Freak Politics

Armchair Quarterbacks

2011-02-17T13:49:00.001-06:00

I just saw a debate online about a friend whose wife was laid off by the local school district. Someone posted a comment saying that this is the natural consequence of reckless spending. He ended his comment with this quote: "This is not a tax thing; rather, it is a priority thing." – I usually have a visceral response to people who slag government in a thoughtless manner.

My response? What then do we cut? K‑12 education? Higher education? Indigent health care? Mental health? Affordable housing? Workforce development? Juvenile justice programs? Jail diversion programs? Law enforcement? Jails? Services for seniors? Community development? Economic development? Transportation infrastructure? Parks and open space? Environmental regulation? Watershed protection?

I get annoyed with those who think government spends too lavishly. Everyone spends too lavishly, government is probably a lesser offender. We have challenges to address in government, but to dump blame on government is lazy. Where do we cut? We want a lot of things; why don't we want to pay for them? It’s time to put the credit cards away, have a really conversation about the future, and pony up. The education funding cuts debate is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

The commenter touted the virtues and grounded perspective of the private sector. I am also shocked to learn that folks in the private sector know that “you can only spend money once.” Really? Isn't that kind of how we got into this mess?

Total government spending (fed, state and local) is 38% of GDP, but let's zero in on the easy target. Discretionary spending at the Federal level is 1/3 of the total budget (the rest is entitlements like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, debt service, and other mandatory programs). The federal budget for FY2010 was $3.456 trillion. Discretionary spending (once you remove the $690 billion in defense spending and we all know that is off the table) is $660 billion (that is 19% of the total budget. GDP IN 2010 was circa $14.6 trillion. The discretionary federal budget is 4.5% of GDP. That is the lowest level in a generation. In a quick scan of the Congressional Budget Office website, they say the discretionary spending was 8.7% of GDP in 2010. It was 12.6% in 1962. I would imagine that they cut the numbers differently. The point remains, though, because they go on to say that discretionary outlays will continue to decline (to 6.7% by 2020).

Where is said fat to which government critics refer? How much less can we spend on our people, on our society, and still remain globally competitive. That was, afterall, what Obama’s State of the Union was ALL ABOUT! At some point we actually need to pay people to educate our children or we’re screwed.

Food, obesity, and preventable death in America!

2011-01-24T16:10:00.002-06:00

This is such an amazing speech. I have been a fan of his cooking for a long time and am gratified to learn that he is also a man of great conscience and compassion.

A new emphasis on the role of local government

2011-01-18T10:35:00.001-06:00

"Britain's big gamble puts the citizens at the wheel."

This piece, run recently in the Financial Times looks at a Conservative Party proposal to decentralize programs and focus more on local governments to handle things that used to be the purview of national governments. It is refreshing to see this type of effort discussed in a context that places not only the authority for implementation in local hands, but also the authority for generating revenue.

A similar effort is under way in Washington state: “Gregoire's encouraging push toward a new localism”

Overall, is this a good thing? You tell me.

Memories of the Sequoia

2011-01-18T10:13:00.004-06:00

Bright green and sun

Encountering a clearing

An un-passable marsh

Remember the fallen giant?

A natural bridge.

Wide and straight.

Reaching the other side,

The pulled up roots,

Like Medusa's hair.

Bright green and sun.

Oh, the sun.

File this under: "Tell Me Something I Don't Know, Mofo!"

2011-01-04T13:40:00.002-06:00

Here is an article from the DC Streetsblog that says that roads don't pay for themselves. That seems painfully obvious. Even the future development afforded by the new road doesn't pay for it. This is like a dog chasing it's tail scenario. You never do catch that tail.

Oil companies literally crapping into the gulf...

2010-05-29T14:10:00.000-06:00

10 questions, 10 minutes, every 10 years! Do it!

2010-03-30T15:06:00.002-06:00

It looks like your browser cannot or does not support IFRAMES.

Need more information? http://2010.census.gov/

Get on it! If you don't, you're stealing from your neighbors!

Crazy people and airplanes...

2010-02-19T16:16:00.000-06:00

The events of the last day are the inevitable byproduct of a maliciously paranoid undercurrent that is sewn into the fabric of the United States. We are a country founded on the principal of mistrust and the violent throwing off of the oppression of the many by the privileged few. Anthony Joseph Stack was deranged and he perverted what is otherwise the noble underpinnings of our country to fit his selfish and self-centered interests. He was not a martyr. He did not die for a noble cause. He is NOT Samuel Adams!

Every year a study is released that rates the happiest countries in the world. Every year the United States scores disproportionately low based on its relative wealth. Every year my other home country, Denmark, scores at the top. Why? Denmark has an oppressive and über-progressive tax system that takes a significantly larger bite out of the ass of entrepreneurial minded people (like Stack purported to being). In their piece on the happiness study 60 Minutes interviewed a Danish college student. They asked him why Danes were so happy. His reply was in essence; low expectations. They asked him why he thought Americans are so unhappy relatively speaking. His reply was fascinating and incredibly astute. The American Dream, he replied. Americans have too much faith in this Dream that we will all and are all entitled to wealth, to a car (preferably two), a house that we own, unlimited natural resources (water, gas, electricity), unlimited credit, and unlimited opportunity. The truth is, the Dream is opportunity, not a promise. We view it as a birth right, taken for granted, not something sought through hard work. It lets most of us down, in the end.

In comparison to the United States, there are very few extremely wealthy people in Denmark, taxes are much higher, but also, no one goes without health care, is left destitute if they lose their job. Danes know that their kids, whether raised in a working class family or an upper class family, have access to quality education and the opportunity to go far and find a career that will enable them to raise their kids in relative comfort. This is, I believe, never taken for granted in Denmark.

I digress from the events in Austin, but I think it is all pertinent. Americans value, above all else, individualism! In America the belief is you can go as far as your individual ability can take you. If you falter, though, you’re on your own. In Denmark there is a genuine sense that the collective good is in the best interests of all.

This isn’t to say that Americans are not generous. We open our hearts and wallets when events happen around the world, like with the earthquake in Haiti. But I think American generosity is also rooted in our individualism. We do not believe that it is our government’s job to act out our generosity. We prefer that come from the individual or the micro-group (such as churches or nonprofits).

I have a couple of favorite quotes that both stem from the progressive movement that started in this country during the Great Depression.

The first is from LBJ: “I know that government cannot resolve all problems. It cannot make them happy or bring them spiritual fulfillment. But it can attempt to remedy the public failures which are at the root of so many human ills.” It is amazing how not in touch with the pulse of America this statement is.

The second is from FDR during a signing ceremony for a piece of New Deal legislation, he said: “It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” President Roosevelt was calling for bold experimentation by government to try to address the social ills of the Great Depression.

LBJ came into politics in large measure because of FDRs populist New Deal. The former quote is certainly from the same spirit as the latter. What is amazing is how the progressive movement was born in this country, pulled us back from the brink and then was strangled to death and blamed for all that ills our country.

Stack hated the Internal Revenue Service. He blamed them for his inability to amass wealth. He blamed big business for getting advantages that he as an individual and small business owner never had access to. The harsh truth for us all is that he isn’t wrong. Deeply troubled? Yes. Unjustified? Yes. But not entirely unfounded. Our government is broken. Only 13% of Americans approve of our Congress. Only 17% trust the government. This is information that flows to the people from the media. I wonder, though, if we don’t approve of Congress, why do so few of us vote? Asking people if they trust the government is a form of manipulative “push” polling. I would have to count myself in the group of the 83% of Americans that doesn’t, to one degree or another, trust the government. I never trust the government. As Congressman Barney Frank said at a town hall meeting; “Don’t trust the government. You’re an American, who ever told you to trust the government.” The better question might be: do you actively distrust the government? I would bet the number would be smaller, though not as much as I might like.

The truth is, our political system is broken. Unfortunately we tar “government” with the sins of our elected officials. Most government employees are just hard working people trying to make a difference. Truly noble! Our politicians are, by and large, scoundrels. Congress is a dysfunctional mess and it really doesn’t matter which Party runs it. When the Republicans are in charge they spend all their time drowning government in Grover Norquist’s bathtub. When Democrats are in charge they spend all their time pulling it out again. Nothing ever gets done.

Some might think that this proves the conservative maxim that small and limited government is better. It absolutely doesn’t prove that. This seesaw approach to government was deliberately designed by conservatives to create that impression in the minds of Americans, and it has worked. Unfortunately for conservatives, it hasn’t helped Republicans much. They are more hated than Democrats and it has created a splinter group on their right fringe. The Tea Party hurts Republicans much more than it hurts Democrats, and if the Democrats survive the midterm election intact it will be in large measure because of the Tea Party.

As my father pointed out to me the other day as I was complaining to him about the Democratic Party, they have always been more a governing coalition of more than one party. That is why it is so hard to control them and get bills passed. To be a Democrat is to accept that our Party includes, liberals, social democrats, fiscal conservatives, hawks and others. Like it or not, Democrats have decided that it is better to have Barney Frank and Ben Nelson seeking compromise together than have multiple parties pushed aside by the lock step Republicans.

Now we see the solid coalition in the GOP is fracturing too. I think ultimately the GOP will end up as a party of the Center-Right, but I wouldn’t bet against them veering too the right.

Either way, until we find a way to grow together regardless of ideology and all believe that we are one community, one society full of diversity; the Stacks of the world will regrettably always exist.

And the Chronicle responds...

2010-02-12T09:39:00.003-06:00

Because I am a firm believer in presenting responses to my occasional incoherent ranting, here is a response from Michael King, the News Editor of the Austin Chronicle, which was posted on the Chronicle website 90 minutes after my comments.

---

"P*** E***, who modestly neglects to identify himself as a policy aide to a county commissioner, couldn't possibly have any 'political' reasons (horrors!) for supporting Daniel Bradford. As for the Chronicle, since we didn't endorse E's choice, the only possible explanations are ignorance, recklessness, or ill motives. It couldn't possibly be that we simply disagree. This line of argument may be emotionally satisfying to E, but it hardly serves his candidate, 'Daniel.'"

---

I find several things of note in this reply. First, it was very fast and very defensive! Second, he refers to me as modest and those of you that know me I think would agree that modest isn't a word that describes me very well. I did not hide my identity. My username on the Chronicle is "peinhorn" after all (it doesn't take Robert Langdon to unlock that secret code). I did not state my occupation because I was not speaking in an official capacity. I, like most Americans, would like to believe that I am capable and allowed to form opinions of my own that I can, when not at work, contribute to the body politic.

I don't ever speak for Travis County Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt on politics (or anything else) to the press. This is because, first, she speaks forcefully and capably for herself. In addition, as her Policy Director I don't work on politics, but rather on issues (something Mr. King scorns as "pompous" in his explanation of how the Chronicle decides who to endorse). I am not naive. I concede that there is politics involved in what I do, but it absolutely never includes electoral politics. Never. A journalist worth their paycheck would probably know that about me, since he bothered to determine who I am (investigative reporting at its most crafty, since I gave my name and phone number when I submitted my comments).

No, my comments weren't some super secret way of communicating Commissioner Eckhardt's support for Daniel Bradford, or mine really (since I live in JP Precinct 3). My comments were more focused on a badly written and badly justified endorsement. If those comments offended Mr. King, I certainly do apologize. If they stung, then there must be some level of truth in them.

My comments, bitchy in their own right, were me sticking up for a friend. A friend that I believe ought to win, but I believe that determination should be made by the men and women of Precinct 1 based on issues, not cynical rhetoric. I did it and I would never hesitate to do it again!

GO DANIEL, GO!!!

Letter to the Editor of the Austin Chronicle on their endorsements

2010-02-11T16:23:00.006-06:00

It seems that the Chronicle is not fully informed on the issues that Justices of the Peace face. In your endorsement of Ms. Williams (JP 1) you reference her experience in civil litigation and her experience as an associate municipal judge, but make no reference to whether she has a grasp of the issues facing the office for which she is running.

Meanwhile Daniel’s experience is belittled, but he is the only candidate who actually works for Travis County, knows the idiosyncratic inner workings of the odd beast which is county government, knows how the county budget process works, and understands (as a former Commissioners Court staffer) how to foster cooperation between the counties many players. Your endorsement references a statement from his website where he refers to “being a young lawyer among ‘entrenched bureaucrats.’” It is unfortunate that this quote is left dangling there. The point, which is completed in the next sentence is: “I have made a place for myself as someone who gets things done, success that I owe to being able to think outside the box, by having a solid knowledge of the law and the good humor to overcome old-school beliefs to get my ideas heard.”

On the campaign trail Daniel routinely discusses the need for technological innovation in an office that is regarded as the least technologically savvy of the JP offices. The case management system used by the JPs, called FACTS, faces massive challenges. Perhaps it would have been worth considering which candidate was better placed to oversee the updates and upgrades to this vital system.

I never hear Yvonne Williams discussing any original ideas for innovation and thus find your statement that both represent “some of the best young energy of Austin…” to be doubly odd when Daniel Bradford (35) is visibly more at ease discussing technological solutions than Yvonne Williams (55).

I think that when endorsing for more political offices it might be acceptable to rate candidates on intangibles, but when one is dealing with a judicial office like JPs (because it is very much an administrative position), I believe it is important to understand the issues fully or you risk being reckless in your endorsements. You wield immense influence over a segment of the voting population. Instead of pretending that you understand the issues or endorsing based on politics, you should simply not endorse.

Health reform and the realistic limits of our capacity for change...

2009-12-16T10:48:00.004-06:00

It sounds crazy as I type this, but I believe that the health reform bill that will pass will not go nearly far enough and I think it was the right decision for the White House to urge the Senate to appease the moderates and counsel restraint. The public option might be the right way to go, but it isn't the only way to get there. And this idea of expanding Medicare to 55-64 with a buy in as an alternative to the public option is like getting turned down for $50 and then asking for $50,000.

The bill that passes will do a number of really important things.

