June 13, 2008
Seeking freedom from the Right, my peace of mind...
I've been doing a lot of blogging over at my new site: Indignant Desert Birds, and neglecting this one. Sorry about that, ideally, you'd bookmark/RSS both...
Anyway, here's McCain on Social Security:
He doesn't want to "privatize" it, he wants to let "young people" take money out of Social Security (money already spoken for by current benefits) and let them put it into an "account with their name on it". You know, a "private" account. Would it destroy social security to take money away from current retirees and give it to young workers so they could gamble it on the stock market? I should think so! Unless he's also proposing a massive new tax increase to cover the shortfall.
And that's McCain's plan: more volatile retirement funds and massive new taxes to pay for it. Awesome
Posted by Andrew at 12:31 PM | Comments (0)
June 05, 2008
I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more...
And in 1966, a teenager answering a job ad walked over the border from Chicago into the all-white city of Cicero, and for that sin and no other was beaten to death. That was what Martin Luther King came to fight in Chicago.source
In 2004 a man-- a black man-- walked out of Chicago, went to Boston and gave a speech. That speech about healing the nation's divide and moving beyond the politics of hate propelled him onto the nation's stage, and helped him claim the Democratic nomination.
42 years ago a black man was killed for the crime of applying for work. Next January a black man will be president. The pace of change may seem glacial, but progress is being made...
Posted by Andrew at 10:00 AM | Comments (0)
May 21, 2008
Ted Kennedy:
Things he succeeded at:
- the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- the Voting Rights Act
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- Head Start
- Legal Services
- the War on Poverty
- environmental legislation
- OSHA
- bringing down Richard Nixon on the Watergate investigations
- ending the Vietnam War
- stopping military aid to the Contras in Central America
- the Martin Luther King holiday
- stopping Robert Bork
- the increases in the minimum wage
- Family and Medical Leave
- National Service
- S-CHIP
Things he tried really hard to do, but couldn't quite pull off:
- universal health care
- labor law reform
- stopping the Iraq war
(List gleefully stolen from: here)
Ted Kennedy is sort of like the Democratic Jiminy Cricket-- If Jiminy knew how to kick parliamentary ass.
Posted by Andrew at 07:15 AM | Comments (0)
May 20, 2008
Why is Obama doing so well?
He has created and tapped new sources of money. But you knew that.
What you may not have known is how Clinton made a (actually rather small) strategic mistake and left this tiny window open. The Silicon Valley boys and girls opened it wide and let Obama through. In return, all they seem to want is a more open Network. Sounds like a win...
Posted by Andrew at 07:32 AM | Comments (0)
May 19, 2008
Real San Francisco Values are less grainy on the video...
This must be a fake, right?
Posted by Andrew at 01:42 PM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2008
Don't give away the homeworld
Too fantastic for words. Runs long, but if you've ever wanted to see the definitive "appeasement" rebuttal, this is it:
Posted by Andrew at 05:02 PM | Comments (1)
May 15, 2008
California Supreme Court defends Marriage.
Today at 10:01am (PDT) millions of Californians received calls from their mothers. The statements were varied and multilingual, but the sentiment was the same in each case: your last excuse is gone, I want to watch my child get married.
Let California lead the way...
Posted by Andrew at 01:18 PM | Comments (0)
May 06, 2008
Don't ask, don't... something?
Since 1994, America has lost approximately 11,000 servicemembers because they violated the "don't tell" half of our policy on homosexuality in the military. How many servicemembers have been discharged for violating the "don't ask" part? I would guess very, very few. Perhaps none.
Posted by Andrew at 07:15 AM | Comments (0)
April 15, 2008
John McCain = George Bush
Let's just keep saying that until November.
Posted by Andrew at 09:59 AM | Comments (0)
April 01, 2008
line of the day: Centrism
The only thing more annoying than Joe Lieberman himself is his conceit, which many people indulge out of habit, that he is some kind of "centrist." Perhaps if we think of the political spectrum as a series of rings surrounding a cavernous abyss (or perhaps a pit like the Sarlaac), then Lieberman and McCain can fairly be called "centrists."-Daniel Larison
Posted by Andrew at 10:51 AM | Comments (0)
Surely this makes sense...
How about, in the future, we assume that regulations were not created in order to slow industry, but rather to solve real problems. Therefore before we deregulate, we must first ask ourselves A) what problems did the regulations solve, and B) how the new regulations will keep the problem form coming back.
As an example of this: Social Security exists because Americans hated seeing homelessness in literally 50% of our elder population. Today that problem doesn't exist. If anyone wants to change our current system, they need to first satisfy me that we're not going to see a return to the days of elder poverty.
The deregulation of the financial services sector, too should have been more carefully looked at. It's all well and good to look at a motor and say "well, if we remove the safety mechanisms, we can really increase the horsepower on this thing!" But if we've just guaranteed that the engine will explode at some point it's probably not worth it. Republicans and Libertarians always seem convinced that even though we've seen it blow up a dozen times before, this time will be different...
Posted by Andrew at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)
March 20, 2008
Another America-bashing religious event
The candidate was endorsed by yet another America hating religious figure. I don't have much faith that his candidacy can survive the slew of negative press that will be sure to follow:
The person who put on the conference which opened with this song went on to endorse the candidate. The candidate wasn't there-- just like he wasn't there for Rev. Wright's now-infamous attack on America.
The candidate, of course, is John McCain; I'm sure my circumlocution fooled no one. To be sure, McCain boycotted their event-- yet he's counting on their support. Straight-talkin' John wants it both ways. It looks like a complacent media is going to let him have it.
It seems almost unnecessary to say that I disagree vehemently with every lyric of the song. And yet I also feel that religion seems like a valid tool with which to challenge the American self-image. I'm disappointed that the challenge from the left seems more controversial than the challenge from the right.
But if you're going to vote for McCain, this is the company you're keeping. It's good to know
Posted by Andrew at 09:48 AM | Comments (0)
March 19, 2008
Election '08
I know we're all supposed to be talking about Obama's speech
I think I'll let the man speak for himself:
It's really quite good, and there's a comment or three I've got on it. That isn't really my concern at the moment...
One of the intriguing things about the Obama campaign is how good he's been. He's taken the resources he has and applied them where they will be most usefully spent. Whereas Hillary has consistently focused on the next challenge, Obama has focused on the next two. This has put Hillary on the defensive-- before she even knew she wasn't the front runner. When things have blown up in his face (Samantha Power, Rev. Wright, etc), he has moved quickly, often within the same news-cycle to defuse the situation.
I don't know if Obama will win, and he's certainly not been mistake-free, yet it must be said, he's been the most nimble and effective campaigner we've seen in a long time.
Posted by Andrew at 08:30 AM | Comments (0)
March 18, 2008
The 10 types of Republicans
Posted by Andrew at 12:13 PM | Comments (1)
March 16, 2008
Libertarians don't know economics, part something of an ongoing series...
Draginol has another uninformed rant up at his site.
Similarly, there's an ever increasing effort to have the top 1% pay more and more of the taxes than ever before. Even today, the top 1% pay 20% of the taxes. And in a democracy, who is to argue what is "fair"? If 51% think it's "fair" that 1% pay 20% or 30% or 50% of the taxes, the 1% are basically screwed right? Not so in a globalized economy.
It truly is amazing how much "wrong" you can shoehorn into a statement where 100% of the facts are correct, and still not be right. To sum up: Draginol is claiming that it is unfair for the top 1% of wealth-earners to pay 20% of the taxes. What he fails to acknowledged, or perhaps even know, is that the top 1% of wealth-earners have over 30% of the wealth.
