boys engaged in some particularly pathetic hazing ritual. Let’s be honest, everyone knows that the republicans are the party of the rich, and more particularly, the children of the rich, spoiled, do-nothings who spend their time laughing at how gullible the American people must be to actually vote for them.
If you think you would enjoy having a drink with Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani or John McCain, you are fooling yourselves. Not a one of them would give you the time of day, unless they thought they could get something from you. John McCain has never had time for anybody but John McCain. Guiliani is a total jerk, and Romney is just about as creepy as creepy can get.
The republican’s contempt for the common man and woman is written in everything they do, from their tax cuts for corporations and the rich to their bullshit about drilling for more oil (which will benefit no one but the oil companies and the politicians they fund), to their present disruptive antics. No one listens to them. The rest of the world ignores them. And you would too. If someone offers you nothing but demands and threats of violence, you quickly realize it is best to just avoid that person entirely, to pretend they are not there. That’s what Russia and Iran and North Korea and China and Zimbabwe and Sudan and even the present government of Iraq do: ignore the Bush administration entirely. If you think four more years of being ignored is going to make this country safer and more prosperous, then you had better go check your garage, because you likely left your car running and are suffering the early effects of carbon monoxide poisoning.
***
Tonight: Bill and Joe. Tomorrow: Al and Barack. You know I’ll be watching!
And did you catch the vibe of the convention hall during her speech? Absolutely electric. Resonating with energy. If you haven’t yet heard Hillary’s speech in its entirety, go check it out on the NYTimes website. "No way, no how, no McCain!" It certainly raises the bar for Bill, Joe, Al and Barack.
***
And did you also catch Michelle Obama’s speech to open the convention. That was a home run as well. Warm, personable, intelligent, thoughtful. Good stuff too!
To all those people who contend Obama is too foreign, Michelle reminded everyone that Obama has spent more than half his life in Chicago. They are both Chicagoans. And if you’re going to tell me that a Chicagoan is too foreign, to outside the mainstream to be elected president, then I would invite you to pack your bags and move to Russia, where they appreciate that kind of silliness.
***
Meanwhile, the republicans are acting more and more the petulant, spoiled little rich brats we know them to be. Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney were “dispatched” to the Democratic convention and encharged with running around like drunken frat boys engaged in some particularly pathetic hazing ritual. Let’s be honest, everyone knows that the republicans are the party of the rich, and more particularly, the children of the rich, spoiled, do-nothings who spend their time laughing at how gullible the American people must be to actually vote for them.
If you think you would enjoy having a drink with Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani or John McCain, you are fooling yourselves. Not a one of them would give you the time of day, unless they thought they could get something from you. John McCain has never had time for anybody but John McCain. Guiliani is a total jerk, and Romney is just about as creepy as creepy can get.
The republican’s contempt for the common man and woman is written in everything they do, from their tax cuts for corporations and the rich to their bullshit about drilling for more oil (which will benefit no one but the oil companies and the politicians they fund), to their present disruptive antics. No one listens to them. The rest of the world ignores them. And you would too. If someone offers you nothing but demands and threats of violence, you quickly realize it is best to just avoid that person entirely, to pretend they are not there. That’s what Russia and Iran and North Korea and China and Zimbabwe and Sudan and even the present government of Iraq do: ignore the Bush administration entirely. If you think four more years of being ignored is going to make this country safer and more prosperous, then you had better go check your garage, because you likely left your car running and are suffering the early effects of carbon monoxide poisoning.
***
Tonight: Bill and Joe. Tomorrow: Al and Barack. You know I’ll be watching!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Vote for McCain = death of Roe v. Wade
Let’s be clear, a vote for McCain is a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and all other supreme court decisions giving the people some measure of protection of privacy.
Whoever the next president is will appoint replacements for the two most liberal justices, Stevens and Ginsberg. Justice Stevens is 88 years old. Justice Ginsberg has been battling colon cancer.
John McCain, if elected, will appoint right wing judges in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia. Kennedy, currently the swing justice, is a holdout, as far as the conservative platform goes, on reproductive rights, gay rights, and a host of other issues having to do with personal choice. Any new appointment by McCain will be further to the right on those issues. And, because the Republicans have set a course of appointing very young, unqualified and ideologically driven persons to the bench, it is a guarantee that the Court would stay to the far right for a generation.
So, to those PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) who rant and rave about HRC not being the nominee, understand that if McCain wins, Roe v. Wade will disappear. There are four votes against it now (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas). The fifth vote will end that chapter of womens’ ability to chart their own destiny.
And while we’re at it, lets be frank, the person that the HRC supporters should be angry at is HRC herself. It was her election to lose, and she lost it with a serious of awful choices – from her early triangulation and Dick Morris-style positioning to win a general election (which turned off a large portion of the Democratic base); to her refusal to admit that authorizing the war in Iraq was a mistake (and it was obvious even when she cast that vote that it was all about positioning and triangulation); to her vitriolic attacks on Obama; to her inability to choose a theme for her campaign, to her mismanagement of personnel and funds – HRC did not run a good campaign, and she lost because of it. Be angry at her. I am.
Whoever the next president is will appoint replacements for the two most liberal justices, Stevens and Ginsberg. Justice Stevens is 88 years old. Justice Ginsberg has been battling colon cancer.
John McCain, if elected, will appoint right wing judges in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia. Kennedy, currently the swing justice, is a holdout, as far as the conservative platform goes, on reproductive rights, gay rights, and a host of other issues having to do with personal choice. Any new appointment by McCain will be further to the right on those issues. And, because the Republicans have set a course of appointing very young, unqualified and ideologically driven persons to the bench, it is a guarantee that the Court would stay to the far right for a generation.
So, to those PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) who rant and rave about HRC not being the nominee, understand that if McCain wins, Roe v. Wade will disappear. There are four votes against it now (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas). The fifth vote will end that chapter of womens’ ability to chart their own destiny.
And while we’re at it, lets be frank, the person that the HRC supporters should be angry at is HRC herself. It was her election to lose, and she lost it with a serious of awful choices – from her early triangulation and Dick Morris-style positioning to win a general election (which turned off a large portion of the Democratic base); to her refusal to admit that authorizing the war in Iraq was a mistake (and it was obvious even when she cast that vote that it was all about positioning and triangulation); to her vitriolic attacks on Obama; to her inability to choose a theme for her campaign, to her mismanagement of personnel and funds – HRC did not run a good campaign, and she lost because of it. Be angry at her. I am.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Cafferty Skewers McCain as Shallow and Lazy
I've been working on a post that analyzes McCain's failure to provide a coherent, consistent position on any issue. But now I find Jack Cafferty over at CNN has hit the nail on the head. As Cafferty explains, "John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president."
Check it out.
Check it out.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Obama and the older woman voter - there's nothing to fear
To respond to a reader’s concern about whether Obama can appeal to disenfranchised older voters or Clinton supporters, and who notes that many older women want something safe, I offer several points in response.
First, it depends on the definition of “safe.” There is nothing inherently dangerous or wildly radical about either Obama or his policy positions. In fact, many of Obama’s policy positions are similar to HRC’s and John Edwards’. That’s not because HRC’s or Edwards’ policy proposals were trail-blazers (although each has been in particular arenas) but more because all three politicians’ policy ideas reflect the results of the progressive re-evaluation that has been going on over the past eight years. Obama gives eloquent voice to that consensus, and adds his own understanding of the deep power of empathy, the pragmatics of community organization, and the need to treat people with compassion and respect.
As for Obama’s personality, one need only read his books or give a more extensive listen to his speeches and discussions to see that he is a thoughtful, compassionate and deep thinker; someone who is genuinely interested in helping the country and its people to move to better times.
As for the whole claim of inexperience, as I stated in an earlier post, Obama has been an elected official for longer than HRC, and was a community organizer (and thus knee deep in local politics and the needs and concerns of the people) before then. And he is 46 years old. That may not yet qualify for AARP, but its no spring chicken we’re talking about here either.
More importantly, Obama has been thinking and studying issues of law, politics and international relations his whole adult life. He got his bachelors from Columbia in Political Science, with an emphasis in international relations. He graduated from Harvard Law School, magna com laude. He has read the theory and watched and been a part of the practice of politics and the law for over twenty years. The man is imminently qualified.
If the concern is with Obama’s ethnicity, well that’s a red herring. There is nothing more irrelevant to a person’s character than the color of their skin. I grew up in Oakland, California, and was surrounded from a very early age with people of all colors, stripes and hues. And I will tell you know, as a barometer for how people will act, for whether they are true to their word or are capable of compassion or empathy or strength or ingenuity, skin color is completely and utterly useless. It is truly meaningless.
Now if the concern is that he lived outside the country for three years between the ages of seven and ten, or that his step-father was a non-practicing muslim, or whatever, well, what I say is that you have to look at the man himself, at his words, his thoughts (which he extensively recorded in two books), and judge him from that stuff, not from peripheral stuff. Who among us has any say in who our parents are, or where they move the family while we are children?
Those who say he is either out of touch or doesn’t care about the average Joe are just wrong. Again, his books and his speeches lay bare his concern and desire to improve the lot of all Americans. And toward that end, he has shown a willingness and desire to seek outside advice and alternative views before deciding on a course of action. I see nothing to fear from an Obama presidency. I see everything to gain.
First, it depends on the definition of “safe.” There is nothing inherently dangerous or wildly radical about either Obama or his policy positions. In fact, many of Obama’s policy positions are similar to HRC’s and John Edwards’. That’s not because HRC’s or Edwards’ policy proposals were trail-blazers (although each has been in particular arenas) but more because all three politicians’ policy ideas reflect the results of the progressive re-evaluation that has been going on over the past eight years. Obama gives eloquent voice to that consensus, and adds his own understanding of the deep power of empathy, the pragmatics of community organization, and the need to treat people with compassion and respect.
As for Obama’s personality, one need only read his books or give a more extensive listen to his speeches and discussions to see that he is a thoughtful, compassionate and deep thinker; someone who is genuinely interested in helping the country and its people to move to better times.
As for the whole claim of inexperience, as I stated in an earlier post, Obama has been an elected official for longer than HRC, and was a community organizer (and thus knee deep in local politics and the needs and concerns of the people) before then. And he is 46 years old. That may not yet qualify for AARP, but its no spring chicken we’re talking about here either.
More importantly, Obama has been thinking and studying issues of law, politics and international relations his whole adult life. He got his bachelors from Columbia in Political Science, with an emphasis in international relations. He graduated from Harvard Law School, magna com laude. He has read the theory and watched and been a part of the practice of politics and the law for over twenty years. The man is imminently qualified.
If the concern is with Obama’s ethnicity, well that’s a red herring. There is nothing more irrelevant to a person’s character than the color of their skin. I grew up in Oakland, California, and was surrounded from a very early age with people of all colors, stripes and hues. And I will tell you know, as a barometer for how people will act, for whether they are true to their word or are capable of compassion or empathy or strength or ingenuity, skin color is completely and utterly useless. It is truly meaningless.
Now if the concern is that he lived outside the country for three years between the ages of seven and ten, or that his step-father was a non-practicing muslim, or whatever, well, what I say is that you have to look at the man himself, at his words, his thoughts (which he extensively recorded in two books), and judge him from that stuff, not from peripheral stuff. Who among us has any say in who our parents are, or where they move the family while we are children?
Those who say he is either out of touch or doesn’t care about the average Joe are just wrong. Again, his books and his speeches lay bare his concern and desire to improve the lot of all Americans. And toward that end, he has shown a willingness and desire to seek outside advice and alternative views before deciding on a course of action. I see nothing to fear from an Obama presidency. I see everything to gain.