1. It creates a mandate that all people have health insurance (like the auto insurance mandate) that meets a certain minimum level of coverage. This will most likely be catastrophic coverage.
a. The penalty for not having coverage will be either a 2.5% tax on adjusted annual income (House Bill) or $750/person up to a family of four (Senate Bill)

2. It will create a payroll tax for businesses that don't provide some level of coverage to employees to help offset the cost of those employees buying coverage and help cover the cost of subsidies for people who are below a certain income threshold.

3. It will regulate insurance companies.
a. They will no longer be able to turn away people for pre-existing conditions or arbitrarily cut peoples coverage when they get sick.
b. They will only be allowed to charge one rate for insurance that is not based on health status (huge for people with HIV, Hep-C, Diabetes, etc.).
c. They will not be allowed to create annual maximum coverage levels (many cut off at $100K or $1 million) or maximum coverage levels for the life of the policy (not annual, but overall)

4. It will expand Medicaid to cover all individuals up to either 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (House) or 150% of FPL (Senate)

5. It will remove anti-trust exemptions for health and malpractice insurers (interstate competition)

6. It will limit medical loss ratios to 85% (the amount of revenues from health insurance premiums that is spent to pay for the medical services covered by the plan.)

7. It will create health insurance exchanges (like in the Mass reform from 2006) This will:
a. Improve competition
b. Allow states also to create & regulate exchanges
c. Create Co-ops (like Kaiser, GroupHealth of Puget Sound and the Mayo Clinic to name a few)

8. It will address affordability
a. Sliding scale for families up to 400% of FPL
b. Small employer tax credit

9. It will create a health savings account system for pharmaceutical coverage

They are looking at ways to pay for this. One idea is a 5.4% tax on adjusted income for those making over $500,000 per year.

The Senate bill was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as being deficit neutral (i.e. cost savings will balance new costs).

So there I have painted a very rosey picture for you. That certainly isn't the totality of this bill. It doesn't do enough to control the cost of health care in this country, the regulation doesn't go far enough (in my opinion). A medical loss ratio of 85% is a joke (considering that the VA is like 98% and Medicare is 95%). There are many short comings.

My personal belief is that we should look at the Dutch health reform from a couple years ago as a model. It is a highly regulated private sector system.

Here's a link

But if this is all that passes, and I think it will pass, it will be a huge step forward for health care in this country. That doesn't mean that the game is done. As with all public policy issues, you drink a beer, celebrate the victory and wake up the next day and begin anew (also true for climate change at COP15 and the Cap and Trade legislation).

Is COP15 the problem or the solution? And, freedom of speech vs. freedom of participation

2009-12-15T14:49:00.002-06:00

I have been tracking the “goings on” of the COP15 climate conference in Copenhagen. In the process, one of the blogs I have been following is called: Liz to Copenhagen.

Today she wrote:

“There are a series of high-level meetings taking place this Friday with 115 heads of state, and I guess they don’t want us riffraff getting in their way. So, the UN has set up a system.

7000 NGOs are allowed in tomorrow. This is 7000 out of the 35 000 who have applied for accreditation.
1000 are allowed in on Thursday.
90 are allowed in on Friday during the head-of-state meetings.

“I wholeheartedly disapprove! This is contrary to the principles of the UN and the UNFCCC as a transparent forum for staging events, networking, expressing grievances, and trying to urge our leaders to take civil society into account as they make decisions.

“A system of double badges will be put into place in addition to the usual badge check and security line. The secondary badges will be distributed to 33% of the NGO delegation in question. The other 2/3 just do without. What this means for the youth constituency, and SustainUS specifically, is that (in addition to destroying our sole line of wireless communication) we each receive a number each day, which we must strategically divide among our extended delegation of 99. This means we go in pre-scheduled shifts, and youth must shift our headquarters to outside the Bella Center. The worst part is that they didn’t even give SustainUS 33%–they gave us 24 badges.

“The youth movement has been working diligently throughout the last several years to gain recognition as a serious stakeholder in this process. It has all been eradicated with the stroke of a pen. We are most displeased. This is exactly the sort of thing the UN needs not to be doing at this point.

“No surprise, but–when you consider that the youth have been called the moral voice of the UN, I guess this shows what role morality plays in the real world.”

I have two responses to this post. First, I praise her energy and enthusiasm. Second, as I wrote in a comment on her blog:

“I was just saying on my Facebook: ‘There is a misconception in this country that freedom of speech = freedom to be listened to. I have a right to ignore what you are saying!’ Allowing 7000 NGOs in seems very reasonable, to me. There is a lot of redundancy in that 35,000.”

In a second comment, I wrote:

“What number should be allowed in on Friday when the heads of state meet? 30,000? 10,000? 7000? 500? Does that seem reasonable? Does it seem like any more than 90 would facilitate a productive session?

“I must admit, it seems to me that the “youth movement’s” exclusion on Friday only eradicates their efforts if you choose to see it that way. Perhaps part of that effort was electing one Presidential candidate or another. Perhaps it has placed a spotlight on this effort.

“I am a firm believer in open government and consensus making and allowing citizen input, but at some point in our “republic” (and that is what we are, not a pure democracy) we elect people to be in the room and see us across the finish line. If they fail to do that, we can choose to hold them accountable. We can choose to trust them or not, that is an individual choice. With this President, and the political reality in the United States such as it is, I choose to trust that he will get us the best deal that he can. It won’t go far enough for me, but it never was going to go far enough for me. Other countries would see to that, even if my country did not.”

My question is; what is the alternative? The day after Copenhagen we start anew to keep the ball rolling forward.

Political Science?

2009-10-20T12:47:00.003-06:00

Here is an interesting article from nytimes.com. Definitely food for thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/books/20poli.html?_r=1

I have often thought that political science outside the public policy process is generally an exercise in intellectualism. Not that there isn't a place for the straight up study of political theory. For goodness sake, pure political philosophy got us Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Marx, and many, many more, but we should not pretend that there is direct or easy applicability. That said, I think that the biggest failing of the study of public policy, public administration, and/or public affairs is that it often neglects political science, which risks making the process of public policy formulation irrelevant and esoteric. The two disciplines need one another. No one need Tom Coburn, though. What a blowhard! He is such a budget hawk that it blinds him to everything else. That type of single mindedness is really simple mindedness.

Another thought... it could be that the reason politicians like Coburn don't find direct applicability in political science is because they fail to comprehend the research and are unable to think abstractly and draw the lessons out of the research. I think many elected officials want to be presented with an orange and then be told that it is an orange and that means... XYZ. Do some critical thinking, people!!!

Kirk Caldwell for Mayor of Honolulu!!!

2009-09-11T11:07:00.002-06:00

As you know, in politics, perception is everything.

My old boss, former Hawaii State House Majority Leader and current Managing Director for the City and County of Honolulu Kirk Caldwell has announced that he will run for Mayor.

Please go on the KHON website, scroll down till you see the poll in the center and vote for Kirk Caldwell for mayor.

Mahalo!

http://www.khon2.com/

This is why I work for government...

2009-09-10T13:01:00.001-06:00

From Obama's speech last night on health reform:

"You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

"What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

"But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test."

Damn right!

Reason number 39 why I hate Republicans!

2009-07-21T08:56:00.001-06:00

‘The Cause of My Life’
Inside the fight for universal health care.

Edward M. Kennedy

NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Jul 27, 2009

In 1964, I was flying with several companions to the Massachusetts Democratic Convention when our small plane crashed and burned short of the runway. My friend and colleague in the Senate, Birch Bayh, risked his life to pull me from the wreckage. Our pilot, Edwin Zimny, and my administrative assistant, Ed Moss, didn't survive. With crushed vertebrae, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung, I spent months in New England Baptist Hospital in Boston. To prevent paralysis, I was strapped into a special bed that immobilizes a patient between two canvas slings. Nurses would regularly turn me over so my lungs didn't fill with fluid. I knew the care was expensive, but I didn't have to worry about that. I needed the care and I got it.

Now I face another medical challenge. Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy.

But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.

This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver—to support Barack Obama, but also to make sure, as I said, "that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege." For four decades I have carried this cause—from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society. Now the issue has more meaning for me—and more urgency—than ever before. But it's always been deeply personal, because the importance of health care has been a recurrent lesson throughout most of my 77 years.

Nothing I'm enduring now can compare to hearing that my children were seriously ill. In 1973, when I was first fighting in the Senate for universal coverage, we learned that my 12-year-old son Teddy had bone cancer. He had to have his right leg amputated above the knee. Even then, the pathology report showed that some of the cancer cells were very aggressive. There were only a few long-shot options to stop it from spreading further. I decided his best chance for survival was a clinical trial involving massive doses of chemotherapy. Every three weeks, at Children's Hospital Boston, he had to lie still for six hours while the fluid dripped into his arm. I remember watching and praying for him, all the while knowing how sick he would be for days afterward.

During those many hours at the hospital, I came to know other parents whose children had been stricken with the same deadly disease. We all hoped that our child's life would be saved by this experimental treatment. Because we were part of a clinical trial, none of us paid for it. Then the trial was declared a success and terminated before some patients had completed their treatments. That meant families had to have insurance to cover the rest or pay for them out of pocket. Our family had the necessary resources as well as excellent insurance coverage. But other heartbroken parents pleaded with the doctors: What chance does my child have if I can only afford half of the prescribed treatments? Or two thirds? I've sold everything. I've mortgaged as much as possible. No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world.

That experience with Teddy made it clear to me, as never before, that health care must be affordable and available for every mother or father who hears a sick child cry in the night and worries about the deductibles and copays if they go to the doctor. But that was just one medical crisis. My family, like every other, has faced many—at every stage of life. I think of my parents and the medical care they needed after their strokes. I think of my son Patrick, who suffered serious asthma as a child and sometimes had to be rushed to the hospital for treatment. (For this reason, we had no dogs in the house when Patrick was young.) I think of my daughter, Kara, diagnosed with lung cancer in 2002. Few doctors were willing to try an operation. One did—and after that surgery and arduous rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, she's alive and healthy today. My family has had the care it needed. Other families have not, simply because they could not afford it.

I have seen letters and e-mails from many of these less fortunate Americans. In their pleas, there's always dignity, but too often desperation. "Our school is closing in June of 2010, which means that I will be losing my job and my health insurance," writes Mary Dunn, a 58-year-old schoolteacher in Eden, S.D. "I am a Type I diabetic, and I had heart bypass surgery in 2005. My husband is also a teacher [here], so we will both be losing insurance. I am exploring options and have been told that I cannot stay on our group policy or transfer to another policy after our jobs cease because of my medical condition. What am I to do after 39 years of teaching to acquire adequate health coverage?" Dunn also serves as mayor of Eden, for which she is paid $45 a month with no health benefits.

How will we, as a nation, answer her? I've heard countless such stories, including one from the family of Cassandra Wilson, a 14-year-old who once was a competitive ice skater. She's uninsured because she has petit mal seizures, often 200 times a day. Her parents have run up $30,000 on their credit cards. They've sold her skating equipment on eBay to pay for her care.
These two cases represent only those patients who lack coverage. We also need to find answers for the increasing number of Americans whose insurance costs too much, covers too little, and can be too easily revoked when they face the most serious illnesses.

Our response to these challenges will define our character as a country. But the challenges themselves—and the demands for reform—are not new. In 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran for a third term as president, the platform of his newly created Progressive Party called for national health insurance. Harry Truman proposed it again more than 30 years after Roosevelt was defeated. The plan was attacked, not for the last time, as "socialized medicine," and members of Truman's White House staff were branded "followers of the Moscow party line."
For the next generation, no one ventured to tread where T.R. and Truman fell short. But in the early 1960s, a new young president was determined to take a first step—to free the elderly from the threat of medical poverty. John Kennedy called Medicare "one of the most important measures I have advocated." He understood the pain of injury and illness: as a senator, he had almost died after surgery to repair a back injury sustained during World War II, an injury that would plague him all of his life. I was in college as he recuperated and learned to walk without crutches at my parents' winter home in Florida. I visited often, and we spent afternoons painting landscapes and seascapes. (It was a competition: at dinner after we finished, we would ask family members to decide whose painting was better.) I saw how the pain would periodically hit him as we were painting; he'd have to put down his brush for a while. And I saw, too, how hard he fought as president to pass Medicare. It was a battle he didn't have the opportunity to finish. But I was in the Senate to vote for the Medicare bill before Lyndon Johnson signed it into law—with Harry Truman at his side. In the Senate, I viewed Medicare as a great achievement, but only a beginning. In 1966, I visited the Columbia Point Neighborhood Health Center in Boston; it was a pilot project providing health services to low-income families in the two-floor office of an apartment building. I saw mothers in rocking chairs, tending their children in a warm and welcoming setting. They told me this was the first time they could get basic care without spending hours on public transportation and in hospital waiting rooms. I authored legislation, which passed a few months later, establishing the network of community health centers that are all around America today.

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House. I tried to negotiate an agreement with President Carter but became frustrated when he decided that he'd rather take a piecemeal approach. I ran against Carter, a sitting president from my own party, in large part because of this disagreement. Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign: I argued then that the issue wasn't just coverage but also out-of-control costs that would ultimately break both family and federal budgets, and increasingly burden the national economy. I even predicted, optimistically, that the business community, largely opposed to reform, would come around to supporting it.

That didn't happen as soon as I thought it would. When Bill Clinton returned to the issue in the first years of his presidency, I fought the battle in Congress. We lost to a virtually united front of corporations, insurance companies, and other interest groups. The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. But we didn't just walk away and do nothing—even though Republicans were again in control of Congress. We returned to a step-by-step approach. With Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas, the daughter of the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, I crafted a law to make health insurance more portable for those who change or lose jobs. It didn't do enough to fully guarantee that, but we made progress. I worked with my friend Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chair of our committee, to enact CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program; today it covers more than 7 million children from low-income families, although too many of them could soon lose coverage as impoverished state governments cut their contributions.

Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall. And much of the business community, which has suffered the economic cost of inaction, is helping to shape change, not lobbying against it. I know this because I've spent the past year, along with my staff, negotiating with business leaders, hospital administrators, and doctors. As soon as I left the hospital last summer, I was on the phone, and I've kept at it. Since the inauguration, the administration has been deeply involved in the process. So have my Senate colleagues—in particular Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, and my friend and partner in this mission, Chris Dodd. Even those most ardently opposed to reform in the past have been willing to make constructive gestures now.

To help finance a bill, the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to lower prices for seniors, not only saving them money for prescriptions but also saving the government tens of billions in Medicare payments over the next decade. Senator Baucus has agreed with hospitals on more than $100 billion in savings. We're working with Republicans to make this a bipartisan effort. Everyone won't be satisfied—and no one will get everything they want. But we need to come together, just as we've done in other great struggles—in World War II and the Cold War, in passing the great civil-rights laws of the 1960s, and in daring to send a man to the moon. If we don't get every provision right, we can adjust and improve the program next year or in the years to come. What we can't afford is to wait another generation.

I long ago learned that you have to be a realist as you pursue your ideals. But whatever the compromises, there are several elements that are essential to any health-reform plan worthy of the name.

First, we have to cover the uninsured. When President Clinton proposed his plan, 33 million Americans had no health insurance. Today the official number has reached 47 million, but the economic crisis will certainly push the total higher. Unless we act now, within a few years, 55 million Americans could be left without coverage even as the economy recovers.

All Americans should be required to have insurance. For those who can't afford the premiums, we can provide subsidies. We'll make it illegal to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. We'll also prohibit the practice of charging women higher premiums than men, and the elderly far higher premiums than anyone else. The bill drafted by the Senate health committee will let children be covered by their parents' policy until the age of 26, since first jobs after high school or college often don't offer health benefits.

To accomplish all of this, we have to cut the costs of health care. For families who've seen health-insurance premiums more than double—from an average of less than $6,000 a year to nearly $13,000 since 1999—one of the most controversial features of reform is one of the most vital. It's been called the "public plan." Despite what its detractors allege, it's not "socialism." It could take a number of different forms. Our bill favors a "community health-insurance option." In short, this means that the federal government would negotiate rates—in keeping with local economic conditions—for a plan that would be offered alongside private insurance options. This will foster competition in pricing and services. It will be a safety net, giving Americans a place to go when they can't find or afford private insurance, and it's critical to holding costs down for everyone.

We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days—at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.

Social justice is often the best economics. We can help disabled Americans who want to live in their homes instead of a nursing home. Simple things can make all the difference, like having the money to install handrails or have someone stop by and help every day. It's more humane and less costly—for the government and for families—than paying for institutionalized care. That's why we should give all Americans a tax deduction to set aside a small portion of their earnings each month to provide for long-term care.

Another cardinal principle of reform: we have to make certain that people can keep the coverage they already have. Millions of employers already provide health insurance for their employees. We shouldn't do anything to disturb this. On the contrary, we need to mandate employer responsibility: except for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees, every company should have to cover its workers or pay into a system that will.

We need to prevent disease and not just cure it. (Today 80 percent of health spending pays for care for the 20 percent of Americans with chronic illnesses like diabetes, cancer, or heart disease.) Too many people get to the doctor too seldom or too late—or know too little about how to stay healthy. No one knows better than I do that when it comes to advanced, highly specialized treatments, America can boast the best health care in the world—at least for those who can afford it. But we still have to modernize a system that doesn't always provide the basics.

I've heard the critics complain about the costs of change. I'm confident that at the end of the process, the change will be paid for—fairly, responsibly, and without adding to the federal deficit. It doesn't make sense to negotiate in the pages of NEWSWEEK, but I will say that I'm open to many options, including a surtax on the wealthy, as long as it meets the principle laid down by President Obama: that there will be no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. What I haven't heard the critics discuss is the cost of inaction. If we don't reform the system, if we leave things as they are, health-care inflation will cost far more over the next decade than health-care reform. We will pay far more for far less—with millions more Americans uninsured or underinsured.

This would threaten not just the health of Americans but also the strength of the American economy. Health-care spending already accounts for 17 percent of our entire domestic product. In other advanced nations, where the figure is around 10 percent, everyone has insurance and health outcomes that are equal or better than ours. This disparity undermines our ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. General Motors spends more per vehicle on health care than on steel.

We will bring health-care reform to the Senate and House floors soon, and there will be a vote. A century-long struggle will reach its climax. We're almost there. In the meantime, I will continue what I've been doing—making calls, urging progress. I've had dinner twice recently at my home in Hyannis Port with Senator Dodd, and when President Obama called me during his Rome trip after meeting with the Pope, much of our discussion was about health care. I believe the bill will pass, and we will end the disgrace of America as the only major industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all of its people.

At another Democratic convention, in arguing for this cause, I spoke of the insurance coverage senators and members of Congress provide for themselves. That was 1980. In the last year, I've often relied on that Congressional insurance. My wife, Vicki, and I have worried about many things, but not whether we could afford my care and treatment. Each time I've made a phone call or held a meeting about the health bill—or even when I've had the opportunity to get out for a sail along the Massachusetts coast—I've thought in an even more powerful way than before about what this will mean to others. And I am resolved to see to it this year that we create a system to ensure that someday, when there is a cure for the disease I now have, no American who needs it will be denied it.

This story was written with Robert Shrum, Senator Kennedy’s friend and longtime speechwriter.

Not sure how I feel about this...

2009-06-26T13:44:00.001-06:00

What's Right Is Right...

2009-06-26T13:24:00.003-06:00

A friend forwarded me this e-mail today:

Did you know that the military is still discharging soldiers for being openly gay?

One of these soldiers is California's own Lt. Dan Choi, who is also an Arabic linguist. Lt. Choi is fighting the discharge and fighting the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and needs your help.

Lt. Choi goes on trial on Tuesday. I just signed a letter of support via the Courage Campaign for Lt. Choi, which he will bring with him to his trial.

Will you join me in signing and urge your friends to do the same before Tuesday's trial?:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/SupportDan

My first response was: What part of "don't ask, don't tell" do you not understand? Openly gay...

As I considered bigotry, I considered the difference between homophobia and racism. It really isn't an“apples to apples” comparison. Lt. Choi is young enough that he joined the Army know of their "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He signed paperwork upon entering West Point and upon being commissioned an officer in the United States Army knowing that to be openly gay was to violate Army policy and procedures.

Do I think it is the dumbest rule in the history of the world? Yes, certainly one of them. Do I think that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military? Yes, I do. But he knowing violated rules and signed enlistment papers under false pretenses. I don't know why he decided to be open about his lifestyle, it really isn't any of my business, but he did.

I think it is sad that someone can be patriotically moved to want to fight for this country and be told because of their sexual orientation. Pretty pathetic, really.

I condone no type of discrimination and I think the rule should be changed. I also think that unjust rules should be broken on principle. This form of political thought is called transcendentalism. It is a school of thought that started in New England in the 19th century with folks like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, among others.

Emerson wrote: "We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds ... A nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men."

He also said:

“So shall we come to look at the world with new eyes. It shall answer the endless inquiry of the intellect, — What is truth? and of the affections, — What is good? by yielding itself passive to the educated Will. ... Build, therefore, your own world. As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions. A correspondent revolution in things will attend the influx of the spirit.”

In the end, however, the transcendentalists believed that this living by their own moral compass would lead them into conflict with the state. They held that laws that we feel are unjust should be broken, but that we should be willing to pay the price for violating those laws as part of our statement of injustice.

My wanting the world to be different only does so much, John. I am not a militant revolutionary and I will not overthrow my government to ensure that homosexuals can serve in the military. Like the transcendentalists, I am an incrementalist. I believe that change is always happening.

10 years ago an effort was under-taken to ban same sex marriage. At that time, the ballot initiative prevailed by a huge margin. In 2008, after the California Supreme Court had struck down the previous effort, the vote was far, far closer. This is a generational issue. Old people are stupid as fuck and ignorant. But eventually they will die.

I am saddened that this is an ongoing debate, but I believe that it is not a matter of if full equal writes for homosexuals will occur, it is when. I do not believe in civil unions for same sex partners. I believe in full equality. Nothing less. Anything less would be to indicate that I believe they are somehow less than. My advocacy takes the form of voting, and calling out injustice when I see it.

I signed the petition, by the way, while I believe that Lt. Choi knowing violated the rules, I also believe he should never have to hide who he is to make someone ignorant feel comfortable.

God bless Lt. Choi and those who serve a nation that doesn’t recognize them as equals.

A bad thing for liberals.

2009-05-26T14:53:00.003-06:00

I have not been posting lately, but this came via e-mail recently and it is a pretty good summary of the implosion of one of our major parties. I have never voted for a Republican, I have never encountered one worth voting for. I must admit that I am considering voting in the Republican Primary next year so I can vote for Kay Bailey Hutchison. But that is not because I like her, but rather because the Hairdo from Dallas must be blocked at all cost.

All that aside, the implosion of the Republican Party is a really bad thing for the United States and a really bad thing for the Democratic Party. Yes, a bad thing. The problem is that we need more political parties, not fewer and as the GOP eats itself and slides off the "flat Earth" they so love they leave the Democrats in a position that they do not handle well. Unbridled power. It will be good for liberal public policy, but I know the Dems will mess it up. They won't be able to help themselves.

Corruption, over-reaching and alienating the vast moderate middle. They will put up with liberal public policy like environmental policy and health reform, but many will balk at liberal activism. A question for y'all; what is the difference between liberal public policy and liberal activism? Where is the line?

Time will tell.

Long story short, we need a sane and grounded conservative counter-weight to keep the Democratic Party honest and even-keeled.

-----

Angry GOP divorced from reality

By Bill Maher
April 28, 2009

If conservatives don't want to be seen as bitter people who cling to their guns
and religion and anti-immigrant sentiments, they should stop being bitter and
clinging to their guns, religion and anti-immigrant sentiments.

I still don't know what those "tea bag" protests were about. I saw signs
protesting abortion, illegal immigrants, the bank bailout and that gay guy
who's going to win American Idol. But it wasn't tax day that made them crazy;
it was Election Day. Because that's when Republicans became what they fear
most: a minority.

The conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because ... well,
nobody knows. They're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.
Even though they're not quite sure what "it" is. But they know they're fed up
with "it," and that "it" has got to stop.

Here are the big issues for normal people: the war, the economy, the
environment, mending fences with our enemies and allies, and the rule of law.

And here's the list of Republican obsessions since President Barack Obama took
office: that his birth certificate is supposedly fake, he uses a teleprompter
too much, he bowed to a Saudi guy, Europeans like him, he gives inappropriate
gifts, his wife shamelessly flaunts her upper arms, and he shook hands with
Hugo Chavez and slipped him the nuclear launch codes.

Do these sound like the concerns of a healthy, vibrant political party?

It's sad what's happened to the Republicans. They used to be the party of the
big tent; now they're the party of the sideshow attraction, a socially awkward
group of mostly white people who speak a language only they understand. Like
Trekkies, but paranoid.

The GOP base is convinced that Mr. Obama is going to raise their taxes, which
he just lowered. But, you say, "Bill, that's just the fringe of the Republican
Party." No, it's not. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is not afraid to say
publicly that thinking out loud about Texas seceding from the Union is
appropriate considering that ... Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes 3 percent on 5
percent of the people? I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Perry's independent nation
would look like, but I'm pretty sure it would be free of taxes and Planned
Parenthood. And I would have to totally rethink my position on a border fence.

I know. It's not about what Mr. Obama's done. It's what he's planning. But you
can't be sick and tired of something someone might do.

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota recently said she fears that Mr.
Obama will build re-education camps to indoctrinate young people. But Mr. Obama
hasn't made any moves toward taking anyone's guns, and with money as tight as
it is, the last thing the president wants to do is run a camp where he has to
shelter and feed a bunch of fat, angry white people.

Look, I get it, "real America." After a long run of controlling the White
House, Congress and the Supreme Court, this latest election has you feeling
like a rejected husband. You've come home to find your things out on the front
lawn, or at least more things than you usually keep out on the front lawn.
You're not ready to let go, but the country you love is moving on. And now you
want to call it a whore and key its car.

That's what you are, the bitter divorced guy whose country has left him -
obsessing over it, haranguing it, blubbering one minute about how much you love
it and vowing the next that if you cannot have it, nobody will. But it's been
almost 100 days, and your country is not coming back to you. She's found
somebody new. And it's a black guy.

The healthy thing to do is to just get past it and learn to cherish the
memories. You'll always have New Orleans and Abu Ghraib.

And if today's conservatives are insulted by this, because they feel they're
better than the people who have the microphone in their party, then I say to
them what I would say to moderate Muslims: Denounce your radicals. To
paraphrase George W. Bush, either you're with them or you're embarrassed by
them.

The thing that you people out of power have to remember is that the people in
power are not secretly plotting against you. They don't need to. They already
beat you in public.

An Oldie But A Goodie!

2009-05-15T12:36:00.000-06:00

There is a new Sheriff in Town!

2009-05-15T09:44:00.002-06:00

The Waxman-Markey Bill, now dubbed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is winding its way through the halls of power as we speak. The compromise announced in the last couple days allows for 35% of 4.7 Billion allowances will be given for free to local distribution companies that provide electrical service to protect rate payers; 15% will be given to “trade-intensive” industries such as steelmakers, glass, aluminum, and paper for free starting in 2014, phasing out by 2 percent per year. Auto makers initially would receive 3% of the allowances free. Members are also still working on a free allowances figure for petroleum refiners, believed to be between 1 percent and 5 percent.

That sounds soft to me!

Climate change experts seem to have found consensus around the fact that we are rapidly running out of time. I wonder if we can really afford to play loose and fast with the allocation of the tradable credits so that our dirtiest industries get their credits for free for a while. I think we should give credits for free to clean industries so they can sell them to the dirtier industries and use the profit to build and expand and create jobs. That would enable the shift to occur more quickly.

But what do I know, I just read about the stuff til my eyes bleed. It's not like I'm an expert or anything. If I was an expert, I'd obviously be working for a coal or oil company...

Here is EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson from the Daily Show last night.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Lisa P. Jackson

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Busy or lazy?