What that means is that America has a less-than-flat tax. The poor pay more of their income than the rich pay of theirs. Is this fair? Perhaps. After all, the government is very much willing to bail out the rich when they run into financial difficulty, and cut food stamps to do it.
Wait, that's not fair.
An argument that Draginol doesn't want to pay taxes is, well, no one likes to pay taxes. But an argument that he's overtaxed and therefore would like to flee the country just sounds odd...
Posted by Andrew at 08:45 AM | Comments (1)
March 13, 2008
A real alpha-male:
A more serious complaint than you might think...
Those new voters ticked off the first name to appear in each of the nonpresidential contests, claims Grant, lending weight to candidates whose names appear first in the alphabet. And in the end, D comes before G. Alpha-deficient Grant explains that there was a striking difference between results at those polls where the Doherty and Grant campaigns supplied literature and those that went unstaffed.
In California, we mix things up a bit. First we randomize the alphabet, and block each candidate within that group together. So, all the "A" candidates will appear together, all the "Q" candidates, and so on. But "Q" could well come before "A" depending on the randomization. Also, we have it differently randomized for each precinct-- this to ensure that each candidate gets an equal chance to appear as the "top" name.
It sounds like things are different in Texas.
Posted by Andrew at 07:55 AM | Comments (0)
March 04, 2008
Taxonomy of hopelessness.
The old line is that "A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math". In the social sciences we have another saying "Rational choice". It's not at all catchy.
What it basically means is that, in aggregate, people tend to do the thing which brings them the best results. That's a simplification, of course.
So, when a political scientist sees a whole bunch of people playing the lottery, we assume that this is the best investment available to them. And since the expected return is, um, poor, it points to a basic lack of opportunity to the players.
When we see people playing the lottery for health insurance, we can guess that there is something deeply, deeply, wrong with our society. The good news? At least they're able to pay for an ongoing occupation of Iraq...
Posted by Andrew at 07:36 AM | Comments (1)
February 22, 2008
This is parody, right?
The real problem with the American political culture? The disenfranchisement of straight white men.
Posted by Andrew at 03:50 PM | Comments (0)
February 18, 2008
Thing I don't get:
It shouldn't be all election, all the time, but...
I've heard people say that they want McCain because he provides leadership. They prefer Obama, though. But not Clinton.
Here's the thing: Clinton and Obama basically want to go the same way. That way will be the exact opposite of the way McCain wants to go. How on Earth can anyone's preference set include two candidates of mutually incompatible goals, but not two candidates of nearly identical goals? I guess "leadership" is looking manly in front of a camera. In this view "off a cliff" and "towards a better tomorrow" are treated equally as "direction". Or something...
Posted by Andrew at 04:19 PM | Comments (0)
February 11, 2008
McCain Rebuts
I really do hope it's a race between Obama and McCain. It would be 1992 all over again...
Posted by Andrew at 10:44 AM | Comments (1)
February 08, 2008
Yes we Can!
The reason I'm an Obama supporter-- an enthusiastic Obama supporter-- is that he consistently identifies America in the along the lines I think of when I think of America. The Declaration of Independence. The abolitionist movement. Labor rights. Women's rights. The moon shot. Dr. King. Justice. Equality. The scrappy underdog who strives, seeks, and does not yield.
None of these things have to do with being the strongest, greatest nation on Earth. All of them involve being a strong, good people. A people who dare to dream. I'll pull the lever for Hillary. Obama engages with my hopes and aspirations. He'll make a fantastic president.
Posted by Andrew at 09:44 AM | Comments (0)
February 07, 2008
Follow the money
To take this a bit further than Ezra:
To get money from people, you have to offer them something. To get money from rich folk you have to, at the very least, not offend them. But you probably have to give them something. That creates a certain type of politics. To get money from broad stretches of the middle class, you have give them something. The interest of the middle class and the rich are different, where they are not actually at odds.
If Obama can get elected on the strength of donations from large parts of the middle class-- and if he is seen to do so by future candidates-- expect to start seeing a different set of priorities being rolled out over the next several year. This may end up being the big "breakthrough for democracy" we were promised with the internet...
Posted by Andrew at 01:03 PM | Comments (0)
February 05, 2008
Make mine Obama
So: Obama is probably not going to win the Democratic Nomination. That's fine-- in fact, that's why I'm going to vote for him. See, I _want_ to vote for him. I think he'd make a tremendously good president. But he's going to lose the primary. Therefore I'll vote for him (because I won't have another chance to do so), and in November I get to vote for Hilary-- who will also make a tremendously good president. I get to vote for 2 awesomely good candidates this year. How lucky is that?
Posted by Andrew at 10:14 AM | Comments (0)
December 19, 2007
The Democratic Platform
I've already decided who I will vote for in the 2008 election. This ad tells us exactly what Hillary's policy agenda is-- indeed it's the policy agenda of any of the Democratic candidates. We know that it is not the policy agenda of any of the Republican candidates. Some of the Democrats will be more effective than others. But all of them value things that are quite different than what the Republicans value. The issues are distinctly drawn.
Posted by Andrew at 08:41 PM | Comments (0)
Dear Religious people,
The whole reason we separated "Church" and "State" was to keep your folks from fighting over it. I know, I know, compared to us secular folks, your differences look so small that they're not worth mentioning. But when the apparatus of the American government becomes your plaything, those differences will magnify, blood will flow...
Think I'm wrong? Take something simple like the displaying of the 10 Commandments. A religious President and congress might well make it's display mandatory. There are 3 versions of the 10 commandments-- Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish. Which of the 3 should be the one officially displayed by the US government? Why would picking sides on that issue not inflame the losers?
Please do recall that religious warfare was the norm in Europe until the Europeans gave up religion. We'd like to prevent that in this country. We've been successful so far. Making America a "Christian nation" will undo that success...
Posted by Andrew at 05:33 PM | Comments (0)
December 14, 2007
Compare and contrast
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. Bill Clinton
If I'd have known then that I was going to run for president, and I was more interested in my political future than taking my job seriously and being responsible and operating with integrity, I wouldn't have ever -- I would never have done a clemency.Mike Huckabee
Bill Clinton used the mechanisms of the system to avoid A) military service and B) being known as a draft-dodger. Mike Huckabee used the mechanisms of the system in order to... let a rapist free because in doing so he was causing pain to Bill Clinton.
Mike Huckabee thinks causing Bill Clinton pain (and in so doing, letting someone get raped and murdered) is a sign of "taking my job seriously and being responsible and operating with integrity". Think the media will care? Perhaps they agree...
Posted by Andrew at 01:03 PM | Comments (0)
December 10, 2007
Vote American-- Vote Adams!
Posted by Andrew at 12:39 PM | Comments (0)
November 19, 2007
Gauntlet: accepted!
In a previous entry, I asked "If you think Paris Hilton (or the Gates' kids, for that matter) have some sort of moral right to being given money they didn't earn, by all means speak up."
Not as such, but I believe that rich people have a moral right to dispose of their wealth as they see fit. If I build up a multi-million dollar business, teach my children how to run it, and I want to leave it to them when I'm gone, that is my right. And if I want to sell my business and leave my children cash instead, that is my right, too. Just as it would be my right to sell the business and spend the proceeds on myself before I die.
The argument over the Estate Tax always seems to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding of it's nature, genially, intelligently, and fully on display in this post. The tax is not on the giving of wealth, but on the reception of wealth.
