« February 2009 | Main | April 2009 »

March 31, 2009

Reductio ad Absurdum

Focus On The Family paid a pollster to uncover the shocking revelation that Liberals and Conservatives are different. Absurdity on steriods, yes. But there are some interesting findings.

For example, these two gems:

The Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches
Liberals 27%
Conservatives 63%

Believe that Satan is real
Liberals 17%
Conservatives 36%

Am I the only one who sees a rather glaring disconnect there among what Conservatives said they believe? Or perhaps my fundamentalist/evangelical upbringing leaves me unable to assess that dichotomy objectively... If so then explain this one to me:

Jesus Christ did not commit sins during His time on Earth
Liberals 33%
Conservatives 55%

Fine, set aside biblical literalism in favor of just it's principles being totally accurate, as the first set of numbers frames it. How do 63% of Conservatives believe that those principles are all totally accurate but only 55% of 'em buy what is THE central principle in the entire friggin' New Testament??? I mean, c'mon! Take away divine sinlessness and the rest of the NT is an exercize in pointlessness. I mean logically, guys. Even if you don't buy any of it, surely you can see a logical disconnect in that juxtaposition, no?

Ah, but then that assumes a degree of rationality which may not be warranted.

In any case, I always find these kinds of polls interesting for what they reveal about the ability or willingness to think critically among those who took the poll. And I suppose simple common sense dictates that there couldn't possibly be the plethora of Protestant Christian denominations which the United States alone has spawned to a far greater degree than any other nation or culture (in the history of humankind?) if the beliefs based on a single Scripture all had to be internally consistent.

Posted by Kevin at 06:34 PM |

Perfect bumper sticker for me

Those who know me well in the physical world have heard me say many times that "I know that half of my ideas are crap, I just don't know which half." Which is a direct nod to Dale Carnegie's assertion in his classic book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, that nobody is right even half of the time.

About half an hour ago I saw a bumper sticker which made me chuckle because it says basically the same thing:

Don't Believe Everything You Think.

Posted by Kevin at 03:17 PM |

I'm shocked! Ultra-reich-wingers say Ann Coulter not honest!?!

I'm unsure whether the point is to make the gratuitously nasty Ann Coulter look like a moderate or to establish their bonefides as being to the Reich... er... Right of even the most wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth wingnut. But whatever their real motives are, absolutist anti-abortion activists have fixed Coulter squarely in their cross-hairs.

Ann Coulter has misrepresented and even defended some of the most egregious and immoral behavior. When Ann covers up aggressively anti-marriage action, and pro-abortion legislation that actually funds the killing of unborn children, she apparently is motivated by a desire to distort the truth and deceive Christians for some personal gain.

No!! Coulter? Distort the truth? Use deception for personal gain???

Just imagine how pissed these people are gonna be when they eventually figure out that there is no Tooth Fairy and that rabbits don't lay eggs, not even on Easter!

Posted by Kevin at 09:11 AM |

March 29, 2009

McCain gets his facts wrong on MTP

Watching Mr. Gregory interview Sen. McCain this morning I was struck by an assertion McCain made. They were discussing the huge deficits projected for President Obama's latest budget proposals.

SEN. McCAIN: Yeah. No, no nation can spend this way and get out of it without debasing the currency and us returning to a period that we had in the late '70s and the early '80s where we had inflation, a high unemployment and higher taxes, because it, it--you can't do it.

Higher taxes? In contrast to when?

The Post-War period from 1945-1973 was the Golden Age for the American economy. Except for a very brief increase in the early '50s the personal income tax rate topped out at a whopping 91% and the lowest rate was 20%. That continued until 1963 when the rates were slightly lowered across the board. The minimum rate remained a steady 14% from 1966 through 1976, at which point the minimum rate was LOWERED to 0%. The maximum rate remained at 70% from '66 through 1981. So, in fact, taxes were trending LOWER during the period Sen. McCain cited than during the bulk of our economic "Golden Age." (numbers via The Tax Foundation)

Let's look at deficit spending history.

Note the run-up in debt starting in 1942. That's equivalent to $10 trillion today. That pulled the economy out of the great depression and into high gear to win World War II.

Well imagine that! McCain is worried about deficit spending against the historical backdrop not only of it having been far higher right after the last economic implosion but also that of Saint Ronnie starting the trend back towards deficit spending - which was interrupted by President Clinton and then continued by Dubya. And of course Saint Ronnie founded the religion of deregulation.

I certainly do agree that deficit spending is worrisome and that runaway national debt is also worrisome. But the historical facts simply do not appear to back up Sen. McCain's assertions.

During our Golden Age taxes were higher and regulation was much more robust than Sen. McCain's dogma recognizes as righteous.

Posted by Kevin at 09:59 AM |

March 28, 2009

The Catholic War Against Children

The ongoing brewhaha over Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama to give the commencement address on May 17 has peeled off the thin veneer of morality behind which many in the Catholic heirarchy hide.

Petitions are being gathered. Graphic posters of aborted fetuses are being prepared. Protesters plan to line the road into South Bend on graduation day.

All of this is happening because pro-choice Obama, in the first weeks of his presidency, has reversed Bush administration policy by restoring funding to international family planning groups that provide abortion services and by removing limits on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. - Carol Marin

Claiming solidarity with "our littlest neighbors the children in the first home of the whole human race," they pat themselves on the back for their presumed righteousness.

But where was this concern for "our littlest neighbors" when Cardinal Law obstructed justice in the investigation of the horrific pedophilia scandal in his own diocese? Where was the righteous indignation of these Bishops and Cardinals then?

Not only was Cardinal Law not sanctioned. Not only was he allowed to remain a member in good standing. He was REWARDED by being placed in charge of the 3rd largest basilica in Rome.

"Last week, the Brazilian bishops shocked the world when they condemned a nine-year-old girl and her family after she had an abortion. The young girl was pregnant as a result of rape by her stepfather. Under the current law in Brazil, abortion is permissible in the cases of rape or when the woman's life is in danger. This case falls under both exceptions as it would have been nearly impossible for the girl to carry the twins to term with her immature body." - Catholics for Choice

Where's the concern for "our littlest neighbors"? It appears to end abruptly at birth.

The abuse, rape and even the likelihood of death of "our littlest neighbors" apparently doesn't concern the Catholic heirarchy. The only thing that apparently matters is that another Catholic be brought into the world. From that point on "our littlest neighbors" are apparently on their own and fair game for whatever abuse adult Catholics choose to afflict them with. Were it otherwise then the Catholic heirarchy wouldn't have waited until the popular public outcry over pedophile priests before addressing the moral cancer within. And were their actions since then truly from the heart then people like Cardinal Law wouldn't have been rewarded and Bishops in Brazil would exhibit even a slight concern for the life of a little girl.