Republican Ham-handed Incompentence Knows No Bounds
Here's a link to an article that again stresses just how badly the ham-handed incompetence of the Bush administration's attempts to wage their war have actually made things much, much worse, made the world more dangerous, turned into a manufacturing camp for new terrorists, and just generally been bad for everyone involved.
The level of incompetence and ignorance these Bushies continue to demonstrate is just stunning. Read the entire series. Also, kudos to the McClatchy/Knight Ridder news organization, which continues to be the very best investigative news organization in the country.
Stunning. Idiots! McCain's continued attempts to claim that Republicans like him know how to fight this "war on terror" while Democrats do not is just making him look more and more like a buffoon. A silly, ignorant, peacock-strutting buffoon.
The level of incompetence and ignorance these Bushies continue to demonstrate is just stunning. Read the entire series. Also, kudos to the McClatchy/Knight Ridder news organization, which continues to be the very best investigative news organization in the country.
Stunning. Idiots! McCain's continued attempts to claim that Republicans like him know how to fight this "war on terror" while Democrats do not is just making him look more and more like a buffoon. A silly, ignorant, peacock-strutting buffoon.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Obama Speaks With Our Voice
The Obama phenomenon is not about Barack. This is not about him. This about us: about our need to turn the page on eight years of a vicious downward spiral. And on a significantly longer time of allowing a single generation, the Baby Boomers, to control the country’s politics. The Boomers have always thought everything was about them. This is not.
In Barack Obama, a new generation has found a vehicle. A vehicle to channel, carry, articulate our message, our philosophy, our world view. We are tired of the battles of the late 60s and early 70s being re-waged in every political dust-up. We know skin color is utterly meaningless (except perhaps to the sunscreen and cosmetics industries). We are tired of the silly (and false) belief that being liberal means being anti-troop. We are tired of the bluster, the sabre rattling, the bullying, the bigotry, the scurrilous questions about whether someone is patriotic enough as a means to distract attention from incompetence and corruption. We are tired of the demand that Americans see the world through Republican-Rose colored glasses, and that any other viewpoint is somehow foreign, and thus bad.
The world is a real place, and pretending it is anything other than what it is does noone any good (except, perhaps, the Oil Barons, like Bush, like Cheney). It demands an open-eyed vision, and a willingness to bring all the varied tools we have at our disposal to bear on solving its problems (or at least lessening them).
We believe economics, psychology, sociology, regional planning, architecture, science, all of these and the many other disciplines to which Americans have dedicated their careers, must be harnessed to address the issues we face.
And there are enough of us of voting age that we can finally make our vision known. Barack brings our message to the country and the world in thoughtful and eloquent tones. So far, Barack has proven to be worthy of the charge we have given him.
But it is not about him, it is about the message, the vision, the method of approaching issues. That is why those who try to poke holes in Barack’s persona will not succeed. We don’t care if he is flawed, who of us is not. We care that he stay true to the message, the vision and the method. And there has never been anything to indicate he would not.
Please note, I use Senator Obama’s first name to indicate the affinity I have for his vision, his message and his method. He is familiar to me, reminds me very much of several of my closest friends. I like that type of person. So do you.
In Barack Obama, a new generation has found a vehicle. A vehicle to channel, carry, articulate our message, our philosophy, our world view. We are tired of the battles of the late 60s and early 70s being re-waged in every political dust-up. We know skin color is utterly meaningless (except perhaps to the sunscreen and cosmetics industries). We are tired of the silly (and false) belief that being liberal means being anti-troop. We are tired of the bluster, the sabre rattling, the bullying, the bigotry, the scurrilous questions about whether someone is patriotic enough as a means to distract attention from incompetence and corruption. We are tired of the demand that Americans see the world through Republican-Rose colored glasses, and that any other viewpoint is somehow foreign, and thus bad.
The world is a real place, and pretending it is anything other than what it is does noone any good (except, perhaps, the Oil Barons, like Bush, like Cheney). It demands an open-eyed vision, and a willingness to bring all the varied tools we have at our disposal to bear on solving its problems (or at least lessening them).
We believe economics, psychology, sociology, regional planning, architecture, science, all of these and the many other disciplines to which Americans have dedicated their careers, must be harnessed to address the issues we face.
And there are enough of us of voting age that we can finally make our vision known. Barack brings our message to the country and the world in thoughtful and eloquent tones. So far, Barack has proven to be worthy of the charge we have given him.
But it is not about him, it is about the message, the vision, the method of approaching issues. That is why those who try to poke holes in Barack’s persona will not succeed. We don’t care if he is flawed, who of us is not. We care that he stay true to the message, the vision and the method. And there has never been anything to indicate he would not.
Please note, I use Senator Obama’s first name to indicate the affinity I have for his vision, his message and his method. He is familiar to me, reminds me very much of several of my closest friends. I like that type of person. So do you.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Norquist on Colbert: "I want to be a lord."
Grover Norquist appeared on the Colbert Report last night, and the flies in the snake oil he peddles were on full display.
Norquist repeatedly bleated his “limited government” refrain, arguing repeatedly that the only proper role for government is to maintain a police force (“to protect us from muggers”) and a military (“to protect us from foreigners”). When Colbert pressed a bit, on interstate highways for example, Norquist repeated his police and military only argument.
So, just for fun, let’s consider some of the things Norquist would like to do away with:
Road construction and maintenance
Highway construction and maintenance
Bridge construction and maintenance
Harbor construction and maintenance
Aquaduct and Canal construction and maintenance
Water distribution and treatment
Sewage treatment and sewage systems in general
Environmental protection
Zoning (including height, bulk and use restrictions)
Rent control
The Federal Reserve system
The Securities and Exchange Commission
Courts
Prisons
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Unemployment Insurance
Public parks
National monuments
Fire protection
Forestry services
Health and safety regulations of any kind (OSHA, the FDA, the CDC, etc.)
Basic scientific research (NIH, CDC, etc.)
Public Universities
Public education
Product safety regulators and laws
Building codes and inspectors
Health and safety codes and inspectors
Fire codes and inspectors
Electrical codes and inspectors
Planning for the society’s future food and energy needs
Disaster response
Good idea? I think not.
In Norquist’s vision of government, there is no need for a legislative branch or a judicial branch. The entirety of the government functions he envisions are executive, and really just a high-enforcer, whose purpose would be to maintain order and protect the stature and property of the ruling class. To protect it from physical threats from without (the military) and within (the police). We have a word for that: feudalism. And it worked so well in the Dark Ages!
Dumbass.
Norquist repeatedly bleated his “limited government” refrain, arguing repeatedly that the only proper role for government is to maintain a police force (“to protect us from muggers”) and a military (“to protect us from foreigners”). When Colbert pressed a bit, on interstate highways for example, Norquist repeated his police and military only argument.
So, just for fun, let’s consider some of the things Norquist would like to do away with:
Road construction and maintenance
Highway construction and maintenance
Bridge construction and maintenance
Harbor construction and maintenance
Aquaduct and Canal construction and maintenance
Water distribution and treatment
Sewage treatment and sewage systems in general
Environmental protection
Zoning (including height, bulk and use restrictions)
Rent control
The Federal Reserve system
The Securities and Exchange Commission
Courts
Prisons
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Unemployment Insurance
Public parks
National monuments
Fire protection
Forestry services
Health and safety regulations of any kind (OSHA, the FDA, the CDC, etc.)
Basic scientific research (NIH, CDC, etc.)
Public Universities
Public education
Product safety regulators and laws
Building codes and inspectors
Health and safety codes and inspectors
Fire codes and inspectors
Electrical codes and inspectors
Planning for the society’s future food and energy needs
Disaster response
Good idea? I think not.
In Norquist’s vision of government, there is no need for a legislative branch or a judicial branch. The entirety of the government functions he envisions are executive, and really just a high-enforcer, whose purpose would be to maintain order and protect the stature and property of the ruling class. To protect it from physical threats from without (the military) and within (the police). We have a word for that: feudalism. And it worked so well in the Dark Ages!
Dumbass.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Scalia's Stubborn Irrationality
This is an excerpt from 60 Minutes’ interview with right wing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:
No, Justice Scalia, your view is not correct. On the contrary, it displays (yet again) a deep and profound ignorance. Justice Scalia shares a common trait with many ultraconservatives - a lack of that intuition about others that many people take for granted. A complete and total lack of empathy, and a corresponding inability to look the truth of human behavior in its face.
“Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.” Come on, that statement is absurd on its face.
Here’s the definition of torture from the United Nations Convention Against Torture:
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Part I, Article I (United Nations, Dec. 10, 1984).
“Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment?” Only the entire world!
“What’s he punishing you for?” For failing to provide the information the torturer is seeking, or to confess to whatever the torturer wants a confession about, that’s what. Give me a break!
There is simply no way to defend Scalia’s take on torture in any logical, rational way. He is clearly bullshitting, he knows he’s bullshitting, and yet when the question comes before him on the Court, he will continue to bullshit, and people will suffer as a result. Innocent people too.
It is unconscionable.
LESLIE STAHL: “If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ doesn't that apply?”
SCALIA: “No, No!”
STAHL: “Cruel and unusual punishment?”
SCALIA: “To the contrary. Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.”
STAHL: “Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody…”
SCALIA: “And you say he's punishing you?”
STAHL: “Sure.”
SCALIA: “What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody…”
STAHL: “Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know.”
SCALIA: “It's the latter. And when he's hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He's trying to extract…”
STAHL: “Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he's going to beat the you-know-what out of you….”
SCALIA: “Anyway, that’s my view, and it happens to be correct.”
No, Justice Scalia, your view is not correct. On the contrary, it displays (yet again) a deep and profound ignorance. Justice Scalia shares a common trait with many ultraconservatives - a lack of that intuition about others that many people take for granted. A complete and total lack of empathy, and a corresponding inability to look the truth of human behavior in its face.
“Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.” Come on, that statement is absurd on its face.
Here’s the definition of torture from the United Nations Convention Against Torture:
... the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Part I, Article I (United Nations, Dec. 10, 1984).
“Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment?” Only the entire world!
“What’s he punishing you for?” For failing to provide the information the torturer is seeking, or to confess to whatever the torturer wants a confession about, that’s what. Give me a break!
There is simply no way to defend Scalia’s take on torture in any logical, rational way. He is clearly bullshitting, he knows he’s bullshitting, and yet when the question comes before him on the Court, he will continue to bullshit, and people will suffer as a result. Innocent people too.
It is unconscionable.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Iraq: Why there is no end in site
Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus spent the last few days testifying before Congress on the status of the Iraq war. If there is one thing that is clear, it is that there is no greater strategy other than ongoing force presence. The central message that the two Bush-Administration stand-ins provided, was that troops would be required until they such time as they were no longer be required, but that nobody knew when that would happen or what it would look like.
There was no explanation as to what the administration was trying to achieve or how they were going to achieve it. No overall strategy; just the idea that we'll keep forces in the area until violence somehow works itself out. The real point of the ongoing presence in Iraq appears to be nothing more than to maintain a significant force presence in that area of the world.
There is no indication that anyone in the administration cares one bit about the future of Iraq itself or the Iraqi people. In fact, there’s no indication that the administration actually has any interest in seeing the conflict in Iraq resolved. Quite the contrary, the overriding interest and concern appears to be in drawing the conflict out to justify the ongoing presence of a large number of American troops. Nobody has explained why they think this is necessary or good or helpful. And I can’t see any positive reason for doing this: it is not working as a deterrent to Iran. It’s not deterring anyone from anything.
Senator Hagel asked the right question: "Where’s the surge? Where is the diplomatic surge?" If the administration was really interested in bringing this conflict to a conclusion, there would be some form of diplomatic activity. Some shuttle diplomacy. Some use of the carrot and the stick to get the various competing factions in Iraq to make nice. Something.