This seems like a small distinction-- one without importance.* It is, however, the vital distinction. Earned wealth is, of course!, the engine which powers civilization. The accumulation of wealth is also the accumulation of power. It's nearly axiomatic-- in a capitalist society we can scratch the qualifier.
Recall that the Estate tax only kicks in for something like .01% of all households-- the very rich. Without some sort of check on that wealth it will simply grow. Power will be passed on, concentrated in fewer hands-- hands far removed from the creativity which created that wealth. Let each generation prove itself anew. Let talent rise, and let us use the tools at our disposal to keep the worthless heirs of talent from buying positions they could not win.
*In the comments section, Maniakes shows a rather sophisticated understanding of the moral side of the argument. That understanding puts us very close to the same side on this debate.
Posted by Andrew at 06:03 PM | Comments (0)
November 18, 2007
Best ad of the season
This is a brilliantly funny ad, which masterfully drives home its points. It relentlessly tells the target demographic exactly what they wish to hear. Since I am not the target demographic, however, it tells me that I really, really don't want to vote for Huckabee.
Granted, since there is a .0001% chance of my voting for any Republican in 2008, there's no real loss for them...
Posted by Andrew at 12:01 PM | Comments (2)
November 13, 2007
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess singin' drunken lullabies
So, imagine you’re paying your taxes, filling out the paperwork, tracking down the receipts, you get to the end and wham, you have to fill it all out again. Using different rules. This is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The rules themselves are neither bad nor confusing, but the act of filing twice is maddening. And so Democratic lawmakers decided to give us a break and push the AMT threshold up a bit. This will cost roughly US$80Billion.
How do we make up for that? Well... we can either cut services—roads, schools, military courts, etc; or we can raise taxes elsewhere. Democrats decided to close a loophole that has been allowing investment bankers to only pay a 15% tax. For some strange reason, President Bush vetoed the bill.
"Preventing a tax increase in one area should not be an excuse for raising taxes in other areas," he said. "Congress should eliminate the tax increases in the bill and send the AMT relief to my desk as soon as possible." link
Republicans want to A) Cut taxes B) leave spending where it is and C) not make the very rich pay the same tax rates as the rest of us. Its tempting to be demagogic and outraged by this behavior. I’ll simply let these facts speak for themselves.
Posted by Andrew at 07:37 AM | Comments (0)
October 31, 2007
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes!
In a pair of posts Draginol (CEO of Stardock) Attacks the "liberal" view of taxation. In these posts, he reveals to things: 1) he has some factually incorrect ideas about taxation, and 2) he doesn't really understand liberals. Interestingly, these things are not related. Point 1 is irrelevant; I'll be focusing on point 2...
Liberals view taxes as.. paying for stuff. Society wants roads, schools, police, fire departments, healthcare, etc. Let's ignore the why. For whatever reason (Wikipedia doesn't have a page for "Collective action dilemma", but that's the reason. See this old post for more), society has decided that government is the best provider for whatever good is under discussion.
Now we need to talk about paying for it. This becomes a simple question: Who is least-hurt by having less money? That's why liberals like to tax the rich. They can afford it...
Post Script: to the best of my knowledge, conservatives want to cut taxes not so they can pay less taxes, but rather so they can "starve the beast"-- cut government services. They do seem convinced that the freer they are to starve, the freer they are as people. I disagree pretty vehemently.
Posted by Andrew at 12:13 PM | Comments (0)
October 22, 2007
How many cliches can be used in one post?
It must have been a dark and stormy night when suddenly a shot rang out and Mark Rose was hit with an idea: what if he thought what if I try to use every anti-Democratic smear in the Republican play book in as few words as possible?
I don't know if he succeeded, but I'd love to see someone do a better job trying! Anyway: you've got to love how Mark wants to protect "babies" (actually fetuses), right up until the moment they're born. Once they leave the womb, he's against any efforts to keep them alive by things like: S-Chip. Lovely...
Posted by Andrew at 12:53 PM | Comments (0)
October 21, 2007
Compare and Contrast
Hillary:
Fred:
Hillary Says: There's a problem and I want to solve it. Fred says: There's no problem and Hilliary is a Vampire. The weird thing is that both of these ads are emblematic of the thinking of their parties. The Democrats see an embattled middle (and lower!) class and wish to help. The argument is over who can do the best job helping. The Republicans seem to see an embattled presidency and are arguing about who can best validate Bush's legacy.
At this rate, the Ds are going to beat up the Rs, almost no matter who the respective standard bearers are. It's almost like a replay of 1992...
Posted by Andrew at 09:52 PM | Comments (1)
October 09, 2007
Why I'm not happy about Ron Paul
If you've been reading these 'nets for the past few months, you'll have notices a good many Ron Paul enthusiasts. Generally: He's the Republican who isn't batshit insane. It's true that, by Republican Party standards, he's not crazy. Still, is "Sanest guy in the asylum" the metric by which we want to chose a major-party nominee? On the other-wrist, if you wish to cling to the idea that we have 2 parties worth choosing between, Ron Paul seems to offer some hope...
Problem is: Guy's been endorsed by David Duke Also: not all that sane:
I don’t need to tell you that our American way of life is under attack. We see it all around us — every day — and it is up to us to save it.
The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ‘ol USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.
The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.
Posted by Andrew at 12:38 PM | Comments (0)
September 28, 2007
Require Photo ID
At least in the Texas State Legislature...
Posted by Andrew at 05:04 PM | Comments (0)
September 19, 2007
What he said:
Currently, if I want a bar of precious, precious gold, I have to pay a lot of money for it. If someone let me into Fort Knox and said the gold was on them, however, I'd take as much as I could possibly carry. I like gold! The more the better. That's not really the case with colonoscopies, or triple-bypasses. Now, you could make it so I can't afford colonoscopies, in which case I can't get them, but making it so I can have an unlimited number won't compel me to make them a weekly event.
I think this is the fundamental disconnect: Liberals want more health care and Conservatives want less of it. Anyone who is worried that they won't have health care when they need it ought to side strongly with the liberal position on this one. While we liberals may complain, fight, and argue with one another over the best form of health care, we all share the idea that everyone ought to be covered. Conservatives seem to be fine with the current "emergency room" system. As someone who has a permanent knee damage because the ER was out of my budget at one time, I tend to think they're full of it...
Posted by Andrew at 10:49 PM | Comments (0)
August 03, 2007
Do you have a flag?
In it's continuing efforts to be a parody of a great power, Russia plants flag on North Pole seabed.
This really is an interesting bit of geopolitics, encapsulating as it does the intersection of a petroleum economy, global warming, and Russia's attempted resurgence as a viable nation. In many way's, it is reminiscent of the Cod Wars which did so much to prove the Democratic Peace Theory.
Nevertheless, I think Eddie Izzard sums it up:
Posted by Andrew at 12:48 PM | Comments (0)
July 29, 2007
Crass Warfare
So, Safeway plowed its profits into a brand new gym for it's employees. Well, kind of. See: the gym is at the corporate headquarters of a continent-spanning company. Meanwhile, store-level employees don't get health care unless they sign up through the union. Does Safeway care about the health and wellness of it's employees? Yes-- for the ones the CEO looks around and sees everyday...
It was in this 17,000 square foot monument to class warfare that CA governor Schwarzenegger chose to attack single payer health care...
Posted by Andrew at 09:33 AM | Comments (0)
July 24, 2007
No sexism here, no sirree!
Right minded says that he believes the world is ready for a female president, so long as that woman is a conservative. Fair enough-- right minded is a conservative blog. However, he seems unaware of the contradiction inherent in stating:
Should Hillary Clinton lose, you can bet the farm that many on the left will accuse Republican voters of sexism, much the same way we were labeled racists last November for not electing Harold Ford, Jr. to the U.S. Senate. It wasn't Junior's race that sent him packing, however. It was his liberalism. Likewise, it won't be Hillary Clinton's gender that provides her undoing, but her politics.
