Why do you hate America?

Why we can't wait for health care reform

2010-03-17T11:54:00.002-05:00

Sen. Lamar Alexander and many in the GOP continue to call for health care reform to be scrapped and that we "start over" with a "clean sheet" proposal.

But this news today illustrates why starting over now, in a process that is undefined by Alexander and his colleagues, and that could take an undetermined amount of time (but surely wouldn't start till after the mid-terms, and could quite clearly take years to accomplish anything after this bloody fight):

The number of uninsured adults and children in California swelled by 25 percent between 2007 and 2009, according to a new report by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles. One quarter of the state’s population is now uninsured, according to the analysis, and less than half of those with insurance receive it through employers. (NYT Health blog, today).

That jump in uninsureds shows how, in just two years, in the nation's most populous state, the crisis in insurance is unfolding in real time - not some future, possible scenario. People with individual plans (similar to my plan here in MN) are facing huge rate increases - up to 39% in a single year in CA. I'm facing a double bump this year that will add over 15% to my premium (a bump for annual cost inflation, plus an age bump as I join the 45 to 49 year olds).

Amid all the false rhetoric about a government takeover (the Obama plan is entirely predicated on private health insurance - how is that a take-over??) we see real risks to access to insurance - for millions of Californians. And to at least one Minnesotan. My income is not rising 15% this year to match the surge in what I pay personally for insurance (unless I make a serious job change in the midst of a major recession!).

As someone who is immersed in public policy work in my profession, who meets with both state and federal legislators or their staffers throughout the year on various issues, I assure you that I have a keen interest in democracy and citizen engagement. If I thought that the reform making its way through Congress was anti-democratic, was in any way fundamentally taking away anyone's rights, or was dangerous to the American way of life, I would oppose this legislation.

If health care reform was truly the undoing of democracy that some elements of the chattering classes claim, then I as a good government advocate and a person 'in the know' would be duty bound to share the alarm.

But I am calm and secure that this is not the case. It may be a departure from how Republicans would do policy, how they'd envision solving this serious problem facing our country, but it is not the bogeyman being trotted out full bore by the GOP. If the GOP had articulated a vision for health care reform, perhaps they'd be in power now and setting policy. But they did not, they lost the last election, and in a representative democracy, the winners get the chance to set policy. If voters hate it, then November 2010 will be the chance to say so.

--

One final note on the politics of the matter, and the risks: Given the above startling news out of California, there is a real risk to the GOP (and, by extension, the nation) that if this problem is not confronted head on, now, that things will get so bad that the public will be forced to demand a revolution in health care that will be far more sweeping, dramatic, and actually socialist in 15, 10 or even 5 years, than the moderate reforms being promulgated now.

Something to think about. Bitter medicine now may save us from seriously misguided policy change later if the tsunami of uninsureds and drastic price increases is not addressed speedily.

Supporting Rep. Obey's War Surtax

2009-12-02T12:32:00.002-06:00

I just fired off this note to Rep. Ellison and Sen.s Klobuchar and Franken:

A quick note to let you know that I fully support Rep. David Obey's call for a war surtax.

In this period of unprecedented deficits, I believe the time is high - past, really - to ask us as Americans to feel a bit of pocketbook pain to support our troops.

Yes, there's a recession, but a small surtax on income, graduated so that all who have a net adjusted gross income on their tax return pay at least a few visible dollars, and those with more means pay more, is a a must-do so that the cost of our wars can no longer be hidden and charged off to our kids and grandkids.

I urge you to work with Re. Obey and with leadership to move real discussion of the war's costs and how we will pay for it.

For more on Obey's war surtax, visit
http://www.obey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=849&Itemid=1

David Brooks "No, It's Not About Race"

2009-09-17T23:56:00.003-05:00

First, read David Brooks new column in the NY Times.

I wrote him this e-mail, since the column is not accepting comments like it usually does:

Dear David,

Today you say "Money should not be redistributed to those who do not work, and it should not be sucked off by condescending, manipulative elites."

I agree - but I am thinking right now of the 25th ranked hedge fund manager, the one that MPR today said earned $1.4 billion dollars last year. I have no idea if he's condescending, but he is clearly an elite. And I am hard-pressed to think that he works in anything like what producer-class people think is work.

I got my degree in finance over 20 years ago, and had thought I might go into international currency arbitrage. I'm glad I didn't, but I mention that before saying that as far as I can tell, hedge funds are a huge cancer on this nation, far worse than any public-option health plan that might be promulgated, any auto industry bailout, etc.

We all bailed out the financial services industry to a massive tune - and Bush whistled that tune well before Obama took office. I just don't buy this idea that it's the Hollywooders or the Harvard liberals that people are mad at. They're mad about the financial sector bailouts, but through slight of hand their anger has been masterfully redirected towards liberals.

Oh, and not allowing comments on today's column belies the idea that "it's not about race." Rush Limbaugh out there calling for the re-segregation of buses to protect white people is thoroughly egregious. Race matters, as uncomfortable as it makes you, no matter how sweet the scene was on the Mall last weekend that you witnessed (though I do surely believe that individual grace is quite possible).

Kind regards,
[Snowman]

Bye bye Verizon

2009-09-04T09:42:00.002-05:00

I've been thinking about getting rid of my Verizon phone account for a while. I have a Credo (a.k.a. Working Assets) phone for work, and in these tough times they've OK'd sharing that phone with me for personal use.

But now I'm really ready.

Verizon is one of the sponsors of "Friends of America" which is being billed as a pro-jobs event, but it is also an anti-environmental rally. It's being held on top of a mountain that has been "removed" as it is so quaintly put these days. And the top sponsor is Massey Energy - a leading company in the permanent scarring of America via mountaintop removal coal mining.

It's probably just a bit of vanity on my part since this will likely go to an unread account (or, at best, some intern or low level staffer), but I tracked down what is purported to be the e-mail account of Verizon's C.E.O. - ivan.g.seidenberg@verizon.com - and sent him a note:

Subject: Losing a customer over Friends of America

Date: Sep 4, 2009 9:24 AM

Dear Mr. Seidenberg,

I'm writing a short note to let you know that your Customer Service dept. can expect my notice of cancellation of my account within the next 5 days.

Why? Because your company has decided to be on the wrong side of history when it comes to corporate responsibility and global climate change.

I just wanted you to know that there are direct revenue consequences for your firm's political activism.

Regards,
[Snowman]

Minneapolis, MN
612-805-xxxx
(the number to shortly be disconnected, after 3 years as a Verizon customer)

Read about Friends of America here (npr affiliate) and here. Oh, and if you were wondering how bad could it be - one of the featured speakers will be Sean Hannity.

Peace.

My first letter to Senator Al - on a crucial, urgent matter

2009-07-10T00:01:00.002-05:00

Subject: Airline Passengers Bill of Rights

Date: Jul 10, 2009

Dear Senator Franken,

Congratulations! And, did your luggage arrive on time with you the other day? I'm guessing you might have flown in first class, so you probably didn't have to pay a $15 checked bag fee.

But recently, on a Delta Airlines flight, I did have to pay that fee. And when I arrived home in Minneapolis, my bag had not made it (on the non-stop flight that I checked in for 75 minutes before departure). I asked the people in the lost luggage department for my $15 back, and they said, literally "I doesn't work like that." Not “I'm sorry.” Not “Wow, I wish we could, but...” Not even “Hey that's funny!”

I've filed a complaint with the DOT, and Delta wrote back to say "you were correctly charged this fee."

So it’s clear, they charge for a service, even if they don't deliver on it. If you and Frannie went to a restaurant with friends, and they all ate dinner 30 minutes after sitting down, and your food came an hour or two later, would you pay for it? If you booked a hotel room ahead of time, but the hotel wouldn't let you have the room 'till the next morning, would you expect your credit card to show a charge for the missed night? Of course you wouldn't in either case.

So why do airlines get to keep our money for a bag that arrives a day later that I do?

Please, Senator Franken, after you've been in your job a few months, can you look into this? I realize that healthcare, cap-n-trade, and a couple of wars need attention. But once you've had a chance to settle in - and fly commercial back and forth to Minneapolis a few dozen times - I hope you'll champion the much needed Airline Passengers Bill of Rights. And that it will include the right to a refund for baggage fees paid for mishandled luggage.

Thank you, and may God bless us all (and, yes, I mean ALL the inhabitants of our lovely planet).

Snowman

Obama DOMA case disaster

2009-06-12T14:17:00.001-05:00

First, read John Aravosis at Americablog to get the two-part scoop.

My response:

Dear President Obama,

You need to get out in front of a rapidly emerging shift in support from the LGBT community.

Several influential bloggers are writing about the filing yesterday by DoJ on DOMA in the Southern California Federal circuit.

Piled on top of the DADT case earlier this week, many gay and lesbian Americans are seriously thinking we are being thrown under the bus.

And we have no idea why this is happening.

Who is responsible for coordinating your LGBT policy? Why are they not working the media to help us understand these court cases and how they fit in to the larger goals you clearly articulated on the campaign trail?

Defending the DOMA and DADT filings as the job of an administration that must support the laws Congress passes will not satisfy a rapidly souring LGBT community.

We may be a small minority, but we will not be silent as we feel the promises made to us evaporate.

