Back To Your Corner

Did you hear? Freedom is on the march.

2005-01-21T06:16:00.000-08:00

On Monday we were reminded by the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King to put down our weapons. We were charged with renewing our commitment to a non-violent movement towards achieving that dream of peace, love, and equality- not just at home but abroad.

On Thursday we were in the presence of a warning in liberty’s costume, though it may have gone undetected by the majority of citizens. President Bush said, “one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of the world.” Are we to believe that this is a different entity than the “day of fire” he described earlier in his speech, that fire that prompted him to take up arms with Afghanistan and Iraq? Just as ice in the South could melt like ice in the North, does not fire from one source burn like the fire from another? When hearing talk of fire across the earth (whether someone intends for that to be a positive vision or not), is mine the only mind that immediately thinks of Armageddon?

Given this rhetoric, it should be of no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush’s comment to young Americans was an order of a Commander in Chief to “make the choice to serve…” No longer is his cry “the axis of evil.” No. This cancerous notion has developed into six “outposts of tyranny,” including Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Zimbabwe (according to Condolezza Rice at her confirmation hearings this week). How long will we let this cancerous vision of ignorant and arrogant “foreign policy” continue to grow? Will we wait until it’s too big to excise from our body of law? Will we try to help ourselves as early as possible by seeking experts and healers, or will we idly yet anxiously wait for the experts and healers to come to us?

I am disturbed that the leader of our nation does not have an accurate understanding of the history of our nation. The president remarked, “From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value…” Yet, I seem to recall something like women and minorities having to struggle for decades – no, for centuries - for recognition of their rights, their dignity (indeed, some are still struggling). Does the president forget the path on which our nation has traveled so long and hard? I would dismiss any claim that merely because a government has been overthrown, “tens of millions have achieved their freedom.” Living without tyrannical rule is not synonymous with achieving freedom. Living in the daily fear of bombs from “liberators” and “martyrs” alike, is not freedom.

It is to my sadness that Mr. Bush often does not practice what he preaches, specifically that “America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.” How can someone who speaks these words dance around affording “jailed dissidents” in Guantanomo Bay or Abu Graib their rights as human beings, so meticulously drafted and adopted by our nation? How can someone speak those words while simultaneously striving to place women legally at the mercy of men who impregnate them by rape, by choice, or by chance?

It seems odd that a president who so adamantly works to oppose legislation supported by the American Civil Liberties Union would be the same president that pronounces, “there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.” And, while we are informed daily by his actions and words that homosexuals are a different class of citizens than heterosexuals and that those who follow no faith, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions are a different class of citizens than Christians, he has the nerve to speak of the importance of “tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our lives.”

Mr. Bush was right about something. We are, as Mr. Bush stated, “ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.” Let us make sure we demand that President Bush be an agent for freedom and not a mere war hawk in Liberty’s costume.

The Cradle of Western Civilization Checks In

2005-01-20T16:52:00.000-08:00

I heard today from our foreign correspondent and my great friend Eleni. Her email begins, "I just watched President Bush's (I can't believe those two words are still one phrase!) inauguration speech...I got so pissed off, I found refuge in the blog, which I hadn't visited for a while..."

She wasn't entirely pleased, and asked me to pass on her thoughts.

"I just heard the president talk about "bringing freedom to all the nations that need it"! How? By killing thousands and imposing a pseudo-state of stabilization/peace while making profit on rebuilding the destroyed/free countries? Is that what American democracy dictates? This is not the kind of Democracy our ancestors preached about or fought over...I don't think the American Revolution was fought over who's gonna make more profit, or how much oil will be exploited, or how many countries will be controlled, or who owns more media, or who deprives the public from "public" information...

It's a shame that words like Democracy and Freedom are used so freely these days by people who understand nothing about their historical, political or cultural weight...people who have NEVER felt the absence of Democracy or the agony of an effort to regain it...I guess it's always easier to speak from a safe distance...the kind that only a capitalistic "superpower" can ensure."

So that's the perspective of a European on our nation's foreign policy. Not so good, huh?

Finally, consider this - when my friend refers to the "Democracy our ancestors preached about" she can go back a bit further than most. She's from Athens. Hers invented it.

My rant, albeit a day late

2005-01-18T17:20:00.000-08:00

Dr. Martin Luther King had more than a dream of racial equality.
Sadly, for far too many of us, that phrase is nearly all we know of the man or his dream.

Here and Now in 2005, Dr. King's message could not be more relevant. Dr. King taught of peace, of nonviolence. He taught of love, of brotherhood. He strived to lift people out of the shackles of poverty and fear. I recently came across his words,

"A nation that continues

year after year

to spend more money on military defense

than on programs of social uplift

is approaching spiritual death."

Although MLK spoke those words in reference to action in Vietnam and although we have no way of knowing what his position would be on current events, only a fool would fail to see the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq.

Whether the current war was just or not is rather irrelevant now. The fact is that this war is draining the life out of this nation. The funds which are rapidly being depleted or are being funneled to defense contractors (or, dare I say, are being wasted on this president's inaugural celebration), should be going to fight poverty, solve the healthcare crisis, and strengthen our failing education system. Sadly, those who need our assistance the most are precisely those who will be left behind by budget cuts.

While thankfully we don't have the same fears that plagued the nation when Dr. King marched, many of the politicians today would have us live in daily fear. Fear of another terrorist attack, fear of a natural disaster, fear of family values being weakened, fear of social security crumbling, fear of unemployment, and fear of alternatives to the judeo-christian faiths. Can we really know freedom if we're living in fear?

A speaker at the law school today urged us to consider Dr. King's "dream that never was."
She urged us to spread the word that we need to renew our commitment to the dream that Dr. King shared with us: to dream of love, so that one day we may know freedom.

Dead Blog

2005-01-12T14:53:00.000-08:00

I think we're all pretty burnt out on politics, and the blog has gone pretty quiet. That's not too surprising. Anyway, here's a good quote from Ted Kennedy in today's Post:

"We cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices," said Kennedy, who has served 42 years in the Senate. "We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose."

Damn, Ted! That's what we've been saying! Well, it could be a good sign for us, the tough liberal Democrats, that Howard Dean is now officially a candidate for the position of DNC Chairman. Best of luck to him.

There must be an enemies list around here somewhere

2005-01-08T07:37:00.000-08:00

CNN is reporting today that Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston are splitting. Tragic.

In other news, it was revealed yesterday that the Nixon-I-mean-Bush administration payed conservative radio commentator (read "shill") Armstrong Williams $241,000 to promote No Child Left Behind on air. Here's a quote from the Post:

"Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein media center, said he is 'disgusted' by what he called 'the worst kind of fakery and flackery' on Williams's part. 'It's propaganda masquerading as news, paid by government, truly a recipe from hell,' he said. 'It would make any thinking person hearing any pundit speak want to say, 'Okay, how much did they pay you to say that?' ' Jones said the contract also shows that 'the Bush administration neither understands nor respects the idea of an independent media.' "

Well, that's not good.

According to CNN.com, the logic behind the decision to hire Williams seems to be that parents, "particularly in poor and minority communities," needed to be educated on why NCLB was good for their children. The fact that that decision manifested itself as a lie, specifically that Williams was presenting propaganda as original thought, didn't seem to strike anyone as unethical.

Sounds like an excellent use for our tax dollars, doesn't it? Hey, do you think maybe a few of those dollars could be diverted towards an education program focusing on why NCLB sucks? Or you know what I could really use? Some education on why it is that those same "poor and minority communities" that provide about 40% of our military are losing their health care, their livelihoods, and their opportunities for affordable education. I'd like some fucking education on that, please.

Radicalism on the D

2005-01-06T06:29:00.000-08:00

Each morning, my bus driver posts up a quotation alongside the rearview mirror. Here is today's:

In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.

- Fran Lebowitz

Send Money!

2005-01-04T06:38:00.000-08:00

Hello and welcome back. We took a hiatus from the blog while all of us were busy with our end of the year (and start of the new year) celebrations. I guess we're back now.

This post is just a quick one, and it's not very political in nature. If you know me or our other contributors personally, I'd like to make an appeal for cash. We are sending a donation to UNICEF for aid to the tsunami victims. We aren't planning to collect a huge amount - so far we have $80 - but whatever you can afford would be great. If you don't know us, or if you can afford a larger contribution, please consider donating to an aid organization yourself. It's tax deductible and they could use the help.

Thanks in advance for your generosity. Happy new year.

Scott who?

2004-12-21T05:43:00.000-08:00

Last Tuesday, I caught a glimpse of a bikini-clad hottie on a restaurant TV. Hoping for a new Thickburger commercial, I jerked my head up to look. It was Laci Peterson. They were showing old home videotape of her on CNN.

If they were trying to get my attention, it worked (ala the Thickburger commercial). Pretty pathetic. What kind of news is Laci Peterson in a bikini? Why should I be seeing this woman paraded around post-mortem when I could be hearing about oh, say, a recent report revealing that there are only four counties in the US in which a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford to live in a single bedroom apartment? The perception that the US has scuttled international talks on environmental regulation? Flagging retail sales this season? I don’t give a fat fuck about Scott Peterson and I shouldn’t have to. The murder was undeniably tragic, but in the year 2004 it just doesn't warrant months worth of national attention.

A few days later, Chris and I were wondering how much media coverage the Peterson case would’ve gotten if Laci had been black, or overweight, or maybe even just poor. That was on Saturday. The headline story of Sunday’s Washington Post had three pictures of pregnant American women who’d been murdered. Two were African-American. The point of is that such events are horrible, but in a country of nearly 300 million citizens, they happen. Does one of them deserve more coverage than another? Does one deserve, by simple accident of the participants’ good looks, to strangle the news?

No.

We are a nation of funnel-fed geese. Our major commercial news media, which we trust to keep the government accountable to the people, is devolving from a responsible and respected public institution into a financial predator that uses gross sensationalism as its bait. How can they get away with it? Funny you should ask. The answer is that business has been increasingly unregulated since the 1980s, not coincidentally the time at which corporations started scooping up news outlets while congress looked the other way. In 1983, when UC Berkeley media analyst Ben Bagdikian first published “The Media Monopoly,” he lamented the shrinking independence of American media companies. The number of major companies at that time had dwindled to just over fifty. Today there are SEVEN. Consolidation, the bane of healthy competition (and thus capitalism), is the hallmark of the industry. Take, for example, AOL Time Warner. That’s one company. AOL. Time. Warner. If AOL didn’t suck so bad that company could have bought the midwest by now and convinced its ever-poorer residents to vote against themselves. Other conglomerates include Viacom, GE, and Disney. Rupert Murdoch’s empire isn’t even the largest, and he owns the Fox network, 20th Century Fox, Fox News, and the NY Post.