Which might be a fair statement had he not just said:
But back in the 1970's, she managed to attach herself to an intelligent, affable young man with political ambitions, and rode his coattails all the way to the White House.
See, in the liberal, non-sexist world, women don't attach themselves to men, but rather men and women find commonalities of personality and fall in love, thereby allowing for mutual support. At the end of the day, the belief that Hillary and Bill don't love one another is a belief based upon the old sexist notions of relationships and power. It might be what keeps her out of the White House...
Posted by Andrew at 07:21 AM | Comments (0)
July 23, 2007
Class warfare is when they do it to us, remember...
Perhaps what we have here is the opposite of the “theft of enjoyment”. It is the fear, rather, that one’s claim to have access to superior power and pleasure won’t be acknowledged at all.
The point of a club like Late Night Shots is, in large part, to keep other people out of it. That’s obvious. But those other people have to (be imagined to) want in.
The greatest terror is not that they will try to overthrow you—or even that they might somehow break through the barriers of exclusivity. It’s that the outsider might laugh at the exclusivity.
Crooked that's the tail end of a rather good piece on a social network for the young and privileged. It's a good piece about the second generation of American aristocracy...
Posted by Andrew at 03:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 22, 2007
Damn Right
My Liberal Identity:
You are a Social Justice Crusader, also known as a rights activist. You believe in equality, fairness, and preventing neo-Confederate conservative troglodytes from rolling back fifty years of civil rights gains.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com
Posted by Andrew at 08:44 AM | Comments (0)
July 04, 2007
231 years ago
Today we celebrate, not the fact of independence, but rather the act of declaring independence. In 1776- and throughout time- revolution has been both illegal and ill-advised. The only possible thing that can trump the law is morality; on the 4th of July 1776, America claimed morality:
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.
In 1775, no one believed this. In 2007, everyone says it, but I doubt that few really feel it in their gut. Today is a day for celebrating that ideal, and vowing to make it a reality.
Posted by Andrew at 11:11 AM | Comments (0)
June 04, 2007
That sound you hear is my head repeatedly hitting the nearest solid object...
If someone wants to believe that the earth is only 5,000 years old, that dinosaurs were farm animals for homo erectus, and that flying/lending money/technology is the spawn of Satan, so much the better for me. It's that much less competition that me and my family have to deal with in the world of high-tech reality.- Brian Miller
This sort of thinking is-- to put it nicely-- idiotic. The underlying assumption is that there is only so much; so many jobs, so much money, so much... stuff; to go around. Insanity! Mr. Miller thinks that as long as he has a larger share of pie than the person next to him, the size of the pie does not matter...
The development of human capital is the only thing which can expand the pie. We can either get that capital from outside the country, or we can train it within. If over 40% of Americans don't believe in basic biology, the pie is going to stay mighty small indeed...
Posted by Andrew at 01:18 AM | Comments (1)
April 27, 2007
Would we storm the soldiers keeping us from the ballot box?
As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are "at war" in a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president - without US citizens realising it yet - the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.
That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions - and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs".
[...]
What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite.
The average Human being of any year is psychologically and biologically identical to the average German, Italian, or Japanese citizen of 1925. In this regard, America is not special or unique; we even have our own home grown fascists. These are, unfortunately, dangerous times for our democracy. We've seen a slow hissing slide great freedom to grave peril. An entire political party measures "progress" in the number of rights they can strip from Ordinary Americans...
Indeed, one of the current crop of candidates for president "threatened to challenge the law imposing term limits on elected New York City officials and run for another full four-year term, if the primary candidates did not consent to permit the extension of his mayoralty" (post 9/11 via)
When the next crisis hits, will we meekly sit by? Or will we do our duty as citizens to keep our nation free? History will judge us either way. It is up to us how that judgment is written...
Posted by Andrew at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
April 26, 2007
The Republican Party is not the party of Morality
Or, perhaps they mean something different by it...
At any rate, since Mr. Bennett had been Secretary of Education I asked him to support the bill in the crucial stage when we needed Republican allies. He told me he would not help, because he did not want public schools to obtain new funding, new capability, new tools for success. He wanted them, he said, to fail so that they could be replaced with vouchers,charter schools, religious schools, and other forms of private education.
(via)
Now, no matter what you think of public schools, to deliberately undermine them-- to, with malice aforethought, shortchange the students in them-- for a political agenda is immoral. And, of course, if public schools fail after such ideology comes to the fore, it proves not that public schools are bad, but that when they are deprived of support, they fall down...
The fact that such ideologies are put into practice whenever Republicans take office is why I cannot, in good conscience, vote Republican...
Posted by Andrew at 12:43 AM | Comments (0)
April 25, 2007
Why Liberals are Angry
I've gotten some flack at Dean's for my assertion that conservatives are hateful people. Some of them are pointing to people on the Left and saying "they do it too!" as if that mattered. The thing is, we liberals do have good reason to be more than slightly angry at the conservatives. Let's put Katrina aside. Let's ignore the gaping running sore in American Foreign Policy that is Iraq. Let's look at Abortion.
President Bush has said:
"I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial-birth abortion. Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America. The partial-birth abortion ban, which an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed and I signed into law, represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America.
Had the President said "gruesome", he would have been correct: major surgery involves blood and pain, and is therefore always horrific. What makes liberals angry about this decision is somewhat technical: Previously a woman and her doctor considered the risks to her life and health before making a decision on whether she was able to carry a child to term. Now, a doctor may only consider a woman's life before deciding whether or not she is legally allowed to have this procedure.
The difference is dramatic. Pregnancy is one of the wildest things biology can do. It's radical, weird, and half of them end in miscarriage. Sometimes a woman is simply unable to maintain both her longterm health and her potential child. Allowing a life exemption without also allowing a health exemption means that we don't care if a woman goes blind, as long as the baby is born...
So, why are we angry? Because congress has substituted, in a situation that is dynamic and life-threatening, it's own judgment static for that of a doctor. Congress has now said that if a woman is bleeding, a doctor must be certain-- absolutely certain-- that she will die unless the pregnancy is aborted. And so we have this:
We were watching TV on the bed at home. Then she felt some pain. But she wasn't bleeding. She was cramping. It was very painful, but again, we checked, and there wasn't that much blood. So we did not go to the ER right then, they said one pad per hour. I called my sister, who suggested a hot bath to ease the cramp pain. And that did the trick. Then she started bleeding more. She panicked. She took off to the ER without even waiting for me to get dressed to go with her. By the time I've joined her there, she is bleeding enough to go through one pad every 10 minutes. Then every five minutes. Her blood pressure is steadily dropping. The machine shows the numbers in orange. Then they are both in red. But all the ER people can do is basically watch her bleed. They don't want to do anything more because of the baby.
[...]
The doctors did not say at this point that it was absolutely necessary. Maybe more blood could be transfused in. Maybe she wasn't dilated - they hadn't figured it out yet. Still too much blood. So then there I was, facing the sort of choice that you usually see only in hypotheticals in ethics and philosophy classes. Only it was real. It was my wife. And I didn't have exactly a lot of time to think about it. It was just me and the clipboard. An empty line there, marked for my signature. My wife bleeding right next to me. The ultrasound of my baby, and its heartbeat, fresh in my mind from minutes before.