2009-04-17T18:20:00.003-06:00

This blog is being severely neglected. For any readers that are still there, I apologize. I have lot of opinions, but the fact that the Texas legislature is in session is taking too much of my time.

I am on Twitter. Tweeting is ADHD blogging. I can be found at: http://www.twitter.com/Freak_Politics

Centrists 1 - Obama 0

2009-02-11T09:02:00.001-06:00

Sorry to say it, but Obama was very unimpressive in dealing with the Stimulus bill. He allowed the moderate Dems and Republicans in the Senate to establish the tone of the debate. As a result, the hard work that the House put into a fiscal spending approach was aborted.

Hey Liberals, you allow Joe Lieberman to eat your lunch... again!

Hey Bambi, why is fiscal policy important to replace the decline in private sector spending? The Stimulus was always going to be too small, but the White House allowed the mushy middle to turn it into a big fat $800 billion nothing.

Praise song for the day

2009-01-20T22:32:00.002-06:00

The following is a transcript of the inaugural poem recited by Elizabeth Alexander, as provided by CQ transcriptions.

Praise song for the day.

Each day we go about our business, walking past each other, catching each others' eyes or not, about to speak or speaking. All about us is noise. All about us is noise and bramble, thorn and din, each one of our ancestors on our tongues. Someone is stitching up a hem, darning a hole in a uniform, patching a tire, repairing the things in need of repair.

Someone is trying to make music somewhere with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.

A farmer considers the changing sky; A teacher says, "Take out your pencils. Begin."

We encounter each other in words, words spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed; words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark the will of someone and then others who said, "I need to see what's on the other side; I know there's something better down the road."

We need to find a place where we are safe; We walk into that which we cannot yet see.

Say it plain, that many have died for this day. Sing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the glittering edifices they would then keep clean and work inside of.

Praise song for struggle; praise song for the day. Praise song for every hand-lettered sign; The figuring it out at kitchen tables.

Some live by "Love thy neighbor as thy self."

Others by first do no harm, or take no more than you need.

What if the mightiest word is love, love beyond marital, filial, national. Love that casts a widening pool of light. Love with no need to preempt grievance.

In today's sharp sparkle, this winter air, anything can be made, any sentence begun.

On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp -- praise song for walking forward in that light.

You had me at hello, Mr. President, you had me at hello...

2009-01-20T21:29:00.002-06:00

What a speech. I don't even know what to say. I need to watch it a couple more times before I write any more on it. Here are some lines that stick out...

"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom."

---

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."

---

"So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: 'Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].'

"America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

Food for Thought

2008-12-19T16:24:00.001-06:00

"The liberal candidate may not win, but the conservative candidate has got to become more liberal. The drift of humane society is in that direction."

-Bob Eckhardt, 1962

A brief return from hiatus for this... too good to be true!

2008-12-15T09:48:00.001-06:00

Sometimes events occur that demand putting aside planned procedure to address them immediately. George W. Bush ducking not one, but two shoes deserves such an approach. Enjoy, I did.

Hilarious!!!

2008-11-06T16:38:00.001-06:00

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

More cabinet rumoring...

2008-11-06T16:31:00.001-06:00

It's officially official:
1. Rahm Emanuel is in as COS
2. David Axelrod is in a "Senior Advisor" (nice generic title)
3. Transition economic advisors will be Robert Reich, Larry Summers, Warren Buffet, Bob Rubin, Governor Granholm, Paul Volcker, David Bonior, Roel Campos, William Daley, Roger Ferguson, Anne Mulcahy, Richard Parsons, Penny Pritzker, Eric Schmidt, Laura Tyson, and Antonio Villaraigosa (who Lego my Ego refers to as Villagrossa)

From the realm of idle rumoring:
1. Tom Daschle for HHS
2. Max Cleland for Army Secretary
3. John Kerry is lobbying for Secretary of State
4. Chuck Hagel for DOD
5. Bill Richardson for State
6. Deval Patrick for AG
7. Howard Dean for HHS

Here is my question; if every Democratic governor in the U.S. Goes into the cabinet, will there be any Democrats left to run the states???

This just in...

2008-11-05T16:24:00.001-06:00

According to the Portland Oregonian blog (Michelle Roberts) political analyst Tim Hibbitts is predicting that Democrat Jeff Merkley will upset Senator Gordon Smith. He based this prediction based on outstanding votes to be counted. As of right now only 56% of Multnomah County (Portland) has been counted and is breaking sharply for the challenger.

Nothing written in stone!

Also, Senator Coleman and Al Franken are headed to a re-count with Coleman leading by 800 votes. More on this to come...

Update: the state has explained how they are recounting 3 million votes. Coleman has, in the interim declared victory. A bit premature, don't you think Normie?

The President-elect's cabinet

2008-11-05T14:31:00.001-06:00

So far I am hearing:
1. Rahm Emanuel for Chief-of-Staff (I believe this is confirmed)
2. Napolitano, Pea and Daley for transition team
3. Gov. Napolitano for Attorney General (this would be a mistake, we need her in Phoenix),
4. RFK, Jr. for EPA Administrator (asked if he would take it, RFK said: "if asked, I will serve)
5. Jon Corzine for Treasury Secretary (I don't buy this)
6. Governor Rendell for DOE (I don't buy this either)
7. Vilsack for Agriculture
8. Steve Westly for DOE
9. Senator Lugar for Secretary of State (this would be a great pick)
10. Caroline Kennedy for Ed Secretary

I would urge caution. Most of this is likely wishful thinking mixed with hangover. Time will tell.

The speech heard 'round the world!

2008-11-05T09:22:00.001-06:00

Illegal gay people...

2008-11-05T09:05:00.002-06:00

It looks like California will pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Statewide it is standing at 52-48 for it. I am particularly disappointed in my old hometown. Los Angeles County voted 50.4-49.6 in favor of the ban. Amazing what some people think is their business. Perhaps if conservatives had focused more on the issues that challenge all Americans they would not have taken an old fashioned ass-whipping from sea to shining sea.

No news on whether Stuart Smalley (Al Franken) will indeed go down to defeat. It doesn't look good at this point. Additionally, Senator Smith in Oregon may hold on, but it is tight there too.

So far I have only missed North Dakota and Missouri. Missouri was tight, it was always going to be close, but I think Obama just didn't resonate with the bumpkins in the southern part of the state. Not sure if there was ever going to be a way to peel them away, but the speech Obama gave last night makes it clear that the politics of division and marginalization of opposition is over, for now at least.

I am tired and I have to get to work now! More later...

This just in...

2008-11-05T01:01:00.001-06:00

It is being reported that Barack Obama has offered and Rahm Emanuel has accepted the job of Chief of Staff. I like Rahm Emanuel and I think he will do a good job, but I was holding out hope for former Senator Tom Daschle. I will have to wait and see where he lands. Perhaps in the cabinet or an ambassadorship. Time will tell.

This will free up a Congressional seat in addition to a Obama’s Senate seat from Illinois. There is speculation that Jesse Jackson III is lobbying hard for Obama’s Senate seat, but that others from the delegation are uncomfortable with that. More on this will develop. I’m going to bed!

America, I'm proud of you tonight!

2008-11-05T00:32:00.001-06:00

In other news tonight:

2008-11-04T23:39:00.000-06:00

Chris Shays loses his seat in Connecticut. There are no longer any Republican House members in New England.

Medical Marijuana is legalized in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts shoots down the repeal of the state income tax.

South Dakota has once again shot down a ban on abortion.

Still no word on the California gay marriage ban constitutional amendment. So far it looks like this will pass. This could be a down note for an otherwise happy day.

From John Kerry...

2008-11-04T23:37:00.002-06:00

"Tonight we elected a President who has inspired a majority of Americans with his vision and policies, a man who is principally a leader for these times who happens to also be African American; and because of America’s stunning ability to move on and transform, to write a new chapter of our history, Barack Obama will be President during the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights movement and the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

"Tonight there are tears of joy and disbelief in small rural communities and inner cities, where for too long, some weren’t sure anything was really possible for them.

"Tonight new dreams are born and old truths are affirmed. Tonight we enter a new America, the best America, the America of our highest hopes."

Big night...

2008-11-04T23:29:00.004-06:00

I am emotionally raw and cannot even begin to collect my thoughts. I am loving the fact that at this time (11:30 PM CST, on 11/4/08) I have only predicted North Dakota incorrectly. Here is a great picture!

and here is another one:

and another picture:

The Freak is predicting... (Part II)

2008-11-03T10:28:00.000-06:00

Here is the worst case scenario that I can find evidence for:

><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.

The Freak is predicting...

2008-11-03T10:26:00.000-06:00

Here is the best case scenario:

><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.

Wassup.....

2008-10-31T16:40:00.000-06:00

In Defense of Wonks!

2008-10-30T08:54:00.001-06:00

David Brooks wrote a column in the October 28^th NY Times entitled The Behavioral Revolution that got under my skin. I never do this, but I couldn’t help myself. I wrote him an e-mail. Here it is:

David,

You had me hot as a pistol at the beginning of your October 28th column (Human Frailty). Your assessment of public policy analysis was particularly ill-informed. Have you ever read Eugene Bardach? It may not have been part of your History curriculum at Chicago, but I have read you long enough to know that you are fairly well read. I suggest his "A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis" (first class, first semester of any good Master of Public Policy program). In it he outlines the "the Eightfold Path." The first step on that path is to "define the problem." The failure you point out with the current fiscal breakdown was not a failure of policy analysis. I'd be surprised if there were very many public policy analysts involved in the effort to deregulate the financial sector. I think that tar baby belongs to our friends from the business school.

Despite your conservative leanings, I find myself agreeing with you more than my liberal conscience is fully comfortable with. I agree that the failure was in large part due to, as Nassim Taleb asserts, "the existence of inherent limitations and flaws in the way we think and act." But this problem was not totally unforeseen. Many economists, financial and policy analysts have spoken for some time of the overly complex nature of our financial system.

Do you concede that it is possible that the system was designed by many people "engaged in calculating their self-interest" and that the lack of regulation and oversight started a snowball rolling downhill that eventually morphed beyond the control and/or understanding of financial services "industry".

I am a pretty liberal guy, but even I don't think oppressive regulation is the answer (Jamie Galbraith, eat your heart out). But how about the government create some guidelines for financial analysts to operate within that seek to simplify the process and create transparency and then get out of the way and let them run wild like the pack of savages that they are. The trade off, of course there is always a trade off, would be that violating these parameters would be a criminal act punishable by some form of disbarment (similar to the legal world) for malpractice.

---

As a post-script I will add that the role of behavioral psychology is indeed lacking in public policy analysis. But that is a failure of implementation not the system for analysis of public policy. Unfortunately policy is usually analyzed in the context of partisanship. That assumes that a bias is guiding the analysis as opposed to the analysis guiding the ideology. I agree that the fallout from the financial collapse will be an emphasis on behavioral economics and that is a good thing.

Attacks ain't working

2008-10-18T14:50:00.003-06:00

I have found it very interesting that the guy everyone labeled as media savvy and in touch has had such a tin ear in this election cycle. McCain was able to say the right things to the right crowds in the Republican primaries. I suspect that is mostly because the Obama-Clinton race sucked all the air out of the room and few Independents crossed into the GOP race in states where that was available to them. The McCain campaign seems to not have realized this and as a result really never tacked back to center after. They went to the base pick for VP and while Sarah Palin has energized Republicans it has hurt McCain among Independents and conservative (potential) crossover Democrats. It is odd and conspicuously amateur to concede the center in a national political campaign. Particular when two of the three legs of the Republican base were already lukewarm on the idea of a McCain presidency.

McCain desperately wanted to run on heroism, honor and steady experience but it was a flawed plan from the get-go. I disagree that this is a change election and that experience was never going to win out. You can't simultaneously want to be the experienced candidate and then bash the system within which you got your experience. It reminds me of a card that my mother go my father for his birthday one year. It had a picture of a birthday cake and a woman in a bikini. On the outside it said: "This is Edith and a cake." On the inside it said: " You can't have your cake and Edith too." By trying to have it both ways, McCain has invited the idea that he is erratic.

McCain's "maverick" persona didn't help either. The fact that he has been unpredictable his entire career looked fresh and independent until it became clear that with the exception of foreign policy he really isn't that well versed on the issues. I think the fact that he has been able to work at issues from different perspectives is because he lacks the wisdom and intelligence to ask penetrating questions and base decisions on logic or reason. Instead McCain shoots from the hip and it makes him dead wrong a lot. It also means that he is right some time. McCain is right, the surge has worked from a military perspective but his lack of nuance makes it abundantly clear that he just doesn't get it that the point was to succeed militarily so the Iraqi's could succeed politically. That just has not happened. Obama may be unable to acknowledge the the military tactic of the surge succeeded, but McCain is equally unable to acknowledge that the surge failed politically.

So now we are left with an attack on personality and it just isn't connecting. Once again, McCain doesn't get it. The American people don't believe him on Ayers and ACORN. They see Obama in debates, hear his steady voice on the economy and the fact that he is utterly unflappable and they are genuinely impressed. McCain is right; if Obama wins, sunlight will not suddenly shining out of his backside. But, as the Chicago Tribune said in their endorsement, Obama "has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions."

The NY Times poll on negative attacks showed that they are hurting McCain. Here is the chart:

That ain't nothing. Being bi-partisan is often confused with abandoning your ideological bearings. That is wrongheaded and ultimately very unappealing in a leader. I think Americans want a leader who holds his ideological beliefs as sacred but isn't stubborn and can work with people who think differently. McCain has shown that ability, but his lack of command of the fundamentals on major issues is a problem I believe he would listen to a bunch of experts that hold different positions on an issue, like economics, and he would be paralyzed by the lack of consensus. Obama has the ability to listen to a bunch of people who differ, ask hard questions on issues that he is not an expert in and build consensus. We need conservative and liberal voices. They all need to be heard. But we then need a President that focuses that energy. That is leadership. That is what America needs.

Da Bears!!!