So considering how many media outlets are under the ownership of major corporations, and given that the financial success of those corporations depends in no small part to the pro-big-business agenda of the Republican Party (lax regulation, tax “relief,” etc…), why should we expect the administration’s failures to be reported fairly, or even at all? I don't know. Ask over 50% of Bush supporters who believe the Duelfer report confirmed the existence of WMDs in Iraq. I bet they could tell you a lot more about Scott Peterson than they could about President Bush’s reversal of greenhouse gas emissions standards.

Major commercial news media is failing to keep us informed.

That’s not to say that journalists, even at those institutions, don’t try. They do. Besides, there are still other places to look. Alternative news sources are available on the internet. Certain major newspapers remain independently owned. Publicly-owned media is pretty fair. (In a recent interview, the NPR ombudsman said that the majority of complaints he receives are that the news is biased to the right). Foreign outlets like the BBC and CBC offer at least alternative perspectives on American and world events if not more actual fact. Right now I’m watching American Sue Neiderer on BBC World express her disgust at Rumsfeld’s failure to personally sign the letter of condolence he sent after the death of her son in Iraq. Additionally, I’d be remiss if I failed to give a shout-out to local publications, most importantly the Chatham Record.

Large-scale news media is no longer intended for information, but consumption. The muscle of the consumer is the boycott. Point your friends elsewhere.

Senators can be so cruel

2004-12-17T05:38:00.000-08:00

Rumsfeld's remarks in Kuwait last week precipitated some increased criticism from the right. Trent Lott, Susan Collins, Richard Lugar, John McCain, and Norman Schwarzkopf have all expressed dismay at Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq, some going as far as to call for his resignation. You can read more here, here, and here.

Things are going poorly in Iraq, but despite his demonstrated willingness to clean house, President Antoinette asked Rummy to continue on for another four years. Why? My guess - President likes saying "Rummy."

Does Drano work on the economy?

2004-12-16T06:35:00.000-08:00

Here's a link to an article in today's Time Europe Magazine about recent attempts to plug the "brain drain" that's plagued European research for decades. The problem, essentially, is that the best and brightest European scientists have been lured out of their home countries and into the US. Why? Because America offers the lure of "generous funding, better facilities, and meritocratic culture." All in all, that means a better environment in which to work. It also means less money for Europe. "Billions of euros and tens of thousands of jobs are at stake, because science drives economic growth in the IT, biotech and pharmaceutical sectors." In this case at least, bad for Europe = good for America. That's become particularly important in the last couple of decades. Blue-collar American jobs are going to Asia, where they can be done cheaper. We need to find new jobs that can't. If that means continuing to import eggheads from Ireland and Italy, then I'm all for it.

While the Time article deals with ways in which the EU is committing to fight the brain drain, it fails to mention that here at home America has started kicking its own ass. Here's an op-ed piece (originally published in the NY Times) written by Harvard professor Joseph Nye. It starts out "[l]ast year, the number of foreign students at American colleges and universities fell for the first time since 1971. Recent reports show that total foreign student enrollment in our 2,700 colleges and universities dropped 2.4 percent, with a much sharper loss at large research institutions. Two-thirds of the 25 universities with the most foreign students reported major enrollment declines." It's not that we don't want foreign students. It's that they can't get here. Since 9/11, the hassle of getting a visa to study here has turned from tough to nightmarish. One of my own friends, a doctoral student from China, went home for a month-long visit and ended up staying for about a year - stuck on a leash made of red tape.

Nye goes on to point out that "[t]he costs to the American economy are significant. Educating foreign students is a $13 billion industry. Moreover, the United States does not produce enough home-grown doctoral students in science and engineering to meet our needs."

The problem extends beyond science as well. In this great article on America's shrinking significance in the world economy, Slate.com editorialist Daniel Gross points out that Wall Street is also suffering. "Young foreign wannabe executives are shunning the United States. Business Week earlier this year lamented the 'staggering' declines in applications of foreigners to U.S. business schools—down 24 percent at Wharton in 2004. [T]he number of foreigners taking the GMAT has fallen 27 percent since 2002, and... 74 percent of the schools [surveyed] saw declines in international applications in 2004. Thanks in part to the sharp reductions in the availability of H1-B visas—from about 200,000 in fiscal 2001 to about 65,000 this year—legions of skilled foreigners now ply their trades at home, or in other countries, instead of helping to build businesses here."

Though we can't disregard the very real security concerns that America must now consider when accepting foreign workers and students, the cost of shoving a fat bureaucratic hairball up the brain drain seems to outweigh the risk. Here's a problem we need to solve. Let's write some congresspeople.

One more thing. None of those articles mention the anti-intellectual clouds that keep popping up in the current conservative climate. (Creationism, for example). They're enough to make a scientist pretty uncomfortable. I can think of at least one who's planning to leave for England for part of his career. Me.

Next up on Celebrity Grudgematch

2004-12-13T06:31:00.000-08:00

Howard Dean vs. Ralph Reed

Here's a link from the NY Times on the growing influence of Christian Conservative groups at the state and local levels. Their newfound power, evidently, has something to do with their perceived influence on the national election. "'I think people are becoming emboldened,' said Michael D. Bowman, director of state legislative relations at Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian advocacy group based in Washington." (Can anyone explain to me why a group called "Concerned Women for America" has a male spokesperson?)

The issues that these groups are most concerned about include abortion, which is about to be all-but-illegal in South Dakota, and evolution in the schools. Is it just me or shouldn't that last issue be settled by now? Wasn't there already a damn movie about it? Like 50 years ago!?

What's interesting is that these groups have always been most powerful at those levels. The article is most noteworthy in light of the recent Republican shift to national power. For decades "states' rights" was a banner held by the Republican party, but now that they've weasled themselves into control of all three federal branches, we're starting to see exactly how much it really means to them. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Federal mandates (unfunded) on education? Prohibiting the states from legalizing marijuana used for medicinal purposes? At this point, local control seems almost redundant.

So now the "states' rights" argument must fall to the Democrats. We've already started hearing squawks from the left about certain issues (gay marriage, for example) that could be left up to the states. I'm coming around to the idea of increased state power myself. For one thing, I think it's bad for the Republicans. Let the Religious Right argue with Darwin. Hell, let them deny gravity if they want. Why not? Their kids are going to be stupid anyway. Let's see what happens when the not-so-socially-conservative Republicans pop their heads up from the ground and start barking about what's happened to their party. "Intelligent design" doesn't sound all that bad until it's your own kid that's learning it.

Additionally, it could be good for the Dems. I have to mention Howard Dean's campaign to become the DNC chairman. Dean is himself an advocate of states' rights, having promoted the rights of homosexuals in Vermont and also allowed for relatively lax gun control in the state. I like Dean a lot. I actually own a Howard Dean for President T-shirt. My grandparents got it at a rally in Texas. (Not all Texans are loco - at least not right-wing loco). Though I'm not convinced he's presidential material, I'm strongly in favor of Dean taking over for Terry McAuliffe. The party leadership needs to belong to "real Democrats," those of us with strong progressive values, not sniveling moderates drifting ever rightward. You don't achieve real compromise by giving in. You do it be taking a hard stand and demanding concessions. What's more, we won't get anything of value from the middle class by making spineless overtures towards the Religious Right. Instead, we need to remind people that those liberal values their grandparents embraced are still what's best for them and their country.

Incidentally, last fall my grandfather picked me up at the airport when I arrived in Texas to celebrate his 60th wedding anniversary. As I waited for my luggage on the carousel, he walked over the airport greeters' table, introduced himself, and tried to talk them into voting for Dean. That's what I'm talking about.

Keeping the Artic Wildlife Refuge, Wild

2004-12-12T13:38:00.000-08:00

With the Republican party gaining more control of Congress and the Bush administration needing answers to the coming energy crisis, the Artic Wildlife Refuge will once again be considered for Oil and Gas exploration. We have previously discussed the importance of protecting the refuge on the basis of ideology, negligible gains versus costs and protection of the environment. So, with a new congress poised to take over and the refuge once again coming up for legislative action, it is time for us to remind politicians that most Americans do not want to open up the Artic Refuge. If you would like to help, sign this petition directed to Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, to keep the Refuge protected. Pass this information on to other people you know, each voice does count, and many voices cannot be ignored.

All the President's Men (Redux)

2004-12-12T09:25:00.000-08:00

A conservative Republican president, surrounded by yes-men, wiretaps his opponents to gain political advantage. The Washington Post, working with anonymous sources within the administration, exposes him.

Sound familiar?

Peep this.

Variations on a Theme

2004-12-10T06:04:00.000-08:00

This week, the Chinese corporation Lenovo purchased IBM's PC brand. Though the actual manufacturing of IBM PCs has been done in China for years, the design and development takes place here in the states. American researchers working in North Carolina's Research Triangle Park - anchored since its inception by IBM - are about to find themselves working for a Chinese corporation. What does that mean for them? Well, hopefully not much. Under the terms of the sale, Lenovo looks to be maintaining most of those jobs in RTP at similar wages and similar benefits. That said, there will certainly be "some movement" of American employees to China and vice versa. Here's an editorial from our hometown Raleigh News and Observer expressing both hope and concern for the well-being of the state.

What about the bigger picture? The Post mentions increasing globalization as "a challenge American companies are feeling acutely these days, as new entrants from abroad prove they can compete at the high end just as well as they can at the low end." Even those service-industry jobs some of us have been discussing as the alternative to manufacturing are heading off to more exotic climes. Already, your calls for IT support are likely to be routed to India. Computer programming is moving overseas as well. At what point do corporations from those countries evolve to cut away the American excess? Where do we go from there?

For the time being, one thing we can count on is the quality of American research. RTP was "[f]ounded in 1959 in an attempt to capitalize economically on the local presence of cutting-edge research universities such as Duke, UNC and North Carolina State." Only one of those schools, you'll note, is private. What happens when the public schools start losing their footing? Won't the health of the research environment they helped create suffer? Money spent on public research institutions is, in very real terms, a high-return investment for the states. Not only does the research bring new ideas and aid industry, the schooling trains the next generation to continue. That's even more necessary now that jobs for people without degrees are disappearing from America. I have made note elsewhere that funding for higher education is being slashed nationwide. I'm worried that the effect of those cuts may be the lasting economic legacy of the Bush Administration. By passing the tax burden to the states Bush has pointed a gun to America's middle class.

As to solutions... that's tough. John Kerry proposed rescinding the tax cuts for the wealthiest 20% of Americans. I don't know if that's the best place to get money for education, but if we want to stay the world's premier economy it's going to have to come from somewhere. Maybe we could have a bake sale or something.

Martha was Outsourced!