Congress has said, and the courts have agreed, that there are certain medical options that are off the table. People are going to die because of this, because congress has said that a fetus has more worth than a living, breathing, human. And so we liberals are angry...
Posted by Andrew at 08:56 PM | Comments (0)
April 06, 2007
Dear Republicans
Please, oh please oh please, run Dick Cheney in 2008. Indeed, a Cheney candidacy may be the single greatest service the man could provide in his long and storied career.
Sincerely,
Andrew Cory
Posted by Andrew at 11:18 AM | Comments (1)
February 09, 2007
Forced Disappearances are bad...
Even without reference to the holocaust, we know that the NAZIs were bad because they "disappeared" people...
Even without reference to the Ukraine famine, we know the Soviets were bad because they "disappeared" people...
The hallmark of a modern society gone wrong, the thing that tells us absolutely that a nation is in serious trouble, is when that nation starts taking its citizens into custody and not admitting to it...
Signing a treaty that we won't do that ought to be a no brainer-- the sort of pro forma exercise we do to once again affirm our commitment to basic human rights...
When we refuse to sign such a treaty, it's a chilling sign...
Posted by Andrew at 07:45 PM | Comments (0)
February 07, 2007
L’Affair D’ Marcotte:
Every now and then, I’d tell Amanda that she ought to run for office. Every time I suggested as much, she’d tell me that she can’t: she’d get crucified. I always thought she was kind of a coward, overstating the obstacles to excuse herself from doing an unpleasant duty. Boy, was I wrong...
Amanda Marcotte is exactly the sort of smart, passionate person this country needs. She and I disagree on many issues. Religion, yes. Space travel, yes. Her views on abortion are (somewhat) to the left of mine. But arguing with her, conversing with her, reading her... She’s a smart woman; John Edwards did well for himself when he picked a blogmaster...
The Far Right has been throwing shit up against the wall ever since the news broke. First, there was the simple shock of it all. Bloviating about nothing at all. Next came the Case of the Missing Posts (server malfunction), then Michelle Malkin started reading random passages of Pandagon—ones where Amanda accused the Bush Administration of letting New Orleans die. Now the claim is being made that she’s anti-Catholic...
None of this has anything to do with how she has handled her responsibilities with the Edwards Campaign. You may agree with her opinions. You may not. Agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with her ability to do her job. That job is to say the sorts of things about John Edwards that John Edwards thinks will get John Edwards elected President...
Is she capable of doing that? There is probably no one better capable of doing it. Should she be fired from her current job for things she has said before taking that job? Not if John Edwards believes in Free Speech. Free, in this case, meaning—yes—consequence free...
So there it is. If John Edwards fires Amanda Marcotte, he won’t be getting my vote. I cannot possible vote for anyone who holds such a low opinion of free expression...
Posted by Andrew at 04:09 PM | Comments (0)
January 31, 2007
Just ad hominem
"We have now had amendments that have been worth over 200 billion dollars… Amendments that have been offered. We've had amendments on education of 35 billion dollars. We've had health-savings amendments that will benefit people with average incomes of $112,000… We've had those kinds of amendments and we're looking at the Kyl amendment at 3 billion dollars. But we still cannot get two dollars and fifteen cents -- over two years. Over two years!"What is the price, we ask the other side? What is the price that you want from these working men and women? What cost? How much more do we have to give to the private sector and to business? How many billion dollars more, are you asking, are you requiring?
"When does the greed stop, we ask the other side? That's the question and that's the issue."
It's bombastic, yes. But it's a legitimate argument. In effect he's saying raising the minimum wage is so worth doing that it's an end to itself, not something that ought to be "bought" with "sweeteners" that aid not Average Americans, but the rich...
One pile -- labeled $8.3 billion -- was the value of small-business tax cuts that Republicans want to include in a minimum-wage bill. The other pile -- slightly larger, representing $8.5 billion -- depicted the federal contribution to a certain controversial public-works project in Kennedy's home state.
Basicaly they're saying Sen. Kennedy did something bad almost a decade ago. Now we're doing something 97.64% as bad. Rather than attacking the man's argument, they're attacking the man's integrity. Is he a hypocrite? Hell! Let's throw in liar and probable murderer. He's also fat. Saying any of that is a refusal to engage the substance of the man's arguments. Such a refusal is tacit admission that Kennedy is right: the Rich are making war on the Poor. And now we know who stands where...
Posted by Andrew at 12:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 24, 2007
Democratic Response
Posted by Andrew at 10:44 AM | Comments (0)
Here's a tip, guys:
When your budget has a windfall, question it. Find out where it came from. Otherwise you end up With this
A computer glitch in the tax rolls of Porter County, Ind., causes the valuation of a house in the city of Valparaiso to shoot up from $122,000 to $400 million - boosting its annual property taxes from $1,500 to $8 million. Though the county's IT director spots the mistake and alerts the auditor's office, the wrong number nonetheless ends up being used in budget calculations, resulting in a $900,000 shortfall for the city and a $200,000 gap for its schools.
Posted by Andrew at 09:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 22, 2007
Hillary's in
Her official announcement is here
Posted by Andrew at 09:23 AM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2007
I'm wrong.
Waaaayyy back 2 years ago, I said that Hillary wouldn't run. I was wrong...
This demands an accounting. Why did Hillary behave in ways I would not? First, and most obviously, I failed to account for the fact that Senators run all the time. In fact, I'd guess that somewhere between 60 and 75% of all presidential contenders are Senators. None of them ever win. Therefore, we cannot say that Senators are likely to learn the lesson that Senators don't win...
Each of them must therefore think "Well, John Kerry/John Edwards/John McCain/Joe Lieberman didn't win, but I'm different, I'm special. I've got qualities and experiences that will outweigh the fact that my voting record can be (mis) construed to be on the publicly unpopular side of hundreds of votes." In fact, it is necessary to have this sort of Hubris in order to be a Senator in the first place...
I'd now like to go on record as saying that Hillary won't make it past the primaries. Of course, my Predictions have been wrong before. So we ought not be too shocked to see Hillary Clinton be sworn in late January 2009...
Posted by Andrew at 05:44 PM | Comments (0)
January 19, 2007
Our House is a very very very fine... Senate?
Taking Power, Sharing Cereal - New York Times
To Quote Ezra "I smell a sitcom"...
Posted by Andrew at 12:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 11, 2007
Awesomest thing I've read all day
The G.W. Bush severance package. - By Henry Blodget - Slate Magazine
Posted by Andrew at 12:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 10, 2007
Fox News' new segment: Enemy of the State
First time as tragedy, second time as Farce. I guess:
I don't even know where to begin. Let's start by recalling that every nation which has had an "enemy of the state" (or similar) law has made the penalty death or exile.
Mr. Hannity spends roughly as much time talking about Mr. Penn's saying naughty things about... Mr. Hannity. It's not until the second sentence that we what learn Mr. Penn has done "against" the "State". In this case, it's calling for the legal censure* of the President, and much of the executive branch. These pair of sentences take roughly equal time, which means (near as I can tell) that Sean Hannity has confused himself with the state...
Megalomania must run rampant on the right. How else can we explain Tucker Carlson's getting someone fired for what they wrote on their (non work related) blog...
So: if you rent movies to people, you get fired. If make movies to be rented, the right will call for your execution. These conservatives aren't fringy people who we have to go looking for. These are huge named multi-millionaires with access to the White House. The fact that they are what corporate America thinks best represents our national debate is a frightening look at where America is headed...
*After the house Impeaches a president, they must be convicted by the Senate in order to be removed from office. It's this legal nicety that has kept Republicans from making grievous mistakes in the past...