You MUST speak directly to us and to our fears. A fluffy Pride proclamation (hastily defended when it turned out to not even really be truthful about 'first appointments' ) will not placate us.

I supported you for President, and have high hopes for the middle east and for health care. But I and many of my peers will not be tossed aside in service to other agendas.

You of all people should understand a both-and strategy. You can achieve broad domestic and international goals AND support vocally and publicly the rights of LGBT Americans.

You may be feeling attacked by us, wondering why we are so mistrustful and perhaps over-urgent.

History is painful for us. Democrats for a generation have sought our votes and our campaign cash, only to ignore us in office (or preside over DADT and DOMA disasters). You are freighted with that history, whether you deserve it or not.

It is time to act. LGBT commitment to your agenda is evaporating as I type. Get to it, sir.

Snowman.

Human Rights Campaign issued a statement (a relative rarity for them to criticize Obama...)

Conservatives and southerners now support lifting DADT

2009-06-06T09:16:00.001-05:00

Dear President Obama,

Please read and respond publicly to the following. Blogger Andrew Sullivan asks how you can still foot-drag on DADT when substantive national polling shows support at 70 percent in favor of lifting the ban. 70%!!

Please let us know at your earliest convenience what steps and timeline will be implemented to fulfil the will of the people!

05 Jun 2009 04:08 pm
Conservatives For Ending The Gay Ban

The new Gallup poll shows even more progress on persuading the American public to allow qualified and honest gay servicemembers to be in the military. The biggest shift in the last few years has been an upswing in support from conservatives and weekly church-goers:

While liberals and Democrats remain the most supportive, the biggest increase in support has been among conservatives and weekly churchgoers -- up 12 and 11 percentage points, respectively.

58 percent of self-described conservatives now favor ending the ban. The overall polling currently shows an overwhelming 69 percent favoring ending DADT. The South lags at 57 percent - but that's up from 50 percent four years ago. How the Obama administration justifies not fulfilling a clear campaign pledge backed by 70 percent of Americans and implemented by all our major allies ... well, it's beyond me. I guess we need patience. And McHugh.

Obama's LGBT score card. Appears empty so far.

2009-05-28T14:27:00.002-05:00

From Joe.My.God. blog.

$30,000.00 Change I Can't Believe In

2009-05-28T13:39:00.005-05:00

So, President Obama. You visit California to dine at a $30,000/couple dinner a day after the CA Supreme Court makes a very important ruling about gay and lesbian Americans -- and you crack wise about a heckler? You don't say anything to loyal Democrats in attendance about safeguarding the rights of a minority a day after this stinging blow?

This is not change I can believe in.

I donated to your campaign, I attended rallies and talked you up and encouraged others to vote for you.

But you are taking a "wait and see" approach to our rights.

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was damn well right when he said “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. For years now I have heard the word ''Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never’.”

You sir, by your temporizing, by the stammering non-answers from your press secretary, have become part of the machine of oppression.

States like Maine and Vermont are moving on without you.

So my policy question is: when will your White House adopt the policies you took a public stand on while you campaigned? You made promises.

President LBJ told MLK "go out and make me do it." Our movement is going to do just that. And it may well embarrass the heck out of you in the process.

Or you can actually start to lead, now, and fulfill a dream denied for countless Americans.

Pawlenty has all but announced his 2012 intentions

2009-05-19T11:34:00.006-05:00

Tim Pawlenty seized the reins of government yesterday, in a page right out of Cheney's Unitary government play-book. He refused to consider a special session. He refused to accept even modest tax increases as one small (about 14% of the gap) component of a broader mix of cuts, shifts and federal stimulus funds.

Pawlenty will line-item veto and unallot his way to a balanced budget. Along the way, $381 million will be slashed from health care, just for one example.

And why? Because Pawlenty has ambitions. He sucked up to McCain and did the TV talking heads shows for a year to start building a national name for himself. And yesterday's move will win him big dollars and lots of friends at the Club for Growth.

Pawlenty has effectively thrown his hat in the ring for 2012, on the backs of the poor, the sick, and the elderly, and by playing ultra-hardball and screwing the DFL. The DFL “didn’t get their work done” (per Pawlenty spokesperson Brian McClung) because Pawlenty has been the most stubborn, obstructionist, bad-faith negotiating Governor in recent history.

But, as Colin Powell would say “you broke it, you bought it.” As the CEO of Minnesota he has to implement the lousy budget he, as self-appointed legislator-in-chief, will be creating through line item vetoes and unallotments. As ERs stack up with critical patients being neglected, as nursing homes turn away clients or shut down, as the U raises tuition by double digits, and property taxes surge once again, Pawlenty will be the man carrying that moral burden. All alone.

Of course, he'll be in Iowa and New Hampshire, and on the SUnday chat-shows, running for President - so he won’t care. But unless he resigns, this is his problem till the end of 2010 - I await the train-wreck.

(Photo from daylife.com)

My Representatives view on Pawlenty's massive budget slash

2009-05-17T11:31:00.006-05:00

I join Rep. Jim Davnie in deploring this ham-fisted attack on the poor, as well as the grossly unaccountable and un-transparent way of doing the people's work:

Neighbors,

We are at the point in the session where the largest omnibus bills that have the biggest impact on the state budget have passed the House and Senate and have reached the Governor’s desk.

Thursday, Governor Pawlenty announced that he will unilaterally cut the state budget. Rather than continue to engage in any negotiation with the legislature to responsibly deal with the state’s unprecedented $6.4 billion budget shortfall, the Governor will use broad executive authority to line-item veto and unallot $3 billion from the state budget, putting him in the position of single-handedly making budget decisions for the entire state. No Governor in state history has unallotted even 10% of that amount.

Early in this session the legislature decided transparent decision-making and public accountability must be core values to guide our work. We decided agreements made by all three parties - the House, Senate, and Governor - should be discussed in public and inclusive of a broad representative group of members before being brought to a vote. The Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy has been the forum for those discussions.

Unfortunately the Governor has never attended any of the public meetings that he has been invited too. He has sent his Commissioners to speak for him, which is appropriate but not the same as actually engaging in public discussion about his vision for the state and closing the budget deficit.

Hours after his announcement, the Governor line item vetoed $381 million in funding for General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) for fiscal year 201, starting August 1, 2010. GAMC provides health care coverage for single low income adults. To qualify, an individual must have an income below 75% of the federal poverty guidelines. This is money used to treat veterans, senior citizens, and the poorest people in the state. Many of these people are homeless and may be chemically dependent or chronically mentally ill. Some are able to establish themselves productively as a result of getting the health care they need from this program.

The impact of this cut will be devastating to the individuals who will be losing their heath care but will also be crushing to hospitals like HCMC, which stands to lost $108 million, not including federal matching funds. As a safety net hospital, HCMC gets many uninsured and underinsured patients, particularly through its emergency room. Legally and ethically they cannot turn them away. These cuts will devastate over 30,000 Minnesotans and the hospitals that care for them.

By midnight tonight the Governor must act on the remaining omnibus bills - K-12 and early childhood education, higher education, transportation, agriculture and veterans affairs - signing them, vetoing them, or signing potions of them while line-item vetoing specific spending programs.

This is the most serious budget crisis in Minnesota’s history, and the next 48 hours will shape our future for a generation. It would be far preferable for Governor Pawlenty to work with the Legislature to find a negotiated settlement that is balanced, responsible, and fair. I encourage you to contact the Governor (651-296-3391) to provide him with your input on his plan to balance the budget behind closed doors.

Regards,

Jim [Davnie]

Equality news from America's hinterlands

2009-05-12T13:48:00.007-05:00

Duluth, MN, the delightful Lake Superior city that is part rust-belt and part liberal woodsy/tourist destination has taken another step towards equality for its residents.

Effective in June, 2009, by city ordinance Duluthians will be able to register their domestic partnerships. It's a small step, and fairly symbolic - though it will help some folks prove their status for partner benefits in situations such as employment, medical directives and such.

Another little crack in the anti-marriage wall.

Peace.

(ps: no sarcasm about Duluth being delightful. It is one of my very favorite small-midsize towns in America!)

Free Speech

2009-05-12T13:46:00.000-05:00

It's just worth saying:

The constitution guarantees your right to free speech. It does not guarantee you the right to an audience. It does not guarantee you the right to make money from your free speech. It does not guarantee that your free speech won't be heard and held against you in a court of public opinion.

DADT must end!

2009-05-07T23:32:00.001-05:00

Open letter to President Obama:

I see that Arab linguist Dan Choi is about to be kicked out of the military at a time when Arab linguists remain in short supply in our armed forces.

It is time to end Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Not just for our national security - though loosing an experienced, fluent linguist and West Point graduate seems to put our national security priority in questions - but also because it is the right and just thing to do.

Make good on another of your campaign promises, Mr. President.

Reinstate Lt. Choi, and suspend DADT until Congress has the guts do do right by our nation and the men and women who want to serve (and continue to serve) our nation with pride and honor.

Sincerely,
Snowman

Maine joins the emerging consensus

2009-05-06T17:00:00.004-05:00

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage." - Gov. John Baldacci on Wednesday (from a prepared statement), when signing the gay marriage bill passed by both houses of Maine's Legislature.