2004-12-09T13:42:00.000-08:00

I guess Martha Stewart isn't immune to outsourcing. Recently one of the last remaining textile mills in the south (Springs) has been going through a similiar pattern of demise as Pillowtex/Cannon Mills. For those of you that believe outsourcing is a great and prosperous thing for this country, just thank god your not living in Fort Mills. This is one of Springs primary manufacturing plants closed due to cheap imports and moving all manufacturing overseas to be able to compete. (total loss 500 employees). The only thing that remains is distrubution, after all we have to distribute those malasian goods. This was the plant that made Martha's K-mart sheets. My mother, previous VP for Cannon Mills, rejected Martha's offer to make her sheets because she could not make the sheets for what Martha wanted. At that time, Cannon had too many plants still open in the USA. So Martha went with Springs (owned by the Bowles family) because they had already outsourced several plants. Desite what new Kannapolis experts to this blog will tell you, the outsourcing of manufacturing overseas was the primary downfall of Cannon Mills, and the reason why Springs has lasted so long. Looks like they are headed for the big fall as well. At any rate, for those of you who care, go check out the article about the closing. You will see that article directly adresses the current blog arguments about outsourcing begun by Dan following his Schwinn thread.

PS I just heard Bush plans on lifting quotas for textiles, that should make things better, NOT!!!!!

www.textileworld.com

Click on the 4th article stating 540 textile workers to lose jobs...

Bush sure loves dem troops!

2004-12-08T14:15:00.000-08:00

Much has been said about how Bush is a commander in chief who knows how to take care of our troops. I beg to differ:

1. Last year, while troops were engaged at war, the pres proposed slashing 1.5 billion from military housing.
2. He rolled back recent modest increases in bonuses paid to soldiers serving in combat zones.
3. He refused to extend the child tax credit to one million children living in military and veteran families.
4. He cut 200 million from Impact aid, a program that helps military families recieve a quality education.
5. He rejected a desperate request from his own secretary of veterans affairs for 1.2 billion in funding needed to maintain veterans health care.
6. Bush supported increasing veterans copayments.
7. Bush and his supporters banned any public images of dead troops returning home as well as arrival ceromonies for the returning caskets.
8. Bush has yet to attend a funeral or memorial for soldiers killed in action during his presidency as other presidents have done.
9. Bush has closed seven veterans hospitals in NY, KY, Ohio, Miss, and Calif.
10. While over 230,000 veterans wait over six months to be seen at a VA hospital, Bush requested only 5.3 percent for veteran helath care. VA officials have testified it would take at least 12 percent to maintain status quo.
11. Bush opposed a senate addition to the Iraq supplemental bill that would hae added 1.3 billion to veteran's health care.

At a time when we expect over 100,000 troops returning from Iraq in the next year, we have NO space to treat them in VA hospitals. Nor is Bush making the necessary steps to make sure funding is there to remedy the already existing problem. With the danger of using "real world" examples, I will tell you that my Father (a democrat and two tour vietnam vet) waited over two years to get into the VA hospital. He had a heart attack exactly two months after joining and was saved by a VA hospital in Asheville. With the "outsourcing" of his job, he was newly unemployed (not sure if this meets the "economist definition" but he was definitley NOT working) and had a bad heart, diabetes, and documented/tested agent orange in his system. I sure am glad a slot opened for him, but I am sure he would gladly give that slot up to any of the young men and women returning from Iraq/Afgan and the plethera of other countries we are currently patrolling. I am not sure I could say the same for Bush. Bottom line is, Uncle Sam might WANT YOU, but really only for like a year or so!

I'll take "Bad Planning" for $1000, Alex. (updated)

2004-12-08T07:07:00.000-08:00

Click here to read an AP article on the meeting Don Rumsfeld had with American troops in Kuwait yesterday.

One soldier asked him "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Another wanted to know why the Reserve and National Guard units were being discriminated against in terms of equipment. A third asked when the stop-loss policy (aka "backdoor draft") was going to end.

Update: An analysis in today's USA Today shows that Reserve and National Guard troops "are about one-third more likely to be killed in Iraq than full-time active-duty soldiers serving there."

Gambling for Retirement

2004-12-07T07:37:00.000-08:00

The dollar's at an all time low versus the euro today. The CIA is pessimistic about Iraq.

But the topic on NPR last night was social security reform. My long-time friend, a professional financial planner (and former Republican), tells me that letting people invest their social security money is a recipe for disaster. Another family friend who has lived off of his investments since the 1960s just found out that younger people think they can handle their own money better than the government. "I don't believe that," he said "for a second."

It's time to discuss alternatives. I think the Onion has offered up a plan at least as sound as that of the Bush administration. Any thoughts?

My little blue bike

2004-12-03T07:55:00.000-08:00

Awww.

When I was 5, my teenaged next door neighbor spray-painted his old bike blue and gave it to me. I learned to ride on it. I remember my mom making a big deal about the fact that it was a Schwinn. That meant much less to me than it did to her. When she grew up the Schwinn bike was a status symbol - a sign of middle-class prosperity. For the last two decades we haven't even heard the name. Here's an interesting article from today's Washington Post about the Schwinn bicycle company and its financial condition in the new world economy.

What happened? At the end of the 1970's, Schwinn started outsourcing to Taiwan. The Taiwanese suppliers learned how to manufacture bikes and discovered that they could sell their own poor-quality copies at a much cheaper price. Schwinn could no longer compete. That fact, coupled with new trends like BMX and mountain biking, signaled the end for a once-proud bike manufacturer. A flexible company might have adapted, but Schwinn stubbornly stayed true to it's traditional American roots. In 1993 they went bankrupt.

That in itself is enough to make you think twice about globalization. What's perhaps more interesting about this story is the broader picture - looking at the Schwinn company as it exemplifies the fate of American manufacturing (and the American middle-class) in the late-20th and early-21st centuries.

"As employment rose at Schwinn and other factories after World War II, so did the fortunes of the middle class. From 1947 to 1979, median family income more than doubled, from $21,201 to $45,989 in inflation-adjusted terms. The gap between rich and poor narrowed, as the middle 20 percent of families gained ground more rapidly than the top 5 percent."

Sweet! But...

"[Outsourcing led to broad] decline in U.S. manufacturing, with the sector supplying 5 million fewer jobs today than at its peak in 1979. Meanwhile, family income growth slowed, rising only about 15 percent over nearly a quarter-century. Americans without a college degree -- who make up about three-quarters of the adult population -- now earn lower wages in real terms than they did a generation ago."

The middle class in America today is both smaller and poorer than it was when I got that blue bike 25 years ago. In the words of Richard Schwinn, "We're missing a big, important part of our society. Either everyone has to go to college or everyone has to have very low-paying jobs." And guess what? Everyone can't go to college. With the burden of taxes shifting to the states, funding for higher education is being slashed. Tuition at public universities is sky-rocketing. The cost of attending my own alma mater, the University of Maryland, more than doubled in one year. College is fast-becoming what it was 100 years ago - a luxury for the rich.

Hooray.

What's going on with Schwinn today? Good question. In 2001 a Canadian businessman bought the Schwinn company out of its second bankruptcy. Today, he imports inexpensive low-quality bikes from China and sells them under the Schwinn name. They're a huge hit at Wal-Mart this holiday season.

Welcome Back

2004-12-02T08:05:00.000-08:00

Having digested the holiday, I'm ready for some great Fall films. Don't miss this classic mini-bio collage piece about the one and only King Chimpy. Who would you have picked to play his Greatness?

Two things in life are sure -

2004-11-21T10:59:00.000-08:00

and one of them is death.

As to the other one...

The Bush tax cuts presented a huge tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. (Whew! I was praying for the poor dears). By the year 2004, the richest 20% of Americans had received a 66.4% share of the tax cuts. The next highest quintile got 14.5%. It goes down from there. The bottom 20% got 2.1% of the cuts.

The wealthiest benefit the most.

According to the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the average tax cut for people earning over $1 million per year was $123,592, reflecting an increase in after tax income of 6.4%. The tax cut for the middle 20% of Americans was $647. That’s an increase in income of only 2.3%. What's more, breaks for the wealthy haven't stopped – some tax measures that benefit only them have yet to be fully phased in, while those that benefit the middle class are already in place. Seem fair? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in cooperation with Brookings, suggests here that the overall effect of the Bush tax cuts promises to be a net decrease in income for all but the richest Americans.

The wealthiest benefit the most.

Last August, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report demonstrating that the share of the federal tax burden for the wealthiest 20% of Americans has and will continue to shrink thanks to the Bush cuts. As for everybody else – even the bottom 20% - their share increases. Check here, here, and here for comment.

The wealthiest benefit the most.

So with all these tax cuts how are we still paying for things? Of course, as already mentioned, we’re running huge deficits and accumulating gargantuan debt. This is the first time since WWII that the federal deficit has increased three years running. In addition, the balance is shifting from the federal government to the states. Unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind are resulting in increased state taxes – often in the form of sales tax. (Here's an editorial from the Globe). The thing about sales tax is that unlike income tax it's regressive. As a proportion of his or her income, a wealthier person pays much less in sales tax than does a poor person. One reason that income tax works the other way is to achieve balance. I recently watched Dennis Hastert on Meet the Press pushing for abolition of the IRS in favor of a federal value-added (sales) tax. Of course, the VAT's regressive.

The wealthiest benefit the most.

The rest of us get screwed. The middle class, those of us who make between $25,000 and $75,000 per year, is shrinking. The lower class is expanding, while the upper class remains stable. The median household income has fallen by $1,535, or 3.4%, since 2000. There are nearly 4.3 million more people living in poverty. That’s an increase of 13.6%. If you’re not rich and you voted for Bush, then you voted against yourself.

One last thing. As early as 2001, it was obvious that the Bush tax cuts would disproportionately favor the wealthy. It was argued by Republicans at the time that tax cuts transparently designed to favor the wealthy would benefit everyone by stimulating job growth. I guess that explains the record number of new jobs we have.

The other thing in life that's sure isn't taxes. It's that Bush is failing America.

Already missing Daschle

2004-11-18T17:00:00.000-08:00

Tom wasn't perfect, but he was the strongest supporter of country-of-origin labels on food. Without his resistance, emboldened Republicans are looking to overturn the law, allowing the food processing industry to voluntarily 'police themselves'.
Thanks to DHinMI at daily Kos for pointing to this:

"As part of the 2002 farm bill, country-of-origin labeling was supposed to have gone into effect this fall. Congress last year postponed it until 2006. Now, House Republicans are trying to wipe it off the books".

Hmm... Can you say Mad Cow?

Anyone else want to know what country their food is coming from?

Alaska isn't alone

2004-11-18T06:56:00.000-08:00

The pursuit of oil and additional fossil fuel resources continues to wreak havoc on our planet's inhabitants, animals and humans alike. This dangerous approach to providing sustainable energy is embraced by the current administration, rambling forward with reckless abandon in an unprecedented effort to re-write environmental policy. A close look at policy decisions and a bit of fact-finding show Chimpy and the Neo-con extremists, once again, favor corporate profits at the cost of our world around us. This is unacceptable.