Posted by Andrew at 10:41 AM | Comments (2)
January 07, 2007
Remember:
It’s the "John McCain Escalation Plan". Every time you hear about it, talk about it, or think about it, remember that. And when 2008 rolls around and he decides to run, remember what his “maverick” positions are...
Posted by Andrew at 09:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 06, 2007
On behalf of non-Christian San Franciscans
Punkass Marc takes umbrage, on my behalf, at my congresswoman. Let me assure him that wartime peace prayers are always—at least for this San Franciscan—welcome. I do not care what their idiom is, or what theological context they were written in. What I care about is their content...
Marc also seems to misunderstand this passage from Speaker Pelosi’s speech:
“Let us be the Congress that rebuilds our military to meet the national security challenges of the 21st century.“Let us be the Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism.
“Let us be the Congress that never forgets our commitment to our veterans and first responders, always honoring them as the heroes they are.
She’s calling President Bush (and the Republicans who ran the 109th congress) week and ineffectual; saying that they made us less secure. Taking every opportunity to remind voters that the Republican Party has made America appreciably weaker is vital strategy. The Republicans really will cause you to die...
Pelosi is turning GOP talking points on their heads. Marc seems to think that only Republicans are allowed to care about American security. For the time being, make mine Pelosi...
Posted by Andrew at 09:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 05, 2007
110th congress
In all the hoopla and excitement I'd felt over the fact that the bad guys are no longer in power, I'd forgotten one point: our new Speaker of the House is a woman...
This makes it a long-overdue historic day. I hadn't thought of it in those terms because... why the hell would I? Pelosi is my own personal congresscritter. She's capable, strong, and well spoken. The fact that she keep her gonads in a different place than I do doesn't effect any of that...
The fact that I-- a middle-class white male-- feel that way is of course, a victory for the feminists. So thank you feminist movement. Without you our available leadership pool would be substantially smaller, and thus my nation would be a poorer place to live. Now, Ms. Pelosi? You work for me. I expect some results or your ass is getting canned...
Posted by Andrew at 11:15 AM | Comments (0)
December 20, 2006
One teensie correction
In an otherwise great post, Amanda makes 2 small errors in 2 longish sentances:
For instance, I just had to make a quick run to the store and I took my bike instead of the truck, and as I whizzed past the cars sitting in traffic or waiting in line to get that space a little bit closer to the door, a couple people glared at me and the other bicyclists for our enviable ability to actually get a move on in holiday traffic.
Um, no. See, I lived in Davis for years. The reason motorists hate bicyclists is that bicyclists "drive" in the middle of the road. They have all the acceleration of an M1 Abrams tank, and still have the gall to use the same roadway as cars. Trust me, that glare I'm shooting you means "get off the road and onto the sidewalk"...
The other error is even worse:
so I have that much more money to spend on the organic food that actually tastes better than the other stuff.
Again, I lived in Davis. No, organic food does not taste better. It's smaller, gnarlier, and I have to use it right away for fear of it rotting. Make mine agribusiness!
Update:
Amanda emails to let me know that she was on the sidewalk. This makes her, in my experience, a rare bird indeed. I'll even give her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't out running down pedestrians...
Posted by Andrew at 03:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 19, 2006
The real Person of the Year
Posted by Andrew at 10:52 AM | Comments (0)
December 13, 2006
The Patriarchy
I saw a perfect description of the patriarchy while I was at Dickens Faire last week. There was a sign promising goodies within. It read:
Gewgaws for Girls
Tomfoolery for Boys
Fancys for Ladies
Substantials for Men
It's not that there's anything wrong with gewgaws, tomfooleries or fancies. But if you're not a man, you're never getting anything substantial. Because if you're not a man, you're not substantial. And, conversely, if you're a man, you aren't allowed anything fancy or tomfoolish. Crush the women by denying adulthood. Crush the men by denying whimsy. Women seem to be getting the worst end of the deal, but everyone walks away a loser...
Posted by Andrew at 08:41 AM | Comments (0)
November 30, 2006
The Middle: Bleed American*
With the most 2006 midterm elections having drawn to a close, I can finally do something I had been wanting to do for quite a while: return to my “moderate” roots. The world is no longer upside down; it is possible once more to stand in the middle and find the world shifting under, sliding ever towards destruction...
"Moderate", or “centrist” policies have a special place in American hearts. We have long heard cries for "bipartisanship". The idea seems to be that if our parties could simply work together the extremes on "both sides" would kill each other off in some sort of Ultimate Congressional Championship. Moderates are the heroes of this story; they ride in on their shiny white horses of Compromise and slay the beast of Extremism...
In principle, this is utterly ok. It is my firm belief that our system, to borrow words from 1776, offers a gentler means of redress than revolution. And yet Martin Luther King JR once called moderates "the great stumbling block[...]". He is correct: there does come a time when revolution is necessary and proper, a time when it is impossible to remain both principled and moderate...
The problem comes from the assumption that one is bargaining between two extreme points of view. The middle ground between red and blue is, indeed, purple. Nevertheless, when one side of the debate owns all the terms by which the debate can be held—in some cases going so far as to shut the lights off and halt recording of a debate-- both extremes are no longer being represented. "Moderates" are left to find compromise with only one side...
Imagine an event where the existence of Habeas Corpus is up for debate. At issue is either keeping or getting rid of one of the foundation stones of Human Liberty. It is possible to compromise between such outcomes. But—and this is the crucial point—any such compromise weakens the foundation of American liberty. Too: the Moderate is helping, rather than hindering, a slide towards the extreme. This is obviously the least-desired outcome...
Now, with divided government once more, we can begin the long, slow, slide back to the center. I can go back to happily calling greens idiots and making fun of the fascists on the far right. Being terrified of the far right while making common cause with the far left was wearying in the extreme...
*with apologies to Jimmy Eat World
Posted by Andrew at 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 22, 2006
Pelosi still plans on following through with her "100 hours"
[Nancy] Pelosi plans to start the 110th Congress with a bang on Jan. 4 — when the House holds its ceremonial swearing in and elects her as speaker — by immediately setting off on a sprint of several weeks to enact the Democrats' ambitious 100-hour agenda.Lawmakers usually return home between the swearing-in ceremony and the president's speech, but analysts say the hurried schedule gives Democrats a chance to show instant results. It could also put Bush on the defensive, forcing him to sign or veto a host of popular initiatives.
This is a great idea: not only does it send a message of urgency and seriousness (not to mention hard work, a quality notably missing from Congress in recent years), but it allows Pelosi to seize the legislative initiative instead of just waiting to react to Bush's State of the Union address a few weeks later. It's a smart move.
(found here)
*sigh*
The fact that this is news to both readers of the SF gate, and to Kevin Drum is why Democrats are routinely criticized for not having "ideas". The fact is that Pelosi ran on the idea of having a first "100 hours". This isn't earth shattering, it's not a reaction, it was what she was elected for. It's like being shocked that Bush tried to cut taxes...
Posted by Andrew at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 15, 2006
The Work Ahead
The Republicans may have finally jumped the shark, after failing so dramatically at governance, but they have inculcated their thinking so thoroughly into people's minds that many people don't even know it. The way most people think about government, and the vocabulary they all use, comes from the Republican playbook. It's going to take a huge effort to get people thinking about it in new ways.
Having Congress won't by itself allow Liberals and Progressives to change the way people frame issues. But we now have some of the basic tools with which we can begin to change the nature of the debate. That's better than it has been...
Posted by Andrew at 02:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 14, 2006
The Fighting 110th congress!