What could we do? We can use rebuilding and reconstruction funds as a carrot. We can use the presence of our troops in their peacekeeping capacity as a carrot. Or we can use the withdraw of troops as a carrot. We can use offers to train and educate and feed and clothe as a carrot. Water delivery projects, sewage systems, electrical systems, infrastructure – there are any number of things that we can offer to local sects to encourage them to join in the national government.
We have plenty of sticks to. We can withdraw our troops from a given area. Or we can send more troops into that area. We can cut off funding for reconstruction. We can cut off funding for education, training, for all kinds of assistance. We can encourage a temporary suspension of shares in the national oil income. And we can give all the more to those groups that are cooperating.
And we can work diplomatically to actually bring about a measure of reconciliation. All sides in the conflict feel historically aggrieved. And each side has been aggrieved at some point or another to some extent or another. Part of reconciliation is acknowledging the ways in which each faction has been aggrieved and the ways in which they have been the aggressor. Acknowledging grievances is an important early step in achieving reconciliation.
Now the reality is reconciliation cannot come about, while people are not feeling safe. If our strategy was toward the overarching reconciliation between peoples and the first step in that strategy was creating a sense of safety, where they had not previously been any, and that would make sense. But creating a sense of safety is about more than just guns on the street. It too involves diplomacy – in reducing tensions, in encouraging cooperation, in creating a peace.
All factions in Iraq have suffered through repeated and prolonged periods of trauma (chronic trauma). Given that fact, the way in which Iraq has devolved into chaos and infighting over the past five years is and was entirely predictable.
Judith Herman, the Harvard professor of psychiatry who has done groundbreaking research into traumatic stress, has written: "People who have endured horrible events suffer predictable psychological harm." The ways in which they are going to react, with violence and anger and fear and desperation, are all predictable.
And, as Herman explains: "Because the traumatic syndromes have basic features in common, the recovery process also follows a common pathway. The fundamental stages of recovery are establishing safety, reconstructing the trauma story, and restoring the connection between survivors and their community." A tall order in a war-torn area, but one that can provide a pathway toward actual reconciliation.
Keeping troop levels up, for the sole purpose of combating terrorist cells, does nothing at all to advance the cause of reconciliation and national recovery. The spiral of trauma continues, and there can be no end without a change in strategy. It is that complex, and that simple.
There was no explanation as to what the administration was trying to achieve or how they were going to achieve it. No overall strategy; just the idea that we'll keep forces in the area until violence somehow works itself out. The real point of the ongoing presence in Iraq appears to be nothing more than to maintain a significant force presence in that area of the world.
There is no indication that anyone in the administration cares one bit about the future of Iraq itself or the Iraqi people. In fact, there’s no indication that the administration actually has any interest in seeing the conflict in Iraq resolved. Quite the contrary, the overriding interest and concern appears to be in drawing the conflict out to justify the ongoing presence of a large number of American troops. Nobody has explained why they think this is necessary or good or helpful. And I can’t see any positive reason for doing this: it is not working as a deterrent to Iran. It’s not deterring anyone from anything.
Senator Hagel asked the right question: "Where’s the surge? Where is the diplomatic surge?" If the administration was really interested in bringing this conflict to a conclusion, there would be some form of diplomatic activity. Some shuttle diplomacy. Some use of the carrot and the stick to get the various competing factions in Iraq to make nice. Something.
What could we do? We can use rebuilding and reconstruction funds as a carrot. We can use the presence of our troops in their peacekeeping capacity as a carrot. Or we can use the withdraw of troops as a carrot. We can use offers to train and educate and feed and clothe as a carrot. Water delivery projects, sewage systems, electrical systems, infrastructure – there are any number of things that we can offer to local sects to encourage them to join in the national government.
We have plenty of sticks to. We can withdraw our troops from a given area. Or we can send more troops into that area. We can cut off funding for reconstruction. We can cut off funding for education, training, for all kinds of assistance. We can encourage a temporary suspension of shares in the national oil income. And we can give all the more to those groups that are cooperating.
And we can work diplomatically to actually bring about a measure of reconciliation. All sides in the conflict feel historically aggrieved. And each side has been aggrieved at some point or another to some extent or another. Part of reconciliation is acknowledging the ways in which each faction has been aggrieved and the ways in which they have been the aggressor. Acknowledging grievances is an important early step in achieving reconciliation.
Now the reality is reconciliation cannot come about, while people are not feeling safe. If our strategy was toward the overarching reconciliation between peoples and the first step in that strategy was creating a sense of safety, where they had not previously been any, and that would make sense. But creating a sense of safety is about more than just guns on the street. It too involves diplomacy – in reducing tensions, in encouraging cooperation, in creating a peace.
All factions in Iraq have suffered through repeated and prolonged periods of trauma (chronic trauma). Given that fact, the way in which Iraq has devolved into chaos and infighting over the past five years is and was entirely predictable.
Judith Herman, the Harvard professor of psychiatry who has done groundbreaking research into traumatic stress, has written: "People who have endured horrible events suffer predictable psychological harm." The ways in which they are going to react, with violence and anger and fear and desperation, are all predictable.
And, as Herman explains: "Because the traumatic syndromes have basic features in common, the recovery process also follows a common pathway. The fundamental stages of recovery are establishing safety, reconstructing the trauma story, and restoring the connection between survivors and their community." A tall order in a war-torn area, but one that can provide a pathway toward actual reconciliation.
Keeping troop levels up, for the sole purpose of combating terrorist cells, does nothing at all to advance the cause of reconciliation and national recovery. The spiral of trauma continues, and there can be no end without a change in strategy. It is that complex, and that simple.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
"This country that I love"
Barack Obama’s speech yesterday on race was excellent. As those who have come to support Obama’s bid for the presidency expected, he did more than respond to the wild-eyed images of his former preacher that had been playing on all channels over the past week. He put them in context, sure, and said he disagreed with them, but he went further. He discussed the country’s past and its present, the bitterness and anger and resentment on all sides of the racial divide that may be grounded on legitimate concerns and injustices, but that also flows from ignorance and insulation. By placing both the legitimate gripes and the damaging bitterness right there on the table, Obama both contextualized those issues without excusing them, and provided a basis for discussions and possibly even some eventual healing. It was a good speech indeed.
Those who do not like Obama will not be swayed by that speech. Those who want to find flaws or quibbles will always be able to do so. They will try to recast the speech as not going far enough, or going too far, or not sufficiently damning Rev. Wright, or who knows what else they will come up with. But the question that had been floated out there by Rev. Wright’s comments, and by Michelle Obama’s comments about the country which some had found bitter, was where did Obama really stand on the notion of America as a country? Was he secretly an angry, tear down the walls kind of guy who was just good at posing as a relaxed and thoughtful fellow?
And that’s why, to me, the real heart and soul of the speech was encapsulated in that one little line Obama uttered, “this country that I love.”
Obama sees the country the way many progressives do. He doesn’t have any blinders on, and he recognizes the major challenges we face. He sees the bitterness and the anger and the way some of the more dubious corporate interests have pitted the people against each other. But he is, above and beyond all that, a man of hope, who sees the promise of America, the ideals enshrined in our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, and believes we can continue to work toward a more perfect nation. He seems to be coming from the same place we are -- his heart is in the right place -- and that’s probably why we’re all so comfortable with him. Good job, Obama!
Those who do not like Obama will not be swayed by that speech. Those who want to find flaws or quibbles will always be able to do so. They will try to recast the speech as not going far enough, or going too far, or not sufficiently damning Rev. Wright, or who knows what else they will come up with. But the question that had been floated out there by Rev. Wright’s comments, and by Michelle Obama’s comments about the country which some had found bitter, was where did Obama really stand on the notion of America as a country? Was he secretly an angry, tear down the walls kind of guy who was just good at posing as a relaxed and thoughtful fellow?
And that’s why, to me, the real heart and soul of the speech was encapsulated in that one little line Obama uttered, “this country that I love.”
Obama sees the country the way many progressives do. He doesn’t have any blinders on, and he recognizes the major challenges we face. He sees the bitterness and the anger and the way some of the more dubious corporate interests have pitted the people against each other. But he is, above and beyond all that, a man of hope, who sees the promise of America, the ideals enshrined in our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, and believes we can continue to work toward a more perfect nation. He seems to be coming from the same place we are -- his heart is in the right place -- and that’s probably why we’re all so comfortable with him. Good job, Obama!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
It's 3 a.m. all over again
There is an excellent opinion piece in today’s New York Times entitled “The Red Phone in Black and White.” It’s by Harvard Sociology Professor Orlando Patterson, and it points out something about Hillary Clinton’s 3 am add that, once you hear it, is kind of an “aha” moment.
As you probably recall, the 3 am add shows a bunch of sleeping, light-skinned children, ostensibly being checked on by a vulnerable, white mother. All the while, a telephone is ringing, unanswered, in the background. The message of the visuals is that these innocent, light-skinned folk (first white and blond, then vaguely Latino) are being threatened by some dark, predatory character, perhaps just outside, perhaps already in the house. The unanswered phone shows that there’s nobody coming to help these poor folk. It’s classic racism. Pure and simple.
Meanwhile, continuing her trek into the world of the disingenuous, Clinton also said she and likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain both had experience to answer that 3 a.m. call, but Obama only had a speech.
Tying racism and inexperience together, Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro has now repeatedly stated (including on Fox News) that Obama is only in the position of being able to run for President because he is black. Not in spite of the fact that he is black, which would be more accurate, but because of it. As if the citizens of Illinois and all of us who voted for Obama are being duped into some sort of silly, affirmative action vote. And as if that argument couldn't be turned right back on Clinton and her status as a woman. Failing to see how silly the argument is, the Clinton camp appears to be arguing that, in addition to being black and inexperienced, Obama is also an outsider who doesn’t know what he’s doing and can’t be trusted with our precious, pure children and white women. Give me a break!
Says Clinton on answering that 3 a.m. phone call: “Now I think you will be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He has never been the president. He will put forth his experience. I will put forth my experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
There is no reason that being a partner in a big law form or sitting on the board of Wal-Mart or being married to a politician or eight years as an elected official (Clinton’s resume) should count as experience relevant to answering that 3 am call, where Obama’s community organization and voting rights work, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years as an elected official should not. Clinton’s argument doesn’t make a lick of sense.
For that matter, McCain’s one hundred fifty five years in the Senate doesn’t make him any better suited to answer that 3 am call either. Senators are not called on to make split-second, life and death decisions. Governors do face those situations on rare occasions, but none of the three of them (Clinton, Obama or McCain) has ever been a governor or even in law enforcement. All three of them are legislators.
And it’s not like it’s rocket science figuring out how to answer that late night distress call. The process should be relatively the same for anyone in that situation:
As you probably recall, the 3 am add shows a bunch of sleeping, light-skinned children, ostensibly being checked on by a vulnerable, white mother. All the while, a telephone is ringing, unanswered, in the background. The message of the visuals is that these innocent, light-skinned folk (first white and blond, then vaguely Latino) are being threatened by some dark, predatory character, perhaps just outside, perhaps already in the house. The unanswered phone shows that there’s nobody coming to help these poor folk. It’s classic racism. Pure and simple.
Meanwhile, continuing her trek into the world of the disingenuous, Clinton also said she and likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain both had experience to answer that 3 a.m. call, but Obama only had a speech.
Tying racism and inexperience together, Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro has now repeatedly stated (including on Fox News) that Obama is only in the position of being able to run for President because he is black. Not in spite of the fact that he is black, which would be more accurate, but because of it. As if the citizens of Illinois and all of us who voted for Obama are being duped into some sort of silly, affirmative action vote. And as if that argument couldn't be turned right back on Clinton and her status as a woman. Failing to see how silly the argument is, the Clinton camp appears to be arguing that, in addition to being black and inexperienced, Obama is also an outsider who doesn’t know what he’s doing and can’t be trusted with our precious, pure children and white women. Give me a break!