Posted by Kevin at 10:19 AM |

March 27, 2009

Sen. Merkley, first Senate floor speech addresses mortgage crisis

Posted by Kevin at 09:39 PM |

March 26, 2009

Christopher Hitchens revisited - Church v. State

I blogged a couple days ago on a Christopher Hitchens article at Slate.com highlighting military Rabbis in the IDF trying to radicalize Israeli soldiers and how that's played out in recent conflicts. But Hitchens made an argument at the end of that article citing a Constitutional prohibition on spending public money to establish any religion - a pointed and direct reference to American foreign aid monies which have long flowed into Israeli coffers.

Here's Hitchens' final paragraph:

Peering over the horrible pile of Palestinian civilian casualties that has immediately resulted, it's fairly easy to see where this is going in the medium-to-longer term. The zealot settlers and their clerical accomplices are establishing an army within the army so that one day, if it is ever decided to disband or evacuate the colonial settlements, there will be enough officers and soldiers, stiffened by enough rabbis and enough extremist sermons, to refuse to obey the order. Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs. The dress rehearsals for this have already taken place, with the religious excuses given for Baruch Goldstein's rampage and the Talmudic evasions concerning the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Once considered highly extreme, such biblical exegeses are moving ever closer to the mainstream. It's high time the United States cut off any financial support for Israel that can be used even indirectly for settler activity, not just because such colonization constitutes a theft of another people's land but also because our Constitution absolutely forbids us to spend public money on the establishment of any religion.

Now, Hitchens makes a fairly narrow argument there. But it made me immediately think of the fact that Israel has a formal state religion.

Does our Constitution only bar public funding to establish a religion but give a pass ex post facto by not explicitly including a fait accompli such as is the case in Israel? That appears to be Hitchens' interpretation since he specifically cites settlers outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders. But I'm wondering if that isn't drawing a distinction which doesn't exist in our Constitution?

As for implications... Great Britain has an official established state religion. So too does Saudi Arabia and a number of other nations. And a nation such as Cuba or North Korea which arguably have a formal state religion of atheism are merely the flip side of the same coin, n'est pas?

Another issue which occurred to me was the difference between foreign aid as an extension of American foreign policy and disaster or humanitarian relief as an extension of both our foreign policy and our humanitarian principles. They all come from the same source and thus are all "public" funds. So, if we accept Hitchens' argument then wouldn't our government be just as Constitutionally prohibited from giving disaster/humanitarian relief dollars to entities which actively seek to establish religion as with the foreign aid dollars he does cite?

Of course our public funds have already gone to a much more explicit establishment of a state religion than even the Israeli Settler example - in Afghanistan, whose Constitution explicitly names Islam as the state religion.

Where do we draw the line? Or perhaps the more salient question is where does our Constitution draw the line?

Posted by Kevin at 09:18 AM |

March 25, 2009

Online Petitioning Could Solve Initiative Fraud Problems

Hasso Hering, Editor of the Albany Democrat Herald has a great idea: allow people to sign initiative petitions online. After all, as he points out, the House has passed a bill to allow people to register to vote online, so what rationale can there possibly be for not extending that to the signing of initiative petitions?

Handling initiative petitions online would solve several problems, including that of paid petition collectors coming up with phony names. It would also do away with the uncertainty in counting signatures.

After meeting the initial procedural requirements, proposed initiatives could be posted on the secretary of state’s site. Supporters could sign them there electronically, and their status as voters could be verified electronically too.

It could even be set up so that before submitting an electronic signature, voters would have to read a brief pro and con statement to be sure they know what they are doing.

Anti-Sizemore folks have for some time now been touting petitioner fraud and personal enrichment schemes as reasons to crack down on the initiative process. Online petition-signing would solve both of those problems. Sizemore's primary income-producing method has been skimming profits off the signature-gathering process. If human beings are taken out of that process, not only could Sizemore not make any money collecting signatures, but also there would be no incentive for out-of-state paid petitioners to come to Oregon and bring their forgery and tax-evading habits with them. All that would end immediately. So why not do it?

Only a resistance to the very existence of the initiative process could explain a refusal to allow online signing of initiative petitions. Sizemore and his forging, law-breaking underlings have provided initiative foes with convenient cover for a very long time, allowing them to impose increasingly stringent rules on the initiative process. In defiance of common sense and the law, his bad behavior has been allowed by authorities to grow ever more egregious, to the point that people are actually becoming receptive to the idea that the Legislature should have the ability to revise the language of initiatives and thereby castrate citizens' proposals.

It makes me wonder if Sizemore hasn't perhaps been the unwitting best friend of initiative foes all along.

Posted by Becky at 09:51 AM |

March 24, 2009

Christopher Hitchens: "some military rabbis are trying to radicalize Israeli soldiers"

An Army of Extremists:

Recent reports of atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers in the course of the intervention in Gaza have described the incitement of conscripts and reservists by military rabbis who characterized the battle as a holy war for the expulsion of non-Jews from Jewish land.

Sound familiar?

Like maybe something Osama bin Laden has cited numerous times as justifying his organizations attacks against innocent civilians?

Big difference is that some of our tax dollars are underwriting the former while others of them are being spent to wage war on the latter.

Posted by Kevin at 04:45 PM |

Insulting offer from HMOs

Insurers offer to stop charging sick people more:

The health insurance industry offered Tuesday for the first time to curb its controversial practice of charging higher premiums to people with a history of medical problems. The offer from America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a potentially significant shift in the debate over reforming the nation's health care system to rein in costs and cover an estimated 48 million uninsured people. It was contained in a letter to key senators.

In the letter, the two insurance industry groups said their members are willing to "phase out the practice of varying premiums based on health status in the individual market" if all Americans are required to get coverage. Although the letter left open some loopholes, it was still seen as a major development.

What an insulting offer! They've effectively conceeded that they've been gouging American health insurance consumers (and the employers who paid for most of it). If they can do without it now then they could have done without it before driving the U.S. healthcare picture to the brink of ruin.

Here's the question I hope every single one of those Senators asks him or herself: What's to prevent the HMOs from "phasing" it back in and economically raping us some more?

They had their chance. They've proven conclusively that they're bad corporate citizens. To hell with them!

Posted by Kevin at 04:20 PM |

Will School Districts Withhold Stimulus Funds from Charter Schools?

I have two sons, one who attends the local high school and another who goes to a charter school. My first son does well in the public school; he is taking advantage of all the great electives and doing well in his classes. But my second son was failing in public school and his teachers, for whatever reason, were not helping me get him back on track (all I needed was a daily list of assignments so I could see to it they were completed). The charter school experience has been fantastic for him, with the teachers much more able to focus on the needs of individual students and more willing to work with me to help him pull things together. He has gone from nearly straight Fs to nearly straight As this year. Because I have a successful student in each of these schools I recognize the importance of options for parents that allow them to find the right situation for their child.