2008-10-17T19:12:00.001-06:00

The Chicago Tribune is on board the Barry Express as well! It isn’t everyday that a conservative paper (which I tend to enjoy picking up as I pass through O’Hare International Airport in Chicago) endorses a liberal Democrat. That is the nature of the world we live in. In their endorsement they said:

“We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

“We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.”

They don’t really need to say any more than that, do they?

But they do! They also say:

“Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.”

“We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

“We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus.”

“When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.”

“It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.”

Very powerful indeed. This type of faith in the “better angels of our nature” is very Lincolnesque indeed!

LAT weighs in...

2008-10-17T18:40:00.001-06:00

The Los Angeles Times has weighed in. They have endorsed Barack Obama for President, saying:

“The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity.”

“…the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory.”

“Obama's selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.”

“We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.”

Nicely said from a newspaper that has gone from “world class” to “world class joke” in a decade. Maybe the LA Times is turning things around. One can always hope. It could not get much worse.

Up and running on the run!

2008-10-17T08:40:00.001-06:00

A new wrinkle for the Freak is the ability to post to the blog on the fly. I have lots to say and no time to type it. I owe a piece on the two campaign economic plans that came out this week vs. what the Bush administration for been proposing. I will get to that over the weekend.

I am sorry to say, but the Freak has been on something of a macroeconomic jaunt of late. That will probably taint the blog to some extent.

Lastly, the debates are over and I have only one observation. Why can't McCain complete sentences before moving on to his next talking point. His lack of ease makes it clear that he has memorized talking points and has no command of economic principles. Very unimpressive. Obama didn't say much, but he didn't have to. Why paint yourself into a corner with one specific plan when your opponent is content to beat himself?

This is all for now!

Freak... ...out!

Obama's Economic Plan for the Mortgage/Credit Crisis

2008-10-13T22:07:00.000-06:00

Here is an overview of the Obama Plan. I will have comment in the coming days. I addition, I will post John McCain's plan when they release it.

Job Creation: A New American Jobs Tax Credit. Obama is calling for a temporary tax credit for firms that create new jobs in the United States over the next two years.

Relief to Families: Penalty-Free Withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k)s in 2008 and 2009. Obama is calling for new legislation to allow families to withdraw 15% of their retirement savings – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without facing a tax-penalty this year (including retroactively) and next year.

Relief to Homeowners: 90 day foreclosure moratorium for homeowners that are acting in good faith. Financial institutions that participate in the Treasury’s financial rescue plan should be required to adhere to a homeowners code of conduct, including a 90-day foreclosure moratorium for any homeowners living in their homes that are making good faith efforts pay their mortgages.

Responding to the Financial Crisis: A Lending Facility to Address the Credit Crisis for States and Localities. Obama is calling on the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to work to establish a facility to lend to state and municipal governments, similar to the steps the Fed recently took to provide liquidity to the commercial paper market.

The sun!

2008-10-13T21:55:00.007-06:00

Some cool pictures of the sun...

Oh Yes We Can!

2008-10-12T19:03:00.001-06:00

Or...

John.he.is

Sarah Silverman... on the nose!

2008-10-12T19:02:00.001-06:00

False hope?

2008-10-12T18:52:00.001-06:00

"We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." - Senator Barack Obama

Yes We Can! - a reminder...

2008-10-12T18:32:00.002-06:00

Sometimes it is important to remember what we are all talking about. It is important to remember what is at stake and that words do, in fact, matter very much! Hope and Changes may be jokes to the chorus of Republican screaming faces as they cower in a corner knowing that their days in power are numbered.

Barack Obama’s New Hampshire Primary Speech

The following is a transcript of Senator Barack Obama's speech to supporters after the New Hampshire primary, as provided by CQ Transcriptions via The Associated Press.

BARACK OBAMA: Thank you, New Hampshire. I love you back. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, thank you so much. I am still fired up and ready to go. (APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, first of all, I want to congratulate Senator Clinton on a hard-fought victory here in New Hampshire. She did an outstanding job. Give her a big round of applause.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, a few weeks ago, no one imagined that we'd have accomplished what we did here tonight in New Hampshire. No one could have imagined it.

For most of this campaign, we were far behind. We always knew our climb would be steep. But in record numbers, you came out, and you spoke up for change.

And with your voices and your votes, you made it clear that at this moment, in this election, there is something happening in America.

(APPLAUSE)

There is something happening when men and women in Des Moines and Davenport, in Lebanon and Concord, come out in the snows of January to wait in lines that stretch block after block because they believe in what this country can be.

There is something happening. There's something happening when Americans who are young in age and in spirit, who've never participated in politics before, turn out in numbers we have never seen because they know in their hearts that this time must be different.

There's something happening when people vote not just for party that they belong to, but the hopes that they hold in common.

And whether we are rich or poor, black or white, Latino or Asian, whether we hail from Iowa or New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, we are ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction.

That's what's happening in America right now; change is what's happening in America.

You, all of you who are here tonight, all who put so much heart and soul and work into this campaign, you can be the new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness.

Democrats, independents and Republicans who are tired of the division and distraction that has clouded Washington, who know that we can disagree without being disagreeable, who understand that, if we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there is no problem we cannot solve, there is no destiny that we cannot fulfill. Our new American majority can end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care in our time. We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.

(APPLAUSE)

Our new majority can end the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle-class tax cut in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it.

We can stop sending our children to schools with corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success.

We can stop talking about how great teachers are and start rewarding them for their greatness by giving them more pay and more support. We can do this with our new majority.

We can harness the ingenuity of farmers and scientists, citizens and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil and save our planet from a point of no return.

And when I am president of the United States, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

(APPLAUSE)

We will end this war in Iraq. We will bring our troops home. We will finish the job -- we will finish the job against Al Qaida in Afghanistan. We will care for our veterans. We will restore our moral standing in the world.

And we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes, because it is not a tactic to win an election. It is a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease.

All of the candidates in this race share these goals. All of the candidates in this race have good ideas and all are patriots who serve this country honorably.

(APPLAUSE)

But the reason our campaign has always been different, the reason we began this improbable journey almost a year ago is because it's not just about what I will do as president. It is also about what you, the people who love this country, the citizens of the United States of America, can do to change it.

That's what this election is all about.

That's why tonight belongs to you. It belongs to the organizers, and the volunteers, and the staff who believed in this journey and rallied so many others to join the cause.

We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. And they will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come.

We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

(APPLAUSE)

For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.

It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality.

Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.

And so, tomorrow, as we take the campaign south and west, as we learn that the struggles of the textile workers in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas, that the hopes of the little girl who goes to the crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of L.A., we will remember that there is something happening in America, that we are not as divided as our politics suggest, that we are one people, we are one nation.

And, together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story, with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea: Yes, we can.

Thank you, New Hampshire. Thank you. Thank you.

It's the end of the World as we know it, and I feel fine!!!

2008-10-10T15:26:00.001-06:00

It's been a long week!

Who wants a martini?

An old fashioned ass-whipping!

2008-10-07T21:45:00.002-06:00

Sorry for being MIA on blogging lately. I have a lot of thoughts and not enough time... Here is Andrew Sullivan's live blog from the Atlantic Monthly. Quite astute observations. I agree, Obama kicked the snot out of McCain tonight.

------

10.33 pm. This was, I think, a mauling: a devastating and possibly electorally fatal debate for McCain. Even on Russia, he sounded a little out of it. I've watched a lot of debates and participated in many. I love debate and was trained as a boy in the British system to be a debater. I debated dozens of times at Oxofrd. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.It has been about as big a wipe-out as I can remember in a presidential debate. It reminds me of the 1992 Clinton-Perot-Bush debate. I don't really see how the McCain campaign survives this.

10.26 pm. Israel and Iran: I'm relieved that this question is raised. It's the hardest question the next president will have to face. I honestly feel very conflicted about this. I want to know how these candidates will react. McCain's invocation of a "league of democracies" as the answer is a little bizarre. Obama's answer was very political and very persuasive. I just don't believe we can stop Iran, although Obama's answer on gasoline imports was specific and smart. He won the exchange, but he didn't convince me. I wish he had.

10.15 pm. This is Obama's sucker-punch. "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Ouch. Pow. Oof. Nothing aloof about that right hook.

10.11 pm. "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda." This is a Democratic candidate. Can you remember the last one who used rhetoric like that on national security?

10.07 pm. McCain's response on the surge and genocide was a good one. I'm not sure that the surge has solved anything rather than simply freezing the civil war in place, but he has a decent moral point on this. But Obama's measured mix of moral concern with pragmatic alliance-building was very strong. It's really a return to Niebuhrian realism.

10.02 pm. It would have been a strong moment for McCain when he cited "no on the job training" in the White House. And then he picked Palin! She can't even hold a press conference and he thinks she can be trusted with national security at a moment's notice. It makes no sense.

9.59 pm. On CNN, Obama has reached the maximum with women voters a few times and literally couldn't go up any further. The gender gap is very powerful in these debate insta-reax polls at least. Even Palin ran well behind with women.

9.56 pm. Mandates? I thought I sat through countless debates with Hillary when Obama was opposed to mandates, while Hillary was in favor of them. His response about his mother was very powerful.

9.55 pm. Hair transplants? Where on earth did that come from?

9.54 pm. McCain: "Obama will find you." He's treating him like the Boogeyman. People know he isn't. So it just makes McCain look paranoid.

9.51 pm. Why is McCain wandering around the stage while Obama is talking? It's weird. He looks like an old man pacing aimlessly. And he doesn't look at Obama while Obama talks the way Obama looks at him when McCain talks. This is not that important but I don't think it helps McCain.

9.49 pm. Two flashes from McCain so far: "that one," referring to Obama, and citing Obama's "secret." Nasty, uncivil and not even effective.

9.48 pm. The format: I'm surprised because frankly, I think this format is helping Obama, especially since it emphasizes movement. And Obama is physically very fluent. McCain sadly is.

9.42 pm. I like McCain on social security. The old pre-Rove McCain was someone I loved. But I can't trust him on this any more after this campaign, I'm afraid. Alas: "have a commission" is a little lame as an answer.

9.41 pm. Obama got a little muddled on taxes there.

9.38 pm. Memo to McCain: don't talk about Herbert Hoover. The Abraham Simpson problem.

9.33 pm. Obama's response on the question of sacrifice of citizens was out of the park. He was able to ask for sacrifice without seeming like a scold or a doom-monger. That's tough. And his insistence that he too favors off-shore drilling and reveres military service and wants others to shoulder the burden now uniquely born by the military was exactly right. This is overwhelmingly now in Obama's favor.

9.29 pm. Good for McCain on tackling earmarks. But he knows this is trivial in the context of the entire federal budget. I have to say that Obama is winning this so far on substance, crispness and authority.

9.25 pm. Kudos to McCain on entitlement reform. But his refusal to prioritize among healthcare, energy and entitlement reform and insist we can do everything at once did not sound like a decisive and clear leader.

9.21 pm. Obama's riff on the Republican fiscal profligacy was important. It's vital not to forget the Republican responsibility for our fiscal mess.

9.17 pm. McCain is at least looking at Obama. Alas, when he walks around, he seems a little older than he does at a podium. This isn't his fault. But the age and generational factor seems more pronounced tonight.I thnk it's a mistake to attack "Obama's cronies". It seemed partisan and negative when people want constructive solutions.

9.14 pm. So far, Obama is walking away with this. I'm a little stunned that McCain's first response to the financial crisis was to cite energy independence, a policy where both candidates are closely aligned. But Obama has also put in a couple of jabs that seemed off to me. The winner will be the man who addresses the concrete issues in a way that most people can understand. So far, Obama is winning that. But he's been a little off in challenging McCain.

Turns out that Gordon was full of it...

2008-09-25T14:17:00.000-06:00

What we need now are more secret rooms...

2008-09-22T13:20:00.001-06:00

The political and economic worlds are fascinating of late. I must admit, though, that I am watching this all unfold rather dispassionately, knowing that my investments are mostly in S&P and International Stock funds and that they are not going anywhere for 35 years.

I enjoyed being able to take a week off focusing on the election to focus on the economy, which is far and away more interesting. I was quietly supportive of the approach being pursued, until I read the plan. Hank Paulson is a bright guy, but he is still a robber baron of the banking industry and I must admit the plan reads like using Republican ideas (bailout blind behind closed doors) to fix a Republican economic strategy failure (de-regulation and evisceration of what regulatory agencies are left standing). Paul Krugman in today's NY Times gets it quite right. They are proposing to attack the wrong component of the problem and they are doing it in an un-transparent (is that a word? How about opaque) manner that runs contrary to what investors need right now. The market thrives on security. It is why we got into this mess in the first place. Bankers were trying to artificially minimize risk. It turns out that this mitigation was really only superficial and not tactile. The big problem is that no one knew how the whole house of cards system worked. Certain people knew how certain facets worked, but no one had command of the entire problem. We don’t necessarily need more regulation but we do need laws that prohibit the market from tying itself in such an idiotic and inept snare again. The last thing we should do is empower the Treasury Secretary to go off and spend upwards of $700 billion without any agency or Congress being able to ask any questions en route. Bad news!

We'll see if Congress can fix the bill or if they will just gum it up even worse. I have heard some good proposals (executive compensation concessions) and some really idiotic ones (tax increases to offset this expenditure). I am totally opposed to passing the proposed legislation as drafted by the Bush administration. They talk about urgency, like they talked about the urgency of passing the PATRIOT Act and the Authorization for the use of force in Iraq. I say slow down, and if desperate Congressmen and women are a week late getting home to campaign; tough beans!

Words to live by...

2008-09-19T10:17:00.001-06:00

...from a great man of Massachusetts!

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Macro-hoo ha!

2008-09-18T14:48:00.000-06:00

My Republican friend sent me an e-mail with his "tax plan."

Tax:
-Eliminate all corporate subsidies for profitable companies
-Do not raise cap gain taxes
-Lower taxes across the board for Upper and Middle Classes(in lieu of the Bush tax cuts being eliminated.)
-Lower corporate taxes, only Japan has a higher tax rate......