My last example of Chimpy's anti-environmental stance highlights the continued raping of Alaskan wilderness, in the so-called Area 1002 (see previous post). Here, a second example that perhaps hits closer to home in the contiguous lower 48. Colorado is also under attack.

18 prominent public health experts warned Federal regulators in this letter that accelerated oil and gas drilling in the Rocky Mountain West is becoming a threat to human health.

"In western states, the public is learning the hard way that the
oil and gas industry needs to follow laws intended to protect
drinking water and water quality," -Dr. Theo Colborn, Paonia, Colorado.

The public, bi-partisan health official group is "...concerned that the construction and operation of new wells, compressor stations and engines, increased truck traffic and new roads produce air pollution in the form of particulates, dust and nitrogen oxides, contributing to asthma and other serious lung disease. For example, in the San Juan Basin of the Four Corners region, where there are extensive and growing oil and gas operations, health officials are concerned because ozone concentrations are increasing to levels just shy of the EPA health standard, which is highly unusual for such a rural area".

The letter specifically identified efforts by the oil and gas industry to weaken the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act. They warned that the government's failure to regulate air pollution from oil and gas development is a "highly dangerous practice..."

This is, of course, only part of the greater Chimpy administration-led assault on our environment, obvious to myself and many others. In fact, the US Union of Concerned Scientists (UCSUSA) has been following the story for some time. For those unfamiliar, it's a group of over 5000 scientists, many quite distinguished, who bring Chimpy's arrogant earth-crushing policies to light in this report (too long? just read the abridged executive summary).

This is the second installment in a mini-series on this topic. Radical Neo-con mentality comes with a heavy price tag. Viva Colorado!

Church and State

2004-11-17T09:45:00.000-08:00

A state church is just that - the recognized and official church of that country. The state church is supported by the state in many ways. Taxes collected by the state pay for the salaries of the church from the lowest gravedigger in the church on up to the head of the church. Taxes pay for the upkeep of church properties. New construction is wholly or partly paid for by the state. Until the seventeenth century and the Thirty Years War this concept never seems to have been seriously questioned. Even then the questions were more about which church should be the official one than if there should be an official church. In return the state church supported the state. The head of the state was the head of state because God ordained that he be so. To question the head of the state was to question God. God also ordained the official state church. To question the official state church was to question God. A state church is not necessarily a theocracy.

Laws were made and enforced by the state authorities that mandated church attendance and observance of church rites and rituals. Every person residing within the state or having any claim of citizenship was required to belong to and participate in the official state church. A child was required to be baptized in the state church or his or her birth and legal status as a citizen could be called into question. Marriages had to be performed by the state church to be recognized as legal for all matters of inheritance. Funerals, too, were required to be conducted by the official state church. From birth to death every citizen's official religion was that of the state church.

A recent TV ad trumpets that "A crime against the church was a crime against the state!" and this was for the most part true. A church official who did not toe the correct theological line was remanded to the church hierarchy for punishment, not the state authorities. However, should a lay person be found professing non-canon theology the state took control. In some countries merely professing doubts about the rightness of the state church on points of theology was sufficient for the state to jail, torture, and execute a person. Being a known member of a non-state church could get you executed for treason against the state. The head of the state is the head of state because God ordained that he be so. To question the head of the state is to question God. Questioning the head of the state is treason. Questioning God is heresy as well as treason - both good reasons to execute the troublemakers.

At the time of the American Revolution great and bloody wars had been and still were being fought over theology. England had seen the convulsions of sudden changes in the official state church when Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church. Overnight it became treason to be a Catholic. When Mary became queen just as suddenly it was treason to be Church of England and the whole thing flipped back under Elizabeth I. For about forty years after Elizabeth's death the Church of England remained the official state church only to be dethroned by the Calvinistic Puritans who considered both Catholics and C of E members traitors to the state. Then came the Restoration and not so Merry Old England was back to the Church of England as its official state church. At that time, either through sheer exhaustion or in an attempt to put off further rebellions over religions England ceased enforcing laws against the practice of non-state religions. The Church of England was and is still the official state church. It was still supported by state taxes. A Catholic or non-C of E Protestant paid taxes to support the Church of England as well as their tithes to their own churches. There remained a social stigma to those belonging to other than the official state church that had secular consequences. Certain jobs, the highest military ranks, and high state offices did not go to non- - Church of England members.

The idea that an entire country should change religious beliefs when the head of state changes was not new. This was the normal state of affairs throughout Europe. At the time of the Thirty Years War this got carried to extremes in Germany. Some places flipped between Calvinism, Lutheran, and Catholic so often that a twelve year old had been each, sometimes more than once.

Dry history, right? It does have a bearing on the thought processes of our founding fathers. Being English and educated English they knew this history well. In addition they had the resoundingly depressing example of the New England colonies fresh at hand. The New England Colonies had a state religion - Calvinistic Puritanism. From the original colonization each New England colony was intended to be a Godly state, firmly controlling its citizens' morals and state of grace. Civil laws prevented non-Puritans from owning property, operating businesses, and in some cases, from even traveling through Puritan colonies. At least one town appears to have required any non-Puritan to leave town before sunset. The law allowed for punishments ranging from fines to hanging for non-state church members. Say a disparaging remark about the minister and the civil authorities had you in court and into jail. Church attendance was mandatory, as was membership. Rhode Island became the only New England colony to allow non-Puritans to live there. In the years between the last of the witch trials and the American Revolution much of these laws lapsed into non-enforcement. They remained on the books but a grudging acceptance of non-Puritans and the alteration of the Puritan church itself led to the lapse. Closer to the Revolution and within living memory of some founding fathers was the great religious revivals of the mid 1700s.

Each of the original colonies had an official state church. Several had two - the Church of England because they were English subjects and whichever church the Crown had granted them the right to exercise. England used the colonies as a pressure valve. A troublesome group of Quakers could be 'encouraged' to head off to Rhode Island or Pennsylvania instead of spreading their disturbing ideas in England. So much easier to send them off into the wilderness where wild animals or Indians might kill them. At least they wouldn't be fomenting trouble at home.

New England aside, most of the rest of the colonies were less stringent in enforcing their state church laws. They collected taxes that supported the official church(es) but spent little time hauling non-conformists away to jail and prosecution. The laws were there, just not often enforced. This lack of zeal in enforcement of the state religion allowed colonists to worship or not as they pleased. By the time of the American Revolution many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. As there remained a social stigma attached to not attending the official state church or at least some reasonably acceptable alternative church, many of them did go to services. George Washington was noted for attending but leaving without taking communion. When berated for this from the pulpit Washington's response was to cease attending.

Thomas Jefferson was also a Deist. Benjamin Franklin doesn't seem to even qualify as a Deist. This is not mentioned in most school history books. Neither is the fact that a few of the founding fathers were actually - gasp! - Jewish! Please note that the later never seem to get mentioned at all in school history books or at least their religion isn't.

Considering that our founding fathers considered themselves English and were English subjects prior to the revolution it should have been the most natural thing for them to establish an official state church. They did not do so. In fact they spelled out very clearly that not only should the new government not establish or support an official state church but that it also should not interfere with any citizen's right to worship (or not) as he pleased. The steps were taken in full knowledge of the abuses that did and had arisen from state churches and church states. It was a very revolutionary idea and not universally popular within the colonies.

Among early arguments were those to put legal limits on which churches would be recognized and which should be outlawed by the state. The Constitution and especially the provisions regarding state and church provoked mutters of "Satan's Covenant" and dire predictions of the rapid downfall of the US in many quarters. What it has done is protect Christians, Jews, Moslems, Deists, and Agnostics from the abuses that the founding fathers had ample evidence State Churches fostered.

The fear that some people have today is the apparent rise of an unofficial state church. Only those who meet the theological requirements of this unofficial state church need apply for high government office, all others are to be despised, deposed, and declared 'enemies of the state'. When the words 'treason' are again linked to a person's religious beliefs or non-beliefs and when those words are taken seriously by members of government one is left wondering we do not have a defacto official state church.

Congress, You're Pre-Approved for a NEW Platinum Card!

2004-11-17T07:42:00.001-08:00

According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress will be asking soon for an $800 billion increase in the federal debt limit to cover for this year's record deficit. This is the third time during the Bush presidency that they've had to do so. It is also the second straight record year for debt. Talk about fiscally conservative! The new debt limit will be $8.174 trillion, three times higher than the limit in 2001.

My friend Cara and I met a self-identified fiscal conservative who wanted to know what the problem with huge debt was. Actually, he kind of stumped me. We talk about our children inheriting our debt, and that's part but not all of it. On the serious tip, I love kids. The thought of their little fingers handing money over to the government makes me really sad. How would they get it, anyway? I'm guessing sweat shops. Sweat shop money should be used for candy and crayons, not paying my debt!

Debt is primarily paid off by the wealthy, in the form of bonds. That has a couple of problems. For one thing, ownership of the government debt by the rich can promote wealth disparity. What's more, the money going into government bonds no longer gets invested in the stock market, leaving companies shorter of funds. As a result you get higher interest rates and inflation. Kind of like what's going on today. Robert Rubin has also argued that carrying huge debt limits the ability of the government to respond to future crises. Even conservatives are pissed.

Our own conservative visitors will argue the necessity of deficit spending to combat recession. That is one way to go about solving the problem. Fine, but at the incredible rate this administration is going, we ought to be talking about record growth, not an unemployment situation that compares to the depression.

I mean unemployment of working-age adults, that is. Our kids are going to be getting jobs soon enough.

Open your Republican eyes to your American Environment

2004-11-15T23:00:00.000-08:00

We are all traitors to our own land and complicit in the endangerment of the United States. The very character of the U.S. is bounded to the land and this environment but we have turned our back to our own country. How many past generations of citizens have made their living from this land and how many future generations will be able to live with the damage we now create? The United States spans a great breath of land and ecosystems across North America, from low land prairies to high Alpine to temperate rain forests to swamps, wetlands, and artic tundra. I feel guilt because I have not done enough to fight for out environment and to protect it against an executive branch that seems determined to increase pollution for short-term gain. I blame liberals who preach care for the poor and good education and yet drive large SUV’s. I blame conservatives who ignore a lack of “conservation” in the current administration and instead focus on polarizing issues. I challenge everyone to see the truth about the American Environment.