On days like this, and when Vermont passed their marriage equality law, I feel hopeful for our nation.

All I have to do is read a bit more about torture, and the hope gets dimmer, but there is reason to believe that our better selves are emerging from 8 (or 30) years of darkness.

Peace.

Elizabeth in Peterborough kicks Ross Douthat's butt

2009-05-05T22:10:00.004-05:00

The first commenter on today's column by newly hired conservative writer Ross Douthat at the NYT. She nailed him. Quoted here in full:

Looking to fill the hole in the center of the Republican Party with something that doesn’t sound like Rush Limbaugh or Arlen Specter seems more like a job for a casting director than for serious political thinkers. This column, like so much current political commentary, is not about ideas, but about gamesmanship, with some name-calling (consummately unprincipled and intellectually vacuous) thrown in. Isn’t it time for these playground wars to stop? This is no longer about winning and losing, with no thought to what’s at stake. We’re at a tipping point in this country, and it’s time to quit using buzz words like “Northeastern and “liberal,” and to start acknowledging real problems and offering solutions.

What can Republicans do? Maybe they can start reading the comments posted on this page day after day. It is becoming increasingly clear that more and more people who once feared the redistribution of wealth because they wanted to hang on to what little they had, have finally begun to realize that it is their wealth that has been redistributed upward by a myriad of policy changes. Story after story chronicles a trajectory of downward mobility for many, some well-educated, some not, squeezed by rising health care costs and rents or property taxes, taking on what becomes crippling, unrepayable debt as interest rates rise from 5.9% to 28% and more. There are complaints from recent college grads having to take low-paying telemarketing jobs and anger from those who will no longer quietly accept CEO’s earning 400 times what some of their employees make, or shareholders demanding a bigger piece of the pie, leaving crumbs for those actually doing the work.

Mentioning Ronald Reagan won’t work anymore. It may have been morning in America when he took over, but his union busting, pro-business policies drove us to the brink of a long, dark night.

If there is a hole in the Republican Party it is because the promises of wealth that deregulation would bring proved to be empty for so many. It is of no consolation to those who are struggling that the number of billionaires and millionaires grew by so much over the last thirty years. They now know from personal experience that a rising tide doesn’t lift all boats.

Comment after comment on these pages speaks of things being totally out of whack, of foul-ups at all levels. Candidates of any party from central casting will no longer do the trick. We need people in Washington who will admit to mistakes and rethink policy rather than clinging to increasingly meaningless labels and hurling insults.

— Elizabeth, Peterborough, N.H.

Obama backtracking on equality

2009-05-04T22:24:00.005-05:00

As has been reported elsewhere, Whitehouse.gov has pulled down all info related to Defense of Marriage Act repeal. The original position of the Administration had gotten LGBT activists fairly excited - such a progressive stance, on the official site of the government.

Well, now it's gone. Totally whitewashed away. Of course its still archived for our comparison.

Meanwhile, polling indicates that Obama is dodging right as the nation is weaving left. What is this foolishness?

I am almost as disappointed by this lapse as I am by his wimpy desire to not investigate torture. The torture situation is clearly worse, I'm not equating them, but they show a parallel - a willingness to go moderate even when the electorate doesn't need him to.

Search the word gay, it only turns up 6 items on the entire whitehouse.gov site. Pathetic!!

Update (4/5/09): Andrew Sullivan is starting to worry that all the shilly-shallying on LBGT issues is making "those of us in the gay movement who backed Obama seem like fools. Someone needs to get things moving in the right direction. Soon."

Who pwned who? A Congressman vs. a Nobel scientist.

2009-04-23T07:32:00.002-05:00

Taking a page from Minnesota's very special Michele Bachmann, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) thinks he just totally owned Nobel prize winning scientist and Obama administration Energy Secretary Steven Chu in a recent hearing.

This is priceless since:
1) Barton seems to have never heard of plate tectonics or continental drift (just what is in those Texas science textbooks?)

2) Barton tries to play "gotcha" with a Noble prize winning former Stanford prof and Berkeley National Lab director

3) best of all, Barton places the video on YouTube thinking it massively embarrasses Chu!

Behold:

Sometimes, Joe, its the simple people who ask the simple questions!

Blog being frozen by Blogger

2009-04-21T11:43:00.002-05:00

A It appears that either I re-edited my last post too many times (trying to fix a formatting problem), or someone reported my blog as objectionable, or some algrithm at Google for some reason flagged my blog.

So now I can't fix the formatting problem on my last post till a human review my blog "in two business days" and sets it free.

But I appear to be able to post new items. So.

Update: seems to be partially fixed already. Still having to use word verification for each post/edit.

Is the TSA doing the airline's dirty work?

2009-04-21T11:23:00.006-05:00

No doubt the airlines would prefer to not have the riff-raff come forward and sully the clean, fresh first class lavatory.

It is one of my pet peaves that 12 or 14 people in first class on domestic flights get one toilet, and us coachers get one per 45-65 passengers. On a few aircraft, there can be as little as one toilet for all of coach - 88 passengers, and one for 11 in first.

We are not in coach at that point, but in steerage. And one man had a crisis and yet ended up being charged for not wanting to unload in a horrible way.

Now comes news that the TSA has a policy against us coachers passing the magic curtain wall:

Dear Mr. [Snowman],

Thank you for contacting us through delta.com. We are sorry for the delay in responding to your message.

We are cooperating with authorities in the investigation of this incident, but do strictly follow TSA guidelines requiring passengers to use the lavatory in their class of service on flights arriving into the United States. The Delta flight crews have a reputation for professionalism and their focus on safety. Delta empowers our flight crews to do everything within the limits of the law to ensure the safety and security of our passengers.

Again, thank you for writing. We appreciate your selection of Delta and will always welcome the opportunity to be of service.

Sincerely,
Sharon Nicoles
Online Customer Support Desk

So now they can claim that it's not just an exclusionary policy to screw people who may have paid many hundreds of dollars to queue up for one crapper -- it's a TSA requirement!

The WSJ now reports that TSA cannot divulge why: "the security directive is sensitive security information."

Sensitive. Yeah, like a butt after using too-harsh TP.

Open letter to Obama on not prosecuting torturers

2009-04-20T23:52:00.001-05:00

Dear President Obama,

I am deeply disturbed by the news out of the White House this week that in relation to the torture perpetrated by our nation that you are "focused on looking forward." Please tell me you are looking forward towards a day when we can be clear of this travesty. That you are looking to the day when we will have held our nation and those actors to account!

Treaties to which our nation is a signator to do not allow us to simply decide not to prosecute. They compel us - you, sir - to investigate and where needed to prosecute. We cannot protect our nation by refusing to uphold our laws and the international treaties to which we have deliberated and properly committed ourselves.

While it may be politically better in the short term to avoid this difficult national account, the long term costs to our soul and morality as a people will be gravely damaged if those who called for torture, and those who enabled it to happen, are not afforded the test of justice.

By all means, no CIA agent should be held liable before her or his superiors in the Bush leadership are first made to answer for their crimes. And perhaps after that, the need to reach down to rank-and-file will indeed have passed. But not before then.

This is a matter most grave and serious for our nation. Do not walk past this crucial moment in history. Take it on, sir. We need a full change from torture, or the world will stop believing that change arrived on January 20th.

Yours very truly,
.....

Open letter to my Senator regarding torture

2009-04-17T12:49:00.002-05:00

Dear Senator Klobuchar,

I'm writing to you today in the wake of yesterday's release of the "torture memos." First, I am grateful for the important actions of our President to begin the painful process of a full reckoning of our past appalling behavior.

A strong and courageous nation does not torture. I agree with Mr. Obama when he says that torture shall "never take place again."

But specifically, I am urging you to work with your colleagues to take prompt and immediate action to remove Jay S. Bybee as a federal Appeals Court judge.

Please work with Rep.s Ellison, McCollum and Walz, and House and Senate leadership, to begin impeachment proceedings against Judge Bybee.

A judge who in his previous job declared that torture is legal serves as a horrible precedent. His memo's legal analysis was so utterly incompetent that Judge Bybee's successor, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew it and indicated he was appalled by its incompetence.

This man cannot stand one tier away from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Authorizing torture must have consequences, and the House and Senate have a clear path to rebuke this man.

Sincerely,
...

(note: I borrowed heavily from Jonathan Zaslof in composing this e-mail to Sen. Klobuchar. Big hat tip to him and Andrew Sullivan)

Obama's High Speed Rail Plan

2009-04-16T12:36:00.002-05:00

I am very pleased that President Obama has stepped out in favor of high speed rail corridors. It will only be a matter of time before oil (and therefore jet fuel) starts trending upward again.

Airline analysts will tell you that even at $50/bbl, it is difficult for airlines to make money: even new aircraft delivered today were basically designed for economic operation at prices under $40/bbl.

And when the recession starts to ease (some day), the price of oil is likely to climb rapidly. There has been little new exploratoin of late, and there is just no geologic way that our planet can sustain the sort of oil demand growth that was taking place before 2008.

So, I'm all-in for as much high-speed rail as we can build in the U.S. We need to get a jump on this, or we'll experience a double-dip recession when oil spikes past $150/bbl and commerce, and leisure travel, get priced out of the air.