I respond with a Teddy Roosevelt quote:

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective - a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
- Theodore Roosevelt Osawatomie, Kansas on August 31, 1910

He then responded by saying:

“income reallocation = Marxism...”

Now, I love when people use words they don't understand... I responded with:

Holy oversimplification Batman! That is like a CNN assessment. Thank you, Brett, for breaking the tenets of Marxism into a soundbyte, which, while entirely worthless and factually inaccurate, is tasty and easy to digest.

If I was going to break Marxism into a one sentence soundbyte, I might prefer to say that it is:

Marxism = A belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production and that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support.

There is no macroeconomic theory there. You are likely referring to Socialism. Marxism is sociological, anthropological, and philosophical theory.

You call Socialism wealth redistribution. A Marxist would say that it is workers simply laying claim to just compensation for the one part of the capitalist process that they own. That is the Labor Theory of Value, in case you were curious.

Marxism is generally wishful thinking, pie in the sky, rubbish, but the Labor Theory of Value is spot on and quite compatible with the Capitalist system.

Henry Ford (and no one would dare call him anything but a Capitalist) understood this when he voluntarily paid his employees a living wage and reduced the length of their work week. The Wall Street Journal called him a Communist. The joke was on them. He bred loyalty in his workforce and by paying them well he expanded the market for automobile ownership.
I do not believe that humans are capable of a Marxist system. It neglects the flaw of humanity, which is inherent greed. Social democracy on the other hand is a system of fairly compensating workers (without whom the Capitalist system would fail) for their role in society. Social democracy calls for living wages, adequate work-life balance, universal health care…

But I am wasting my breath on you. You are a social Darwinist and believe that everyone should be able to succeed like you succeeded. You ignore, like Ford's critics, that the tenets of social-Capitalism or social democracy are in the interests of all and that when done in unison a rising tide really could lift all boats. It means that the rich have to pay a higher percentage. The rich get richer and the poor move out of poverty creating a whole new class of consumers for the shit the rich people make and sell.

…

Your thoughts?

A thought that will fester for a while

2008-09-16T07:47:00.004-06:00

That I am an unabashed fan of the Kennedy family is no secret. They are the definition of public service. Born with all the privileges in the world, they fought not for more wealth or the interests of the rich but rather for the silent majority. That Ted Kennedy has endorsed Senator Obama and says he sees the spirit of his brothers in him is a huge endorsement in my opinion. I am a huge fan of Robert Kennedy, Jr. and his work with the River Keepers, the Natural Resources Defense Council and his writings. That he found his passion for environmental policy while doing Court mandated community service to make amends for youthful failings and has turned it into his life's crusade is noble and honorable! Here are his thoughts of the Rube quoting Westbrook Pegler in her convention and stump speech:

Governor Palin’s Reading List

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that ‘some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.’

“It might be worth asking Governor Palin for a tally of the other favorites from her reading list.”

What an admirable person to want to quote in her speech. In the Rube’s defense; she has no idea who Westbrook Pegler is, she has never read any of his writings, she probably doesn’t read anything at all. For those that missed it, I recommend reading the cover article on the Rube in last Sunday’s New York Times. A particularly important snippet dealing with the Rube’s efforts to ban books from the Wasilla is particularly poignant here:

“The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“’People would bring books back censored,’ recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. ‘Pages would get marked up or torn out.’

“Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

“But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book ‘Daddy’s Roommate’ on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“’Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,’ Ms. Chase said. ‘It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.’

“’I’m still proud of Sarah,’ she added, ‘but she scares the bejeebers out of me.’”

I think the thing that I take away from this new information is two fold. First, I could never, ever, ever support a candidate who wants to ban books for being immoral. Second, if you want to ban a book you should probably have read it, know what it is about AND (not or) be able to explain your moral objections.

Don’t be a wuss, Rube! You hate gay people. But honestly, if those are your beliefs, stand by them! Do you truly lack the intestinal fortitude to stand by your beliefs? Can you really be trusted to stand firm in the face of Putin if you shrink away from your homophobia? Stand up, Rube! Stand firm! Anything less would be to fail to live up to the standard of Westbrook Pegler, your inspirational standard bearer and moral compass!

More of the same...

2008-09-13T15:50:00.001-06:00

Another Special Comment

2008-09-12T14:09:00.001-06:00

Attaboy Will Hunting!

2008-09-12T09:39:00.001-06:00

Damn! A compliment with a shiv in the back!

2008-09-12T09:18:00.000-06:00

This is a great ad

2008-09-12T08:53:00.001-06:00

I think every ad between now and election day attack or otherwise should be done like this...

Wow, it was worse then I thought it would be...

2008-09-11T21:27:00.001-06:00

Ouch, she's a jibbering idiot!

Good info, not surprising!

2008-09-11T10:31:00.000-06:00

Put your money where your mouth is...

2008-09-11T10:09:00.001-06:00

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/petereinhorn

Psst... McCain is the pig in lipstick!

2008-09-10T13:56:00.002-06:00

You’ve heard it all before. Washington wastes your money. Those damn politicians and bureaucrats can’t be trusted with your hard earned money…

Let’s let the man speak for himself:

"I can eliminate $100 billion of wasteful and earmark spending immediately--35 billion in big spending bills in the last two years, and another 65 billion that has already been made a permanent part of the budget."

--John McCain, NPR All Things Considered, April 23, 2008

McCain’s rhetoric about earmarks is all well and good, but if they want to have a beauty contest on wasteful spending, let’s look at the facts…

McCain’s magic solution for balancing the budget, while cutting taxes massively, is really mostly nonsense. First of all, the $100 billion figure he openly cites (nice and rounded, isn’t it?) is largely a figment of the McCain campaign's imagination. Naw, let’s not be delicate. It is an outright fabrication, a LIE. A 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service reviewed earmarks by different government departments, without giving a global figure. Scott Lilly, a former Democratic appropriations staffer who is now with the Center for American Progress Action Fund says that the CRS study identifies a total of $52 billion in earmarks for a single year. However, much of this money is tied to items such as foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, that McCain says he will not touch.

The Office for Management and the Budget came up with a figure for $16.9 billion in the 2008 appropriation bills. Taxpayers for Commonsense, an independent watchdog group that focuses on wasteful spending, identified $18.3 billion worth of earmarks in the 2008 bills. Let’s us the Taxpayers for Commonsense number as our working number. Let us also be clear about that $18.3 billion figure. It is a 23 per cent cut from a record $23.6 billion set in 2005 when Republicans were in control of Congress.

OK, so McCain proposes eliminating earmarks with a swift stroke of the veto pen (aI am pretty sure it is a stamp and then a signature, but let’s not quibble). Taxpayers for Commonsense is quite candid that it is "difficult question that we have not yet figured out," when looking at how much can actually be eliminated.

The figure they cite includes such items as $4 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which could not be eliminated without halting work on hundreds of construction projects around the country. Does anyone think that the Army Corps of Engineers should stop working on the levees in New Orleans or the flood control systems along the upper Mississippi River? Who thinks we should stop checking, repairing and maintaining our flood control dams on the Lower Colorado River in Texas or on the levees in northern California? OK, let’s see:

$18.3 billion minus $4 billion = $14.3 billion

The next big chunk goes to military construction projects. This includes housing for servicemen and their families. Let’s be clear that here, again, McCain has promised not to touch funding for our men and women in uniform.

In order to shoot holes in the McCain “corrupt, free spending Washington insider” ballyhoo I tried to find data from conservative sources. Bruce Riedl, a budget analyst with the Heritage Foundation (they don’t get much more conservative than that), says it “might” be possible to eliminate roughly half the expenditure on earmarks each year. If we stick to using the Taxpayers for Commonsense figures that would be around $9 billion.

Reidl was sure to cite $5 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds as worthy of cutting. This money generally goes to local governments to assess housing and urban development issues (i.e. investment in lower income neighborhoods). I suppose that I could get behind the concept of eliminating the earmark process altogether, but many of those expenditures would end up being shifted to other parts of the budget.

Let’s assume that McCain can, as promised, preserve the elimination of frivolous earmarks. That will save only around $10 billion a year. That is no where near the $100 billion in savings that McCain says that he can identify "immediately." I am going to go out on a ledge and say that John McCain is lying to the voters.

The McCain campaign has since backed away from their bravado. They now say that McCain never meant to suggest that his proposed $100 billion in savings would all come from earmarks. If that is the case and in the absence of any other proposed areas for cutting, I think we must assume that he, like President Bush, can’t cut spending to offset his tax plan and will thus further exacerbate the deficit and continue to export our debt to China. With their experiences with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae back mortgage securities, will they want to buy our debt? The answer, I would venture is yes. A debtor is under the control of the lender and that is advantageous for China regardless of our ability to repay in the near term (or ever). We can’t press China on North Korea, Iran, Russia, Darfur, climate change or a number of other urgent issues.

That isn’t change, that is more of the same!

The dude abides!

2008-09-10T11:20:00.000-06:00

The sentence...

2008-09-09T20:23:00.003-06:00

I want y'all to plaster this sentence from Adam McKay's piece everywhere...

"Katrina, four dollar gas, a trillion dollar war, rising unemployment, deregulated housing market, global warming...no more."

That says it all!

The press sucks! They are the only ones who don't get it!

2008-09-09T20:15:00.002-06:00

I don't agree with the "losing this thing" bit, but I do agree with Adam's assessment of the press. We have no journalists asking hard questions and demanding answers. They are all glorified Access Hollywood hosts. Good luck Charlie Gibson, you worthless hack! I hope you ask the Rube some real questions and make her answer them, but I doubt you will. You're too afraid of being painted as liberals. There is a solution though; do the same thing to Obama and Biden! I am sure they would love it!

We're Gonna Lose This Thing

By Adam McKay - The Huffington Post

"Stop saying that!" my wife says to me. But this is not a high school football game and I'm not a cheerleader with a bad attitude. This is an election and as things stand now, we're gonna frickin' lose this thing. Obama and McCain at best are even in the polls nationally and in a recent Gallup poll McCain is ahead by four points.

Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.

It reminds me of playing blackjack (a losers game). You make all the right moves, play the right hands but basically the House always wins. I know what you're going to say " But I won twelve hundred dollars last year in Atlantic City!" Of course there are victories. The odds aren't tilted crazy, but there is a 51%-49% advantage. And in the long run, the house has to win. The house will win.

So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press. There is no more fourth estate. Wait, hold on...I'm not going down some esoteric path with theories on the deregulation of the media and corporate bias and CNN versus Fox...I mean it: there is no more functioning press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51% advantage.

Think this is some opinion being wryly posited to titillate other bloggers and inspire dialogue with Tucker Carlson or Gore Vidal? Fuck that. Four corporations own all the TV channels. All of them. If they don't get ratings they get canceled or fired. All news is about sex, blame and anger, and fear. Exposing lies about amounts of money taken from lobbyists and votes cast for the agenda of the last eight years does not rate. The end.

So one side can lie and get away with it. Now let's throw in one more advantage. Voter caging and other corruption on the local level with voting. Check out the article here on HuffPost about Ohio messing with 600K voters. If only five thousand of those voters don't or can't vote that's a huge advantage in a contest that could be decided by literally dozens of votes. That takes us to about a 52 to 48% advantage.

I'm not even getting into the fact that the religious right teaches closed mindedness so it's almost impossible to gain new voters from their pool because people who disagree with them are agents of the devil. I just want to look at two inarguable realities: A) we have no more press and B) the Repubs are screwing with the voters on the local level.

I'm telling you, we're going to lose this thing. And afterwords we'll blame ourselves the same way we did with Gore and Kerry (two candidates a thousand times more qualified to lead than W Bush.) Just watch.. McCain wins by a point or two and we all walk around saying things like "Obama was too well spoken." "Biden wasn't lovable enough." "I shouldn't have split those eights." "Why did I hit on 16? Why?!"

So what do we do?

1) We give definitive clear speeches like Biden and Obama gave the other day about how no one talked about any issues at the Republican Convention and how they outright lied. But we do them over and over again. 2) We use the one place where it's still a 50-50 game -- the internet -- as much as we can. 3) But most importantly we should bring up re-regulating the media and who owns it and what that conflict of interest is a lot more. By pretending there's no conflict of interest we're failing to alert the public that they're being lied to or given a looking at a coin at the bottom of a pool slanted truth. Every time a pundit or elected official is on any TV news program it should be a polite formality to mention that GE has made such and such billions off the war in Iraq by selling arms or that Murdoch is a right-wing activist with a clear stake in who wins and who taxes his profits the least. Disney, GE, Viacom, and Murdoch -- all want profits and the candidate and agenda that will get in their way the least.

Obama and Biden should also create a "master sound bite sentence" and repeat it hundreds of times. It should be so true that even the corporations can't screw with it when it makes the airwaves. Here's my attempt: "Katrina, four dollar gas, a trillion dollar war, rising unemployment, deregulated housing market, global warming...no more."

This race should be about whether the Republican Party is going to be dismantled or not after the borderline treason of the past eight years. But instead it is about making the word "community organizer" a dirty word and a beauty queen who shoots foxes from a plane. Someone is not in any way doing their job and it's the press. Or more specifically, that job no longer exists.

Probably the worst offenders are the pundits who take the position that it's all just a game and say phrases like "getting a post-convention bump" or "playing to the soccer Moms." This isn't a game of Monopoly or Survivor. There are real truths that exist outside of the spin they are given and have an effect on lives. 250,000 Iraqi civilians are dead because we let our reality be distorted by the most effective propaganda machine in fifty years, the corporate American press. Money and jobs are flying out of this country as our currency becomes worthless and we're talking about the fact that McCain is a veteran. If someone busted into your house and robbed you would you then forgive them if you found out they were a veteran? Of course not. So why are we forgiving McCain for selling out his country by supporting the Bush agenda?

This is it folks. If McCain takes power we fade and become Australia in the seventies: a backwoods country with occasional flashes of relevance. Except we've got a way bigger military and we're angrier. People will get hurt and we'll pay the bill for the bullets. I'm telling you, unless we wake up, we're gonna lose this frickin' thing.