The current school funding crisis is hitting both the charter schools and the public schools because both are funded from tax dollars. The realities of the funding situation are such that school days will likely be cut and some of the electives that have been available will not be available as teachers are not rehired. Our local community has been meeting to talk about the options with the decision-makers. And we’ve all been heartened by the prospect of Federal Stimulus dollars to make up for budgetary shortfalls.

But I just received an upsetting notice from my son’s charter school. The School District is not required by statute or contract to share any of the “School Day Restoration Fund” with the charter schools (which are also public schools) and is considering keeping it all for the traditional public schools. The letter from the charter schools describes the situation well:

Confusion over charter school status places charter students in jeopardy of not receiving resources they are logically and ethically entitled to. …[The School District’s] possible refusal to share Federal Stimulus dollars with their charter schools sets a disturbing and damaging precedent. Additional stimulus dollars may arrive in the future for possibly larger and larger amounts. Will the charters again be “left out” of this support even though their students’ enrollment helped generate the dollars in the first place?

I long ago accepted the reality that teachers’ unions do not exist for the benefit of the children, but for the benefit of the teachers. That’s fine. But for the School District to set aside what is best for all the children is not acceptable. I hope make the right decision and share our tax dollars with those children who don’t fit into the round hole of the public school system.

Posted by Becky at 08:55 AM |

Food for thought

Chuck:

How'll it be if we do a little mathematics on Chuck for... today? I don't propose to start trouble...but I sure don't mind stoking some, I will gleefully throw gasoline on this fire. Here's some numbers we'll be working with:
AIG Bonus Payments - $179,000,000
Oregon Median Income - $43,000

Now what we'll do is this 179,000,000/43,000 and we'll know how many Oregonians could have made a year's wages. 4,162.8 Oregonians would have made wages of the median sort, that's 4,162.8 Oregonians buying cars, houses, college educations, you know - stuff. Stuff that other people make money creating. Creating is the word - not toilet paper securities, not the ruin of a company and a run on the US taxpayer.

That in a nutshell is why Reagan's (and Dubya's) voodoo... er... trickle down economics is mental masturbation and nothing more. But dare to point that out to the faithful and they'll accuse you of being a socialist or some such nonsense.

A couple of small quibbles with Chuck's figures. The $43,000 figure is a rounded version of a widely cited figure (see NYT). But according to the most recent census data (2007) the correct figure is slightly higher at $49,000. Which yields a slightly lower number of 3,653 Oregonians. However the census figure is for median household income rather than median individual income. At 2.51 persons per household (per 2007 census estimate) it would be 9,169 Oregonians buying cars, houses, college educations, etc. And, of course, real estate brokerage firms and real estate agencies and car dealerships, etc, all getting a cut along the way. (hint: reality is trickle UP rather than trickle down) But those are minor quibbles which not only don't detract from his point but actually reinforce it.

Posted by Kevin at 08:46 AM |

March 23, 2009

Houston Chronicle digs Gov. Jindal over "volcano monitoring"

A month after Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal complained about wasteful spending in President Obama's economic stimulus package, including money for "something called 'volcano monitoring,'" Alaska pilots were grateful for such expenditures.

"Larded with wasteful spending" the budget bill may have been, but Jindal clearly can't distinguish between wasteful and useful. Then again, he was just continuing the long anti-science tradition among Republicans.

I'm looking forward to the Palin/Jindal ticket in 2012. She doesn't like science either.

Posted by Kevin at 09:12 PM |

New poll of American Jewry has some surprises

J Street just announced their 2009 poll of American Jews on a range of issues from President Obama to his foreign policy goals.

A few highlights after the jump.

Extremely strong support for the U.S. disagreeing with both sides in the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict ratcheted up another notch from last year's survey with 76% for and 24% against. Similarly, support for the U.S. exerting pressure on BOTH sides went up as well, 72% to 28%. Those numbers drop considerably if the U.S. administration were to disagree with only Israel or pressure only Israel. But they remain majorities of American Jewry even so, at 58% and 57% respectively.

60% oppose the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Interestingly, after being given brief arguments by both supporters and opponents of settlements the numbers didn't budge - indicating that the opposition is very deeply entrenched. Even more interesting, among American Jews who give money to political campaigns oppose expanding settlements by a huge 72%.

As controversial as Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman is in Israel, among American Jews he is deeply unpopular with a solid 69% being opposed.

But the shocker of the poll is when American Jews were asked whether or not they support the Obama administration actively engaging a unified Palestinian (i.e. includes Hamas) government. A whopping 69% of American Jews support the idea of engaging the Palestinians even with Hamas as participants! That's huge because it runs absolutely counter to both official American policy and to official Israeli policy too.

Lastly here and I'll refer you to the poll for the rest of its details.... Obama is hugely popular. Indeed he is vastly more popular with American Jews than Israeli Prime Minister-designate Netanyahu, 74% to Netanyahu's 58%. But they clearly prefer Netanyahu to Rush Limbaugh (73% UNfavorable), Sarah Palin (73% UNfavorable) or the Republican Party as a whole (72% UNfavorable).

Go check out the rest.

Posted by Kevin at 03:41 PM |

March 21, 2009

Conservative Dreamin'

On such a Winter's day - with sincere apologies to The Mamas & The Papas

Contrary to Scott "Chicken Little" Rasmussen's recent co-authorship of an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal's notoriously conservative editorial section claiming that Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling, in fact, as the newly web-only Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports: Obama holds steady in national poll. Of course Rasmussen's own polling firm's numbers reveal that Obama's ratings are on par with what they were the day after he won the election. But conservatives rarily let the facts get in the way of a partisan talking point.

Posted by Kevin at 01:18 PM |

Merkley supports Special Prosecutor

Senator Jeff Merkley held a townhall meeting in Eugene this morning.
Obviously the situation with AIG was a hot topic. What to do about the outrageous bonuses paid to the very people who helped get us (and AIG) INTO this economic mess.

Art Combs, a local activist asked about the possibility of fraud prosecutions of some of the people involved in bundling what they knew (or SHOULD have known) were toxic sub-prime mortgages and using their triple A rating to convince brokers to buy into them.

Jeff agreed it is a situation worth looking into, but pointed out that most of the activity that precipitated the financial collapse was LEGAL at the time. All the more reason why we must amend the law and re-institute safeguards and oversight provisions.

Towards the end of the townhall he called on me and asked what issue had prompted me to attend.

I came here this morning to address the issue of "The Rule of Law".
It has always seemed to me that the rule of law is a lot like pregnancy. You can't be "just a little bit" pregnant. You either are or you aren't. The same with the rule of law; you either support it or you don't. There's no "half-way".

So my question is; considering PUBLIC statements made by former President Bush that he authorized "enhanced interogation techniques" and the recent report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (who the Geneva Conventions explicitly recognize as the ultimate authority on whether or not treatment of prisoners qualifies as "torture") that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere DID constitute torture, would you support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate criminal wrong-doing, including war crimes, of the Bush-Cheney Administration.