Some backstory on #amazonfail

2009-04-12T21:51:00.001-05:00

CRAIG'S POP LIFE: Is Amazon.com Homophobic?

Update: received from Amazon.com Investor Relations on Monday evening:

This is an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error for a company that prides itself on offering complete selection.

It has been misreported that the issue was limited to Gay & Lesbian themed titles – in fact, it impacted 57,310 books in a number of broad categories such as Health, Mind & Body, Reproductive & Sexual Medicine, and Erotica. This problem impacted books not just in the United States but globally. It affected not just sales rank but also had the effect of removing the books from Amazon’s main product search.

Many books have now been fixed and we’re in the process of fixing the remainder as quickly as possible, and we intend to implement new measures to make this kind of accident less likely to occur in the future.

Elise Garner (Gray)
Amazon.com IR

Amazon takes Exodus cure, only into straight sex now

2009-04-12T20:59:00.007-05:00

Amazon's LGBT blunder is blowing up right now on Facebook, Towelroad and at a petition site.

There is now no easy way for Amazon to undo what is done. Either they look like total morons for saying that James Baldwin wrote over-sexed "adult" books (as one of over 100 examples) or they recant, in which case the Christian right will now jump on them for capitulating over a situation they created.

Update: #amazonfail is the number 1 top trending topic on Twitter now. Major PR disaster among younger shoppers unfolds before our eyes! I'm starting to like Twitter.

Update 2: Amazon rank is attempting a googlebomb.

Best explanation of the far-right's behavior

2009-04-11T16:41:00.002-05:00

From a Think Progress comment thread:

The republicans want a do-over, and they’ll destroy any possibility of Obama’s or dem success any way they can. The entire country has remarried, and the abusive ‘ex’ is still stalking and sabotaging the new union, trying to prove it wasn’t his fault. Nothing is his fault…

(emphasis added)

Understandable anger and manipulated responses

2009-04-11T09:27:00.005-05:00

I've been thinking about what the teabaggin' parties and the new "gathering storm" ad campaign have in common, and its this: there are a lot of average Americans who have lost a home or a job, or more likely, see a much higher risk now of that happening. So they're worried, sometimes desperate, and often angry.

I get it, makes sense. Get anrgy, protest, make someone respond to their difficult situations.

Then there are the leaders of the conservative movement, who are also angry. They're mad because they got turned out in the 2006 and 2008 elections. They're pissed off that the perpetual Republican majority that was promised them in exchange for their graft, fear-mongering and electoral shenanigans has evaporated in the light of new liberal leadership and a massive net-roots who's reach they don't fathom (and so they Tweet).

So these out-of-power (and sometimes disgraced) leaders and their well-connected lobbies and allies are fighting back. They are fabricating this massive sense of victimhood and grievance and then connecting it to their base, who are by and large people who have always been fairly powerless but now really SEE their powerlessness in the face of layoffs and foreclosures.

They're being played.

Their anger is real, and could be focused and channeled towards useful change. And, given Obama's approval ratings, I think that many moderates and independents are in fact doing that focusing and directing their energies towards a common future.

But the Republican rump is doing quite a job re-working the old "What's the Matter with Kansas" model with the anti-tax and anti-gay campaigns being given new energy. I'm heartened by the fact that their messages are bouncing off a lot of people. Yesterday the Rachel Maddow teabaggin' video was all over Facebook. And then I found this:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The 10.31 Project

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

NASA Name Contest

Besides laughing a lot, my biggest impression was that Glen Beck couldn't even get cast as a bit player in a B movie. His tears were so fake that I think I heard a bit of pity, and of course plenty of derision, in the Colbert audience's laughter.

This sort of rubbish is helping destroy what is left of right wing credibility. And I am not angry about that!

Tea party evaluation martix

2009-04-10T16:21:00.006-05:00

Props to whichever blogger inspired this. Just wish I could remember where in the mess of the past 24 hours I saw it.

"...it is unacceptable for any mainstream political party to be anything other than on the side of equality and respect..."

2009-04-09T10:59:00.008-05:00

How things have changed in Britain:

Former P.M. Tony Blair said "But the fact that it is unacceptable for any mainstream political party to be anything other than on the side of equality and respect is, in a way, the biggest change. The items of individual legislation matter a lot, but I think it’s the general shift in climate that is perhaps the most important point."

The G.O.P. in this country is lurching in the exact opposite direction of the Tory party in England, who's leader, David Cameron, speaks openly about Tory support for gay rights.

In time, we'll see that the Brits were, indeed, standing on the side of not just equality, but also standing on the side of love.

We'll probably see the GOP's disgrace themselves for a bit longer -- but I'm confident that Britain will show us the way on this, and on Don't Ask Don't Tell (they lifted their ban in 2000!).

Iowa, Vermont, D.C. -- and the Right's response

2009-04-09T10:01:00.003-05:00

Like a lot of people, I'm thrilled about the news rolling out these days. Vermont is particularly important since this was a massive (2/3 of each house is NOT EASY) vote by elected officials.

It has, to some small extent, muted the messaging on the right that gay marriage is all about activist judges. Of course, they soon hit on the idea that Vermont would never have gone this way had there not been a ruling to create civil unions in the late 90's. Seems like grasping to me.

I am most concerned right now about the over-the-top responses at the cultural level. Andrew Sullivan fisks the National Review's editorial about gay marriage, and nails it in the title: The Right's Contempt For Gay Lives. We are to be non-people in the eyes of these "opinion leaders." Totally dehumanized.

I'm just stunned by the levels of fear and loathing. And the absurd ideas abound.

A most ridiculous example is Newt Gingrich saying that the appointment of Harry Knox to Obama's advisory council on faith-based initiatives signals the administration's contempt for religion. These wing-nuts seem to think that Harry Knox can out-muscle all the other people on the council, including the President of Catholic Charities, or Dr. Willian Shaw, president of the National Baptist Convention, USA.

Newty must think that one gay man is more powerful than a dozen heterosexual mere mortals. In fact, that generally must be the case among the right wing. They constantly embody us gays with the extraordinary power to destroy all manner of institutions.

Which of course, we can, with panache and perfect hair.

A Stunning Take-down of the Trickiest Dick since Nixon

2009-03-18T13:52:00.005-05:00

Lawrence Wilkerson digs deep into the absurdities, incompetencies and amorality of one Richard Cheney, the Dick who more or less ran the US Government while W. fiddle-de-deed around.

Just one choice quote from Wilkerson:

Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that "Protecting the country's security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek." I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people such as he.

Read the whole deal. It is remarkable, direct, and deeply chilling. I am, at times, amazed that these people actually honored the vote and slinked (slunk?) out of D.C. in January.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, U.S. Army (Ret.), was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005.

(HT: Andrew)

Public Assets, Private Raiders

2008-12-11T11:43:00.006-06:00

Mitch Pearlstein's commentary in the Star Trib the other day has been sticking in my craw. I am generally skeptical of what the Center of the American Experiment has to say, but this particular commentary seemed so ill timed and tone deaf.

Then last night I read this great New Yorker piece about Naomi Klein. Now I think I need to read The Shock Doctrine, but for the moment, suffice to say that she opened my eyes to the idea that crises are moments when the rich can manipulate situations for their further enrichment. This was not, actually, a surprise, but it pushed the notion forward in my mind.

Then this morning I read last Sunday's cover story in the NY Times business section, about the struggle of Leon Black and his Apollo group private equity firm. They have, more or less, run out of private assets to strip mine for short term gains.

That's when Pearlstein's call to privatize MSP airport and the Minnesota State Lottery made full sense! Having extracted massive returns on equity for a handful of the ultra-wealthy for a good decade or more, the big private equity firms like Apollo, Blackstone, and Carlyle Group have to keep feeding the short term profit monster.

The recession is making private assets undesirable. But there are huge swathes of public assets that can be privatized -- with the short term gains paid out to rich investors and, quite possibly, offshored to the Caymans or Switzerland (or at least just left to lay around with the other billions these folks have).

Meanwhile we citizens and taxpayers will end up with a short term budget fix and a long term public/private "partnership." No doubt, we will all end up bailing out the "unexpected" losses from the mismanagements and failures of those masters of the universe hired to replace the "inefficient" bureaucrats who had been entrusted to operate our communal public property.

No thank you, Mitch. The public commons should not be for sale or lease.

Why I Love America

2008-11-05T23:46:00.003-06:00

Because we, as a nation, have the courage and heart to have elected Barack Obama.

How much this election helps us grow up remains to be seen. And Prop 8 in California passing on the same day as Obama's amazing and so deeply needed win does taint the sweetness of November 5th.

But (as always) I love America.

Peace.

Iran, the Hidden Homosexual, and the Opinion Journal?

2007-10-03T14:37:00.001-05:00

The Opinion Journal, the really right font of the otherwise august Wall Street Journal, has suddenly discovered that it favors openness for gays -- in Iran.

It has been well known to many of us (if more of a surprise to the O.J. who just saw 'occasional human rights reports') that Iran has been brutal in its treatment of gays. Boys under the age of 18 have been shot or hanged for their 'crimes,' among other violence.

But when the Journal author concludes: "All of this ought to be evidence that, when it comes to the Iranian regime, the gap between bad neocons and pure-of-heart progressives ought to be no more than tactical: This is, ultimately, a regime that needs to go" I find myself asking what on earth makes this writer think we'd be any more successful in making regime change in Iran than Iraq?