Says Clinton on answering that 3 a.m. phone call: “Now I think you will be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He has never been the president. He will put forth his experience. I will put forth my experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
There is no reason that being a partner in a big law form or sitting on the board of Wal-Mart or being married to a politician or eight years as an elected official (Clinton’s resume) should count as experience relevant to answering that 3 am call, where Obama’s community organization and voting rights work, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years as an elected official should not. Clinton’s argument doesn’t make a lick of sense.
For that matter, McCain’s one hundred fifty five years in the Senate doesn’t make him any better suited to answer that 3 am call either. Senators are not called on to make split-second, life and death decisions. Governors do face those situations on rare occasions, but none of the three of them (Clinton, Obama or McCain) has ever been a governor or even in law enforcement. All three of them are legislators.
And it’s not like it’s rocket science figuring out how to answer that late night distress call. The process should be relatively the same for anyone in that situation:
- Pick up the damn phone before the sixth ring, and find out what is going on.
- If it’s an attack or disaster, figure out how to stop the attack and prevent further damage to the country and its people, and then do it.
- Move to help those people who may have been harmed or affected.
- If it is an attack, strike back. (Note, that’s “strike back”, not “strike Iraq”! They rhyme, but otherwise have entirely different meanings.)
And the president doesn’t have to do those things one at a time or all by him/herself. The president has a team, his cabinet, and each is in charge of a different arm of the government. Get each of them working on whatever portion of the response their section of government is responsible for. And do it quickly and expertly.
Now, all of that would seem a no-brainer, but the Bush Administration has shown otherwise. Their first goal, protect their own ass. Second goal, use the attack/disaster to push some political goal, like attacking Iraq. Third, … well, there is no third, because everyone they put in place is an incompetent hack. Let the states/cities/democrats figure it out, that’s the third response, along with the typical Republican “tough luck, suckers.”
So the whole 3 am phone call thing really highlights the importance of having the most competent, expert advisors, cabinet and staff that a president can find. With a functioning government, the 3 am call is already planned for.
Obama is a smart guy who appreciates practical expertise, knowledge and skill, even when it disagrees or contradicts with his own positions. You don’t get good advice from “yes” men, and Obama knows that. All you have to do is read his book to confirm this. And that trait sets him apart from both Clinton and McCain, that’s the whole point of his campaign – let’s get the best out of everyone. Would I trust Obama and his team with that 3 am call? Hell yeah!
Lastly, if you’re a Clinton supporter, let her campaign know how upset you are by their recent tactics.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Experience Straw Man and Hillary's Turn to the Dark Side
Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have repeatedly hit Barack Obama over his supposed lack of experience. Sen. Clinton’s campaign highlighted this stance of their attack (which has turned singularly ugly and dishonorable) in a silly, but apparently effective, 3:00 am advertisement. Obama is all talk and no action, they say, he’s a novice, and he will freeze or not know what to do when push comes to shove. But let’s face it, Obama is 46 years old; he may not yet be a wizened sage, but he is no spring chicken either.
While Sen. Clinton derides his lack of experience, Obama has in fact been an elected official for far longer than Sen. Clinton has.
Here’s a rundown of Obama’s experience:
Obama received his Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from Columbia University. After a brief stint in New York, me moved to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer. As Director of the Developing Communities Project (a management job – hello!), Obama worked with low-income residents.
Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988 and graduated in 1991.
He returned to Chicago and spent two years working on voter registration. In 1993, he joined the law firm Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he continued his career working at the community level, representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and (of course) voting rights cases.
On a parallel track, in 1993, Obama also became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He taught constitutional law for about ten years, until his election to the United States Senate in 2004.
Obama ran for, and was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. He was reelected in 1998 and 2002. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.
Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004, and has been there since that date.
So, that’s five years as a community organizer dealing with voting rights, three years as an associate at a big law firm, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years now as an elected official. Based on Hillarymath, Obama has twenty-two years of experience!
John McCain has more years as an elected official, and Hillary Clinton has less.
Despite the fact that Obama actually has a significant amount of relevant experience, Clinton has engaged in a scorched earth tactics to attempt to vilify and infantilize Obama with half-truths and outright lies. It is hard for me to believe I supported her as recently as six months ago – I am really sickened and angered by her decision to go Rove. The reality is that Clinton won in Ohio and Texas not because of any positive message she has, but through the same old false smears and fear tactics Rove and Bush and Cheney have been using for the past eight years. Sad indeed. Where’s the honor? Where’s the trustworthiness?
To this day, Clinton has not come forward with a compelling reason to support her. She has a number of interesting policy proposals, but has expressed absolutely no governing philosophy at all. Why does she advocate the things she does? How does she see the world? What does she view as the role of government? Obama has answered these types of questions, at length, in several books. Clinton, not so much. If Clinton doesn’t come up with a positive, compelling message, she should not win. If she takes the nomination anyway, the democrats will lose, and it will be entirely on her shoulders.
While Sen. Clinton derides his lack of experience, Obama has in fact been an elected official for far longer than Sen. Clinton has.
Here’s a rundown of Obama’s experience:
Obama received his Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from Columbia University. After a brief stint in New York, me moved to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer. As Director of the Developing Communities Project (a management job – hello!), Obama worked with low-income residents.
Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988 and graduated in 1991.
He returned to Chicago and spent two years working on voter registration. In 1993, he joined the law firm Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he continued his career working at the community level, representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and (of course) voting rights cases.
On a parallel track, in 1993, Obama also became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He taught constitutional law for about ten years, until his election to the United States Senate in 2004.
Obama ran for, and was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. He was reelected in 1998 and 2002. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.
Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004, and has been there since that date.
So, that’s five years as a community organizer dealing with voting rights, three years as an associate at a big law firm, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years now as an elected official. Based on Hillarymath, Obama has twenty-two years of experience!
John McCain has more years as an elected official, and Hillary Clinton has less.
Despite the fact that Obama actually has a significant amount of relevant experience, Clinton has engaged in a scorched earth tactics to attempt to vilify and infantilize Obama with half-truths and outright lies. It is hard for me to believe I supported her as recently as six months ago – I am really sickened and angered by her decision to go Rove. The reality is that Clinton won in Ohio and Texas not because of any positive message she has, but through the same old false smears and fear tactics Rove and Bush and Cheney have been using for the past eight years. Sad indeed. Where’s the honor? Where’s the trustworthiness?
To this day, Clinton has not come forward with a compelling reason to support her. She has a number of interesting policy proposals, but has expressed absolutely no governing philosophy at all. Why does she advocate the things she does? How does she see the world? What does she view as the role of government? Obama has answered these types of questions, at length, in several books. Clinton, not so much. If Clinton doesn’t come up with a positive, compelling message, she should not win. If she takes the nomination anyway, the democrats will lose, and it will be entirely on her shoulders.
Friday, February 22, 2008
McCain the Opportunist
Reports over the last few days have highlighted Senator John McCain’s ties to certain lobbyists, and the favorable treatment he has given their clients.
McCain has challenged Obama to accept public financing in the general election – not out of principle, but simply because Obama can raise more money than McCain. How do we know it is not out of principle? Because, as the Washington Post details in a report today, over the course of his current presidential campaign, McCain has repeatedly opted in and out of public financing, depending on what best suits his campaign. The man’s “principles” are nothing more than opportunistic positioning.
Here’s the scoop, coming from the Washington Post, in a story reported by Matthew Mosk and Glenn Kessler:
“Within hours of the [New York Times’ publication of a controversial article detailing McCain’s ties to a young, attractive lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, which McCain oversees], McCain sought to turn it to his advantage, sending out a fundraising appeal decrying the "baseless attacks" and urging contributions. "With your immediate help today, we'll be able to respond and defend our nominee from the liberal attack machine," McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, said in an e-mail.
“But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
“The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio.
“By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.
“But after McCain won a series of early contests and the campaign found its financial footing, his lawyer wrote to the FEC requesting to back out of the program -- which is permitted for candidates who have not yet received any federal money and who have not used the promise of federal funding as collateral for borrowing money.
“Mason's letter raises two issues as the basis for his position. One is that the six-member commission lacks a quorum, with four vacancies because of a Senate deadlock over President Bush's nominees for the seats. Mason said the FEC would need to vote on McCain's request to leave the system, which is not possible without a quorum. Until that can happen, the candidate will have to remain within the system, he said.
“The second issue is more complicated. It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan. While McCain's aides have argued that the campaign was careful to make sure that they technically complied with the rules, Mason indicated that the question needs further FEC review.
“If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.”
...
The sad truth is that McCain is just as opportunistic -- just as willing to break the law when it suits his own ambitions -- as his fellow republicans Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Dolittle, Renzi, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Scalia, Thomas, Bush, etc.
I suspect the story of McCain’s duplicity and opportunism is just getting started. After all, McCain was one of the infamous Keating 5. And his current campaign is run entirely by lobbyists, supposedly for free. He may do it for a different reason than some – rather than calculating, he seems easily swayed (some would say duped) by swaggering, powerful people – but the end result is the same. Ethics take a back seat to the quest for power. Pure and simple, the man does not have what it takes to be a good president
McCain has challenged Obama to accept public financing in the general election – not out of principle, but simply because Obama can raise more money than McCain. How do we know it is not out of principle? Because, as the Washington Post details in a report today, over the course of his current presidential campaign, McCain has repeatedly opted in and out of public financing, depending on what best suits his campaign. The man’s “principles” are nothing more than opportunistic positioning.
Here’s the scoop, coming from the Washington Post, in a story reported by Matthew Mosk and Glenn Kessler:
“Within hours of the [New York Times’ publication of a controversial article detailing McCain’s ties to a young, attractive lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, which McCain oversees], McCain sought to turn it to his advantage, sending out a fundraising appeal decrying the "baseless attacks" and urging contributions. "With your immediate help today, we'll be able to respond and defend our nominee from the liberal attack machine," McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, said in an e-mail.
“But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
“The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio.
“By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.
“But after McCain won a series of early contests and the campaign found its financial footing, his lawyer wrote to the FEC requesting to back out of the program -- which is permitted for candidates who have not yet received any federal money and who have not used the promise of federal funding as collateral for borrowing money.
“Mason's letter raises two issues as the basis for his position. One is that the six-member commission lacks a quorum, with four vacancies because of a Senate deadlock over President Bush's nominees for the seats. Mason said the FEC would need to vote on McCain's request to leave the system, which is not possible without a quorum. Until that can happen, the candidate will have to remain within the system, he said.
“The second issue is more complicated. It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan. While McCain's aides have argued that the campaign was careful to make sure that they technically complied with the rules, Mason indicated that the question needs further FEC review.
“If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.”
...
The sad truth is that McCain is just as opportunistic -- just as willing to break the law when it suits his own ambitions -- as his fellow republicans Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Dolittle, Renzi, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Scalia, Thomas, Bush, etc.
I suspect the story of McCain’s duplicity and opportunism is just getting started. After all, McCain was one of the infamous Keating 5. And his current campaign is run entirely by lobbyists, supposedly for free. He may do it for a different reason than some – rather than calculating, he seems easily swayed (some would say duped) by swaggering, powerful people – but the end result is the same. Ethics take a back seat to the quest for power. Pure and simple, the man does not have what it takes to be a good president
Another one bites the dust.
Today, the Associated Press reports: "Republican Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted Friday on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other matters in an Arizona land swap scam that allegedly helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs."
Is anyone surprised? No, of course not. Most people are starting to understand that behind that false front of piety and overly-starched moral rectitude, Republican lawmakers are, by and large, a corrupt, bitter, nasty, incompetent bunch of people. And when you’re incompetent, but you have power, you can just force other people to give you stuff. That’s the Republican way!