Hours after being inaugurated into his first term in office, President Bush halted all initiatives and directives concerning environmental regulation. Bush then set up the National Energy Policy Development Group, also known as the energy task force, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney and other former industry executives on the task force would set policy to weaken regulation in favor of corporate gain. Soon after, the Bush assault on environmental regulation began. Bush directives ordered the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to decrease environmental regulation of oil and gas developments on public lands, to allow wet lands to be filled in with waste from mountain top removal mining operations, to allow the costs of toxic Superfund site clean-ups to shift from the guilty corporations to tax payers. The Bush administration’s crowning environmental & energy policy, the hydrogen economy initiative, relies so heavily on coal and oil to produce hydrogen, that the benefits of fuel cell engines would be overcome by processes required to provide the fuel. Over and over again, the Bush administration has given in to corporate interests instead of defending America. There have been alternatives to this destruction. The Bush administration could really embrace a Hydrogen economy by employing renewable energy to produce Hydrogen fuel. The Bush administration could work with the BLM to allow intelligent development of public land. Instead, however, Bush has indoctrinated a euphemistic policy of “Wise Use,” illustrated in the new slogan of the National Forestry Service: “A Land of Many Uses.” The Bush administration has committed many attacks on the environment but there are none worse than the willful deceit of the American people on the preservation of social health as it relates to the environment. You may not believe in the preservation of the spotted owl or the North American wolf, but what about clean air or clean water? Can anyone think about the future of America, about our children, and not want to preserve the basic qualities of a healthy environment?

Most everyone can agree that the clean air act is a good thing, that it protects our health and future generations by protecting basic environmental regulations. The Bush administration is an exception. Bush has heavily promoted his “Clear Skies” initiative as a way forward to strengthening America. Compared with the Clean Air Act, Clear Skies allows for 68 percent more nitrous oxide, 225 percent more sulfur dioxide and 520 percent more mercury by 2010 and includes no regulations at all of carbon dioxide emissions. Bush downgraded mercury as a hazardous material, allowing coal fueled power plants to keep producing 48 tons annually, resulting in serious public health problems. Keeping the regulation of the clean air act instead of the Bush administration’s clear skies would cut that emission level by 90 percent through the employment of advanced technology. However, coal power executives resisted the establishment of new technology and so, the Bush administration delivered for them, at the cost of American health. In fact, coal power produces about 90 percent of the current pollution associated with energy production. The New Source Review passed by Congress in the late ‘70’s, required that coal plants enhance their pollution saving technology with each major upgrade. Since taking office, the Bush administration has decreased the stringency of New Source review. As a result, coal plants do not have to upgrade their environmental protection technology. This Bush policy will directly enable the release of 1.4 million tons of air pollution. The National Academy of Science has stated that the increase in air pollution resulting from the Bush policy will result in 30,000 deaths of U.S. citizens. These are 30,000 deaths that are preventable, deaths that do not have to happen and that would not happen if Bush left New Source Review alone. Is Bush protecting America? How many people died on 9/11? How many people will die as a result of Bush environmental policy? How many will have to die before we pay attention? Are you thinking about your children yet? If not, let’s move on to another frivolous concern in the eyes of the Bush administration: water.

Congress passed the Clean Water Act in the early ‘70’s over the veto of then President Dick Nixon. The Clean water act was established to protect the nation’s drinking water. This doesn’t seem like a radical idea to most people. However, again the Bush administration would like to differ with most people. We must all be wrong. President Bush decided that Clean Water Act regulations on industry dumping of raw sewage into waterways were too stringent. A few days into his first term, Bush initiated a moratorium on Clean Water Act regulations of sewage dumping. In 2003 Bush took his Wise Use plan a step further by allowing sewage treatment plants to release untreated “biological” waste into waterways. Bush didn’t remove all regulation, however, by stipulating that dumping could only occur on “rainy days.” That is not a joke, that is real Bush administration policy. The administration didn’t stop there at regulating our drinking water, however. Bush rolled back regulations on arsenic levels in drinking water. Bush rolled back regulations on preserving wetlands that not only violated the Clean Water Act but also the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. By 2004, Bush’s own EPA estimated that almost 20 percent of Americans are not drinking safe water, even by the lower standards set by the administration. Are we ready to say that clean healthy safe water is a privilege in America and not something that should be protected? Are we prepared to meet the consequences of an unprotected environment.

It is time for all of us to stand up and look around. Martha Marks, an elected official and president of Republicans for Environmental Protection recently stated: “Even my Republican eyes can see that President Bush has a long way to go before his conservation record can hold a candle to Teddy Roosevelt’s…Bush has appointed a stable of industry lobbyists to open up more lands to the same kind of special interests Roosevelt fought throughout his presidency.” Even Republicans are starting to realize the danger of not challenging the current administration’s policies. The insidious nature of this administration’s “clear skies” or “healthy forests” initiatives point out not only a realization of the damage done to the environment and public health, but also a desire to hide and mask the consequences behind euphemistic language. The level of the Bush administration’s deception points to a dangerous arrogance that belies true American values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a democracy. In a recent NYT article entitled Without a Doubt, Ron Suskind recalls a conversation with a senior White House aide who revealed the attitude of the Bush Administration. The aide stated that much of the public are part of the “reality-based community” who “believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of discernible reality.” The aide added, “That’s not the way the world really works anymore, we’re (the Bush Administration) an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality…We’re history’s actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” I don’t think we have the luxury of standing by and studying what the Bush administration has planned for the American public over the next four years. We the people have elected George W. Bush for another four years and we must deal with those consequences. I started this by saying we are all traitors to America. That is not true. There are many Americans fighting for this country, overseas in the military and here at home, for our environment. But, if we do not continue to fight for our environment, for the health of our children here at home, against the policies of the Bush administration, if we turn a blind eye to Bush doctrine, then we are all, turning our backs on America.

The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge- home of caribou, cormorant, muskoxen, and oil

2004-11-14T21:54:00.001-08:00

An oiled Cormorant

I firmly believe, as do many others, that the Alaskan Wilderness must be preserved. There are too many reasons to list here, many obvious, and many of which have become buried in newspeak.

With the GOP in firm control of all executive branches of government, their intimate relationship with oil is allowing industry executives to push Alaskan drilling as vigorously as ever. The pro-drilling wingnuts have already inflicted much damage on the American psyche via their relentless propaganda. They even have some people believing this drilling is a good thing. Inspired by my favorite environmentalist (Richard Nixon) I aim to provide a counterargument, based in fact. This is the first in a mini-series of installments regarding this topic, and in a broader sense, regarding the continuous Neo-Con Republican attack on our environment.

The area in question is termed ANWR, for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The oil industry already possesses the right to drill in 95% of the north coastal plain. They aren't satisfied and want it all. They claim spectacular benefits, many of which are contradicted by their own government reports. I draw your attention to this report from the US Department of Energy (2004). It details government estimates regarding oil production in ANWR, and contradicts the rhetoric put forth by proponents of the project. For example, while Chimpy and his playmates argue that new drilling this wildlife refuge will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and lower oil prices, their own government report provides this:

"..total U.S. crude oil production is projected to grow from
5.8 million barrels per day in 2002 to 6.1 million barrels per day in 2008 (Figure 2.14). After 2008, domestic oil production is projected to decline during the remainder of the forecast period, reaching 4.6 million barrels per day in 2025." (p10)

(Is this the great oil reserve meant to reduce foreign dependence?)

And this:

"..It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel..." (p12)

50 cents...Isn't oil hovering ~50 dollars per barrel?
Is this worth the irreversible destruction of national wildlife areas?

Yes, yes, I realize Energy Dept. text can be dry.
For something easier to read, with pictures, get the story told here.

There's also an oversimplified Flash movie here.
Cute and pointed. And based in fact (see links at film's end).

Agh! Can you believe some propaganda even proposes that not drilling in this area is 'irresponsible'? (see Sept. 9th entry) How about alternate energy? How do they sleep at night?

I'm just getting warmed up. More to come.

They've already got Jesus and America

2004-11-14T11:04:00.000-08:00
...now they want ice cream? Star-Spangled Ice Cream. "At last - a conservative alternative to Ben & Jerry's." At last! (Sigh of relief). I only hope it's not too late to save our children from the pro-athiest scrumptiousness of Chunky Monkey.

Seriously, I hope Star-Spangled Ice Cream tastes like crap.

Click on the link and check out wild-eyed homicidal maniac George Washington on the bottom right. I'm pretty sure cherries don't bleed, so he must've been up to something else with that axe. There's a nice positive message. You know, for the kids. Kids who like ice cream.

That site is pretty far out, and as far as blog content goes debatable. It's a stretch, but I'm putting it up as an intro to this link from the libertarian Cato Institute. The article is entitled "Republicans Become the Party of Big Government." Here's another from the conservative Washington Times and a reprint from the Wall Street Journal. One of the flavors of Star-Spangled Ice Cream is "Smaller Govern-Mint." So is that one in support of the Democrats? Ayatollah Bush effectively wiped out the reductions of the Clinton era and currently presides over the largest government in history. Actually, every Republican president for the past 100 years has overseen growth in the federal government, though to be fair the "Less Taxes, Smaller Government" mantra of the right dates back only 40 years, to the speech given by Barry Goldwater upon accepting his party's nomination in the 1964 election. That stance has proven to be politically effective, particularly for Reagan, but when do we get to see a straight-talkin' Republican president put his smaller gummint rhetoric into action? Maybe never. Some conservative commentators/cheerleaders are calling Bush a "big government conservative" and without insult. (Despite his 2000 campaign promises of small government). Does that signal a sea change in the Republican stance on the role of government, or is it more likely (as indicated by the ice cream flavor) that Bush supporters haven't yet figured out what he stands for?

I'm hoping this pint of Cherry Garcia can help me figure it all out.

One more thing - Goldwater eventually distanced himself from the right. He was not only pro-choice, but also a staunch believer in the separation of church and state and worried that Christian Conservatives had hijacked his philosophy to pursue their own agenda. In his own words, "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right" and "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

On the Local Scene

2004-11-13T06:58:00.000-08:00
I'm sure some of you who listen to NPR as frequently as I do have heard this already, but I thought I'd point out this story in the News and Observer. I think it's a good one in describing the current political climate on a small scale. Now the IPAS message is one of supporting reproductive "health" not "rights," at least on the radio. Since when were reproductive rights something that could get you in trouble with the FCC? Since now. It's a little scary that they're so worried. Kind of like talking to a Catholic priest and getting worried that you've had a fleeting, just a tiny, thought about premarital sex, or God no - cohabitation - and that he might find out. And you might get in trouble. Fear of expressing a message that there is nothing wrong with, except, perhaps to people who believe abortion and even contraception are wrong in the eyes of your God, and therefore, should be condemned, is an awful product of such a polarized nation, and unfortunately, one which the public media groups, such as NPR, must adhere to. The message is - watch what you say. Personally, I hope people don't shut up. I do feel completely assured that the throngs of angry liberals won't. It's a good and noble fight to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with what we think, even though there are Americans loyal to the current agenda probably praying for our souls.