Baseball, if played by different rules, would be football. Or any other sport of your choice. If played by the right set of rules, it would be chess. Any game is defined by its rules. I am a former Parliamentarian. I’ve sat on rules committees; I am, when you get down to it, a rules geek...
Rolling Stone magazine did an excellent story demonstrating why the Democrats in the 109th congress were so ineffective. The Republicans rewrote the rules to be not merely anti-Democratic, but also democratic. Minority voices must be heard, otherwise prove the Founder’s greatest fear: that a majority can tyrannize as well as a king...
And so today I called Representative Pelosi’s San Francisco office. I congratulated her on her victory, and asked the nice staffer if they had any plans on rewriting the congressional rules to be more inclusive of minority views. He told me that they were focused on closing out the 109th, and I get that. I reminded him that the new rules would put in place simultaneous with the inauguration of the 110th. He said that they’d keep in touch...
When the new congress takes office, I would implore the Democratic congress to remember their own time as a minority party. Simple fairness tells us that they should not impose any rule they would not be willing to live with were they to return to the minority.
Of course, fairness isn’t the only thing at stake: the Democrats will inevitably lose power at some point in the future. If they can enshrine democratic principles in victory, those principles stand a good chance at being principles down the line. Call your Member of Congress. Remind them that the Democratic Party stands for Democracy...
Posted by Andrew at 11:51 AM | Comments (0)
November 09, 2006
Limbaugh: I was knowingly complicit with the harming of America
Or did he mean something else by this:
But the way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat [sic] Party does and liberalism.
It seems a bit odd that the man would do so much to keep America going down the path George Bush put us on, and then claim that he really wanted us on a different path. But that in order to get us down that other path, we had to... no, I have no idea what the hell he is trying to say...
Ultimately, he admits that he wants his side to win no matter how much it hurts everyone else. Can someone explain to me why he has listeners?
Posted by Andrew at 01:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 08, 2006
Free at last.
After half a decade of unfettered control of the executive and legislative branches, America has finally understood what Republican rule means. We were not happy about it. Last night we had the opportunity as citizens to raise our voices. America decided that anyone would be better than the Republicans...
And so we did. Last night we elected a fairly conservative crowd for our nation’s liberal party. The election was not a revolutionary one with bold new ideas, but rather a technocratic one; Democrats promised to do better. The Democrats will apply their—our—philosophy of respecting human beings to the problems that confront us today...
If victory is possible in Iraq, we will pursue it. If it is impossible, we will get out. We will not cut services, and so will have to raise taxes to pay for them. These are not popular ideas, but they are necessary ones...
In exchange, Americans at the lowest income brackets will see a bump in their paycheck. This will allow them to actually buy stuff—this ought to be good for the economy. Also we Democrats will try to create a universal healthcare system. Every other country on earth that has one has seen service levels go up and overall prices to plummet. So again: more goods for less cash. I suppose we’ll see these things can get past an obstructionist White House. These next pair of years ought to be interesting...
Posted by Andrew at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)
November 07, 2006
Rise to vote, Sir!
Well, what are you waiting for? Go do it. Your boss has to give you 2hrs off...
Posted by Andrew at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)
October 29, 2006
Boycott NBC?
NBC is refusing to run ads for the new Dixie Chicks movie because "[...] they are disparaging to President Bush"...
I have previously blogged about the Dixie chicks. At that time I said that boycotting them solely on the basis of their political beliefs was illegitimate. So you might think that I’d keep supporting them. You’d only be half-right...
NBC’s decision to not run the ads is reprehensible. The plain fact is that all good Americans ought to be disparaging as possible about (and to) President Bush. The man has been a disaster. It is frankly un-American for any business to refuse to air an advertisement based upon its political content...
NBC has the right to be un-American. Much like a child may—with perfect right—stick fingers in her own ears and say "La La La", NBC may—with perfect right—refuse to air certain ads. They are saying that they do not wish to engage in certain debates. This is speech...
We now know where NBC stands: they believe that the American President is so pampered and soft that he is unable to hear criticism of himself. To harm their business interests for their exercising their political voice would be to harm their future ability to call the President spoiled. As Americans, they have that right. I won't interfere...
Posted by Andrew at 10:43 AM | Comments (0)
218(D)-217(R)?
Well, as of 9:42pm (PST) on 29 October 2006, that's what Pollster.com is saying. Actualy, they're saying that the Dems have 218 seats sewn up and the Reps have 193 sewn up and the other 24 are a toss. If true, this would give the Democrats a 1-vote lead even if all the tossups went Republican. Simply put; I don't believe this for a second...
Perhaps it's simply that too often in my short political life I've been excited about the Democrat's chances only to see them come crashing down. Perhaps as a fan of the Oakland Athletics (not to mention the Golden State Warriors), I am simply unused to seeing teams I root for actually win...
Anyway. Vote early. Vote often. Vote Democrat...
Posted by Andrew at 09:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 28, 2006
We Democrats.
Too often I hear and read the the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything. This is flatly wrong. We in fact are rather principled. Those principles have little to do with the size of the government, but rather with how that government is used. Specifically, the Democratic party is the one that wants each citizen to be treated equally before the law. The Democratic party views the Government as a collection of citizens, and is thus easily overseen and reviewed by ordinary humans...
There are many things that come out of this worldview; economic and environmental stances which you may or may not agree with. Which is fine; we don't always agree with ourselves on these issues. But if the Democratic Party were in charge, we'd be debating the best way of providing the most healthcare to all our citizens-- at the lowest price. We may not get the correct mix, but we'd at least give it a shot. Which is a hell of a lot more than you're gonna get out of anyone further to the Right...
In this election, the stakes are higher, of course. It isn't simply an issue of one congressperson talking (or even voting) against President Bush. It's that... hell! Read this Rolling Stone Article on the subject. It's bad. A vote for any Republican is a vote for the leadership which allowed Mark Foley to have free run of the Congressional Pages for 5 years without doing a damned thing...
Perhaps we want different things out of our government, though. What would you like to see Congress doing?
Posted by Andrew at 04:13 PM | Comments (0)
October 09, 2006
Lust for Power
The problem with Mark Foley is not that he was attracted to a 17 year old. I fully expect that many 54 year olds are attracted to the occasional hot 17 year old. The problem is not that he had a relationship with one young man who was just barely at the age of consent. The problem is that Mark Foley seemed only interested in barely legal teens. Indeed, I don’t believe there is a record of him being involved with anyone over the age of 21...
I’ll admit: the gay factor does add a bit to the titillation. Much more problematic is the fact that these were not young men, but rather older boys. In at least one instance, we have the spectacle of a US Congressman turning a blind eye to the fact that his “date” is using a false ID to buy alcohol—because said “date” was too young to legally drink! Worst of all was that Republican in a position to stop Foley gritted his teeth and said nothing...
For years it had been known that Foley likes teenagers. For years it had been known that Foley was using his position as a Congressman to keep himself supplied with barely post-pubescent teenage boys. For years the Republican leadership did nothing—and didn’t dare tell a Democrat...
The shear willingness to sacrifice anything to hold onto power, the naked partisanship, the raw arrogance—these are the hallmarks of the Foley scandal. They are a good illustration of why the Republican Party needs to be out of power...
Posted by Andrew at 10:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 06, 2006
Me? I'm voting Pelosi
Pelosi Says She Would Drain GOP 'Swamp' - washingtonpost.com
in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats _ in her fondest wish _ win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Posted by Andrew at 10:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 20, 2006
Tuesday on C-Span: Rousing Rhetoric
Today’s topic: Voter ID requirements.