The entire "conservative" philosophy of government is a fraud. It is not system for governing a nation, but one for transferring the accumulated wealth and power of a nation into the hands of a very few as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
What does the whole anti-regulatory, anti-tax scheme accomplish? It greases the economic rails, allowing money to slip and slide quickly into the pockets of those few who hold the reins of power. And they could only do any of this because, during the era of higher taxes and stronger regulation, our government built up a solid foundation for the country, in its infrastructure, its market supervision, its educational system, its legal system, its social safety net. After decades of neglect resulting from the Republican assault on government, all of this stuff is now falling into disrepair.
The infrastructure is a perfect example. We rely on the infrastructure that was built up during the golden age of liberal government, under FDR and Truman. Streets, highways, bridges, sewer systems, sewage treatment plants, storm drain systems, natural gas systems, electrical wiring, fresh water delivery. All of these systems are falling into disrepair for lack of sufficient investment in their upkeep. Sewage leaks are becoming more common, treatment plants are overwhelmed by the output of growing populations, pipes burst or break, a foul smell fills the air. I’m sure that if you think about any aspect of infrastructure, you’ll find plenty of places where investment is sorely needed.
A country that does not invest in itself cannot survive. It is that simple. Democrats, progressives, liberal republicans all know this. But we don’t hold the reins of power right now. Not in the executive, not in the judiciary, certainly not in industry or the corporate world. We have a thin majority in the House, and a plurality in the Senate, where one man, Joe Leiberman, can scuttle even the best-laid plans.
Meanwhile, all of those taxes that should have been paid over the last thirty years to invest in the upkeep of the nation’s (and in California’s) infrastructure, all of that money has instead gone into the pockets of the Rick Renzis and Rupert Murdocks and Dick Cheneys, the Halliburtons and Enrons and Exxons of the country.
And lets face it, they made their money on the backs of the investments of an earlier generation of Americans. Had the people in the 40s, 50s and 60s not paid those higher taxes, there wouldn’t have been any infrastructure, educational system, regulated (and thus trusted) market system to rely on – there wouldn’t have been any rails to grease. It is only because liberal policies worked so well that the republicans were able to come in, lower taxes on themselves to the point of non-existence, grab hold of the reins of power and rake in the money by the billions.
We have been living on borrowed time, and somebody, eventually, is going to have to pay the bills. Otherwise, the country and its people will continue to fall into disrepair. Shame on you, Rick Renzi, for being an agent of misery! But none of us should be surprised -- that is the Republican way.
Is anyone surprised? No, of course not. Most people are starting to understand that behind that false front of piety and overly-starched moral rectitude, Republican lawmakers are, by and large, a corrupt, bitter, nasty, incompetent bunch of people. And when you’re incompetent, but you have power, you can just force other people to give you stuff. That’s the Republican way!
The entire "conservative" philosophy of government is a fraud. It is not system for governing a nation, but one for transferring the accumulated wealth and power of a nation into the hands of a very few as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
What does the whole anti-regulatory, anti-tax scheme accomplish? It greases the economic rails, allowing money to slip and slide quickly into the pockets of those few who hold the reins of power. And they could only do any of this because, during the era of higher taxes and stronger regulation, our government built up a solid foundation for the country, in its infrastructure, its market supervision, its educational system, its legal system, its social safety net. After decades of neglect resulting from the Republican assault on government, all of this stuff is now falling into disrepair.
The infrastructure is a perfect example. We rely on the infrastructure that was built up during the golden age of liberal government, under FDR and Truman. Streets, highways, bridges, sewer systems, sewage treatment plants, storm drain systems, natural gas systems, electrical wiring, fresh water delivery. All of these systems are falling into disrepair for lack of sufficient investment in their upkeep. Sewage leaks are becoming more common, treatment plants are overwhelmed by the output of growing populations, pipes burst or break, a foul smell fills the air. I’m sure that if you think about any aspect of infrastructure, you’ll find plenty of places where investment is sorely needed.
A country that does not invest in itself cannot survive. It is that simple. Democrats, progressives, liberal republicans all know this. But we don’t hold the reins of power right now. Not in the executive, not in the judiciary, certainly not in industry or the corporate world. We have a thin majority in the House, and a plurality in the Senate, where one man, Joe Leiberman, can scuttle even the best-laid plans.
Meanwhile, all of those taxes that should have been paid over the last thirty years to invest in the upkeep of the nation’s (and in California’s) infrastructure, all of that money has instead gone into the pockets of the Rick Renzis and Rupert Murdocks and Dick Cheneys, the Halliburtons and Enrons and Exxons of the country.
And lets face it, they made their money on the backs of the investments of an earlier generation of Americans. Had the people in the 40s, 50s and 60s not paid those higher taxes, there wouldn’t have been any infrastructure, educational system, regulated (and thus trusted) market system to rely on – there wouldn’t have been any rails to grease. It is only because liberal policies worked so well that the republicans were able to come in, lower taxes on themselves to the point of non-existence, grab hold of the reins of power and rake in the money by the billions.
We have been living on borrowed time, and somebody, eventually, is going to have to pay the bills. Otherwise, the country and its people will continue to fall into disrepair. Shame on you, Rick Renzi, for being an agent of misery! But none of us should be surprised -- that is the Republican way.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Rhetoric v. Reality - a false choice
Unhappy with her current second place standing in the Democratic Primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton is again engaging in some poorly considered attacks on Senator Obama. “There's a big difference between us - speeches versus solutions,” Clinton stated last week, “Talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap.” Cheap words indeed.
Never the first to come up with any idea in his entire career, John McCain attempted to hop on the Hillary train: “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas . . . is not a promise of hope,” McCain said last week, “It’s a platitude.”
Trouble with both of these statements – as applied to Obama, they are not true. Anyone that cares to know whether Obama has any specifics to offer need only pick up his book or check out his web site. Obama gives reams of specifics. And some of them are pretty good specifics. While I have preferred some of Clinton’s policy proposals to Obama’s (particularly regarding health care), and have noted that Paul Krugman has taken issue with some of the specifics of those proposals, let’s face it, Krugman can only take issue with Obama’s specifics because they exist! If memory serves, it was Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, that was late to the specifics game, choosing instead to triangulate and equivocate through much of the 2007 primary race.
But is in overarching governing strategy, rather than the specifics, where Obama differentiates himself. And I think it’s the real reason he won me over.
Clinton talks only specifics (she now calls them solutions – a better word, but not a change of tactic). Like Bill Clinton, the Great Pragmatist, Senator Clinton has a number of specific solutions to specific problems, but gives you no idea how she got to those solutions, or how she might tackle new problems. To me, way too much focus on individual issues without painting an overall governing strategy. Her “solutions” are to particularized problems, with no vision at all (or at least none articulated) for where she wants to take the country.
McCain wouldn’t know a solution if it bit him in the ass. His whole platform is “four more years … of whatever that other guy has been doing, even though I don’t have a clue what it is.” That is McCain, in a nutshell. He can’t give you an idea of his problem-solving strategy because he doesn’t have any. He tilts at windmills: that’s his thing. That’s his only thing. Not a clue about the vast, non-windmill landscape.
Obama gives us more than either Clinton or McCain: he actually explains how he approaches a problem. In his book -- and less completely in his speeches -- he explains his goals, his method of analysis, the balancing of interests he believes are important, and the overall end result he seeks to achieve (e.g. increased opportunity and better-shared prosperity). Obama is a deep thinker; has given serious study to political history, constitutional law, and political economic theory (i.e. how government interacts with the economy). It’s all right there in his book, if anyone cares to check.
Obama starts his problem-solving analysis by trying to understand various points of view, where people are coming from, what are their motivations and concerns. There’s a word for that process, its called empathy. It is a powerful tool, and Obama isn’t at all afraid to use it.
And Obama is clear about his goals: he seeks to build a country that really is a land of opportunity: opportunity and all that it encompasses (national security, education, research, anti-poverty, better safety net, updated military, etc.) All good stuff.
Never the first to come up with any idea in his entire career, John McCain attempted to hop on the Hillary train: “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas . . . is not a promise of hope,” McCain said last week, “It’s a platitude.”
Trouble with both of these statements – as applied to Obama, they are not true. Anyone that cares to know whether Obama has any specifics to offer need only pick up his book or check out his web site. Obama gives reams of specifics. And some of them are pretty good specifics. While I have preferred some of Clinton’s policy proposals to Obama’s (particularly regarding health care), and have noted that Paul Krugman has taken issue with some of the specifics of those proposals, let’s face it, Krugman can only take issue with Obama’s specifics because they exist! If memory serves, it was Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, that was late to the specifics game, choosing instead to triangulate and equivocate through much of the 2007 primary race.
But is in overarching governing strategy, rather than the specifics, where Obama differentiates himself. And I think it’s the real reason he won me over.
Clinton talks only specifics (she now calls them solutions – a better word, but not a change of tactic). Like Bill Clinton, the Great Pragmatist, Senator Clinton has a number of specific solutions to specific problems, but gives you no idea how she got to those solutions, or how she might tackle new problems. To me, way too much focus on individual issues without painting an overall governing strategy. Her “solutions” are to particularized problems, with no vision at all (or at least none articulated) for where she wants to take the country.
McCain wouldn’t know a solution if it bit him in the ass. His whole platform is “four more years … of whatever that other guy has been doing, even though I don’t have a clue what it is.” That is McCain, in a nutshell. He can’t give you an idea of his problem-solving strategy because he doesn’t have any. He tilts at windmills: that’s his thing. That’s his only thing. Not a clue about the vast, non-windmill landscape.
Obama gives us more than either Clinton or McCain: he actually explains how he approaches a problem. In his book -- and less completely in his speeches -- he explains his goals, his method of analysis, the balancing of interests he believes are important, and the overall end result he seeks to achieve (e.g. increased opportunity and better-shared prosperity). Obama is a deep thinker; has given serious study to political history, constitutional law, and political economic theory (i.e. how government interacts with the economy). It’s all right there in his book, if anyone cares to check.
Obama starts his problem-solving analysis by trying to understand various points of view, where people are coming from, what are their motivations and concerns. There’s a word for that process, its called empathy. It is a powerful tool, and Obama isn’t at all afraid to use it.
And Obama is clear about his goals: he seeks to build a country that really is a land of opportunity: opportunity and all that it encompasses (national security, education, research, anti-poverty, better safety net, updated military, etc.) All good stuff.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obama and the roll of the dice
The choice between Obama and Clinton has clarified, and it looks like Obama has the edge. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton himself who convinced me that Obama was the man for the hour. I’ll explain.
The evening before Super Tuesday, I was invited to attend what turned out to be the San Francisco leg of Senator Clinton’s national town hall meeting. Bill Clinton was there, and I got to shake his hand. Pretty cool.
Anyway, as Bill was making the rounds after the event, he focused on a knot of people, myself among them, who remained undecided. And he said, in effect, "If you think that inspiration is the most important thing right now, then by all means you should vote for Obama. If you think, however, that the ability to wrestle with and solve the many problems we face to day is the more important, then you have to vote for Hillary." Bill made clear he felt she was the best he had ever seen at coming up with solutions to complex problems.
And my decision was confirmed right then and there - I was an Obama man. I think Bill nailed it, just as he had when he exclaimed that a vote for Obama was a role of the dice. What he didn’t realize, or more likely just doesn’t want to admit, is that we need that roll of the dice right now, we need that inspiration. The whole world needs that inspiration.
I’ll admit right of the bat that I still like Senator Clinton’s policy proposals a whole lot more than I do Obama’s. Hers are clearer, more focused, and better targeted to achieving the results she seeks. At least to date, Obama’s are comparatively broad and less likely to achieve positive results. But here’s the thing – I don’t think a President Hillary Clinton will be able to get her proposals enacted. She doesn’t inspire that call to action, that passion that is required to accomplish real change.