To which, Jeff replied: "Yes, I would."
He went on to point out that if ANY administration engaged in criminal actions and stone-walled Congress and the Courts from exercising oversight and holding them to account, untill they were no longer in office, and were allowed to "get away with it" that would virtually ASSURE that some other administration in the future would do the same.
Although he understands the O'Bama Administration's desire to focus on the future (and the "politically radioactive" nature of war crimes prosecutions) we cannot close our eyes to the past and still consider ourselves a just society.

I'm glad I attended the townhall.
And I'm glad I supported Jeff Merkley for the U.S. Senate.

Posted by Mac at 01:04 PM |

T-shirts reveal moral malaise in Israel

Israel has arrested two Palestinians planning to hand out t-shirts promoting today's "Capital of Arab culture" event in Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, barbaric t-shirts like the one pictured below, which was printed at the request of an IDF soldier in a sniper unit, not only don't lead to arrests but apparently have the sanction of at least some IDF officers.

The Indian Muslim website Khabrein.info describes it:

One of the t-shirts, shows a pregnant woman in a veil and Islamic clothing with a bull's-eye targeting her swelled stomach, with a remark in English saying "1 shot, 2 kills."

Another shirt printed up recently for soldiers of the Lavi battalion, who spent three years in the West Bank, reads: "We came, we saw, we destroyed!" - alongside images of weapons, an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian village with a ruined mosque in the center.

Some are sexual in nature. Another shirt features a drawing of a soldier next to a young woman with bruises, and the slogan, "Bet you got raped!"

Sociologist Dr. Orna Sasson-Levy, of Bar-Ilan University, author of "Identities in Uniform: Masculinities and Femininities in the Israeli Military," said that the phenomenon is "part of a radicalization process the entire country is undergoing, and the soldiers are at its forefront. I think that ever since the second intifada there has been a continual shift to the right. The pullout from Gaza and its outcome - the calm that never arrived - led to a further shift rightward.

"This tendency is most strikingly evident among soldiers who encounter various situations in the territories on a daily basis. There is less meticulousness than in the past, and increasing callousness. There is a perception that the Palestinian is not a person, a human being entitled to basic rights, and therefore anything may be done to him."

Could the printing of clothing be viewed also as a means of venting aggression?

Sasson-Levy: "No. I think it strengthens and stimulates aggression and legitimizes it. What disturbs me is that a shirt is something that has permanence. The soldiers later wear it in civilian life; their girlfriends wear it afterward. It is not a statement, but rather something physical that remains, that is out there in the world. Beyond that, I think the link made between sexist views and nationalist views, as in the 'Screw Haniyeh' shirt, is interesting. National chauvinism and gender chauvinism combine and strengthen one another. It establishes a masculinity shaped by violent aggression toward women and Arabs; a masculinity that considers it legitimate to speak in a crude and violent manner toward women and Arabs."

Meanwhile Israeli soldiers are coming forward to describe wanton destruction of civilian lives and property during the recent Israeli offensive in Gaza. But, to their credit, some IDF soldiers risked incurring the wrath of their commanders by complaining about the lax rules of engagement.

Now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag the IDF says that it will investigate the allegations. Considering that their own professionalism (and morality) is directly questioned by such allegations, I hardly consider them impartial investigators. And in any case, what these Israeli soldiers are speaking out about squares with the pictures and first-hand accounts which came out of Gaza during the IDF operation.

Posted by Kevin at 12:55 PM |

March 20, 2009

Sen. Dodd not the AIG patsy GOP is making him out to be

We've all heard about how Senator Dodd allegedly placed a loophole into the recent stimulis bill, at the request of Treasury, which allowed outfits like AIG to go ahead with paying obscene bonuses to executive hacks.

Turns out that some important facts were left out of the right-wing talking points put out by NRSC executive director, Rob Jesmer. And factcheck.org is all over it.

Jesmer gets his facts backward. The truth is that Dodd, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was responsible for getting Senate passage of a provision that might have prevented the AIG bonuses. The public record reflects that Dodd championed tougher provisions than the White House or the Treasury Department wanted, and that the Obama administration lobbied for removal of the Dodd language from the stimulus bill that the president eventually signed. Dodd protested at the time, and agreed to the removal of his language only under protest.

Factcheck.org goes on to itemize all of the particulars including the text of Dodd's proposed ban.

Posted by Kevin at 01:52 PM |

GOP lawmakers fall for right-wing lie about Obama

Despite it's having been debunked nearly a month before, the Republican Majority Leader of the Florida legislature, Adam Hasner, and Arizona Senator Jon Kyle (R) both relied upon a friggin' email being circulated amongst the reich-wing to perpetuate the myth that Obama had signed an executive order allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees “with ties to Hamas” to resettle in the the U.S.

Hasner did it with an article he wrote for a right-wing website. His district just happens to have a lot of elderly Jews who have been the targets of past lies about Obama and alleged Islamic ties.

But Senator Kyle really takes the cake here. He introduced an AMENDMENT to a spending bill - I kid you not - that would have prohibited any federal money from going to resettle Palestinian refugees from Gaza to the United States. Kyle later withdrew the amendment, aknowledging that he'd been duped. But it seems pretty obvious that he just accepted what the email said at face value and it wasn't until after someone else pointed out the flawed premise to his friggin legislation that he bothered to do any fact checking.

According to Snopes.com (urban legend debunkers extraoridaire) the lie originated in an article at another right-wing site, a non-profit allegedly out to provide "fact-based information" called The New Media Journal in pursuit of it's anti "islamofascist" agenda.

Florida Majority Leader Hasner did what conservatives always do when caught telling something less than the truth - he blamed a Democrat. In this case it was the Obama administration that he blamed. Why? Because apparently he felt that by not explicitly and publically debunking the lie, the administration is complicit in his having put his full faith in a FRIGGIN' EMAIL. The executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, was less than amused by Hasner's excuse.

If the Obama administration “had to spend their staff resources knocking down all the junk” the president's critics were putting out, “they'd be doing nothing else," Forman said. "They wouldn't be able to attend to the economy or foreign policy.”

The main difference from last year, Forman said, is that many people in the Jewish community just aren’t buying the rumors this time around.

“I don’t think they have the resonance -- last year they had so much more,” he said, accusing Republicans of “looking for anything to see if it sticks.”

Posted by Kevin at 01:24 PM |

Gay Whispers About an American Idol

I do not care that people roll their eyes at the frivolity of my American Idol fandom. I work all the time, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with letting go of the serious, pressing issues of life and enjoying a couple of hours a week watching some young people reach for their dreams. As an artist and the daughter of a musician, I also find myself caring quite a bit about those kids and how well they do.