Too Late For Rushmore

2004-11-13T06:20:00.000-08:00

As a liberal, I occasionally hear the charge that Clinton was my favorite president. It’s already been leveled here on the blog. I’m not sure where that comes from. It’s off by about 50 years. My favorite president is Franklin Roosevelt. Among other achievements, he is credited with starting Social Security during the Depression of the 1930s. During his State of the Union address in 1944 he had this to say:
“We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
Man, I wish we still had a President who could speak like that.
The post entitled “Voting Against Yourself” started some interesting discussion on the topics of social security and the environment. Since these two conversations were diverging, I decided to literally pull them apart. I’m starting a new thread here on the subject of Social Security – kind of a defining issue to the liberal worldview (as so incredibly well articulated by FDR), and one that will be important over the next four years, as President Antoinette has promised to “reform” (read “all but dismantle”) the program. I want to encourage our contributors and readers to look at the current conversation, which I have moved to this thread, and comment themselves.
I’d also like to point everybody to Hank’s post “As Jesus Told Me” from Friday. Once again, Hank’s raised the bar for the rest of us by contributing a piece both thoughtful and provocative. Check it.

Tyrannical minority

2004-11-12T07:03:00.000-08:00
Start fixing your gaze on 2006. A few more lost seats in Congress and
Bill Frist will have an easier time removing our ability to Filibuster.

Believe me, we don't want this.
Certain appointments could make Gonzales look like a real 'compassionate conservative'.

The Bible tells me so

2004-11-12T07:00:00.000-08:00

Steve Munsey, the senior pastor at Family Christian Center, admonished his 5,000 or so faithful to base their vote on the Bible. As with most pastors, he stopped short of endorsing a candidate by name. After all, the line that separates Church and State must exist somewhere and it seems to lie on this side of tax exemption.
Who does the Bible say we should vote for?
I’ve looked up George Bush and John Kerry and I can say with authority that their names are not in there. Ditto for Republican and Democrat. Elephants are also absent, but the Bible is replete with donkeys. We’ve got Samson killing Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, prophecies from Balaam’s ass, and commandments about not coveting the ass of others. And it’s not just the Old Testament. The donkey was the preferred mode of transportation for Mary and Jesus, the former to Bethlehem and the latter to Jerusalem. I daresay there is not a more popular animal in the Bible then the donkey.
For those of you who are not comfortable with voting by mascot, may I suggest W.W.J.D?
No, I’m not talking about the trendy what would Jesus do? My question is Why Would Judas Disown Jesus?
For some the answer will be a quick SNL-like SATAN. I certainly will not deny the role of Satan in this world and the Bible states “… Satan entered into him.” However, to ascribe the motivations of Judas wholly to “the devil made me do it” is to reduce one of the most important events in human history to a two-dimensional cartoon drama.
I haven’t forgotten this is a political column. For some, count-the-donkeys may form a more natural nexus to voting than possession by the devil. Stick with me – I’ll try to make this short.
I think the most likely motivation for Judas was to force Jesus into a political revolt. Judas was a zealot and committed to the overthrow of Rome. He had just witnessed a huge crowd cheer Jesus into the city. THIS WAS THE MOMENT and Jesus was squandering it by picking fights with the Jewish authority. So (whispered the devil), why not back Jesus into a corner and force him to rally his supporters?
The plan backfired, terribly. Jesus was given the chance to end a brutal occupation and he caved. Why? His answer is found in his words to Pilate; his kingdom was not of this realm.
One could argue that when Jesus went before Pilate he was about the salvation of man and not about civic duty. Fair enough. However, the theme of the kingdom of God being outside the political realm is reiterated throughout the New Testament. Consider Jesus’ words on taxation or Paul’s view of slavery. Neither suggests using politics as a means of accomplishing moral or spiritual change.
And so, here is the crux of my argument and my insistence on keeping a strict division between Church and State: The New Testament asserts that moral change is the result of a change in heart and spirit in the believer. The key to moral behavior is motive and from proper motive comes moral behavior. The State is powerless to change motive; it can only punish improper behavior through the police power granted to it. The Old Testament is a record of the futile attempt to create a moral state through the power of the law. The New Testament is the promise of creating a moral person through faith. It is a promise that cannot be legislated.
For those of you who continue to see the exercise of political power as a means of instituting morality, let me leave you with one question: Is your church and God so small that it requires the police power of the US government to bring about spiritual and moral revival?
My answer is no … just ask my donkey.

Ashcroft's Replacement

2004-11-10T20:43:00.000-08:00
After perusing this, it seems Gonzales is a predictable and catastrophic choice.

Small ray of sunshine

2004-11-10T09:57:00.000-08:00
Thought I'd share this piece, originally from southerndemnut,
(one of the good folks over at MyDD)

"...While most of the rest of the south was almost a disaster, Democrats did well to improve their lot in North Carolina. Sure, Erskine Bowles did lose the US Senate race, which was a blow, though not entirely shocking. Federal races seem to favor Republicans, so much so that a Democrat has yet to win a US Senate race, in a Presidential year, since 1968. Of course Bush won the state, which was not unexpected though I had wish the margin was closer. With that said, otherwise the Democrats did well. Gov. Mike Easley won a landslide victory, 55%-44%, we won control of the NC House by at least a 3 seat margin, we added to our already healthy NC Senate lead by winning Patrick Ballantine's old seat that he vacated to run for Governor. Ironically, the person who won the election to succeed Ballantine is Julia Boseman, who will become the first openly gay member of the NC General Assembly. Locally increased their hold on County Commissions by 3 to 63-37. Jerome and I have traded emails over this and he seems to think that NC is becoming part of the trend of the Mid-Atlantic states that stretch from NJ to NC. NC has always been part of the south and has always been affected by southern issues. However NC has always prided itself in being different and progressive and I think that is reflected in the campaign dialogue and ultimately the election results.

However the biggest story coming out of NC is the possibility, however remote, that there may have to be a revote due to vote count irregularities in many places across the state. In a situation that rivals Florida in 2000, but without all of the media attention, problems range from simply double counting of absentee votes, to 4,500 votes in one county simply 'disappearing.' Supposidly a disc from one machine was erased before the votes were actually downloaded to the main computer. Several races, including Commissioner of Agriculture, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and several local races will be affected. The biggest problem is those 4,500 votes that were 'wiped' out in Carteret County. A judge could order that only those people affected could revote (their names are known), a revote in the county, or a revote across the whole state.

Democrats do well in NC because there is still strong party loyalty, something that was lost in most of the other southern states, as well as the party fielding attractive candidates that are adept at positioning themselves right at the heart of NC mainstream."

-A small bit of encouragement for our NC constituents.

Sorry Everybody

2004-11-10T09:15:00.000-08:00

Hello. I thought you all might be interested in this spectacular site. I discovered it yesterday. It is essentially a gallery of apology photos from Americans to the rest of the world for allowing Bush to have another four years in the White House. But people from other countries have been sending in their own pictures to accept the apologies. It's really touching. The site has been down at times because of heavy traffic, but it's worth checking out.

I am not sure about the whole apology idea. Yes, I feel bad. I want the rest of the world to like the U.S. But do I owe the world an apology? I volunteered, contributed money that I didn't really have, wrote handwritten letters, went to meetings, staffed a booth at the state fair, argued and debated until I was too exhausted to speak, and I voted in my little swing state to try to make it blue. (Amazingly enough, they're still counting the votes in backward New Mexico, but it looks like we'll be red this year.) So, yes, I am sad and sorry about the outcome of the election, but I can't allow myself to take personal responsibility for it. I am sure not all of the people on Sorry Everybody are taking personal responsibility either. In fact, some are holding up messages about getting back to work and preparing for 2008.

So how do we do that? How do we field good democratic candidates for the midterm elections? We had a hotly contested congressional race in New Mexico this year and I am confident the seat could have turned over to a democrat, but the candidate the party fielded was a complete moron. During the one televised debate of the campaign, he was like a deer in headlights. In fact, I was so disgusted with him that I wished I could have retrieved my absentee ballot and voted for his opponent, a Republican. If I could even consider voting Republican in this all-important election, then the Democrats really have problems. What will it take to get intelligent democrats who have charisma, speaking ability and guts to run for office? How do we change the political system so that it attracts good people?

Just some thoughts. I invite all of your opinions.

Unconstitutional Stickers?

2004-11-10T09:02:00.000-08:00
Who said the wingnuts are mindless? They're always thinking.
We need to pay attention to the details. No stone unturned.

Voting Against Yourself

2004-11-10T06:45:00.000-08:00
We've had a lot of activity in the past few days - a couple of new members and some really excellent posts from Chris and Karen. I encourage everybody to read them and weigh in. I also want to point everybody to the "Numbers" post. I think the appropriate word is "stupefying."

Since the issue has been raised recently, I think it's time to discuss the tone and content of the site. There was some initial outrage on my part following the election, and it found a voice here. It's subsided somewhat, as reflected in the blog's name change. To be clear, I count smart Republican voters among my close friends and family. For the most part, they are not rich, Christian conservative, or idiots. So why did they vote for Bush? As Karen has pointed out, and as the Numbers post staggeringly reflects, they were largely misinformed. The Bush campaign capitalized on his swagger and charm to perpetrate a deception on the American people. Many voted against their own beliefs and their own best interests. I call that "voting against yourself" and it's something we'll come back to a lot. Americans are poorer and less safe than they were four years ago. For the first time in history, the average working American makes less than his or her counterpart from 25 years ago. The middle class is shrinking and the lower class is expanding. Young parents who voted for social security reform with an eye on their own pockets also voted to ensure that their children will receive on average 45% less benefits. The environment is a rapidly worsening disaster. But we put this dick back in office?

Though Brian and I conceived of this site as a place to be constructive and to come up with solutions, we decided from the beginning that there is also room here for some anger. This is our corner. It is not a place for people who only think the American people made a mistake and feel we're headed down the wrong path. It is a place for people who know that neocon policies are wrong for this country and believe that progressive values are the answer. I count all of our contributors - people from around the nation and even the globe - among them.

Take Karen's advice. Don't let your liberal rage get in the way of clear thinking. Be open-minded and engaging to conservatives and liberals alike. Then come back here, discuss what you've learned, and arm yourself (and us) with knowledge and answers.

Testimony of a Reformed "Cracker"

2004-11-09T21:57:00.000-08:00
As many of you know I was born and raised in a red state, otherwise known as North Cakilaki. I come from the land of concealed handgun permits, bass fishers, snuff eaters, trot line stringers, flag wavers (sometimes in the form of an X), lintheads, bambi killers, church goers and god help us if we forget NASCAR. I have been directly or indirectly affiliated with all of the above activities at some point in my life. Therefore I feel adequately prepared to speak on the behalf of this one particular red state.

First off I must address one thing said by a previous poster. She stated that the electorate resembled the pre-civil war slave/nonslave state distribution in the 19th century. I take particular offense in the implied conotations from this statement as I don’t own any slaves myself nor has my family owned any in the past. I do however own two small Mexicans but they don’t count. And yes I am a registered democrat, but to compare pre-civil war mentalities with the cultural divide we find today is a mistake in judgment and a general lack of knowledge of the south. It also disenfranchises millions of democrats from these states who voted for the left last week.