Obama has that ability to inspire. He charges us to believe in the possible, to feel good about our country and our people again. And, because he can summon that passion, he will get things done.
So the choice for me was between Clinton, who’s policies I prefer, but whom I suspect will not be able to bring those proposals to fruition, and Obama, who I suspect just may well be able to accomplish whatever he sets his administration’s sights on. Clinton would approach foreign policy as a deal-maker, whereas Obama will approach foreign policy by calling on people to rise to greater heights. With Obama, there is a possibility for real transformation, both within our country and throughout the world, and that is worth a roll of the dice.
The evening before Super Tuesday, I was invited to attend what turned out to be the San Francisco leg of Senator Clinton’s national town hall meeting. Bill Clinton was there, and I got to shake his hand. Pretty cool.
Anyway, as Bill was making the rounds after the event, he focused on a knot of people, myself among them, who remained undecided. And he said, in effect, "If you think that inspiration is the most important thing right now, then by all means you should vote for Obama. If you think, however, that the ability to wrestle with and solve the many problems we face to day is the more important, then you have to vote for Hillary." Bill made clear he felt she was the best he had ever seen at coming up with solutions to complex problems.
And my decision was confirmed right then and there - I was an Obama man. I think Bill nailed it, just as he had when he exclaimed that a vote for Obama was a role of the dice. What he didn’t realize, or more likely just doesn’t want to admit, is that we need that roll of the dice right now, we need that inspiration. The whole world needs that inspiration.
I’ll admit right of the bat that I still like Senator Clinton’s policy proposals a whole lot more than I do Obama’s. Hers are clearer, more focused, and better targeted to achieving the results she seeks. At least to date, Obama’s are comparatively broad and less likely to achieve positive results. But here’s the thing – I don’t think a President Hillary Clinton will be able to get her proposals enacted. She doesn’t inspire that call to action, that passion that is required to accomplish real change.
Obama has that ability to inspire. He charges us to believe in the possible, to feel good about our country and our people again. And, because he can summon that passion, he will get things done.
So the choice for me was between Clinton, who’s policies I prefer, but whom I suspect will not be able to bring those proposals to fruition, and Obama, who I suspect just may well be able to accomplish whatever he sets his administration’s sights on. Clinton would approach foreign policy as a deal-maker, whereas Obama will approach foreign policy by calling on people to rise to greater heights. With Obama, there is a possibility for real transformation, both within our country and throughout the world, and that is worth a roll of the dice.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain gives middle finger to the elderly, unemployed, and disabled veterans
Interesting news item below from the Associated Press. Although the headline says "Republicans block stimulus bill" it would more appropriately read "McCain Blocks Stimumus Bill." Why? The vote was 59 to 40, with 60 votes needed to pass, and McCain, alone out of all Senators, deciding not to vote. Harry Reid switched his vote at the last minute to "no" (thus the 58 to 41 final tally), which allows him to bring the measure back for a revote in the future.
If John McCain had voted yes, then the economic stimulus plan would have included aid for the elderly and disabled veterans, and an extension of unemployment benefits. Because 60 votes were needed to break a republican filibuster, McCain's refusal to vote was the same as voting "no". But he was too chickenshit to actually go on record! Make no mistake, though, by refusing to vote, McCain gave a big middle finger to the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed.
And he wants to be president. What a tool!
---
Republicans block stimulus bill
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and ANDREW TAYLOR,
Associated Press Writers 12 minutes ago
Senate Republicans blocked a move by Democrats on Wednesday to add more than $40 billion in checks for the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed to a bill to stimulate the economy.
The 58-41 vote fell just short of the 60 required to break a GOP filibuster and bring the Senate version of the stimulus bill closer to a final vote. The Senate measure was backed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans but was strongly opposed by GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.
The vote left the $205 billion Senate stimulus bill in limbo and capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying over the measure. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.
Supporters actually had 59 votes in favor of the Democratic proposal, but Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up for revote.
Republican leaders objected to add-ons such as a $14.5 billion unemployment extension for those whose benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for renewable energy producers and coal companies.
The measure builds upon a less costly $161 billion House-passed bill providing $600-$1,200 checks to most taxpayers and tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.
The Senate version would provide checks of $500-$1,000 to a broader group that includes 20 million older Americans, 250,000 disabled veterans and taxpayers making up to $150,000 for singles — or $300,000 for couples.
Reid denied Republicans an opportunity to offer changes to the measure, provoking the filibuster. The calculus was that enough Republicans would relent in the face of political pressure to vote for unemployment insurance and heating aid to join with Democrats to force the measure through.
"Our constituents will look at us as the folks that slowed it down, (and) added a bunch of spending to it," said Sen. Jon S. Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who called the measure "a Christmas tree package."
GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wants to amend the measure to add the provisions favoring disabled veterans and the elderly and making clear that illegal immigrants can't get rebate checks.
Reid rejected the offer — at least for the time being — but Republicans seemed confident he would eventually agree to comparable changes since the alternative would be to approve the House bill and leave retirees living on Social Security and disabled veterans without rebate checks.
The dramatic vote came after an intense lobbying effort by Democrats to convert wavering Republicans, including several facing tough re-election fights. Their efforts were getting a boost from outside groups leaning on senators to back the package, including home builders, manufacturers and the powerful seniors lobby.
GOP leaders, working to stem defections, were assuring Republicans that they would have another chance to support adding senior citizens and disabled veterans to the aid plan even if they opposed the Democrats' bill.
That wasn't enough for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. who threw his support behind the measure during a brief floor debate.
"I made my decision on what was best for New Mexico and what's best for America," he said.
But other targets, such as Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., stuck with McConnell.
Asked Tuesday whether the administration would accept adding rebates for the elderly and disabled veterans to the stimulus measure, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declined to say definitively, but he told the Finance Committee, "I'm sure we'll be able to work something out and get something quickly done that's broad-based."
The dispute has slowed down the stimulus measure, but there's no indication that it will delay rebate checks, which are expected to begin arriving in May. The rebates will be based on 2007 tax returns, which aren't due until April 15.
If John McCain had voted yes, then the economic stimulus plan would have included aid for the elderly and disabled veterans, and an extension of unemployment benefits. Because 60 votes were needed to break a republican filibuster, McCain's refusal to vote was the same as voting "no". But he was too chickenshit to actually go on record! Make no mistake, though, by refusing to vote, McCain gave a big middle finger to the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed.
And he wants to be president. What a tool!
---
Republicans block stimulus bill
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and ANDREW TAYLOR,
Associated Press Writers 12 minutes ago
Senate Republicans blocked a move by Democrats on Wednesday to add more than $40 billion in checks for the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed to a bill to stimulate the economy.
The 58-41 vote fell just short of the 60 required to break a GOP filibuster and bring the Senate version of the stimulus bill closer to a final vote. The Senate measure was backed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans but was strongly opposed by GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.
The vote left the $205 billion Senate stimulus bill in limbo and capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying over the measure. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.
Supporters actually had 59 votes in favor of the Democratic proposal, but Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up for revote.
Republican leaders objected to add-ons such as a $14.5 billion unemployment extension for those whose benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for renewable energy producers and coal companies.
The measure builds upon a less costly $161 billion House-passed bill providing $600-$1,200 checks to most taxpayers and tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.
The Senate version would provide checks of $500-$1,000 to a broader group that includes 20 million older Americans, 250,000 disabled veterans and taxpayers making up to $150,000 for singles — or $300,000 for couples.
Reid denied Republicans an opportunity to offer changes to the measure, provoking the filibuster. The calculus was that enough Republicans would relent in the face of political pressure to vote for unemployment insurance and heating aid to join with Democrats to force the measure through.
"Our constituents will look at us as the folks that slowed it down, (and) added a bunch of spending to it," said Sen. Jon S. Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who called the measure "a Christmas tree package."
GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wants to amend the measure to add the provisions favoring disabled veterans and the elderly and making clear that illegal immigrants can't get rebate checks.
Reid rejected the offer — at least for the time being — but Republicans seemed confident he would eventually agree to comparable changes since the alternative would be to approve the House bill and leave retirees living on Social Security and disabled veterans without rebate checks.
The dramatic vote came after an intense lobbying effort by Democrats to convert wavering Republicans, including several facing tough re-election fights. Their efforts were getting a boost from outside groups leaning on senators to back the package, including home builders, manufacturers and the powerful seniors lobby.
GOP leaders, working to stem defections, were assuring Republicans that they would have another chance to support adding senior citizens and disabled veterans to the aid plan even if they opposed the Democrats' bill.
That wasn't enough for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. who threw his support behind the measure during a brief floor debate.
"I made my decision on what was best for New Mexico and what's best for America," he said.
But other targets, such as Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., stuck with McConnell.
Asked Tuesday whether the administration would accept adding rebates for the elderly and disabled veterans to the stimulus measure, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declined to say definitively, but he told the Finance Committee, "I'm sure we'll be able to work something out and get something quickly done that's broad-based."
The dispute has slowed down the stimulus measure, but there's no indication that it will delay rebate checks, which are expected to begin arriving in May. The rebates will be based on 2007 tax returns, which aren't due until April 15.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Hogan v. Norris
If you ask me, there is no question but that Hulk Hogan could take Chuck Norris in a fight. Once Hogan slipped past those side kicks, it would be all over. There is also no question but that Hogan could kick Schwarzie's butt in an arm-wrestling match. And Hogan has already shown he can kick Stallone's butt (see Rocky III).
This is, of course, in response to one of my favorite headlines of the week: "Hulk Hogan Has Obama's Back."
There is this myth that liberals can’t be tough – that they are always pushovers, fearful of confrontation and ready to lay down and capitulate at the slightest physical threat. This, of course, is a load of crap.
There is a corresponding myth that liberals shouldn’t be in charge of the military, and that they even loathe the military, because of their fearful nature and penchant for shrinking from a fight. Equally crap. Utter and complete bullshit.
Where does the myth come from? Certainly FDR was no Milquetoast, nor JFK, nor MLK, Jr., nor Wes Clark, nor Madeline Albright, nor Hulk Hogan! I don’t see any of that in either Obama or Clinton.
I understand that the myth was born in the turbulence of the late-1960s and early 1970s, but I suspect the myth had much more to do with deliberate Republican distortions than on actual events. I’d illustrate that with a conversation I overheard recently between a family of tourists at a local coffee shop.
A guy in his early sixties was there with his teenage kids, and was commenting rather loudly to his kids on how different San Francisco was from Kansas, where they were from. He was blustering on about communism and homelessness and how he’d just round them all up – the typical bullshit that conservative types like to throw around to pretend that they have even the slightest clue as to what they are talking about (which they never do). It was clear, even from across the coffee shop, that his kids really, really disliked him, and were quite embarrassed.
He continued his rant, oblivious (as conservatives always are) to his kid’s discomfort, and started commenting about the whole Haight-Ashbury scene from the late sixties, and then said: "I was liberal back then too – free drugs, free sex, no draft . . . ."
Well, that’s not liberalism, that’s selfishness. And in his case, it laid bare his hypocrisy. As he went on to extol the great merits of the Bush Administration’s foray into Iraq, it was clear that he was against war when he might have been at risk, but was all for it if it was someone else’s neck on the line.
So, I submit to you that it was largely craven, conservative assholes who gave liberalism a bad name, and they were never liberal at all. George McGovern, the anti-war activist Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate, gave those craven conservatives real hell in a series of speeches in the late sixties and early seventies.
They paid him back in kind. It was none other than right-wing lickspittle Robert Novak (yeah, that Robert Novak) who ran an article on McGovern quoting an unnamed Democratic Senator as charging that "all McGovern is for is abortion, amnesty (for draft dodgers), and the legalization of pot."