To recap the Republican argument:
When they sneak over here to work, that’s bad
Then they try to have kids here: that’s bad
Wanting to send those kids to American schools? No way, Jose
Finally, they want to vote here: that’s just awful...
I dunno; to me it sounds like people want to come here, put down roots and become part of our civic society. Indeed, it’s these very things which define citizenship. Perhaps not legally, but certainly morally. When someone stands up and says “I am here, I have roots here, I wish to take part in the process of deciding how we behave as a society”—that’s what it means to be a citizen
Maybe it’s the idea of anyone feeling like a responsible member of American society which scares the hell out of the Republican Party. After all, if no one feels responsible, no one will care what they do...
Posted by Andrew at 12:04 PM | Comments (0)
September 06, 2006
Guess who gave Lieberman money?
The Republican Party. This may not make Lieberman a Republican, but it certainly destroys him as a Democrat. If Lieberman really does believe that he is a Democrat, he ought to take a long look in the mirror and try to figure out why it is that only Republicans seem to like him. If he really is a Democrat, he won’t like the answers...
Joe, we need all the Democrats we can get. Stop hurting our country. Step aside and let Lamont represent Connecticut. Let Lamont be a strong voice against the excesses of the Republican Party, or at least let Connecticut be represented by someone who won’t cheerlead for the worst side of American politics...
Posted by Andrew at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)
August 05, 2006
Which 10?
I am always amused when I hear someone tell me that (paraphrasing) the 10 commandments are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and as such can be put up as a reminder of “our” proud heritage. Except for one thing: Catholics, Protestants and Jews each have a different version of the commandments!
Are they substantively similar? Yes. Catholics get to have all the graven idols they want, but everything else seems about the same. Nonetheless, the wording on each of these is fairly specific—for a school to put up one version is to deny the others. The State (through the school) is therefore implicitly taking the side of Catholics, Protestants, or (unlikely) Jews over the others. Not to mention that by deciding to include some version of the "Judeo-Christian" commandments it is excluding things like the Wiccan Rede, or the 5 pillars of Islam...
Now, I can see some fundamentalists not minding putting their own values above that of Muslims or Pagans. Having "Popish" values placed above their own might cause a quick rethink of the debate, however...
Posted by Andrew at 02:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 14, 2006
U.S. Grant, our greatest president?
But here's why it's important to remember and honor Grant. While Grant didn't succeed in creating the racially just nation that he sought, his legacy was a memory of a short time when blacks did have equal rights and elected their own representatives to state and federal government -- a memory that would fuel a new civil rights movement in coming years.And it's worth remembering that it was the democratic will of the country to have that equality, that it was only anti-democratic racist violence and a rightwing court system that frustrated that American ideal. Too many liberals buy into a myth that Jim Crow was democratically supported in this nation which just feeds its historic legitimacy.
Posted by Andrew at 01:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 06, 2006
Follow the money
Cheneys betting on bad news? - MSN Money
Vice President Dick Cheney's financial advisers are apparently betting on a rise in inflation and interest rates and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies. That's the conclusion we draw after scouring the financial disclosure form released by Cheney recently.
Either Cheney believes what he’s doing is best for America—and his financial advisors are smarter than him—Or Cheney is playing America for suckers. Cheney strikes me as a smart guy...
Posted by Andrew at 02:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 20, 2006
Minimum wage
There are two basic theories about how the economy functions. One looks at the supply of goods and services. The other looks at the demand for the same. Republicans (and the right-wing in general) tend to favor policies which are based around the supply-side. Democrats tend to... well, not talk about economic theory so much. But they advocate polices which have a strong demand-side component. All of which my readers ought to know. I’m going to advocate for a closer look at the demand side...
First, I want to give a brief overview of supply-side. Basically, the supply side holds that people would by stuff if prices were lower, and prices would drop if there were more stuff on the market. Therefore supply-side policies tend to favor putting money into the hands of people who will create more stuff, with the expectation that this will cause prices to drop and make the economy hum along like a the sorts of machinery which tax cuts make affordable...
There is a definite place for this sort of thinking. When an economy is at full employment and inflation is starting to set in, this might be an effective tool. Using this tool under the current situation is counter-productive. In today’s economy there is enough stuff on the market and still a surplus of cash. Therefore companies are using the money to buy back their stock. Surplus cash is not being used in a way that will improve the economy, but rather in a way that makes companies less accountable. This is non-optimal...
The other idea—one that we ought to be doing more of—is demand-side. Basically it holds that consumers are the basis of an economy. When consumers have more money they are able to afford more goods, and will therefore spend it on things that will help the economy. A rising tide of worker wages lifts all containerships...
The easiest way of getting money into the hands of consumers is to simply raise their wages. Employers are loath to do this (if a worker is willing to work for US$5.15/hr, why should an employer pay her US$6.15?), but the federal and state governments have the power to set a minimum wage. There is a strong correlation between higher minimum wages and job creation...
Let me contrast the two theories this way: how many TVs does IBM need to buy? How about Bill Gates? Giving either of them more money won’t help the economy. On the other wrist, If I had more money I’d buy a new TV right now. In fact, of the 30 people I work with, about 10 of us would buy new TVs if we had more money. The rest would buy other things. Prices are not falling as fast as a minimum wage increase would make wages rise. (In fact, prices are not falling. Period.) Therefore a minimum wage increase would be of benefit to the American economy. More importantly: it would be of benefit to Americans....
Posted by Andrew at 01:12 PM | Comments (11)
June 07, 2006
Senate votes to protect actual, existing marriages.
CNN.com - Senate�blocks same-sex marriage ban - Jun 7, 2006
Or, rather, it couldn’t quite bring itself to destroy actual, existing marriages. But the result is almost the same...
Posted by Andrew at 10:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 06, 2006
President Bush welcomes new Immigrants.
Watch the background:
We obviously need to fix the illegal immigration problem. Had those guys been terrorists rather than decent, hard working would-be future Americans, Dick Cheney might well be president today. That’s a serious problem. Obviously cameras, a fence, armed guards, a helicopter, and a television crew (all things Bush brings with him) aren’t good enough...
I have some more thoughts on the subject, but I’ll let you guys think about it for a bit...
Posted by Andrew at 09:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
John Weidner Hates America
In reading this charming post, John Weidner shows himself to be an enemy of the American Revolution. He has forgotten that freedom does not mean physical security, but rather the ability to be secure from random abuses of governmental power. But enough of my prose for a moment, let’s look at his blatherings:
Under ideal circumstances there should probably have been no public arrests at all. The junior jihadis should have been quietly whisked off to Gitmo, so as not to alert others that they are being watched.
Does John Weidner really want to give to every politician and every future politician and every conceivable future politician the right to make secret arrests of citizens? Whatever he thinks of George Bush, does he truly believe that Bush’s successor or Bush’s successor’s successor wouldn’t use this power for purely personal ends? Can Mr. Weidner not think of any single politician in all of America who wouldn’t have him—John Weidner-- locked up for his political beliefs?
We the public know who the Government is arresting not to show the face of the evil we stand against, but rather so that we the people know that the Government is, in fact, fighting against evil and not us. What does Mr. Weidner think Liberty means if it doesn’t have at its core the right to know and decide how the government is using its vast power? And how can we citizens know and make those decisions if the government isn’t required to tell us what it’s up to? Indeed, the whole argument in favor of the Second Amendment (by people on the Right) is to keep the government too scared of us citizens to cause soviet-style disappearances.
I don’t trust anyone with the power to make citizens "disappear". The fact that Mr. Weidner does says frightening things about his belief in liberty...