With that in mind, I will happily admit that I'm completely enthralled with Adam Lambert. He fits right in there with some of my all-time favorites - Freddie Mercury, Prince, Mick Jagger, David Bowie, and Elvis - and yet he is very fresh and current, with this amazing persona that combines a dramatic "emo" look with a paradoxical bearing of confident happiness. He is a consummate performer, visually fascinating, and extremely musically talented. I cannot wait to buy his albums - and with any luck at all, one day I'll get to see him perform live.

Okay, enough gushing - time to get to the point of my post. Apparently, a number of Adam's and the show's fans cannot quite accept the reality that he is gay. The rumor mill is buzzing with speculation.

Here's a clue for you, people:

And in case you are still in doubt, just go to Google Images and type in his name. You'll find photos of him making out with his boyfriend. And I don't really think he cares what anyone thinks about it. Good for him.

I suppose the masses like to imagine that they have a shot at a romantic relationship with their favorite stars, as ridiculous as that is. But whether or not Adam is gay is not going to change any of his female fans' chances of actually getting together with him. Nor is it going to change anything about the amazing performance he puts on or his thrilling vocals. It makes absolutely no difference at all.

Some out there are concerned about the example an out-of-the-closet gay American Idol might be to young people. I'm sure my mother won't be happy that I'm saying this, but being that I long ago abandoned the notion that being gay is evil or unnatural, in my opinion, if we're going to have an example of an out-of-the-closet gay man, you could hardly do better. This guy has it together. He's not afraid of who he is. He's enjoying his life and pushing himself to be the best he can be. He's both respectful and independant. And it is as electrifying to see that as it is to watch him perform.

Posted by Becky at 10:18 AM |

March 19, 2009

Some things are more important than politics

I've debated with myself whether or not to write a post about this, mostly because I was unsure whether it'd be insensitive or not. But I just read Carla's post at Blue Oregon and that helped make up my mind for me.

Long-time friend of PK and one of my all-time favorite people in the political blogosphere (see my list of fav blogs) Chuck Butcher just lost his son.

Words can't begin to express my sadness at his loss, but the effort is clearly appreciated.

Posted by Kevin at 01:32 PM |

Another False Controversy by Fox News

Yesterday, the featured headlines on the Fox News website included this one:

Judge: There's No Place Like School North Carolina divorce judge rules that three home-schooled children must start attending public school

On first read, one would think a judge was taking it upon himself to destroy parents’ rights to educate their children as they see fit – after all, that is one of the great fears of the religious right. And clearly, that is precisely what Fox intended its readers to think. But in fact, the judge’s decision had nothing to do with the merits of homeschooling, but rather was a boon for the parental rights of fathers.

The parents are divorced and share custody of the children. According to the father, everything was fine until his ex-wife joined the Sound Doctrine Church, at which point she withdrew from him emotionally and he turned to another woman. Old story, really. It’s happened to thousands and thousands of couples.

Meanwhile, the mother began homeschooling their three children and limiting their interaction with the non-“Sound Doctrine” world. The father wasn’t particularly keen on this intense and exclusive indoctrination and wanted his children enrolled in public school.

The judge ruled that just as the children’s mother has a right to teach her children about her religious beliefs, so their father has a right to see to it that they are exposed to alternative views. And just to be sure nobody saw his decision as being a statement against homeschooling, he wrote:

As previously stated in open court, while this Court clearly recognizes the benefits of home school, and any effort to characterize it differently is incorrect, it is Mr. Mills' request to re-enroll these children back into the public school system and expose them and challenge them to more than just Venessa Mills' viewpoint. Contrary to Ms. Mills' requested relief, this Court can not and will not infringe upon either party's right to practice their own religion and expose their children to the same.

In other words, the children’s father should be allowed, in the words of the judge, to "expose their children to more than just the experiences that [their mother] desires.” I happen to agree and am really growing tired of these manufactured crises designed to stir up right-wing paranoia, especially at this time when we have a real opportunity to begin to work together.

Posted by Becky at 10:21 AM |

March 18, 2009

"Something is deeply wrong with this outcome"

Via AP:

In a letter Tuesday, Cuomo said 73 AIG employees received retention bonuses of $1 million or more — including 11 who have since left the company. Cuomo said the bonus checks were mailed Friday.

"These payments were all made to individuals in the subsidiary whose performance led to crushing losses and the near-failure of AIG," Cuomo wrote in the letter to Frank.

"Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout. Something is deeply wrong with this outcome."

Heh - no kidding!

While some argue that taxpayers are better off if these newly minted millionaires get to keep that money so that they don't go to work for someone else. Poppycock! The taxpayers would be better off if fraud charges were brought against them instead!

Late word is that Senator Dodd has admitted to inserting the loophole which allowed these extortion payments... er... bonuses to go forward. However, he claims that it was at the urging of Geithner's people at Treasury. Why were these executives given a pass in legislation while unionized autoworkers were not in previous bailout legislation destined for Detroit or in any of the earlier bailouts of major airlines? Those with the gold make the rules.

The simple fact of the matter is that simply by virtue of their net worth (on paper at least) those executives have access and influence in the Halls of Power which the schmucks wearing blue collars simply do not. And THAT is why I have absolutely ZERO problem with the rich being taxed more than the poor. They have access and influence which we'll never, ever have. Heck, they can even get lawmakers to tweak legislation to protect their obscene compensation packages. Do you think a single lawmaker at ANY level would have given me the time of day regarding my recent layoff??? Hell no! I don't represent a potential big, fat campaign contribution!

In case you can't tell already... I'm pissed. It's about damn time we cracked some heads together in this country!

Posted by Kevin at 04:13 PM |

Stop Children, what's that sound

Everybody look what's goin' down. - Buffalo Springfield

(Previously posted at Blue Oregon.)

By now I'm sure that most of us have heard about Jon Stewart's evisceration of CNBC's Mad Money host James Cramer. But I'm guessing that fewer have heard about Cramer's Oregon connection. Turns out that James Cramer and our own Steve Novick are both members of the Harvard Law School class of '84. Fellow member of the HLS class of '84 Daniel Spiro was a staunch Novick supporter during Steve's recent run for U.S. Senate and needs no introduction to regular readers of Blue Oregon. Spiro wrote a post on Saturday about how the last year has been a Tough Year for the class of '84 on his Empathic Rationalist blog:

I look at a guy like Cramer and I’m reminded of that old ad campaign where the consumers are told that they could “have it all” – three piece suits AND rock ‘n roll. Cramer must have thought he had it all. Unlike his buddy Spitzer, who had to wage wars against Wall Street and, later, Albany Republicans, Cramer could be a friend to everyone … and get rich in the process. At the same time that he was rolling in the dough, he was comporting himself on the airwaves like a party-animal, even backslapping on such mainstream programs as Morning Joe.