Have we learned nothing from our adventure in the Gulf? The nuclear weapons issue is real and important, but in advocating for a "regime that has to go" I'd say only under one of two scenarios:
1) a coalition similar in scope, financing and broad UN authority to that of "Desert Storm" of the early 90's
or
2) the Iranians use their democratic process to instigate regime change themselves.

The pundits (and now some billionaire financed ads) starting to beat the "war with Iran" drums seem to not recognize that Iranians have elections and a political system. Ahmadinejad is a vile and cruel man, but he is not, as he has been branded, a dictator. He succeeded his predecessor, who was a relative moderate, through an electoral process (which may be flawed, but is a far cry from much of the Gulf). He can be replaced the same way.

American policy in the region has done much to prop up Ahmadinejad who would, without his tin-pot "standing up to the great Satan" maneuvers, be very unpopular at home. Iranian citizens are fed up with unemployment, a return to strict Islamic codes of conduct, and soaring energy costs and gas rationing at home. Only his bravado abroad wins him accolades at home.

He'd be a shoe-in to lose the next election but for the fact that his saber-rattling engenders the exact response that makes him seem heroic at home. We would have been much better off even after the start of the Iraq invasion if Bush had cut the "Axis of Evil" noise and used the window of opportunity that had opened with Iran, who assisted us in the early stages of Afghanistan.

We could have continued to be strategic in enlisting this uneasy alliance, thus maintaining our ability to use America's "greatest weapon" within the nation of Iran. Most Iranians want what most humans want: access to the quality of life they know exists in the West and is denied them by their Supreme leader's ideals and their President's incompetent governance.

The real power in Iran is the Supreme leader, Ayathollah Khamenei, and his Council. To focus on the sputterings of Ahmadinejad is a policy that is leading us to the brink of war.

And if we go to war in Iran, it will be a disaster that could easily last 20 years. Their population is over 70 million and much of that is youth. They could raise an army that would not cut and run the way Saddam's army melted into the sands of Iraq. Iraq may have narrowly won the Iran-Iraq war but not for the lack of tenacity among Iranian forces. Iran has indigenous weapons manufacturing, has strong commercial relationships with Russia, France, and others. They will not roll over easily.

The neo-con idea that we can just bomb some Iranian nuclear installations seems laughable were it not so serious. It is not imaginable that we could stop at bombing. One attacked inside the borders of Iran, they would attack our Navy in the gulf, and likely pour over both their eastern and western borders to seek out and attack American and allied troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Once so engaged, the US military would "have no option" but to escalate to a full ground war.

But where would the matériel and troops come from to fight that war? For the moment, from what I hear, there is just enough sense and power within the top brass of our military to keep GWB, Cheney and their thinkers from heading us full speed down that unsustainable path.

Iran is a country with a lousy human rights record, a belligerent set of leaders, and a dangerous desire to build a nuclear program shrouded in secrecy. But Bush and Co already bet the bank in Iraq and I can 't see how we can raise the capital and troops for another mid-east regime change without massive taxes and conscription. It is unfortunate to be forced into such limited choices, but that is a direct consequence of four years of badly executed war in Iraq -- a failing squarely at the feet of GWB,Cheney, Rummy et al.

It is not, as the O.J. likes to allege, because lefties are soft on dictators, terror, or whatever. We just know that Bush blew it bad in Iraq and going double-down with Iran is a fools terrifying bet.

peace.

Tearing up a page from a Republican play-book

2007-10-01T12:15:00.000-05:00

There is a lot of noise among commentators and bloggers about Hillary's new health care plan.

I have not studied her plan nor the Mass. plan that Governor Mitt Romney helped get in place there in any detail, but from what I understand they are very similar -- mandated insurance from private insurance plans (no, repeat NO requirement to leave your existing plan if you like it) with taxpayer funding for insurance pools for those who are not offered insurance at work, through a spouse, through medicare, etc.

So did a Republican presidential candidate pass a socialized medicine plan while governor, or are the pundits and Republican candidates for president grossly hyperbolizing now that Hillary has adopted much of a Republican presidential candidates past (and passed) healthcare plan?

And, frankly, even if it was 'socialized medicine' what in hell makes that so bad? 46 MILLION people do not have health insurance in this country. In and of itself, is that morally acceptable??

And, if anyone thinks that those people getting sick does not cost you and me plenty through other transfer payments is a fool. The reason my private insurance (and everyone else's) is so high is in part because we are paying for the uninsured losses of hospitals, doctors, etc. So the transfer payments are made based on who can afford to pay for private health insurance.

Why is a tax -- which everyone can see, debate, and hold officials accountable for -- so 'anti-conservative', but making invisible transfer payments from all of us who are responsible enough (and lucky enough) to have and pay for health insurance OK?

There really are times when the all-holy "market" fails to meet the real social needs of citizens. Health care is clearly one of those places -- and conservatives seem loathe to admit to this glaring failure. If markets were adequately addressing the healthcare crisis, we'd be seeing progress for God's sake. The problem has been identified and talked at for decades...and getting worse, not better! I can think of no other basic human need in America in which the market consistently ignores 15% of potential customers. The uninsured are a growth industry! Oh, but they are woefully unprofitable.

Every other first world nation has made the choice to see basic health care as of higher importance than profit potential. We are sadly alone on the globe in making the other choice on this one. It is morally abhorrent, and I take no pleasure in saying so.

We pay more in terms of real GDP for our health care in this nation than those other first world nations. And for lesser aggregate outcomes: higher infant mortality, lesser longevity, etc. We are paying more for our care than Canadians or Brits or the French -- it just shows up differently in our paystubs and bank balances.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of Hillary for Prez -- but at least the Dems have the courage to talk about one of the most critical problems we will face internally within the US in my generation. Scaring people with untruths about a serious policy proposal is not leadership from her Republican rivals.

Peace.

Too Busy at the Country Club

2007-09-27T23:37:00.000-05:00

Looks like the four top rich white men in the G.O.P. decided to confirm what all of us were pretty sure of...the Republican Party only wants to be the party of rich white men.

None of the four leading presidential candidates decided to show up for the Baltimore Debate this evening. The organizers rightly decided to highlight the no-shows by putting 4 empty lecterns on the stage.

I think former VP nominee and rock-ribbed Republican Jack Kemp said it well when he quipped "What are we going to do--meet in a country club some day?"

The racism of these men--men who think they should run our nation--is profoundly disturbing. They should be called to account. And roundly mocked, too. Racism is not funny, but their buffoonish insensitivity to the needs of black, brown, gay and really any other kind of voter than the donor-capitalist guys they daily hang with is sadly comical in a pathetic sort of way.

Of course, those who did show up are not sterling exemplars of awareness and cultural openness. Sam "gay is not OK" Brownback saying that the no-shows were a "disgrace" rings a bit hollow to these ears. He went on to say “you grow political parties by expanding your base … what they’re doing is sending a message of narrowing the base.” Ready to let a few out-n-proud GLBTs into the base of the GOP, Sam? Hmmm, whats that silence?

Peace.

Oh, Another 50 Billion

2007-09-26T10:12:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration went to the Hill this week and asked for an extra $50 billion for the war for 2008. They already plan to spend $386,000,000 each and every day for the year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- for a total of $141 billion.

Now they want to increase that spending by 50 billion dollars. Thirty-five percent. It is insane. The total Defense Dept budget for 2008 is $481 billion. It's not like the place is starving for money.

Hey, they say, we need to buy lots of fully armored vehicles (years and years too late) to protect our troops. How about getting the troops home rather than rushing to stuff cash into a defence contractors coffers for vehicles that cost $1 million each. We need to buy some of these vehicles, but the plan to buy billions of dollars worth of these things just confirms what we all know -- this administration is planning to keep our service-men and -women in Iraq for a long time.

Meanwhile, Bush says we cannot afford even a few billion dollars for additional health care for children. Our congress has a hard time finding money (1 token billion so far) for dangerously worn highway infrastructure.

Our spending priorities are unacceptable. There is a saying out there, and I find it true: "Budgets are moral documents" Well, this Bush budget, with a belt-busting $50 billion extra for a war in the mid-east is an immoral document.

Peace.

A Hero Falls

2007-01-31T18:49:00.000-06:00

One of my all-time heroes, Molly Ivins, died today. Ever since my days reading the Austin-American Statesman starting in 1989, I've been impressed with the chutzpah she consistently showed, and the way she used populism to actually fight for the little guy, not as a different way to hoodwink him.

And she was always damn funny doing it.

Molly also showed how wimpy and subservient most print journalists and pundits were through the first several years of our 'adventure' in Iraq.

Sadly, W. will just not quite be held to the same level of account, now that she is gone. But someday if W. ends up having an afterlife, I'm pretty sure Molly will stop by to have a few choice words for him...

peace.

Bush to create Politburo at US Agencies

2007-01-31T16:36:00.000-06:00

According to reports published in yesterday's papers, President Bush last week ordered Federal Agencies to have a political overseer to review any agency rules or regulations politically, before the rules or guidances can be released, and, ultimately, no matter what the agency's career staffs might recommend.

The NY Times reports that "each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries."