Well said!

2008-09-09T20:10:00.002-06:00

Do You Think I'm Stupid?
The Huffington Post

By Jamie Lee Curtis

Mr. Obama said it.... "They must think you are stupid." Stupid to believe that McCain/Palin are "change agents." Change is becoming this campaigns' ping pong ball and we are missing the point. Gandhi said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Be it. Don't talk about it, don't pontificate about it. Be It. Action word. Demonstrative. Maybe Nike just drafted off that great statesman and made us all "Just do it."

Whatever, the call to action is now. Be it.

Jung said "Only that which changes, remains true." Truth -- unvarnished, well-vetted and precise.

My favorite quote is from The Princess Bride by William Goldman. In it, a street savvy young man hardened by the realities of the world, tells the princess..." Life is pain and anyone who tells you different is selling something.
Life is pain, hard, unfair and yet also achingly beautiful and transformative when we are walking toward truth.

When the Republicans had their convention and there were signs held high with the monikers...."G.I. John and Superwoman" I knew we were in trouble. They were selling a fantasy!

See, we are not stupid, we are humans, we can think and listen and learn. But if what we are taught is corrupt lies and if we are fed the "family truth" then we are not stupid, we are brainwashed. G.I. John and Superwoman take them away from being mortal humans and put them in to the comic book hero status, Teflon coated, impenetrable and as we are seeing today, in the case of Mrs. Palin, not even held accountable in an interview.

We are not stupid, but we are gullible, to fear, lies, misinformation and calculated deceit and that is what we are now up against and where we need to demonstrate the real change.

More of the same!

2008-09-09T19:48:00.000-06:00

The Middle Way

2008-09-07T21:04:00.002-06:00

I really like this piece by Oliver Willis in the Huffington Post. It is something I have been thinking a lot lately. I regard the contrast between Republican and Democratic positions as night and day. Not good and evil, but I reject the assertion of the hysterical Nader crowd that the two parties are one and the same. I agree that a lot of what comes out of Washington has been ruined by corporate lobbyists who are the scum of the Earth. But the effort and sentiment going in is different. The problem isn’t Congress or even the President. It is our inability to remove the influence of money and power from our legislative process. We have legalized bribery.

Buddhist teaching often refers to the Middle Way. This refers to the Buddhist practice of non-extremism. There is far too much extremism in American society. We are “all or nothing” people. It is difficult to be a moderate in this country. There is a lot of lip service paid to the supposed moderate tendencies of John McCain. That is utter ballyhoo! McCain may not be a religious extremist, but he is still extreme in his view that government should get out of the way and let business take the lead.

I am currently reading Robert Reich’s new book; Supercapitalism, which was released in 2007. The general premise is that capitalism is a system of the economic market. Capitalism is the great empowerer individual interests (wealth), but it is not a good mechanism for the common good. When a democracy is strong it acts as solid counterweight to the singular focus of capitalism. The problem, Reich posits, is that our democratic system has failed and as a result capitalism has run amok in our society growing into supercapitalism.

I think that this is largely the case because business interests have selfishly embarked on a public relations campaign to vilify government and blame it for the economic woes of the working and middle class. It is the nature of capitalism to seek supremacy over any obstacles. The more voters buy into the distorted view of government painted by corporate profiteers the more compelling this case has become. Ultimately business interests have become so powerful that they have kowtowed government. In their selfish pursuit of money they have turned government into their cash cow. Republicans (the party of big business) decry welfare programs but love corporate welfare and no bid contracts for their corporate allies. I think to call Republicans the pro-business party is not that great a stretch. They are pro-business to the exclusion of all other interests. This, in my estimation, is nothing to be proud of. Democrats are invariably cast as anti-business, anti-growth and anti-wealth. This is as false as the former is true. Liberals position themselves as pro-government largely to offset the conservative business only position. I would argue that the liberal heart truly lies in the middle way; a system of checks and balances for our economy with capitalism and democracy as equal and cooperative interests offsetting one another. We need capitalism (business) to create wealth in financial terms just as we need democracy (government) to create wealth in societal terms. We need economic development and economic enrichment.

An economy can not grow in size forever without draining resources in one form or another. An economy can enrich itself in perpetuity. This will require the strengths of both business and government. Neither can succeed without the other.

This is the choice offered on November 4^th. It is nothing less than a last gasp chance to save our fragile experiment started so many years ago by founding brothers in Philadelphia. They said: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” There in the very founding document of our great republic is as clear an argument for the role of government as you could ask for. Yes, they were resisting the tyranny of a foreign government, but these were men of law and reason. They understood that a government must be answerable to its people.

Capitalism and democracy have bled together until our government has become cuckolded by the power of the free market. We are seeing the first signs that this could (and should) begin to reverse itself and come into balance. The government’s financial agencies are moving to regulate the market. This is a good sign. A vote for John McCain could well stymie the progress we are beginning to see. The supercapitalists will never allow him to appoint as independent thinking a Treasury Secretary as Hank Paulson. His actions, I argue, have been a surprise to them. And not a pleasant one I would venture to guess.

The Social-Darwinist side of my brain say screw the capitalists, let them choke on their debt, but we can not so unsettle our financial system. Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke have taken small, but necessary, first steps. The Middle Way would dictate introducing some measured and reasoned regulatory mechanisms into the system to ensure that pea-brain MBA don’t screw the taxpayers again. I would urge you to read the article called Obamanomics that was in the New York Times Magazine several weeks ago. A great glimpse of the power of the moderate approach which, it appears is moving into favor in this country among reasonable thinking people.

And not a moment too soon!

A good quote from the NY Times

2008-09-07T12:41:00.005-06:00

Sarah Vowell has an op-ed in the NY Times today that hits the nail on the head.

"Despite his consistent party-line voting record, some independents and Democrats still think of Senator McCain as the most palatable, independent-minded Republican. But this is the sort of empty compliment a friend of mine once compared to being called 'the coolest Osmond.'"

Ouch! Sometimes the truth hurts!

More response to the bad speech!

2008-09-05T08:06:00.001-06:00

Tom Ridge, honest man!

2008-09-05T08:04:00.000-06:00

A little tongue in cheek...

2008-09-04T15:20:00.002-06:00

From Politico's Roger Simon!

On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

This is what happens when all the good filmmakers are Democrats!

2008-09-04T15:16:00.000-06:00

Wow, this sucks... that is why they did air it!

You look fabulous...

2008-09-04T15:01:00.004-06:00

...but then again, you oughta. That dress cost $300,000. The neck levees were included for that price. Cindy McCain definitely knows the woes of middle class Americans!

2008-09-04T14:28:00.004-06:00

Let’s go through the speech, line by line, and pull out all the references to policy (using as generous a definition of policy as possible) and the Republican vision.

“To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

“I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.”

How so, what proof is there that John McCain supports services and assistance to the parents of special needs Children? What does the record reflect. Well, I went to the Senate website and did a little historical research on his voting record. It ain’t pretty. As with most things, McCain is a man who likes to say no. That is fine for a legislator and it is good to vote against bills that have good intentions but fall short of being effective in implementation. But if you truly stand for something you find your own approach. That isn’t McCain’s style. He is a No-man. You can’t go to the White House and simply sit and say no. You have to provide a vision! What do you want to accomplish?

“A writer observed: ‘We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.’ I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman. I grew up with those people.”

Please tell me that the Rube wasn’t comparing herself to President Truman. Truman was Vice President for only two months before he became President, but he served as a Senator for ten years before that. While in the Senate he served as chairman, Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program in the Seventy-seventh and Seventy-eighth Congresses. Please Rube, you are not Harry Truman!

“They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.”

…and city folks are lazy, gay, God hating, over-educated liberal scum? Pretty sure there are a few factories in our cities too. Most of them, in fact.

“[People in small towns] love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.”

…and city folks are all terrorist sympathizers. In 2005, 80% of Americans lived in urban areas (According to the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision, urban area is defined as “densely settled territory that meets minimum population density requirements and encompasses a population of at least 2,500 inhabitants. As of the 2000 census, the urban definition was changed from a placebased one to one based on density. However, this change has only a small effect on the comparability of estimates before and after 2000.) By 2050, that number is projected to increase to over 90%. 25% of Americans live in rural America (urbanized areas are defined by the Census Bureau by population density. Generally, an urbanized area consists of a central city and surrounding areas whose population is greater than 50,000. In addition, other towns outside of an urbanized area whose population exceeds 2,500 are included in the urban population, leaving all other areas rural.” My question is this. Do you really want to write off a majority of the population as less than your hometown crew?

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”

This is just too good to be true. We have spent years listening to Republicans tell us that social services should not be delivered by government, that social service nonprofits and faith based organizations can, should and will fill that role. Obama left school and worked with churches and nonprofits as a community organizer. Is the Rube now saying that her role in government was more important? Isn’t there some saying about shoes on other feet?

“I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.”

Perhaps the Rube should have read the whole quote instead of taking it out of context. The actual quote was: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

“And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

If she had bothered to get the context she would have realized that the quote, while poorly worded, wasn’t denigrating rural voters, but rather explaining where their frustration comes from.

“While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay. I also drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.”

This is a nice story but it is ultimately irrelevant. Gimmicks may save Alaska money. Saving the U.S. tax payers money means making hard decisions.

“With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.”

She read this, but has no idea what it means!

“Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.”

Wow, more of the old and then those hippie solutions as an after thought. That is definitely the Change We Need! If you don't have a forward solution, why the heck are you running. How do you propose providing enough supply domestically? How much of an increase would that require? How will you move us off fossil fuel? What incentives will you create to foster sustainability? No discussion of the roots of the issue, just rhetoric.

“In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”

Maybe it was my eight years in Communist Hollywood, but I would like to request a re-write of that line to convey more honesty. How about this: In politics, there are some candidates who talk about change in terms of the future. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use the past to promote change.” Yup, that gets to it!

That was a lot shorter speech. She could have cut it down and not wasted our time. She totally cut into Seinfeld repeats (what us city folk, over-educated liberals cling to in this time of insanity).

Is this what passes for soaring oratory?

2008-09-04T09:54:00.003-06:00

So, the Rube gave her speech last night. I think that the reaction to it in the media would be so hysterical if there wasn’t so much at stake. It seems like everyone thought she was going to trip over her inbred feet on her way to the podium and drool all over herself. Come on people! She is the Governor of Alaska. Just because she is a Rube, doesn’t mean that the state is full of them.

Last night was something of a scientific analysis of the Republican Party. First we had Mitt Romney blasting eastern elitists, even though it was eastern elitists that made him rich (not Mormons). Then we had Rudy. I don’t even know where to start so I will pass. In my best New York accent I will simply say: oy vey! Then the Rube came out.

Now, those of you who aren’t creationists or advocates of intelligent design (creationists in their Halloween costumes, dressed up like eastern elitists), know that in scientific analysis you use the scientific method. Let’s review for the “Earth is flat” crowd:

1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

4. Perform experiment and collect data

5. Analyze data

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

That is why you never hear scientists stating that they have proven something definitively. In climate studied scientists never say that they are absolutely 100% positively sure that global warming is caused by human activity (mostly the hot air coming from St. Paul). They say that all available data and analyses lead them to the conclusion that climate change is at least in part caused by human activity. It is into these gaps of light that the “Earth is flat” crowd comes running, thinking that the lack of certainty means that the opposite is still possible. Let me just say: it is still possible that humans have no role in climate change, but it is highly unlikely.

But I digress!

Last nights experiment was in whether the GOP had anything new, positive, or forward-thinking to say; whether they would hold those in their Party to count for the past 8 years or the past 40 years for that matter; whether they could build a vision of the future and inspire confidence that they were the Party to implement that vision.

The answer is no. What we have seen thus far was bluster, rhetoric and hurrah America! We can’t tackle our problems if we continue to believe that we can do no wrong. It is interesting to hear a bunch of Christians talk about American perfection in a way that, to my understanding, is only reserved for God.

“Nothing new here!” should have been the words in the back drop on top of the giant flag (in case you forgot what country you were in). What we got from the Rube was a glorified Tonight Show monologue. I am sure that Jay Leno appreciates that Bush’s speechwriters wrote it for him. It saved time.

I will go through the speech in more detail and post as I have more to say!

the grizzled vet meets the young fornicator

2008-09-03T14:37:00.004-06:00

Caption written by the honorable Joseph!

Another impressive performance

2008-09-03T08:44:00.002-06:00

Grasping at straws Tucker. Was Campbell Brown over the line or was her insistence that he answer the question she asked simply being a journalist (in the real sense and not the dress up "I wanna be a journalist when I grow up" sense that we have come to accept from the media)?

This isn't unusual for politicians or political staff. Most of it stems from the fact that these people are generally lawyers, are hired to pursue a "message" and not give more information than absolutely necessary and are generally not at all well versed on the issues they are being interviewed about.

Is this solely the fault of politcos? No. They realize that when the media covers issues they do so in a way that caters to the sound byte, ADHD, short attention span public that isn't really interested in the issues. These consultants know that if they talk about broad concepts those bits of the interview will end up on the cutting room floor. Therefore they rarely answer questions and repeat their sound bytes over and over again. Most journalists don't call them out on it. Kudos to Campbell Brown, who works for one of the worst of the worst networks, for holding the campaigns feet to the fire.

John McCain just passed up free exposure on CNN. That shows a level of infantile immaturity that is really unimpressive coming from an AARP member! It isn't just Republican that do it, but they are far more brazen in how they do it. They know that their policy positions are not built on fact or supported by data so they overcompensate with rhetoric and bluster. But it should be clear that Dems do it to. A possible solution would be giving them time to defend their positions and then cover it in full. Ratings be damned!

2008-09-02T10:21:00.002-06:00

A little gem lifted verbatim from Salon.com’s War Room blog… (The only changes were to remove the name of the Alaska Governor and replace it with her Freak Politics name (i.e. The Rube)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before even starting this post, can we just pause for a moment and consider what would have happened to that unpatriotic, American-hating Muslim the Democrats nominated for president if he had been part of a secessionist group led by a man who once said he was “an Illinoisan, not an American”? To borrow Clarence Thomas’ famous phrase, it would been a high-tech lynching.