Then came Stewart. His rebuke was quite simple -- it’s one thing to be a wild-and-crazy celebrity and make money for it; it’s another thing to be a charlatan who recklessly deprives people of their savings. As Stewart demonstrated, Cramer and his network told middle class people that they could TRUST his recommendations on what to do with their nest eggs, when in fact he didn’t have a friggen clue what he was talking about. Worse yet, Stewart pointed out, Cramer once publicly joked about playing the kind of games with the financial system that could have actually gotten him and his cronies in trouble if the regulators weren’t such idiots.

Actually, what Cramer was joking about may in fact constitute illegal market manipulation. But the larger story here is how or why a comedian openly playing the role of of a faux-news anchor came to be the instrument of Cramer's comeuppance. Carla and I were discussing this very issue the other day when she asked the obvious: Why wasn't it 60 Minutes or another of the investigative news programs that exposed Cramer?

One answer may be as simple as Jon Stewart having not followed the presumed script. The British Telegraph briefly describes how everyone at CNBC must have assumed it would go.

After dipping his proboscis into Stewart's pollen, Cramer was meant to flutter home with some of his young viewers, curious to see what the fuss was about.

Undoubtedly that's exactly how the big shots at CNBC (and elsewhere) thought it would play out. But Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin hints at another factor and the implications are disturbing to say the least.

But, somehow, it's Stewart's lack of credentials that has become the point — showing that a fake journalist will go where it seems real journalists fear to tread.

It's actually more complicated than that. Stewart is a smart guy who thinks well on his feet and knows how to conduct a tough interview. You may remember his famous takedown of "Crossfire" for its sins against journalism. But no one would even have noticed if, say, The New York Times took on CNBC and Cramer and his flying bulls and bears and the stock market frenzy he did his best to perpetuate.

While the fact that it was a TV comedian who valiently scored a blow against the cynical and arrogant Wall Street charlatans on behalf of us victimized consumers is indeed an indictment of the mainstream "news" business, isn't it also an indictment of us poor schmucks too. Without us would anyone know or care that Stewart so thoroughly eviscerated Cramer? For that matter, would Stewart ever have had the opportunity in the first place?

Littwin continues,

It's easy to make fun of Cramer. Like Stewart, Cramer wants you to take him seriously while not taking him seriously at all. That's what we call shtick, and it's hardly new. What is new is that you can do this on TV on what is also a serious financial-news network — and that people watch breathlessly, with cellphone in hand, as Cramer advises where to invest their money.

If Stewart, who trades in outrage, is outraged by this, suddenly, that's a story. If Stewart shows CNBC for what it too often is — a shill for Wall Street — that's a story.

If he tells Cramer this is no bleepin' game, yeah, millions line up to watch (and, if you missed it, you can see the entire unexpurgated interview at comedycentral.com).

This works because they're in the same business — the business, as Stewart puts it, of selling snake oil. But Stewart's brand of snake oil didn't help make your 401(k) shrink before your eyes.

Posted by Kevin at 01:19 PM |

The Soundtrack Of Our Lives

As is occasionally my want I am once again veering away from politics and into pop music. This time it's TSOOL who've utterly captured my fancy. Here's their bio from Reverb Nation:

Swedish power pop-psychedelicists The Soundtrack of Our Lives return in force with the COMMUNION, a double album opus containing 24 tracks dedicated to the moods of each hour of the day and night. On COMMUNION, their first album in nearly four years, caftan-sporting Norseman Ebbot Lundberg and company blast through a veritable pharmacopoeia of musical medication for the often insidious symptoms of modern society.

This newest album is spectacular. Their sound on it has been variously compared to Pink Floyd, The Beatles and The Kinks. I hear shades of all. In the two song videos we have the last and first songs on this album, respectively. The Passover reveals a certain Pink Floyd-esque sound (which I like very much). Which is not surprising considering that they've got a strong reputation as a psychedelic-pop band. The song Babel On has thus far defied my every attempt to find a comparison. If anything it's slightly similar to a heavy metal ballad that a band like Iron Maiden might have done, but yet stands on it's own, largely defying comparisons. And I love it... far and away my favorite song on the album! In many of the songs inbetween these two are where I most noticed Beatle-esque and Kinks-esque sounds and riffs, often combined in interesting and pleasing ways.










After the jump is a handy dandy music player which should have every song from this album on it. And I will add that Babel On sounds MUCH better here than in the video clip where the vocals are a bit iffy.

Posted by Kevin at 01:09 PM |

March 17, 2009

What if fiscal conservatives are (partly) right?

Our health care system's costs are out of control. Wages haven't kept up with inflation. American's constantly argue over taxes intended to fund programs to alleviate just those two all-pervasive problems alone, not to mention the many corollary programs around the perimeter. That's how it's been since I was born.

Fiscal conservatives have long ranted against high taxes and copious government spending. Social progressives have long ranted in favor of the many government programs which necessitate those taxes and the high levels of government spending. Programs intended to, as the Bible puts it, help the least among us - a clear moral good recognized as such by virtually every strain of religious thought in human history.

But what if social progressives have the cart before the horse? What if fiscal conservatives are at least partly right? Or, more specifically, the Deficit Hawk subset of fiscal conservatism.

Economic Crisis Analyst for The Cutting Edge, James Quinn, published a highly provocative article titled Grand Illusion – Secrets of the Federal Reserve:

The average American does not know much about the Federal Reserve. The government and the Federal Reserve prefer to operate in the shadows. If the American public understood what their policies have done to their lives, they would be rioting in the streets. Most Americans believe that the Federal Reserve is part of the government. They are wrong. It is a privately held corporation owned by stockholders. The Federal Reserve System is owned by the largest banks in the United States. There are Class A,B, and C shareholders. The owner banks and their shares in the Federal Reserve are a secret. Why is this a secret? It is likely that the biggest banks in the country are the major shareholders. Does this explain why Citicorp, Bank of America and JP Morgan, despite being insolvent, are being propped up by Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner?

Note the four sentences in bold. Think about them for a minute or two. Think about the implications.

Our most recent horrifying experience with an all powerful central bank has led to the current worldwide financial crisis. In less than one century the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has destroyed our currency and has allowed bankers to gain unwarranted power over the country. They had the ability and opportunity to bring down the worldwide financial system. When the average American is told that the dollar has lost 95 percent of its purchasing power since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913, they look at you with a blank stare and start wondering whether American Idol is on TV tonight. The systematic inflation purposely created by the Federal Reserve silently robs the average American of their standard of living. The government began keeping official track of inflation in 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was created. The consumer price index (CPI) on January 1, 1914 was 10.0. The CPI on January 1, 2009 was 211.1. This means that a man’s suit that cost $10 in 1913 would cost $211 today, a 2,111 percent increase in 96 years. This is a 95 percent loss in purchasing power of the dollar.

Again, note the sentences in bold.