Here is more about how these politicos will be manipulating the lawmaking process:

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify "the specific market failure" or problem that justifies government intervention.

Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review "any significant guidance documents" before they are issued.

It sounds to me like the Bush administration has realized that Congress is now in Democratic hands, and that new laws and regs are coming. This way, similarly to Bush's signing statements, he will find ways to thwart the legislative intent of our elected representatives.

It feels downright Stalinist to me.

peace.

Unintended Acceleration

2007-01-11T23:39:00.000-06:00

Senator Chuck Hagel (R. Neb) was on Charlie Rose tonight. It was chilling. Earlier in the day I'd seen Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about the subtext of possible designs on Syria and Iran in the President's Wednesday speech.

But then Hagel came right out and said that he was concerned that this surge, which he termed a 'dangerous acceleration,' could easily lead us into a Cambodia-like situation where we have to attack neighboring states to protect our troops.

Now it makes sense why Bush appointed a Navy Admiral to be the new Central Commander -- he has plenty of experience directing carrier strike groups making bombing runs and other carrier-based and navy artillery based attacks on 'threats.'

It is not hard to understand why Sen. Hagel warned today that this could be 'the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out.' We may really be about to have a multi-nation regional war on our hands.

American citizens may need to brace for a major acceleration into nations 3 and 4 in the war on terror. (5 if you include the recent action in Somalia). I'm pretty damn sure that the many folks who turned out at the polls this past November never thought we'd get this kind of acceleration less than two months later.

Is this President nuts? Terribly blind? Horribly advised by those around him? I do wonder if our elected officials, Hagel included, can stop him. And will a fed up and rightfully angry (and sometimes frightened) citizenry mobilize to oppose this?

Again with the Hagel quoting, but part of the danger he was suggesting tonight is the much deeper, Viet Nam-esque divisions that will soon appear here at home. He specifically said on Charlie's show that within two months of this plan going forward, there will be massive anti-war demonstrations happening in cities across the country.

In pipe-dream-land, maybe those demos will not be needed. But in reality-land, those demos better not take two months to get going!

Yikes there's stuff for us to be doing.

peace.

Who is reading Your mail?

2007-01-07T22:14:00.000-06:00

Even Jay Leno is making jokes about the Bush signing statement that now says that the government has (and allegedly always has had) the right to open private mail.

If you or I do it, it's a felony. When W's administration does it, its all O.K.

I'm planning to let my two newly elected Democrats in D.C. know I think that's bunk. In fact, I think its high time the Democrats take on Bush and his signing statements. They need to be challenged, and I would not mind this issue heading to Federal Court if need be.

I'm not sure what the first step should be, but invasion of the U.S. mail is as bad or worse than all the wiretapping that Congress got huffy about in 2006 (and where, pray tell, are we with that?).

Sorry to have been away so long. I have been feeling a bit better about our fine nation since the election, but we've got 2 more years of Messers Bush, Cheney et al to keep an eye on, so I'll be back blogging a bit more often now that the new Congress (and the new Minnesota Lege) is in session.

peace.

It's Time

2006-11-07T09:30:00.000-06:00

It's pretty simple...

VOTE

It makes critiquing and complaining and grabbing the skull in extreme frustration all the more meaningful if we at least try to change the course of our fair (but misled) country.

So vote today.

peace.

Lost Amongst the Election Barrage

2006-11-04T08:28:00.000-06:00

This is a news item I wanted to blog about weeks ago. Better late than never...and this issue is here with us all for the foreseeable future.

Minnesota's (momentarily) junior Senator, Norm Coleman, has been working to blunt or even cancel the work of progressive US states that are taking the issue of our contribution to global warming way more seriously than our Congratulator in Chief and his administration.

From an Oct. 20th Star Tribune story:

Sen. Norm Coleman is suggesting that Congress strip California and all other states, along with the federal Environmental Protection Agency, of much of their authority to control carbon dioxide emissions.

Under a draft proposal that has been circulated by the Minnesota Republican, carbon dioxide would not be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

"My intention in this draft proposal is to find the quickest path to carbon-dioxide reduction -- that means finding a proposal that doesn't cripple the economy, that is nationally based and that will not be trapped in the courts," Coleman said in a statement Friday. His office said the senator was unavailable for an interview.

I am perpetually bemused by politicians who think that we citizens actually believe that making a rule or law impossible will actually achieve the result ruled out. How stupid does he think we are?

The economic catastrophe argument has its debunkers, thankfully. Some of us have thought for quite some time that the US could be an economic leader in green technology. And does Sen. Coleman factor in massive agricultural losses from weather pattern shifts in his 'crippling' calculation? I would think the folks at ADM and Cargill should be getting a bit nervous about where they will grow all that corn for High Fructose sweetener come about 2050...

I am also distressed that this proposal would cut the guts out of potential EPA rulemaking. That scope of intrusion into a Cabinet department's ability to function is thoroughly shocking.

What should not shock anyone is this from later in the story: "Inside EPA reported that Coleman has been working on his proposal with electricity industry officials and noted that it would benefit Xcel Energy, which does business in Minnesota and other states."

Guess Norm borrowed a page from ol' Dick Cheney.

peace.

Hostile to Those Kind of Aliens, Too

2006-10-27T12:55:00.000-05:00

From newswire reporting:

US Casts Lone Vote Against Limiting Space Arms Race
In other news from the UN, the Bush administration voted Wednesday against a General Assembly resolution to prevent an arms race in outer space. The US was alone in its opposition. 166 countries voted to support the measure, while Israel abstained. The vote comes on the heels of this month’s release of the administration’s new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements and asserts the right to deny access to anyone “hostile to U.S. interests.

The Bush administration is consistent in its wish to assert a 'first strike' right across all possible fronts.

This can't be good.

peace.

Bush to Stay the Course to November 7th

2006-10-23T12:56:00.000-05:00

Due to the stunning popularity and tactical success of denying there were any problems in Iraq for three and a half years after the invasion, prefaced by a lack of any post-invasion planning, the White House announced that they will use the same tactic and ignore any possibility that Republicans will lose either house of Congress.

The NY Times reports today "Bush's aides say he has refused to let them even be seen planning for a possible Democratic takeover so as not to give volunteers or donors any reason to doubt that their efforts will pay off."

I think we can expect that to work about as well as the citizens of Baghdad welcoming us as liberators. What can we suppose will be the political equivalent of the ransacking of the Iraqi national museum?

Seriously, did no one tell Mr. Bush about there being a national best seller titled "State of Denial"???

Wow.

peace.

Do I still need to answer why?

2006-10-17T23:01:00.000-05:00

I got this e-mail today from a good friend, with an image attached. Says exactly why I am so mad at the leadership of this nation:

Have you ever seen a more dimwitted group of knuckleheads than the attached picture of Bush signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006? Where are the women? We need them more than ever.

Applause for the demise of centuries of habeas corpus? Knuckleheads is too kind.

peace.

Mac 90

2006-10-11T07:50:00.000-05:00

In the third school shooting incident in as many weeks, a 13 year old boy went into his school Monday and brandished his parents Mac 90 (basially similar to an AK 47 assault rifle).

Meanwhile, President Bush made a speech about school violence in which he emphasised the "local, private role" in ending violence. No big government response available here, thank you. Just a hastily put together conference, some hand wringing, and then, "it's your problem, cities, towns and schools."

But what I really want to know is, what on earth happened to talking about gun control? I have not heard one word in the allegedly liberal media about how some of these horrors might have been avoided or minimized by gun control. Of course we won't hear from the gunslinger-in-chief about how keeping assault weapons out of family homes would make any difference.

If the Brady act had not been killed by the NRA and the Republicans when it was up for renewal, perhaps this Missouri kid's dad might not have been able to buy a Mac 90.

I know that just controlling access to guns will not solve the problem. And the genie will take at least 20 years to get stuffed back in the bottle.

But just like airbags and seatbelts have probably done as much to reduce drunk driving deaths as DWI patrols and M.A.D.D. ads, gun control needs to be one part of a multi-pronged confrontation on our culture of violence and its increasing intrusion in our schools.

peace.

The Judgment of History

2006-10-10T14:23:00.000-05:00

I don't know that I will often quote extensively from original sources. The Blogosphere seems more into quoting known sources/linking to published writers and such, but these excerpts from a UU minister in the Twin Cities need to be out in the world.

Here are extended excerpts from a sermon given October 8th by the Rev. Kendyl Gibbons of First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis.

The Judgment of History

Dearly beloved, what is the matter with us?

I should have done this last week, I know; why didn't I? I was stunned speechless; perhaps you were too. Perhaps we still are. It has long been my fear that if I were ever in imminent danger of rape, I would want to scream, but be too terrified to catch my breath to be able to do it. I feel like that now. How can I catch my breath to scream? Why aren't we all screaming?

Do you understand what happened last Friday? The congress of the United States, your representatives and mine, passed a bill; they do that all the time. But this one was different. This one rips from beneath our feet the most elemental liberties that citizens of civilized western nations have trusted for the past eight centuries.

The modern institution of civil and human rights began in June of 1215 when King John of England was forced by a group of feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta in a meadow at Runnymede. Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" law (literally, "produce the body" from the Latin - meaning, broadly, "let this person go free or else give him a trial - you may not hold him forever without charging him with a crime").