So liberalism has been tainted with the Novak brush ever since. But it was a load of crap then, and it’s a load of crap now.
And cravenness has been a hallmark of Republicanism ever since. If there is one thing that all the Republicans I know have in common, it is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of terrorism, fear of death, fear of "others" . . . . But the Republicans had the cash, and were successful at painting liberals with the "fearful" brush, thanks to Novak and Nixon.
So, I’m happy to see the Hulkster strutt his liberal stuff. He was always my favorite 1980s wrestling superstar anyway.
This is, of course, in response to one of my favorite headlines of the week: "Hulk Hogan Has Obama's Back."
There is this myth that liberals can’t be tough – that they are always pushovers, fearful of confrontation and ready to lay down and capitulate at the slightest physical threat. This, of course, is a load of crap.
There is a corresponding myth that liberals shouldn’t be in charge of the military, and that they even loathe the military, because of their fearful nature and penchant for shrinking from a fight. Equally crap. Utter and complete bullshit.
Where does the myth come from? Certainly FDR was no Milquetoast, nor JFK, nor MLK, Jr., nor Wes Clark, nor Madeline Albright, nor Hulk Hogan! I don’t see any of that in either Obama or Clinton.
I understand that the myth was born in the turbulence of the late-1960s and early 1970s, but I suspect the myth had much more to do with deliberate Republican distortions than on actual events. I’d illustrate that with a conversation I overheard recently between a family of tourists at a local coffee shop.
A guy in his early sixties was there with his teenage kids, and was commenting rather loudly to his kids on how different San Francisco was from Kansas, where they were from. He was blustering on about communism and homelessness and how he’d just round them all up – the typical bullshit that conservative types like to throw around to pretend that they have even the slightest clue as to what they are talking about (which they never do). It was clear, even from across the coffee shop, that his kids really, really disliked him, and were quite embarrassed.
He continued his rant, oblivious (as conservatives always are) to his kid’s discomfort, and started commenting about the whole Haight-Ashbury scene from the late sixties, and then said: "I was liberal back then too – free drugs, free sex, no draft . . . ."
Well, that’s not liberalism, that’s selfishness. And in his case, it laid bare his hypocrisy. As he went on to extol the great merits of the Bush Administration’s foray into Iraq, it was clear that he was against war when he might have been at risk, but was all for it if it was someone else’s neck on the line.
So, I submit to you that it was largely craven, conservative assholes who gave liberalism a bad name, and they were never liberal at all. George McGovern, the anti-war activist Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate, gave those craven conservatives real hell in a series of speeches in the late sixties and early seventies.
They paid him back in kind. It was none other than right-wing lickspittle Robert Novak (yeah, that Robert Novak) who ran an article on McGovern quoting an unnamed Democratic Senator as charging that "all McGovern is for is abortion, amnesty (for draft dodgers), and the legalization of pot."
So liberalism has been tainted with the Novak brush ever since. But it was a load of crap then, and it’s a load of crap now.
And cravenness has been a hallmark of Republicanism ever since. If there is one thing that all the Republicans I know have in common, it is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of terrorism, fear of death, fear of "others" . . . . But the Republicans had the cash, and were successful at painting liberals with the "fearful" brush, thanks to Novak and Nixon.
So, I’m happy to see the Hulkster strutt his liberal stuff. He was always my favorite 1980s wrestling superstar anyway.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The America We Want to Be
Barack Obama’s victory speech after the South Carolina primary was exceptional. He didn’t mince words, but took direct aim at the racial undercurrent that had begun to dog the democratic primaries. He pointed out that, while there may well be racism and sexism and all that stuff, playing on that was beneath us, and that we all strive to be better than that. It is not, he observed, "the America we want to be."
And that’s precisely why I’m going to go with Obama in the primaries. He has that ability to inspire us all to look past divisiveness and seek to be who we want to be. To reach for the better in all of us. Good stuff. Maybe even great stuff.
Now, I still agree with Paul Krugman that many of Obama’s policy initiatives are flat. Hillary Clinton has far more knowledge and vision in her policy proposals, but she has been unable to inspire – except, of course, for that brief window between Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama’s health care plan was seriously muddled, as Krugman explains here.
That’s precisely why I had switched from being an early Obama supporter - to neutral - to favoring Clinton. Now I’m back behind Obama, and it is entirely because of his ability to inspire about the right thing at the right time. We, democrats, Americans, and the entire world, are in desperate need of inspiration -- inspiration to seek friendship and brotherhood and cooperation with everyone else on the planet; inspiration to work together for the betterment of all our lots. Obama has that voice, that ability and that vision. That ability was there in his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention to a fair extent, but he has raised his game a notch (or three) over the course of the last six months. He was really faltering over the summer, but now, he is something special. I suspect it is the confidence he has gained from such strong support and from a couple primary wins.
I have also been sorely disappointed with how the Clintons have been running their campaign. Bill has been talking some trash, and while trash-talk is expected, Bill has lapsed into falsehood. And that’s not cool. And now Hillary wants to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, after all the candidates agreed not to campaign there? In Michigan, the other candidates removed their names from the slate, but not Hillary. And with the Florida primary happening today, Hillary’s delegate statement can only be seen for what it is - campaigning in Florida. I have one word for that tactic – cheating! It is cheating, and it is sorely disappointing. Just when we want, need, crave inspiration, the Clintons go in the other direction. No thank you!
Meanwhile, Obama has chosen to embrace inspiration, to charge us to be the America we want to be, not what we have been over the past eight years (or longer). And, Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama also guarantees that Obama’s policy initiatives will be goosed up a notch. Kennedy and Obama appeared on the Today Show this morning, and when the singularly annoying Matt Lauer tried to confront the two about Obama’s plan not offering universal health insurance, Kennedy just came out and stated that an Obama presidency would come forth with a universal coverage plan. Good. That’s precisely where Obama needs the help, in the policy details and in pushing his vision even further.
I think an Obama presidency would be a singularly healing phenomenon throughout the world. The United States could reclaim all of those principles that are embodied in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but have been left on the dust heap by the Bush Administration. Obama could show the world, and ourselves, that we are a country who stands behind our ideals, and indeed tries to live by them.
That is why I’m now, once again, an Obama man. And I hope you’ll go for Obama too.
And that’s precisely why I’m going to go with Obama in the primaries. He has that ability to inspire us all to look past divisiveness and seek to be who we want to be. To reach for the better in all of us. Good stuff. Maybe even great stuff.
Now, I still agree with Paul Krugman that many of Obama’s policy initiatives are flat. Hillary Clinton has far more knowledge and vision in her policy proposals, but she has been unable to inspire – except, of course, for that brief window between Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama’s health care plan was seriously muddled, as Krugman explains here.
That’s precisely why I had switched from being an early Obama supporter - to neutral - to favoring Clinton. Now I’m back behind Obama, and it is entirely because of his ability to inspire about the right thing at the right time. We, democrats, Americans, and the entire world, are in desperate need of inspiration -- inspiration to seek friendship and brotherhood and cooperation with everyone else on the planet; inspiration to work together for the betterment of all our lots. Obama has that voice, that ability and that vision. That ability was there in his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention to a fair extent, but he has raised his game a notch (or three) over the course of the last six months. He was really faltering over the summer, but now, he is something special. I suspect it is the confidence he has gained from such strong support and from a couple primary wins.
I have also been sorely disappointed with how the Clintons have been running their campaign. Bill has been talking some trash, and while trash-talk is expected, Bill has lapsed into falsehood. And that’s not cool. And now Hillary wants to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, after all the candidates agreed not to campaign there? In Michigan, the other candidates removed their names from the slate, but not Hillary. And with the Florida primary happening today, Hillary’s delegate statement can only be seen for what it is - campaigning in Florida. I have one word for that tactic – cheating! It is cheating, and it is sorely disappointing. Just when we want, need, crave inspiration, the Clintons go in the other direction. No thank you!
Meanwhile, Obama has chosen to embrace inspiration, to charge us to be the America we want to be, not what we have been over the past eight years (or longer). And, Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama also guarantees that Obama’s policy initiatives will be goosed up a notch. Kennedy and Obama appeared on the Today Show this morning, and when the singularly annoying Matt Lauer tried to confront the two about Obama’s plan not offering universal health insurance, Kennedy just came out and stated that an Obama presidency would come forth with a universal coverage plan. Good. That’s precisely where Obama needs the help, in the policy details and in pushing his vision even further.
I think an Obama presidency would be a singularly healing phenomenon throughout the world. The United States could reclaim all of those principles that are embodied in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but have been left on the dust heap by the Bush Administration. Obama could show the world, and ourselves, that we are a country who stands behind our ideals, and indeed tries to live by them.
That is why I’m now, once again, an Obama man. And I hope you’ll go for Obama too.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
My Pitch on Social Security
We all get older, each of us, every day. There comes a time when we are no longer able to do all the hard work we used to do. There was a time when, once you were no longer able to work, you were out of luck. You would wind up on the street, starving, poor. President Roosevelt came up with a better way. If we all chipped in, we could guarantee a modest income to those of us too old or disabled to work any longer. It was never meant to be a lot of money, but hopefully it would keep us off the street, keep us fed and sheltered, so that we could live out our lives with some dignity.
The conservatives want to change that. They see all that money going into the social security insurance program, and they want a piece of it. They want to make a buck by forcing all of us to invest in their companies, rather than in each other. And they don't want to give any guarantees about what they will do with our investment.
Social Security is the insurance we give each other that we will be able to live out our lives in dignity. Its one of the ways we Americans say that we're all in this together, and we have each other's backs.
As Paul Krugman repeatedly explains in his column, the tales of the imminent collapse of Social Security are tall tales, just like those tales of weapons of mass destruction. The conservatives say it so they can ram through their ideas, turn a quick buck, and reward their friends and cronies. All programs need adjusting from time to time, and Social Security is no exception. But there's no reason to abandon our agreement to watch out for each other when we get older. That's not what Americans do, we don't welsh on our agreements. Let's keep Social Security as an investment in each other, and not turn it into another cash cow for the super-wealthy conservative elite. We're all in this together, and let's keep it that way.
The conservatives want to change that. They see all that money going into the social security insurance program, and they want a piece of it. They want to make a buck by forcing all of us to invest in their companies, rather than in each other. And they don't want to give any guarantees about what they will do with our investment.
Social Security is the insurance we give each other that we will be able to live out our lives in dignity. Its one of the ways we Americans say that we're all in this together, and we have each other's backs.
As Paul Krugman repeatedly explains in his column, the tales of the imminent collapse of Social Security are tall tales, just like those tales of weapons of mass destruction. The conservatives say it so they can ram through their ideas, turn a quick buck, and reward their friends and cronies. All programs need adjusting from time to time, and Social Security is no exception. But there's no reason to abandon our agreement to watch out for each other when we get older. That's not what Americans do, we don't welsh on our agreements. Let's keep Social Security as an investment in each other, and not turn it into another cash cow for the super-wealthy conservative elite. We're all in this together, and let's keep it that way.
Why I am pro-choice
It is, I believe, a fundamental tenet of liberty that people have the right to set their own course in life, to make their own decisions as to whom to love, and whether or not to have a family. The legislation of personal choice is contrary to the very meaning of liberty. We do not allow our government to say who can and cannot have children. We certainly don't allow government to force people to reproduce, any more than we would allow government to force people not to have children.
Those who say that the framers of the Constitution would not have wanted women to determine the course of their own lives overlook the word that embraces self-determination, a word that is in the very preamble to that document: liberty. The Constitution does not allow the government to tell us who to love, or when to have children. It does not allow the government to tell us how many children we can have, and it does not allow the government to force us to have children we don't want to have. It doesn't matter if its morally right or wrong, the very concept of liberty forbids the government from making those choices for us.