In the years following the creation of the Federal Reserve, inflation ran at double digit rates to finance Woodrow Wilson’s foreign intervention into World War I. The other notable period was in the years following President Nixon’s closing of the gold window in 1971. This led to rampant inflation that wasn’t tamed until the early 1980’s by Paul Volcker, the only independent courageous Federal Reserve Chairman in its history. The figures so far in the twenty-first Century seem modest. This is due partly to the methodical downward manipulation of the calculation by government bureaucrats. The period from 2010 to 2020 will show a dramatic jump caused by all of the money printing and reckless spending that is occurring today.

Now, if you're like me then you probably thought something like this:

The average American might just conclude that prices always go up, so what’s the big deal about inflation.

Right?

This is where the Federal Reserve and politicians have pulled the wool over your eyes. The CPI was 30.9 in 1964. Today, it is 211.1. This means that prices have risen 683 percent since 1964. The only problem is that your wages have not risen at the same rate, even using the government manipulated CPI. Using a true CPI figure, average weekly earnings are 64 percent below what they were in 1964. This explains why a family of five could live well with one parent working in 1964, but even with both parents working and using debt in prodigious amounts, the average family does not live as well today.

Which gets us back to the raison d'etre of social progressive's approval of welfare type programs. Wanting to alleviate suffering is one of the most worthy motives I can imagine. But... if James Quinn is correct - ("This explains why a family of five could live well with one parent working in 1964, but even with both parents working and using debt in prodigious amounts, the average family does not live as well today.") - then aren't the typical welfare-type programs today arguably more band-aid than cure? We look back at the 1950s and 1960s and see a comparable wealth which we simply don't have today. We have the illusion of it... via credit cards. But the piper must be paid at some point and then the illusion is revealed for what it is.

I'm left to wonder if some modified form of Economic Liberalism might not be to our advantage compared to what we have now. It would need to be tweaked to account for the prodigous increase in technology over the last 100 years, and to account for the Pandora's Box known as the global economy - which, like Pandora's Box, I fear can never be undone.

But think about what's going on RIGHT NOW. If the major banks receiving huge infusions of taxpayer-underwritten dollars are also the prime shareholders of the Central Bank printing the same dollars... Well, aren't we being played for fools?

Posted by Kevin at 01:21 PM |

American corporate complicity fueled Nazi rise and dominance

Op-Ed in JTA: American corporate complicity created undeniable Nazi nexus

NEW YORK (JTA) -- Adolf Hitler was completely responsible for the Holocaust. But Hitler had help.

When zealous Nazis waged war against an imaginary generation-to-generation Jewish conspiracy; when Nazis created ghastly extermination plans to help ensure their master race would rule the world; when the German military smashed across Europe with lightning speed in heavy Blitz trucks; when Mengele undertook heinous medical experiments on twins in Auschwitz; and when the Reich identified the Jews everywhere in Europe and then systematically pauperized and destroyed them -- when all these terrible things were done, the shape and scope of the horror was pivotally determined by major American industrial giants.

Now the dots can be connected. They create an undeniably Nazi nexus between iconic American corporations and the greatest crime of the 20th century: the Holocaust.

I remember my first wife's step-father telling me that when he was in the Army and stationed in West Germany that he'd seen many mechanized relics of the Nazi regime with a General Motors tag identifying them as the manufactorer.

Posted by Kevin at 12:08 PM |

Dear Lord that is just obscene

Via JTA: A Bollywood-esque music video by Israeli arms dealer Rafael as an apparent Valentine's Day gift to one of it's major clients - India.

Note the flower-draped missiles the girls are dancing between and around.









The video has been nominated for Wired magazine's Iron Eagle award for it's twin assaults on both Bollywood and good taste. Wired dubbed it "the most atrocious defense video of all time." To which Rafael has given a rather testy response.

Here's what I want to know: if Israel's military-industrial complex is selling billions of dollars worth of arms and even giving away arms which our government had previously sold them (at preferential terms), not to mention competing with our own domestic military-industrial complex for those sales, why are our tax dollars still being handed over to Israel? Israel is scheduled to receive $2.55 BILLION in American aid just for this fiscal year alone. Seems to me that we ought to be heeding the call from just across the Columbia River by Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA)to reassess the scope and quality of our largesse to Israel.

Posted by Kevin at 11:01 AM |

March 16, 2009

Six years and still no justice for Rachel Corrie's murder

Professor David Bromwich has published his thoughts on the death of Rachel Corrie at HuffPo.

Gila Svirsky has a very moving and thoughful piece at OpEd News: In Memory of Rachel Corrie.

There are more.

Posted by Kevin at 12:35 PM |

Some Senators opt for transparency with their earmarks

WaPo: If 'Earmark' Is a Dirty Word, Pennsylvanians Must Be Blushing:

Despite a likely conservative challenge in next year's Republican primary, moderate Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) won't be running from his record of bringing home the bacon.

A day after President Obama signed into law the $410 billion catchall spending bill for most federal agencies, Specter and Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) issued five news releases noting every earmarked expenditure they had secured in the legislation.

Oregon Senators Wyden and Merkley have also issued a series of press releases noting the money coming back into the Oregon economy from the same spending bill. While Wyden may well face a conservative Republican challenge - on paper at least - he has little to fear. And of course Merkley was just elected and won't have to consider any kind of challenge for several years yet. Back to the WaPo piece:

While Specter has tilted rightward on some issues -- he's now wavering on the Employee Free Choice Act, a union-friendly measure that makes organizing easier and that he backed in 2007 -- the Pennsylvania Republican thinks earmarks are a rightful function of government as long as they are properly vetted and transparent.

Personally, I think Specter has a point there. One of the main problems with "earmarks" has been that so many get quietly slipped in and nobody knows about it until it's a fait accompli. Worse, past examples have shown that it can't necessarily be determined exactly who slipped an earmark in in the first place. Reciprocal back-scratching being a central tenet of real politick, without something more concrete to go on, one can necessarily safely assume that the state or district where earmarked funds are headed is the answer to who slipped the earmark in.

Here too Oregon Senators Wyden and Merkley are also opting for transparency. They've put out several joint press releases itemizing every earmark request they've received. So for example, they've issued a joint release listing every Defense request they've received for the 2010 fiscal year. That doesn't mean that every request will be taken up by one or both Senators. It's just a listing of every request they've received, what it's for and what the price tag is.

Shining the full light of day on who is asking for how much money, for what projects, of which members of Congress... seems to me to be fully half the battle, if not more than half. At least this way we can make informed choices as constituents and as voters.

Posted by Kevin at 12:52 AM |

March 15, 2009

Camara makes good in Guinea

This past Christmas season I covered a military coup in the West African country of Guinea - here and here - by a junior officer and suggested that this one might actually mean what he was saying. Well, it looks now as if I was right that there seemed to be something different about Captain Moussa Dadis Camara.

WaPo:

When the planes arrived loaded with cocaine, it was Guinea's presidential guard that secured the cargo.

Drug deals were conducted inside the first lady's private residence and in the president's VIP salon at the international airport. To avoid detection, cocaine was sent to Europe in the country's diplomatic pouch.