The concept of habeas corpus in the Magna Carta led directly to the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our own Constitution, and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions. ...

In 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime. King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich feudal lords), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis."

This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain people without charges for as much as their entire lives solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now affirmed by our representatives in congress, who have chosen to dispense with America's founding principles. [1] Why? Apparently, out of professional political expediency.

Pat Leahy, senior senator from Vermont, and an outspoken opponent of the bill passed last week, explained, "In my own caucus, people say, 'We can't oppose this, look what happened to Max Cleland.'" ... Leahy recounted that his Democratic colleagues also argue, "'We have to go along with it because we'll never be able to explain it back home.'" To which the senator responded, "Maybe one way to explain it is to say, 'I stood up for you and your rights.'" [2]

Why aren't we screaming?

In the days of ancient Israel, the prophet messengers of Yahweh arose at such moments as this, to denounce the misappropriation of god's authority, and the miscarriage of god's justice. They were not concerned with magical divinations of the future, but rather with the simple logic of what must inevitably follow when the rulers of nations betrayed the trust and well-being of their people. The prophet Isaiah once made such a denunciation and prediction against the kings of Assyria and Babylon:

Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and who write oppressive decrees, Depriving the needy of judgment and robbing my people's poor of their rights, Making widows their plunder, and orphans their prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, when ruin comes from afar? To whom will you flee for help? ...

When they see you they will stare, pondering over you: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, and kingdoms quake? Who made the world a desert, razed its cities, and gave his captives no release? [3] ...

In fact, they were sometimes wrong, those prophets of long ago. They were sometimes factually wrong about what would happen in the pages of history, and they were even sometimes morally wrong about what might constitute real holiness. But they were right about this: that what we are called upon to do when rulers abuse their powers is to cry aloud in the name of all that is holy, and to pronounce doom upon tyranny in every form. This morning I stand here in the footsteps of Micah, Amos, and Isaiah, to call out to you that our national covenant has been violated at its core, and to proclaim that retribution must and will come.

We have said it ourselves; fifty years ago, in a courtroom in Nuremberg, Justice Robert Jackson, American counsel for the prosecution of the German high command war criminals, said it on our behalf, when he described by what right the victorious Allied nations had created that unprecedented trial. In the opening moments of our national life, Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote this in The Federalist Papers:

"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... is perhaps a greater security to liberty than any the Constitution contains. ...The practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. [4] ...

There can be no escape by ignorance; George Bush knows exactly what he is doing; he is as brazen about it as any would-be tyrant ever was. Those representatives who have surrendered our freedom to him are educated men and women; they knew what they did. And we who sit here today, perplexed and alarmed - we know what is at stake; we know the example that we owe the world, we know what history looks like when bullies gather power into their hands unchecked. And we know the judgment of humanity against the violence and arrogance of those who without shame start wars, torture their opponents, and shield one another behind the fiction of legal process.

Within the lifetime of people in this room today, we were part of it, upholding honor and the laws of human decency. I say that we shall find ourselves arraigned before the same bar of moral judgment at which we once meted out humanity's justice to the fallen despots and brutalizers of the Third Reich, no very long time from now.

And I don't care how deeply they bury themselves in the mud of national legislation perverted by a spineless congress; the court of world opinion will know how to proceed against our current national leaders, and ourselves. Following orders is not a sufficient defense; we knew it 50 years ago; others will know it for us hereafter.

In the fraught days of the American revolution, the patriot leader Samuel Adams said to his fellow citizens:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. [5]

No doubt posterity will forget your name and mine, as it has forgotten those of the ordinary German citizens who awoke one morning to find their capitol in ashes and their constitutional rights vanished with the stroke of a pen. It will deal less mercifully with the authors of this outrage; soon or late, they will find themselves held accountable by the citizens of a world less addicted to privilege and passivity than we are.

There is no Old Testament god bestowing any celestial prerogative on George Bush's will to tyranny, once named the divine right of kings; by the same token, there is no supernatural author of justice to condemn and eventually punish his hubris. Yet I will stand here today in the mantle of prophecy, to announce that the testimony against him is given; to speak on behalf of human liberty a judgment which will surely come...

Friends, I wish I knew the answer. I wish I thought that the upcoming elections had the potential to turn this around; maybe they do, but I'm not sanguine. Like the prophets of olden days, I have no quick fix; we must and will suffer the consequences of what we have allowed our leaders to do. I can only suggest, as they would have, that what will save us in the end is faithfulness to the values of the covenant that we and our ancestors have long professed; in our case, to the moral laws of human decency, and to what was once the constitution of this nation. There's only one other thing that I know about the answer to this mess - silence isn't it.

[1] Republicans Give In To Bush, Betray America"
by Thom Hartmann at CommonDreams.org, September 25, 2006
[2] "Tortured justice" by Mark Benjamin and Walter Shapiro at Salon.com
[3] Isaiah, Chapters 10 and 14 New American Bible
[4] "Republicans Give In To Bush, Betray America" ibid.
[5] speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

peace.

The Big Tent is Pretty Small

2006-10-06T09:51:00.000-05:00

Our local daily ran a very thoughtful, well argued op-ed today, marking a bright line between gay people and the behavior of Mark Foley. Well done.

Except for one thing. The author says "The bottom line is that it does not matter that Mark Foley is gay."

It does matter. It matters that he is gay and wanted to be in the Republican Party. It matters that he is gay and wanted to represent a conservative constituency in Florida.

Conservatives and the Republican Party have so demonized the status of being gay that it is not currently possible to have an effective career as an out gay Republican. It's not much better for Democrats, frankly, but there it is at least possible.

I read the other day that there have been 'whispers' for years that Foley was gay. He was certainly partly out, as influential donors in Florida had met and knew about his longtime partner.

But the story about the whispers made it clear that his closeted homosexuality contributed to his not getting committee appointments that would befit a person with 12 years of House seniority. That he was stalled where he was and could not run for Senate to represent Florida.

If the story Mark Foley is now telling is true, that he was abused by clergy as a youth, then perhaps he really did have genuine motive for chairing the House Caucus on Exploited Children. But the conservative culture of suppression of gay people made it virtually impossible for someone like him to tell the truth behind his motives. Or to seek help when it might have done him or the pages some good.

It is with some bitter irony that the 'Big Tent' claims of the Republican Party are deflating. And it's not just gays. Immigrants. Non-Christians. Frankly anyone who is not white, male, evangelical and rich may not fit in there these days.

Good.

peace.

They Blinded Me With Science!

2006-10-05T11:12:00.000-05:00

Paul Hanle, who is president of the Biotechnology Institute, has a critical analysis of what creationism may be doing to our potential future scientists who are now in various state's public education systems.

What struck me was his matter of fact laying out that 10 US states fail to address evolution in their curriculums in scientifically sound ways. And that the consequence is that "these efforts urge students to doubt evolution - the cornerstone principle of biology, one on which there is no serious scientific debate."

I add emphasis because what we are developing here is not skepticism about the results of the scientific method, but skepticism of the foundations of science. If we go down this road, are we that far from benighted anti-modernists such as the Taliban?

Hanle says better than I can that there need not be conflict between religion and science:

This is not a war of religion against science. The two have thrived together for centuries. Nor is it a struggle of believers against godless materialists; many believers practice science and find inspiration for it from their faith. It is a battle between religious dogma cloaked as science and open inquiry that leads to new knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

He argues, and I fully agree, that as a nation we risk becoming an industrial and innovation backwater in the emerging 21st century. There is too much at stake if science and religion are encouraged to merge in a science classroom.

peace.

Poll Says More Than It Seems

2006-10-04T09:05:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, a Star Tribune poll came out with numbers that the Mark Kennedy for US Senate campaign did not like. Yesterday, Strib columnist Doug Grow wrote about how Kennedy tried to discredit the polling by claiming that the Strib is grossly influenced by its former employee (and dad to Kennedy's opponent) Jim Klobuchar.

Grow does a great job dispensing with that absurd claim.

But what's been bugging me since the story first broke was what Kennedy said right out of the chute: "If my dad's company did a poll on this race I'd be ahead"

Oh really? It sounds to me like what Mark is saying is that he would have his dad do some rather shady polling. That Mark thinks polling data is not actually about what the polled people think, but what the pollster does to get it. And if that is what he believes, he does not seem like a very trustworthy person to me.

Of course, abuses like push polling do occur, but rarely by establishment organizations with reputations they want to preserve. Then again, it may be more tempting for ambitious folks who want to win at any cost...

I'm glad that several non-Star Tribune polls confirm that he is well behind. It seems like we may not have to worry about his integrity in the public realm much longer.

peace.

State of Denial

2006-10-03T21:30:00.000-05:00

It would be easy to go on and on about Bob Woodward's new book. And you'd think that's what this post is about.

But it is about the state of denial that the Republican leadership must have been in during 2005 when Rep. Foley's problems first started to surface. They were either self-deluded, or waaaay to intent on holding on to power to seem to actually care about the welfare of the kids in the Page program.

Republican Christopher Shays of Connecticut deserves some credit for quickly calling for leadership to admit what they knew and fall on their swords if needed.