People have the right to pursue their own destiny: women as much as men. Forced reproduction would consign women to a second class, it would say that, in the eyes of the government, their sole function is to produce more children, and if that function is triggered, all other considerations of a woman's liberty are cast aside. That is not what liberty is all about.
On another track, the world cannot support an infinite amount of people. We all know the dangers that overpopulation poses. It makes no sense to force American women to bring unwanted children into the world. It doesn't make for a better world, it doesn't make for a safer world, it doesn't make for a happier world.
That's why the choice must be left to the woman. It is her body, it is her life that must be given over to any pregnancy. The decision ultimately does rest with her, and nothing is served by having the law pretend that isn't so. They are the ones that must live with the consequences of that choice, and it must be theirs to make, lest the word "liberty"be stripped of its meaning. We're all in this together, and the lives of each woman matters.
Those who say that the framers of the Constitution would not have wanted women to determine the course of their own lives overlook the word that embraces self-determination, a word that is in the very preamble to that document: liberty. The Constitution does not allow the government to tell us who to love, or when to have children. It does not allow the government to tell us how many children we can have, and it does not allow the government to force us to have children we don't want to have. It doesn't matter if its morally right or wrong, the very concept of liberty forbids the government from making those choices for us.
People have the right to pursue their own destiny: women as much as men. Forced reproduction would consign women to a second class, it would say that, in the eyes of the government, their sole function is to produce more children, and if that function is triggered, all other considerations of a woman's liberty are cast aside. That is not what liberty is all about.
On another track, the world cannot support an infinite amount of people. We all know the dangers that overpopulation poses. It makes no sense to force American women to bring unwanted children into the world. It doesn't make for a better world, it doesn't make for a safer world, it doesn't make for a happier world.
That's why the choice must be left to the woman. It is her body, it is her life that must be given over to any pregnancy. The decision ultimately does rest with her, and nothing is served by having the law pretend that isn't so. They are the ones that must live with the consequences of that choice, and it must be theirs to make, lest the word "liberty"be stripped of its meaning. We're all in this together, and the lives of each woman matters.
Clinton Can't Seem to Stay Positive
Well, in the week since the New Hampshire primary, I had hoped to see a new, more personable and spontaneous Hillary Clinton. But so far the results are mixed at best. This whole race kerfuffle is really disappointing.
Hillary and Bill have both said some dumb things in the past week and a half. Hillary's comment about Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson in particular was ill-considered. Just explain what you meant and move on. Claiming Barack's campaign is stoking the race issue, rather than moving on, is silly. It just keeps the ill-considered comment in people's minds all that much longer.
And Bill's comment about Barack's previous statements about the Iraq war was disingenuous. And while Barack may be trying to build up his initial opposition while downplaying the fact that, once he got into the senate he was as unable to change things as those he was criticizing, branding that as moral superiority and then calling it a fairy tale was another poor choice of words. While I understand Bill was upset at how his wife was being treated and at what appeared to be the imminent end of her political aspirations, he is a former president, and must act accordingly in public.
Now the whole thing is blowing into incriminations about using the race card. Drop it, all of you. Please! I really don't care to hear any of this stuff, and whichever one of the two, Barack or Hillary, does the most negative stuff is going to lose a lot of votes and probably the campaign.
Here's what I do want to hear from Hillary -- how is she going to be DIFFERENT than Bill? I liked Bill Clinton well enough, he did some good stuff, but he spent too much of his presidency triangulating and playing to the perceived middle. I don't want another eight years of that triangulating bulls__t!!!! Nor does anyone. I hope somebody tells that to Hillary. I do want something different. Bill was good enough, but I want GREAT!
From Barack, I'd like to hear that he is taking the criticism of his policy initiatives into consideration. Paul Krugman in particular has been taking Barack to task for ill-advised and unworkable economic platforms. And I trust Krugman's analysis. So let's hope Barack lets us know his policy platforms are continuing to evolve, that he's hearing and reconsidering. Best of all would be if he showed he knew how to draw experienced, intelligent people to him and -- most importantly -- that he can listen to their analysis and act on it. That is what a President needs to do.
And Bill, your complaint that Barack has been getting a free pass is crap. Krugman, who is no small voice, has been repeatedly raking Barack's platforms over the coals. You want to add pizazz to your complaints, just echo Krugman's analysis.
I remain undecided between the two. Today, though, I'm leaning more Barack. And if he can show that Lincolnish ability to recognize greatness and draw it to him, then he'll secure my vote. Maybe yours too?
Hillary and Bill have both said some dumb things in the past week and a half. Hillary's comment about Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson in particular was ill-considered. Just explain what you meant and move on. Claiming Barack's campaign is stoking the race issue, rather than moving on, is silly. It just keeps the ill-considered comment in people's minds all that much longer.
And Bill's comment about Barack's previous statements about the Iraq war was disingenuous. And while Barack may be trying to build up his initial opposition while downplaying the fact that, once he got into the senate he was as unable to change things as those he was criticizing, branding that as moral superiority and then calling it a fairy tale was another poor choice of words. While I understand Bill was upset at how his wife was being treated and at what appeared to be the imminent end of her political aspirations, he is a former president, and must act accordingly in public.
Now the whole thing is blowing into incriminations about using the race card. Drop it, all of you. Please! I really don't care to hear any of this stuff, and whichever one of the two, Barack or Hillary, does the most negative stuff is going to lose a lot of votes and probably the campaign.
Here's what I do want to hear from Hillary -- how is she going to be DIFFERENT than Bill? I liked Bill Clinton well enough, he did some good stuff, but he spent too much of his presidency triangulating and playing to the perceived middle. I don't want another eight years of that triangulating bulls__t!!!! Nor does anyone. I hope somebody tells that to Hillary. I do want something different. Bill was good enough, but I want GREAT!
From Barack, I'd like to hear that he is taking the criticism of his policy initiatives into consideration. Paul Krugman in particular has been taking Barack to task for ill-advised and unworkable economic platforms. And I trust Krugman's analysis. So let's hope Barack lets us know his policy platforms are continuing to evolve, that he's hearing and reconsidering. Best of all would be if he showed he knew how to draw experienced, intelligent people to him and -- most importantly -- that he can listen to their analysis and act on it. That is what a President needs to do.
And Bill, your complaint that Barack has been getting a free pass is crap. Krugman, who is no small voice, has been repeatedly raking Barack's platforms over the coals. You want to add pizazz to your complaints, just echo Krugman's analysis.
I remain undecided between the two. Today, though, I'm leaning more Barack. And if he can show that Lincolnish ability to recognize greatness and draw it to him, then he'll secure my vote. Maybe yours too?
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire and Sexism
For those of you who, like me, find themselves forced to pay attention to politics by some unknown and unseen hand (Curse you Adam Smith! Keep your invisible hands to yourself!), the arc of events from the Iowa Caucuses to the New Hampshire Primary was simply remarkable.
First, let me say up front that I like all of the major Democratic candidates, and would be happy as a clam with either Clinton, Edwards or Obama as the nominee. Obama rocketed out of Iowa with an amazing speech and a huge margin, and I thought, as did many others, that the whole shebang might in fact be over.
But then the piling on began. And something strange occurred to me, and, as the blogs and opinionists and New Hampshire results showed, to a bunch of other folk as well. The media almost seemed to relish Hillary Clinton’s defeat. Now, I would expect that from Fox Noise, but not so much from actual reporters. There was this glee, which was kind of sickening.
The debate last Saturday night showed exactly what was happening. The moderator, perhaps picking up on an unnoticed bias already creeping into political reporting nationwide, referred to the candidates as Senator Edwards, Senator Obama, Governor Richardson and ... that’s right ... "Mrs. Clinton." WTF? That’s like a slap in the face – "sexism is happening here."
And she did quite well in that debate – probably the best I have ever seen her do. She was poised, calm, off the cuff, and genuine. Wonderful. Edwards and Obama kept up their monotonous attacks of "status quo," which I think hurt Edwards in particular.
But the clincher for me came when the guest moderator asked Clinton about her "likeability," or rather, lack thereof. Now we all know that there is a certain portion of the public that fears and dislikes smart, assertive, competent women. They feel threatened by such women, its pure inferiority complex. Time and time again women in positions of authority get branded the "bitch" or the "witch" or the "dragon" or whathaveyou. But that has nothing to do with whether that particular woman is right for the job or not.
And I realized that much of the piling on was in fact just sexism. Beer-swigging blowhards like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert top the list of supposedly genuine newsmen who are unquestionably sexist. Matthews was going ape-shit on Tuesday night as the New Hampshire results rolled in, and there was a genuine tension between the MSNBC panel members who got the sexism and those who did not. The whole likeability question is a crock, in this context. It’s a substitute for sexism, pure and simple.
Now, that doesn’t mean that all of the complaints about Clinton are sexist. She really was coming off as contrived, overrehearsed, painfully on point and unable to show the person behind the facade. But all of that changed between Iowa and New Hampshire. I much prefer the current Hillary to the pre-Iowa one. And I would be quite pleased if she ends up being the nominee.
And I do have genuine concerns about Obama’s experience. But can you imagine an Obama who had been Vice President for eight years? Now there would be an unstoppable candidate! I hope Clinton and Obama can remain positive enough toward each other to make this dream team a possibility!
First, let me say up front that I like all of the major Democratic candidates, and would be happy as a clam with either Clinton, Edwards or Obama as the nominee. Obama rocketed out of Iowa with an amazing speech and a huge margin, and I thought, as did many others, that the whole shebang might in fact be over.
But then the piling on began. And something strange occurred to me, and, as the blogs and opinionists and New Hampshire results showed, to a bunch of other folk as well. The media almost seemed to relish Hillary Clinton’s defeat. Now, I would expect that from Fox Noise, but not so much from actual reporters. There was this glee, which was kind of sickening.
The debate last Saturday night showed exactly what was happening. The moderator, perhaps picking up on an unnoticed bias already creeping into political reporting nationwide, referred to the candidates as Senator Edwards, Senator Obama, Governor Richardson and ... that’s right ... "Mrs. Clinton." WTF? That’s like a slap in the face – "sexism is happening here."
And she did quite well in that debate – probably the best I have ever seen her do. She was poised, calm, off the cuff, and genuine. Wonderful. Edwards and Obama kept up their monotonous attacks of "status quo," which I think hurt Edwards in particular.
But the clincher for me came when the guest moderator asked Clinton about her "likeability," or rather, lack thereof. Now we all know that there is a certain portion of the public that fears and dislikes smart, assertive, competent women. They feel threatened by such women, its pure inferiority complex. Time and time again women in positions of authority get branded the "bitch" or the "witch" or the "dragon" or whathaveyou. But that has nothing to do with whether that particular woman is right for the job or not.
And I realized that much of the piling on was in fact just sexism. Beer-swigging blowhards like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert top the list of supposedly genuine newsmen who are unquestionably sexist. Matthews was going ape-shit on Tuesday night as the New Hampshire results rolled in, and there was a genuine tension between the MSNBC panel members who got the sexism and those who did not. The whole likeability question is a crock, in this context. It’s a substitute for sexism, pure and simple.
Now, that doesn’t mean that all of the complaints about Clinton are sexist. She really was coming off as contrived, overrehearsed, painfully on point and unable to show the person behind the facade. But all of that changed between Iowa and New Hampshire. I much prefer the current Hillary to the pre-Iowa one. And I would be quite pleased if she ends up being the nominee.
And I do have genuine concerns about Obama’s experience. But can you imagine an Obama who had been Vice President for eight years? Now there would be an unstoppable candidate! I hope Clinton and Obama can remain positive enough toward each other to make this dream team a possibility!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)