At any rate, I don’t claim to know snazzy statistics nor am I particularly politically savvy so I vow not to google one time in this rant. However, I do believe that we democrats are over thinking the outcome of the election. To presume that these right winged southern Americans are idiots because they did not vote our way is wrong and divisive. Simply stated, southerners believe in gut instincts. All of us know about Dubyas gut instincts and if you don’t just ask the loved ones of those soldiers taking the big dirtnap. Southerners believe in striking first whether it is a fist fight or a war. They are terrified of change especially when it is a brown-skinned person doing the changing. All of which the Bush camp played like a fiddle. And as I recall the last time change was brought to the south we chose to sacrifice 200,000 men for an unjust cause. The north spent 350,000 to make that change and almost didn’t win. So whether you think the mentality of these red states is stupid or not, I can promise you it won’t be changed with brute force. It also won’t be changed with perfectly sound reason. I believe that Democratic candidates must learn to echo the personality of the south better, if they plan on winning in the future. Kerry sucked at this. He simply gave up on the south. His only attempt at bridging the divide was to get a wempy self professed “son of a mill worker” on the ticket. I am a “son of two mill workers” and I can tell you that this isn’t enough to change minds down here. In fact many southerners I spoke with had a similar reaction which was “so what, half of the sons born in this state in the last 100 years were “sons of mill workers”". Does this mean we need a candidate with more backbone, more nuts, more swagger, perhaps so. We need a candidate who can appeal to the “kick ass take names later mentality” so prevalent in racing country. And before you mention the religious right that came out to vote in big numbers last week, these types of agro southerners ARE the people going to church every Sunday with perfect attendance since they were 9. Now I aint saying we need a Dubya clone for the democratic party but I can promise you that if it is up to Obama, Hillary, or Edwards in the next election, this particular blogger could go mainstream. Where is corn fed Bill when you need him!!!

Thoughts on the election

2004-11-09T13:40:00.000-08:00
Okay, the election is over and half the nation is angry. Most elections generate mild to moderate disappointment but this one had so much nastiness floating around that disappointment doesn't fit. Anger is a normal reaction but it should be kept short term - long-term anger gets in the way. Raging at people doesn't change minds. It does get it off your chest and makes you feel better for a little bit. Just don't keep the anger alive.

I started to write something and then thought I'd better sit on it until I calmed down. Dan has seen some of my message so he'll just have to read it again.

The NeoCons have found that using fear and loathing works really, really well. I'm going to use the term NeoCon because most of them are nothing like the Republicans I've known during my life. NeoCons have an agenda that does not seem to include half of their countrymen. The NeoCons also have helped take political campaigning to new lows. Why do I say 'helped'? Because all sides have been digging furiously for the bottom of the ditch since the '80s -make that the 1960s.

I will not pretend that all Republicans or even NeoCons are Evil Incarnate. Neither will I pretend that all Democrats, Greens, Independents, and Libertarians are saints. They aren't. Some of them are nice people who actually agree with each other except for certain closely focused subjects. Some on all sides are loathsome slimy amphibians who delight in finding and flinging the nastiest mud they can find or conjure up.

In this last election the NeoCons did the job of spreading fear and loathing better than the Dems. Rumor mongering has always been part of American elections. Go look up some of the things said about George Washington. Or look at how lots of Northerners went after Lincoln. Comparing him to an ape was mild. So what was the difference this time?

Not being a political wonk I have only my own thoughts and observations to go on. Fear and loathing work when the voters do not or cannot get the truth to dispel the rumors. Okay, so here we are in the twenty-first century, thirty years into the computer revolution and roughly fifteen years into the internet. What do I mean about cannot or do not get the truth?

Two things pop to mind immediately. The first is that most people do not take the time to research anything in depth, instead depending upon a few trusted voices. Add to that reluctance to do any research is an appalling (at least to a history buff) lack of historical knowledge. As to the trusted sources, the NeoCons have found Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh most effective. Neither has shown themselves to be overly concerned with facts or ever encourage their listeners to look anything up for themselves.

For those of you who think that these people who don't do any independent research are a bunch of ignorant uneducated yahoos I offer one example from my own experiences. One man I used to work with kept saying things were in the Constitution that just were not there. When challenge to show where they were he admitted that he'd never read the Constitution. When asked why he hadn't he said he didn't trust any official government document or website because the 'liberals' probably had snuck in and reworded things. I finally found three or four sites he could believe including Rush Limbaugh's site. My co-worker was dumbstruck when he actually read it. It lacked a lot of things he believed had to be there. Here was a man with advanced degrees from large public colleges whose knowledge of civics was nearly nil. He could not name the three branches of government. Until straightened out by a former Marine and an Annapolis ring-knocker this guy thought that the US Military sworn their oathes to the President, not the US. This was a supposedly well educated non-Evengelical man in his late thirties. Re-reading this I have to admit he was an uneducated ignorant yahoo in many ways who happened to have a lot of schooling.

The press is another problem area. We have a so-called free press that is reluctant to down-right unwilling to do any research and print or say anything that offends the Bush camp. Stuff that should be easy to determine because it is in the public records is ignored in favor of rumor. Part of this is that all the news, print or electronic, is trying to entertain and sell goods. Research takes time, costs money for researchers, and is assumed to be too boring to bother with. Complex subjects end up reduced to short one-liners that may have some truth to them but... Most of the time we do not demand better news. For an interesting twist on your world view try catching the BBC news. A number of PBS stations carry it.

This is getting way too long so I'll just add a short bit and call it quits.

As for the Christian Right - here again fear and loathing are used to twist many well meaning people's ideas. The use of fear cuts directly against the Christian message of love - especially Christ's commandment to 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself' and repeated Old and New Testament warnings not to judge others.

Karen

Is Carville a real place?

2004-11-09T08:22:00.000-08:00
I've been reading and hearing a lot today about the failure of the Democrats to have a strong message. Jimmy The Pitbull gives his thoughts to the Washington Times.

I love the Times. They once opined that if George Washington were alive today he'd be a Moonie. And Jefferson, Lincoln, and Kennedy. Seriously. The paper is owned by Reverend Moon.

DC's non-crazy paper, the Post, has an interesting article on the increased turnout among youth voters. You read that right. Check it out here. (You may need to register).

I'll note that the link to this story off of WashingtonPost.com read "Don't Blame the Election on X'ers." As an "X'er" myself, I clicked thinking the article would be about politically active people around my age and older. Not so. They're talking about 18-29 year olds. What the hell? The last time an 18-year old was in Generation X was 1994! I know. It was me.

Check these numbers!

2004-11-08T10:23:00.000-08:00
Click here to read an excellent op-ed piece by Bob Herbert of the New York Times.

Thanks to Jodi for the heads up.

Alex and I took a look at the report Herbert cites in his piece. It's titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters." It is from the Program on International Policy Issues at that bastion of mid-Atlantic intellectualism, the University of Maryland. You can find it here. Though I encourage us all to avoid excessive quoting, the report is 17 pages long, so I've gone ahead and cut out a few choice nuggets.

75% of Americans polled (on both sides) believe that if Iraq did not have WMDs or support al Qaeda, the United States should not have invaded. So far so good.

57% of all Bush supporters believe that the Duelfer report confirmed the existence of WMDs or a major program to build them. Huh? 75% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was either directly involved in 9/11 or gave al Qaeda substantial support. WHAT?

82% of all Americans believe that the administration is currently saying that just before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a major program. 75% believe the administration is currently saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or in supporting Al Qaeda. Right on.

26% of Bush supporters believe the world in general strongly supported our invasion of Iraq. Hmm. Yeah, well if by "world" you mean Nebraska.

Here's a quote I pulled directly (page 13):

"Bush supporters have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assumed that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues - the International Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%); 51% incorrectly assumed that he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty... Only 13% of supporters are aware that he opposes labor and environmental standards in trade agreements - 74% believe that he favors labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.

In all these cases, there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions and they infer that Bush favors them as well."

Maybe the most interesting part of this report is their analysis, with begins on page 15. I encourage you to check it out.

Finally, consider this - 13% of Bush supporters believe that the 9/11 commission concluded that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. If just those people hadn't voted, we'd probably have a different President-elect.

Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

Wasn't Rocky from a blue state?

2004-11-07T08:22:00.000-08:00
I've renamed the blog.

Of course, the main story today is the continuing disaster and tragedy in Iraq. Here are a couple of links from CNN.com and the Post.

Another interesting development, referred to by a poster below, is the continuing debate over the importance of moral values (read "gay marriage") to the election. It's rumored that Karl Rove made a deal with several state legislatures to put gay marriage amendments on their ballots, thereby energizing the right-wing electorate and ensuring high-turnout among President Antoinette's base. Here are analyses from Slate.com, abcnews.com, and the NY Times online. Not all agree.

Finally, I'd like to point to one more story that I find particularly interesting - a move to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution in a Wisconsin (blue state!) school district. Click on the poll numbers. Shouldn't this issue be resolved by now? The Scopes trial took place in 1925. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled (Epperson vs. Arkansas) that teaching creationism in schools was a violation of the establishment clause. Nonetheless, our moral values voters trudge determinedly onward, and with some success. This is partly our fault. An idea that we consider almost intuitive is one we're not always adequately prepared to defend. If you've ever tried to have the evolution argument, you'll find that creationists can be surprisingly well armed. The lesson is to continue to read, engage, and familiarize, as they do.

Credit now given, I have one more thing to say about it. I once argued evolution with a woman who insisted that dinosaurs in the fossil record were evidence that our pre-flood ancestors were experts at mating fish together.

Special Relationship

2004-11-06T10:50:00.000-08:00
I suspect most of you have seen this, but take a look just in case. You'll need a PDF reader.

Abacus, anyone?

2004-11-05T17:49:00.000-08:00
It appears Chimpy's newfound 'mandate' allows him to be exceptionally creative and propose financial policies that are
mathematically impossible.

A Blue Stater Checks In

2004-11-05T13:11:00.000-08:00
True, not all in the heartland are Bush enthusiasts. But the leadership of our country is institutionalized now to be reactive. People are taught that their morality requires adherence to current leadership and are afraid to question this. When we place total control of our political minds/reality upon vested interests, we are no longer a democracy. WE ARE A THEOCRACY. I talked with people in rural/suburban Pennsylvania about who they were voting for and many people wouldn’t tell us nor discuss who they were voting for because, I believe, they were scared to question their decision which would then require them to question their underlying understanding of the world. I felt badly for those people because they were being cruelly abused by church and civic leadership because cognitive dissonance was occurring as they realized that something is wrong, while their leaders were saying the opposite. Politics has become a religious question and that is why the division in our country has become so great. We have formally entered Elizabethan England. Finally, and not intending to upset Hank who is brave and thoughtful, but I just saw a map that compared blue/red states with pre-civil war slave/non slave states, and they were pretty identical. The cultural/religious differences are exactly where they were over 100 years ago and I cannot assume this clash is anywhere near being resolved.