But in stead, we get Speaker Hastert saying "Could have, should have, would have." It is outrageous, and he must know it. Oh, wait, he's in that quintessential Republican place in 2006 - the State of Denial.

peace.

The Elephant in the Room

2006-09-29T12:32:00.000-05:00

There is lots of chatter about the GOP convention coming to St. Paul-Minneapolis for 2008. Plenty of it regarding what this could mean in what is allegedly a 'formerly blue, now purple' state. Are Minnesotan's going to back a Republican for President in '08?

The Strib analysis of what state 'bounce' a convention gives to Presidential candidate was helpful:

NO CLEAR HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE

1988
GOP - New Orleans - Bush won La.
Dem. - Atlanta - Dukakis lost Ga.

1992
GOP - Houston - Bush won Texas
Dem. - New York - Clinton won N.Y.

1996
GOP San Diego - Dole lost Calif.
Dem. - Chicago - Clinton won Ill.

2000
GOP - Philadelphia - Bush lost Pa.
Dem. - Los Angeles - Gore won Calif.

2004
GOP - New York - Bush lost N.Y.
Dem. - Boston - Kerry won Mass.

(adapted from Star Tribune editorial Sept 29 '06)

My take on it, particularly given that Republican convention planners moved the site decision up from mid-November to Sept 27th, is that they are very nervous about how Republicans are doing in this state, this year. Not so much about '08.

The sped up timing makes me think GOP strategists took a look at Pawlenty being in a dead heat with Hatch, and Kennedy battling a 10 point plus handicap in the Senate race and rushed the announcement out to woo voters in this cycle, not the next.

I can't imagine it will give Republicans that much of a bounce, but I'll grant them a point or two for seeing what $145 million in projected economic boost will yield in voter energy (though that economic number is certainly contested).

peace.

Detainees, and Cowed Democrats

2006-09-28T18:26:00.000-05:00

On a 65-34 vote, the Senate passed the Detainee Bill, with added content from the House passed version (but really, content from the White House).

It may take some time for me to find links to some of what I heard this afternoon about what passed. One thing based on what N.P.R. is reporting that is scary enough is that the House made changes that broaden the definition of "enemy combatant" -- it may well end up ensnaring folks who legally live within the U.S., while denying them access to U.S. courts.

As I noted some days ago, the whole thing needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb, but what I've heard in the past couple days suggests that these changes handed Mr. Bush even more candy, and I fear that civil rights and our rapidly tarnishing image abroad may well be big costs in all this.

Oh, another tidbit: the final version says Detainees can 'respond' to evidence brought before a tribunal. The McCain agreed version last Friday had said 'view and respond' -- no small difference. As the N.P.R. story said, its hard to respond to something you have not seen.

And those dozen or so craven Democrats who ultimately voted 'yes' in the Senate so that they can't be attacked as soft on terrorism. Forget it. The RNC attack dogs will still say they're pink-o lefties who'd hug a bomber. So why vote yes?!?

I'm a bit too angry to really mean it, but I can still hope for it:

peace.

the Cost of Crisis

2006-09-25T10:07:00.000-05:00

Charles Baxter, U of M professor and novelist, says just about everything there is to say about how a cynical President can use the never-ending war on terrorism to his own (and his party's) ends.

Never mind that the Intelligence Estimate is now showing us what we already knew -- that we've made more enemies than we've subdued via the Iraqi front.

Here is an excerpt from Baxters impressive analysis, which starts out as a look at Minnesota's 6th Congressional race, but hits its stride in making this national connection:

President Bush has been wildly successful at creating an air of constant crisis, both foreign and domestic. Crisis rhetoric, which is inherently radical rather than conservative, dissolves social stability.

In this sense, terrorism has infected every subject and every discussion, even locally. Alarmism has become so ubiquitous in discussions of Iraq, the decline of the family and financing for Social Security and education that polarization is assured. Extremity, after all, is more newsworthy than good sense.

This outlook has the effect of trivializing most local issues...[a]nd it ensures that the volume will always be turned up to 11 — at least until everybody begins to suffer crisis fatigue and tries to calm down.

If your party is loosing an election, scream 9/11, link Saddam with Osama, blame the gays for the decline of marriage...that's pretty much the crisis strategy. I'm not lovin' it.

peace.

Go Russ Go

2006-09-24T13:48:00.000-05:00

The junior Senator from Wisconsin got an excellent letter published in the Sunday New York Times.

Russ Feingold gets feisty with John Yoo, who has provided some of the Bush Administration's key legal positions in the effort to greatly expand presidential power:

[A]ccording to Mr. Yoo, the president can ignore both laws and judicial decisions that he deems “wrongheaded’’ or “obsolete.’’
These views are clearly offensive to our constitutional system. It is long past time for Congress to reassert its proper role in checking an executive branch that has so little respect for the principles that have sustained our democracy for more than 200 years.

I'm glad someone in the second branch of government still cares about balance of power.

peace.

The Detainee Agreement

2006-09-22T15:33:00.000-05:00

I will need some time to read and digest more about what the 'renegade' Republican Senators and the White House actually agreed to. It is available now and with some early analysis.

This whole, broad issue - Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, tribunals and all - will no doubt be defining elements of the early 21st century history of America. So while I will register some grave misgivings right away, unfortunately I think I'll have plenty of time and plenty reasons to go in to more detail later.

Suffice to quote Andrew Sullivan first on why it will take some time to understand the implications:

I've learned these past few years that Cheney's legal aide, David Addington, is absolutely ruthless in making sure that the United States continues to have the capacity to torture prisoners. I've also learned that if you do not read every comma, adjective and sub-clause, you may get taken to the cleaners by this guy.

To tide us over, there are these very sobering words from Vladimir Bukovsky, a man who spent 12 years in various Soviet prisons, camps and 'hospitals,' on torture's destructive allure:

[T]hat the debate occurred at all, and that prominent figures are willing to entertain the idea, is perplexing and alarming to me. I have seen what happens to a society that becomes enamored of such methods in its quest for greater security; it takes more than words and political compromise to beat back the impulse.

This is a new debate for Americans, but there is no need for you to reinvent the wheel. Most nations can provide you with volumes on the subject. Indeed, with the exception of the Black Death, torture is the oldest scourge on our planet (hence there are so many conventions against it). Every Russian czar after Peter the Great solemnly abolished torture upon being enthroned, and every time his successor had to abolish it all over again. These czars were hardly bleeding-heart liberals, but long experience in the use of these "interrogation" practices in Russia had taught them that once condoned, torture will destroy their security apparatus. They understood that torture is the professional disease of any investigative machinery.

'Nuff said for today.

peace.

Crony Capitalism, part 1

2006-09-22T11:17:00.000-05:00

I'll title this one part 1 because we all know there will be many more things like this from this most clubby and insider-ish of White Houses (Halliburton, anyone??).

The Dallas Morning News reports that long time Bush friend and head of H.U.D. Alphonso Jackson has directed staff to "consider contractors' political leanings. He urged them to give contracts to Bush supporters, and voiced concerns about any going to active Democratic donors."

The paper, in that conservative stronghold/Bush home state, is quick to point out in both the sub-head and the first paragraph that there was "no 'direct evidence' that favoritism actually occurred."

OK, so Mr. Jackson seems to have been smart enough to not actually write any memos directing staff to be crony capitalists - no paper trail to provide direct evidence. But is sure sounds like he was dumb or unethical enough to talk to top staff several times about it, and even boast in a public speech about his favoritism.

It's time to show some disfavoritism to 'heck of a contract' Jackson - his resignation should be as speedy as fellow Bush buddy Michael Brown's was.

peace.

Penny wise...

2006-09-21T12:57:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's paper ran a front page story saying that in order to trim the federal deficit, counties all across America will have to make substantial cuts to social programs. This is hardly news with the current administration and Congress - they'd rather slash social spending than repeal tax cuts on a handful of high-earners.

The raw deal is that in places like Hennepin County, Minnesota, when the child support enforcement department gets cut $4.3 million this winter, we can expect $10 million more in child support payments to go uncollected. That will directly translate into empty stomachs, fewer warm coats for winter, and more homelessness for already at risk kids.

I'm sure the Republicans who crafted this brilliant 'cost savings' think that since they all hammer away all the time about personal responsibility, these recalcitrant support non-payers will feel the cultural pinch and start ponying up on their own.

Until that happens, those of us who love America know that we'll still carry the cost of those social service cuts...in more poverty, hopelessness, crime, abandonment, and other joys...oh, and rising local taxes too.

peace.

America, love it or leave it?

2006-09-21T09:38:00.000-05:00

So let's just get this Blog name thing handled right away.

A lot of times, when I am going on a bit about the ways that some policy is out of whack, or a politician or corporation is doing something I find really objectionable, my boyfriend will say 'why do you hate America?!' and we'll both crack up...unless I am so steamed or involved in the rant that I actually occasionally splutter 'I think America is great, its these boneheads I can't stand.'

So look for posts from me that will convey my frustrations and hopes for this country I am most fond of...fond like a bewildered parent of a pre-teen who is exhibiting flashes of dangerous tendencies.

If you've read George Lakoff, I'd definitely say I'm the nurturing parent type. I have a hard time with the stern diciplinarian type - though I do get that 'angry dad' energy. I just don't act out that way!

peace.