But here comes the Rube, former member of the Alaskan Independence Party and current Republican nominee for vice president of the United States. ABC's Jake Tapper reports:

Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that the Rube was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.

And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."

Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that the Rube and her husband, Mr. Rube, were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.

Oops. The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder clarifies that the Rube’s association with the AIP is not ancient history, either, for she addressed the organization earlier this year:

Basically, the AIP wants a vote on secession. According to the organizations' website. "[T]hough it is widely thought to be a secessionist movement, the Party makes great effort to emphasize that its primary goal is merely a vote on secession, something that Party advocates say Alaskans were denied during the founding of the state."

The AIP says that the Rube used to be a member of the party. Earlier this year, the Rube recorded a welcoming address to the AIP's convention.

This is a party whose founding member, Joe Vogler, said: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

Lee Atwater must be wincing in his grave right now. If he were alive -- in his pre-conversion/apology incarnation, that is -- and he found this on the résumé of a Democratic vice-presidential candidate, he would have attacked with relish. Unfortunately for the GOP, the candidate associated with people who want to bail on the other 49 states of the United States of America is the Rube.

― Thomas Schaller

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Thomas, for that little bit of entertainment in my day. We definitely need a Vice President who was a member of a secessionist movement!

The Rap Sheet!

2008-09-02T08:38:00.002-06:00

The Rube is racking up quite a laundry list…

'Fringe' Alaskan Secessionist Party: Palin Was A Member...

Almost Recalled As Mayor...

Directed Fundraising For Indicted Senator's 527...

Troopergate Scandal...

Calls Iraq A War For Oil...

Admits She Hasn't 'Really Focused On Iraq'...

Alaska National Guard General: Palin Plays No Role In National Defense...

Husband Arrested For DUI...

Nice vetting Senator McCain!

It's just too good to be true...

2008-09-01T15:17:00.013-06:00

...can't take my eyes off of you!

The nomination of Governor Sarah Palin of the State of Rube to be John McCain's running mate is the gift that just keeps on giving. It was one big old nail in the coffin of the McCain campaign. They should start a John McCain campaign death watch calculator. I have to figure his chance is around 20% and slipping with each new scandal that gets surfaced on Sarah Palin (hence forth referred to on this blog only as "the Rube"). Other blogs are covering that, so I will refrain.

Maureen Dowd was right in asking why every time a woman is nominated to run nationally it is always part of a gimmicky Hail Mary throw? It is an insult to feminism and to the many women who are qualified, Democrat (Hillary Clinton) and Republican (Linda Lingle, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc.) alike.

This is where the Rube got the lion's share of her "executive experience"! Nice strip mall city hall Rube!!!

Well, if she can take down a caribou, she could probably take Putin...

...in a game of one-on-one...

...but then again...

Pretty tough! Let's compare...

and

naw, Putin is hard as nails! He'd take her down and then drink a bottle of vodka chased with her blood!

Nomination of the Rube is an insult! She is as clear evidence as anyone needs of the Republican Party's disdain for our government and the things our government does. I am sure that the Rube is a capable woman, but just appallingly unqualified for the job. The argument that she can identify with average Americans doesn't eliminate the fact that she doesn't have the intellectual curiousity to solve our challenges. The Republicans argue that the Rube has equal (more even) experience than Barack Obama. My reply to that is BULLSHIT (and you know I never swear on here)!

Here are more humorous pictures of the Rube for you to enjoy:

And of course, Papa Rube, the World Champion Snow Machine Racer:

Damn, they are good!!!

2008-08-29T10:10:00.001-06:00

Huh?

2008-08-29T09:33:00.005-06:00

John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Let's run this down real quick:

Sarah Palin
44 years old
Elected Governor or Alaska in 2006
Prior political experience includes 6 years as Mayor of Wasilla, AK (population 7,738)

So, John McCain think that the person one 72 year old heartbeat away from the Oval Office is the Mayor of Wasilla, AK and two year Governor of Alaska. That screams foreign policy experience to me.

This pick was based on the belief that McCain can cut into Obama's 20 point lead among women and pick off skeptical Hillary supporters. The decision was not based on the ability to govern from day one. How could it be? This campaign knows no end to it's obvious desperation!

Here is a little rundown of photos of the Rube!

Oh good grief!

How you like them apples?

2008-08-29T07:32:00.000-06:00

He landed the punch himself!

A side by side comparison!

2008-08-28T15:20:00.004-06:00

From the New England Journal of Medicine

Obama Health Reform Plan:
1. - “Play or pay” employer mandate requiring businesses either to offer workers insurance or to pay a tax (very small businesses would be exempt)

2. - Creation of a new national health plan (similar to Medicare) for the uninsured and small businesses

3. - Establishment of new national health insurance exchange that would offer choice of private insurance options for the uninsured and small businesses

4. - Mandate that all children must have coverage

5. - Subsidies for lower-income Americans to help them afford coverage

6. - Expanded coverage financed through the payroll tax, letting tax cuts for families making over $250,000 expire, and savings from electronic medical records, disease management, and other system reforms

7. - Regulation of all private insurance plans to end risk rating based on health status

8. - Establishment of federal reinsurance program to insure businesses against the costs of workers’ expensive medical episodes

9. - Other proposed measures to control costs and improve quality:
- Reduction in the administrative costs of private insurance
- Accelerated adoption of electronic medical records
- Promotion of disease management
- Emphasis on prevention and public health
- Payment of providers on the basis of performance and outcomes
- Reduction in excessive payments to private plans contracting with Medicare
- Allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies
- Establishment of a comparative-effectiveness research institute

McCain’s Health Reform” Plan:
1. - Elimination of current tax exclusion for employer-paid health insurance premiums

2. - Using revenues generated from eliminating tax exclusion, provision of refundable tax credits ($2,500 for individuals, $5,000 for families) for all persons obtaining private health insurance; if insurance costs less than the value of the credit, remaining funds can be deposited into health savings accounts

3. - Creation of guaranteed access plan to provide insurance pool for persons who are medically uninsurable on the individual market

4. - Promotion of individually purchased insurance and less comprehensive insurance policies

5. - Deregulation of insurance markets

6. - Reform of Medicare to make bundled payments for episodes of care and to pay on the basis of outcomes

7. - Other proposed measures to control costs and improve quality:
- Enhanced competition
- Faster introduction of generic drugs
- Emphasis on prevention and better management of chronic conditions
- Greater use of health information technology
- Medical malpractice reform

Best speech yet!

2008-08-28T07:34:00.001-06:00

These body blows were long overdue. John McCain got what he had coming to him for selling out Kerry in 2004. Good speech that said what others feared to say!

I can't believe no one ever wrote a folk song...

2008-08-25T13:24:00.003-06:00

Here is one of the protest signs that will be present at the Democratic Convention in Denver this week...

Annoying? Yes! Sad? Definitely!

2008-08-25T09:24:00.002-06:00

There are a lot of news stories and articles talking about Hillary Clinton’s supporters that are bitter that Barack Obama didn’t choose her to be his running mate. This bothers me a bit. I have to say something loud and clear so the “Clintonestas” hear this. YOU LOST! You gave it a good run, you fought hard and tough and LOST. What part of lost do you not understand? The winner chooses the terms. Barack Obama won the primary battle (regardless of margin). Therefore he is entitled to choose the running mate that he wants. It was never going to be Hillary Clinton.

Let us dispense with the suspense. She wasn’t even considered! Why, you may ask, not? She was never seriously considered because it is simply not possible to muzzle her husband. Don’t get me wrong. I love President Clinton. He is going to give a fantastic speech at the Convention, but he is all about Bill and refuses to play second fiddle. He would not do it for Al Gore, he would not do it for John Kerry and, most appallingly, he would not do it for his own wife. Why would Barack Obama willingly invite the Clinton’s into his administration? Give me one good reason? So a bunch of feminists will vote for him isn’t good enough.

If Clinton's "kool-aid drinkers" are really that miffed, then I am sorry. I have compassion for that level of jaded resentment. But get over yourself. Gaul did not dictate terms to Rome! John McCain’s campaign is trying to stir up controversy with this ad and this ad. The second add is particularly atrocious. Anyone who claims to be a “Hillary Clinton Democrat” and can then find clear to vote for John McCain is a liar. No Democrat could look at John McCain’s platform and think… “he better represents Hillary Clinton’s goals and aspirations. Someone who was supporting Clinton and is now support McCain doesn’t care about issues at all and is voting blindly. That is a bit sad and a bit pathetic.

Go ahead, pull the lever for Angry McCrazy, but it won’t be a voting machine, it will be a slot machine. Do you really want to gamble on this?

Biden will bring da Noise!

2008-08-23T08:29:00.002-06:00

This guy will eat any Republican for lunch on foreign policy!

What arugula eaters do on vacation...

2008-08-20T12:35:00.002-06:00

Meanwhile, in the exotic and exclusive Hawaiian Islands (where snobbery is a way of life)...

A little bible verse for all the liberals!

2008-08-19T12:00:00.001-06:00

"32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” – Acts 4:32-35

See, that wasn't so bad. Was it? A biblical reference support social democratic policy priorities.

Like the limbo: how low can you go?

2008-08-14T14:41:00.001-06:00

From Joe Klein's blog "Swampland" on the Time website:

"But there is no excuse for what the McCain campaign is doing on the "putting America first" front. There is no way to balance it, or explain it other than as evidence of a severe character defect on the part of the candidate who allows it to be used. There is a straight up argument to be had in this election: Mcain has a vastly different view from Obama about foreign policy, taxation, health care, government action...you name it. He has lots of experience; it is always shocking to remember that this time four years ago, Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently, though, McCain isn't confident that conservative policies and personal experience can win, given the ruinous state of the nation after eight years of Bush. So he has made a fateful decision: he has personally impugned Obama's patriotism and allows his surrogates to continue to do that. By doing so, he has allied himself with those who smeared him, his wife, his daughter Bridget, in 2000. Those tactics won George Bush a primary--and a nomination. But they proved a form of slow-acting spiritual poison, rotting the core of the Bush presidency. We'll see if the public decides to acquiesce in sleaze in 2008, and what sort of presidency--what sort of country--that will produce."

The Tale of Two Countries

2008-08-13T14:30:00.005-06:00

Thomas Friedman has been spot on lately. I suggest reading his op-eds contrasting Denmark and the United States on energy policy as well as his call-out of John McCain’s hypocrisy on energy policy.

Pandering and campaigning. No one does it nearly as impressively as the United States. Campaigning is the art of using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of substance. I read the draft of the Democratic Party Platform, entitled Renewing America’s Promise. There is a lot of rhetoric that it is easy to get behind. But, as always, it is the standard “America is great”, “teachers are great”, “protect the environment”, “health insurance for all” document that promises a whole lot of values but doesn’t put any meat on the bones. It is a steady diet of ribs that have already been stripped clean. It is clear that McCain is far more apt to blither, but Obama panders as well. The difference is that McCain and his Party disdain government and wants to choke it to death. Obama wants to continue the work the Al Gore undertook while he was Vice President to make government efficient and accountable. I recommend listening to the Fresh Air interview with Thomas Franks from August 4^th. Franks, a Wall Street Journal columnist, has written a book called The Wrecking Crew, which demonstrates the pattern of Republican Presidents putting incompetent people in government positions because they want to create a legacy of public sector ineptitude.

In addition, Franks seeks to illustrate a systematic suppression of public sector salaries in an effort to ensure that government cannot recruit “the best and brightest”. It has, by and large, failed because the GOP have never understood that to some people public service is more important than wealth. But I digress…

The problem with this pandering is: it is our own damn fault. We have been brainwashed into believing what oil companies, health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and large financial institutions say, as if they have no stake in the outcome. Namely that alternative energy is not price competitive, socialized medicine will result in waiting lists and ultimately worse health outcomes, competition in the drug market will suppress research and development, regulation will cost the American people huge sums of money. What we are slow in learning is, this is all BS. Ultimately, no one in this country is interested in making the commitment necessary to change. We are afraid of the unknown.

We are told that reforms (reforms that would bring us toward the mainstream of developed nations) run contrary to our libertarian spirit. Americans aren’t libertarian, we have been fed a steady diet of misinformation which make us afraid of perceived outcomes from proposed progressive reforms.

The failure of the Democratic Party is the common thread with my peeps. They are a bunch of pansies and are afraid of being called out. They try to play the game by the rules laid out by conservatives. I am here to tell you that it is a recipe for disaster. We may win elections, but we will never win our progressive policy revolution because our victories will be built on a foundation of misinformation, half truths and all out lies. Like the Siberian apartment building, built without a foundation on the permafrost, as the Earth warms, it will all come crashing down.

If we are interested in real change, and not just winning elections, we need to challenge the conventional "wisdom". We need to set the record straight on policy. We may well lose the election, but we can’t lose the larger struggle.

Not everything has a public solution. Government should not be involved in all aspects of our society. I do not believe in pure nationalization. Likewise, I oppose pure privatization. The invisible hand of the market functions best when regulated to remove the possibility of abuse by people who are solely concerned with financial outcomes regardless of the impact on society.

I believe that we should respect the American people. We need to present them with the truth. The situation is dire. The challenges we face are immense, but all is not lost. This is no time to panic. Sticking our head in the ground like an ostrich is a form of panic. Some become indiscriminately hysterical when faced with dire challenges and some avoid the situation. Neither does anything but delay the inevitable. We will have to address energy challenges. Delay only makes it more difficult.

Just to make it more clear for the knuckleheads!

2008-08-12T14:08:00.002-06:00

Here is a table from The Tax Policy that makes it all a bit more clear. (Click to view full size) Here is how your tax bill will change based on income brackets. Just for the record: only 2% of American households earn over $250,000, so any claim of a huge tax increase on all Americans by the McCain train wreck (it isn’t really a campaign anymore, is it?)