Salvation comes to the Democrats

2004-11-05T08:01:00.000-08:00

If you are reading this blog, there’s a pretty good chance you have not spent a lot of time in an Evangelical church meeting. Let’s face it. Most evangelicals are fairly reluctant to Google the words “liberal” and “pissed”.
I, on the other hand, am living in and even embrace the evangelical world. True, I would rather describe myself as a disconcerted, oft misunderstood, and greatly alarmed liberal; but this moniker makes a pretty poor URL.
So for the doubters out there …
Yes, Virginia (and Georgia, and Alabama and the rest of the South), there are liberal Democrats among the evangelical community. More importantly, you better start believing in us if the Democrats hope to win any of the solid South in the future.
As a liberal Democrat, I found political conversations within the Evangelical community akin to church committee meetings. Whether the issue is supporting missionaries to Nigeria or what color to paint the foyer, inevitably someone will say something like, “I feel we are being led to …” (insert country or color). The implication is that God’s spirit has given this particular committee member insight into the current debate. Few people have the audacity to use the words, “Thus sayeth the Lord,” but the upshot is the same. The conversation comes to a screeching halt. How can you argue with someone who has just heard from God?
I point this out not to denigrate the evangelical community. On the contrary, I believe that we can avail ourselves to a personal relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. (I told you I was an evangelical). However, I do believe the Evangelical movement places far too much emphasis on individual revelation and far too little on community reason. Debate and intellect are all seen as inferior to prayer and spirituality.
… which brings me back to my political conversations with those in my church community. There was little or no room for debate. Bush was seen as the moral choice as if he were ordained like Moses. Kerry, on the other hand, was seen as holding up the golden calf ready to lead us into the pit. No wonder the choice seemed to clear to a large number of evangelicals. These were the images. These were the revelations.
But, fear not. Democratic ideals of economic and social justice, the separation of Church and state, preservation of the environment, and the promotion of peace over war are totally concordant with an evangelical worldview. I came to embrace the Democratic Party as a result of my faith. Now it’s time for the Democrats to embrace politically liberal evangelicals. Secularists, humanitarians, rationalists, and evangelicals can coexist and work for the same (dare I say) moral values. They must do so if they are to avoid marginalization.
By the way, the foyer should be a light blue.

About the Blog

2004-11-04T10:27:00.000-08:00
If you’re a liberal it’s alright to be angry. You should be.

The nation is becoming more conservative and it's partly our fault. This blog is conceived as a resource for liberals who want change and are looking for ways to achieve it. It is a place to arm ourselves with history, knowledge, and opinion. It’s a place to consider and discuss our country’s politics and real ways we can try to affect them. It is not a place for contributors who think we’re headed in the wrong direction and feel Bush wasn’t the best choice. It is a place for people who know that his policies are destroying our nation and its democracy and believe that progressive values are the solution. I’m disgusted by the perception of liberals as mealy-mouthed Republican huggers aching for compromise.

People of all political stripes are welcome to visit and encouraged to participate. They will be treated with courtesy and respect. We have a few guidelines. Outrage is fine and profanity is a natural way to express it. That said, if you choose to express only anger and argue without substance, your comment won’t stay up. Keep it smart and based in fact. We value original thought and opinion, so excessive quoting is discouraged. If you want to point out somebody else’s thinking, do it as a link and end it there. We can read for ourselves. Of course, sometimes it’s necessary to pull out a relevant paragraph or so. Quotes can be about this long:

“I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, ‘Well you haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid’ then I can’t even be bothered to argue.

…All opinions are not equal.”

D.N. Adams

Unlike Mr. Adams, I do like to argue with the beaver cheese people. At last count they were about 51% of the nation’s electorate. If we can engage and convince just a fraction it’ll be enough next time. Let's use this a place to learn how.

A New Kind of Conservative (updated)

2004-11-04T10:20:00.000-08:00
My friend Bill and I came up with this idea yesterday that if you're a liberal the way to get yourself into Congress is to run as a Republican. That way, even if you lose, you win. If you do win, you can show up to Congress and flip. "Remember all that stuff I said about banning gay marriage? Yeah. I changed my mind on that. Now I'm voting to make it friggin' MANDATORY. Everybody's gotta marry a dude, like it or not. Except me." (Or you know, opposite for women).

Alright, I was just at lunch with Brian and I had another idea. Now that the "L-word" has become anathema to retarded America, I think we should come up with a tricked-out new play on the Conservative label for ourselves. Like neo-con but hotter. Ninja Con or something. I don't know, I'm still working on it. That's what I'm going to be from now on. That's the kind of conservative that believes in conserving American soldiers. We should've conserved the hell out of them. Also I'd like to have conserved over 10,000 Iraqi civilians. And 200 billion American dollars spent fucking up Iraq. I'd additionally like to conserve the shrinking middle class and the reasonable share of the federal tax burden that it used to have. A healthy environment would be another nice thing to conserve.

Here's what we have new today. We got an email sent out to MDs here at UNC announcing the intention of Ayatollah Bush to appoint Dr. W. David Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now," to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Sound good? Here's the link from Time Magazine online:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html

Our email suggested that this guy was going to be a new addition, but in fact, this isn't new at all! He has been serving on the committee for a year now and was recently appointed to a second year. Thanks to a poster for pointing out the error. Said poster, who works upstairs from me, would also like to particularly alert people to the fact that two sources familiar with Dr. Hager's practice have said that he refuses to prescribe birth-control medication to his unmarried patients. Welcome to Bushmerica. I'd like to point out that this story, just on the face of it, was so ludicrous that it ended up on a few urban legends web sites. Sadly, they had to acknowledge its veracity.

As long as I'm fixing that, here's a link to a story from today's Washington Post. An Ohio couple in desperate financial trouble considers the Bush win a victory for people like themselves. Evidently they mean evangelical Christians, not the working poor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26469-2004Nov4.html

I'd also like to note that the Canadian immigration service website had more than six times its previous record of hits yesterday.

Out of the Wilderness: my personal rant

2004-11-04T09:01:00.000-08:00
This is a dark time. Last night, I turned on the TV news and heard about Democrats being lost, about Democrats being in the wilderness. This is a gut check time. This is a time for us to think about where the country is going and where we as Liberals want it to go. It's time for us to learn to talk to the other half of the country that obviously is looking for something, searching for answers. The right wing has figured out a way to appease that need for answers, but we know and believe that the way to a true democracy, is to have inclusive government, not exclusive. We must keep fighting to include the lower class, and the middle class, to include the poor, the young, the old, the religous and the secular into our democracy.
We as democrats need to learn to talk again. We have lost our way by being reactive to what the right wing says about us. We need to learn to speak about oursleves, about our truths and our morals, like helping the less fortunate, on ensuring regulated capitalism that works for ALL of society, on preserving a land, an environment and it's people for our future generations. We need to learn to talk again about these truths, about our beliefs and morals. We have lost our way. There is a whole country out there, waiting for us to come out of the wilderness and give them something to believe in again. We are in the wilderness and it is time for us to look around, to see ourselves as we are now and as we appear to the rest of the country.
I say that being in the wilderness is a good place for us to be right now. We must return to the wilderness of our beliefs and find our identity there, once again. We must embrace the spirituality that we will find there, because we will most surely find what we are looking for and what we need. This is a time to reflect on who we are and to stand confidently by those beliefs. We all share a passion for democracy, let's all now reflect on and share our beliefs and morals with the rest of the country. We may have to start small, to start local, but we must not give up or lose our way again. I'd like to share these thoughts from Howard Dean that I found on Democracy for America:

"Tens of millions of us are disappointed today because we put so much of ourselves into this election. We donated money, we talked to friends, we knocked on doors. We invested ourselves in the political process.

That process does not end today. These are not short-term investments. We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

We will not be silent. "

It is time for us to be loud again. It is time for us to explore the wildnerness and not be afraid of what we find there. I think so many of us are tired of being afraid. Let us come together and transform our communities, one person at a time if necessary. I don't know the way on my own, but I believe that together we can all find it back to an America that we believe in. We are in the wilderness, but we don't need to transform the wilderness, we need to transform how the rest of America sees the wilderness. The first step is to open our eyes to the truth of today's society. People are searching for something to believe in. Let's show them what our wilderness is all about.

see you there,
Brian

Bush Voter Quiz

2004-11-04T08:56:00.000-08:00
Our first quiz! Find out if George II was the right choice for you!

a) Are you rich?
b) Are you a religious fundamentalist?
c) Are you an idiot?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then yes, your vote should have gone to the incumbent president. If you answered yes to "b" but no to "c" then I think you have some self-evaluating to do.

Nov. 2, 2004 Shit Day

2004-11-04T08:37:00.000-08:00
It is the day after John Kerry conceded to George W. Bush.

I'm outraged over the election, of course, but also feeling some despair. This was supposed to be the most important election of a generation and we lost. Not only that, Ayatollah Bush returns to the White House with even stronger control over Congress and a perceived mandate. Without question, his first term was a huge failure, but even that was not enough to prevent him from being reelected and now continuing, even expanding, his policies. I heard last night that one stated goal is to lighten federal regulation of the environment. Unbelievable.

It's selfish, but what bothers me the most, I think, is the feeling of being marginalized. The widely-held opinion that John Kerry is too liberal, whereas the ultra-conservative George Bush is acceptable, represents a growing trend in this country to view progressive ideals as harmful. There's no longer a voice for people like us in this country. Liberalism has turned into "The L-word" and just the term "liberal" is used as an attack label during a Presidential debate. When you see a car with an American flag on it, you can almost guarantee that the driver is Republican. That association (along with many others) is a sign that being liberal is considered unpatriotic. Faced with that sentiment and a feeling of being shoved out of the process, I am not only personally dissatisfied but greatly concerned for the future of public discourse and decision making in this country. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I see it as an erosion of Democracy itself.

So people, myself included, are looking for answers. As I sit here, two coworkers are discussing the advantages of New Zealand over Vancouver. I certainly sympathize with the idea of relocating. Drunk and surly, I promised the guys I watched the election results with that I was moving to Europe and not coming back.

That said, I've been inspired by discussions with friends and coworkers to think about alternatives. What we have now is a fight. Moving out, maybe, is copping out. (I'm still thinking about it though). What I needed to do was find a way to communicate. Yes, there are plenty of blogs already out there. This one is conceived as a forum for liberals who are proud and angry. I want people to post here with that in mind. Talk to conservatives. Engage them. Then come here, tell us what assholes they are, and help us understand them and how we can change their perception.

Also. If you voted for Bush, FUCK YOU.