As the people of Guinea sit transfixed before their TV sets, top government officials one after another are confessing to their role in a lucrative international cocaine trade. Organized by a military junta that seized power three months ago, the confessions offer unprecedented insight into an exploding drug trade in West Africa, one that connects coca leaves grown in South American fields to cocaine in European discos.

Those looking to make the perfect the enemy of the good may point to the fact that Camara hasn't moved against members of his own junta believed to have participated as members of the previous regime before defecting to Camara. But were he to do that then I seriously doubt this TV thing would ever have happened. Nor, for that matter, do I think this coup would ever have happened. Seems to me that Camara has arguably done as much as he could given the restraints of reality. Certainly he has done vastly more than anyone else in that part of Africa... perhaps ever.

Posted by Kevin at 10:45 AM |

March 13, 2009

Jews need to get over it

Antony Lerman, former director of the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research says Jews need to get over it (via JTA). I've added bold emphasis:

Some pioneering research, published as Israel's bombing of Gaza began, throws some light on this. It reveals just how much the feeling that no matter what we do, we are perpetually at the mercy of others applies to Jewish Israelis. A team led by Professor Daniel Bar Tal of Tel Aviv University, one of the world's leading political psychologists, questioned Israeli Jews about their memory of the conflict with the Arabs, from its inception to the present, and found that their "consciousness is characterised by a sense of victimisation, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanisation of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering". The researchers found a close connection between that collective memory and the memory of "past persecutions of Jews" and the Holocaust, the feeling that "the whole world is against us". If such a study were to be conducted among Jews in Britain, I suspect the results would be very similar.

For Jews to see themselves in this way is understandable, but it's a distortion and deeply damaging. As Professor Bar Tal says, this view relies primarily on prolonged indoctrination that is based on ignorance and even nurtures it. The Jewish public does not want to be confused with the facts. If we are defined by past persecutions, by our victimhood, will we ever think clearly about the problem of Israel-Palestine and the problem of anti-Semitism?

Read Lerman's entire article here in UK's The Independent.

Posted by Kevin at 01:35 PM |

Oregon passes harebrained National Popular Vote scheme

Actually, it's only the Oregon house of representatives who've passed it. Now it goes to the Oregon senate.

The idea of National Popular Vote is to change the Electoral College from reflecting which Presidential candidate won each respective state's popular vote, as it currently does, to... well, here's how the NPV's latest explanation (pdf warning) puts it:

Specifically, the proposed compact would require that each member state award its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who received the largest number of popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Because would become effective only when it encompasses states collectively possessing a majority of electoral votes, the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be guaranteed enough electoral votes in the Electoral College to be elected to the Presidency.

As that explanation implies, the NPV is a compact designed to bypass the need for a Constitutional Amendment. Which means that the Electoral College would remain the vehicle by which we elect Presidents, it'd just change how the states Electors cast their votes.

Why? Here's NPV's explanation from the Introduction (pdf warning) to their book,

In elections for President and Vice President of the United States, every vote should be equal. Every person’s vote should be equally important, regardless of the state in which the vote is cast. The presidential and vice-presidential candidate who receive the most popular votes throughout the United States should win those offices. The current system for electing the President and Vice President does not satisfy these principles.

Elsewhere on their website they cite two problems that they say the current system has and which NPV would allegedly fix,

Under the winner-take-all rule, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a small handful of closely divided "battleground" states. This means that voters in two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in just 16 states.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes would have elected Kerry in 2004, even though President Bush was ahead by 3,500,000 votes nationwide.

Given the very serious questions about electronic voting machines and other voting irregularities (I'm looking at you Ohio and Florida!!) in both the 2000 and the 2004 elections, they both need to be taken with a grain of salt. Take those away and we have to go back to the 19th Century to find an election where the candidate receiving the most popular votes lost in the Electoral College.

As for the "ignored voters" argument, the NPV's own charts in the Introduction (pdf warning) to their book debunks their reasoning. NPV claims that in past elections "battleground" states received the lion's share of candidate attention because the polling was close enough that there was reason for each candidate to believe that they might be able to get that state's winner-takes-all Electoral votes if they put in a concerted effort with those state's citizens. But what do we see in their own charts?

Florida was less competitive in 2004 than Oregon and yet they received 61 campaign events to Oregon's 5. Florida was also the recipient of $4.02 per capita in campaign ad spending compared to an anemic $0.67 for Oregon. Of course Florida also had 27 Electoral College votes up for grabs compared to Oregon's 7 votes. Maine and West Virginia were also both less competitive than Oregon and received roughly twice as much in per capita campaign ad spending as Oregon.

Look, I understand the frustration that came with the questionable 2000 election. Briefly I too jumped on the anti-Electoral College bandwagon. But then I started looking into why we have it in the first place and I realized that it's not the problem. In fact, it's one of the federalists more constructive contributions to the Constitution because it slightly lessens the advantage that vastly more populous states have in electing our president. Neutralize that, as this NPV idea would do, and there would be even less incentive for major candidates to pay attention to less populous states.

As for the winner-takes-all method which slowly took over how the individual states exercise their Constitutional right to apportion their Electors, I am not a fan of it. But, rather than this NPV harebrained idea, I'd rather see Oregon adopt Maine and Nebraska's model -(throwbacks to how the system worked at our nation's founding) - and apportion our Electors by Congressional District and have the two at-large Electors apportioned according to which candidate wins the over-all popular vote in Oregon. That way the candidates have incentive to try to peel off an Electoral College vote or two by Congressional District rather than ignoring the state altogether as they largely do now.

In 2004 that didn't help Nebraska get more candidate attention. But it arguably did help Maine get more... assuming that one agrees with the NPV argument that per capita campaign ad spending is a form of individualized candidate attention to that state.

Bottom line: Even if we all adopted this National Popular Vote idea it wouldn't fix the root problem - voter apathy. Electoral College votes are apportioned to each state based on their population, not by how many of their citizens actually bother to vote. Compare the 2004 Popular Vote by state with the Electoral Votes each state has. California had just over twice as many Electoral College votes as Florida did, yet California did not generate anything even close to twice the turn-out that Florida did.

Jimmying the system won't fix the root problems.

Posted by Kevin at 12:40 PM |

March 12, 2009

Merkley on partisanship

Jeff Mapes has a really interesting post on an interview he and Charles Pope (both with The Oregonian) had with Senator Merkley. This bit nestled in the heart of the post jumped out at me:

Besides the rigidity of the seniority system, Merkley is also learning about the sharpness of the partisan lines. As a former Democratic leader and speaker in the Oregon House, Merkley is no stranger to partisan combat.

But, he said, "It is amazing how segregated this institution is, and it's no good for the American people."

Merkley recalled how Oregon legislators sit in committee: Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, and so forth.

"I never appreciated how important that was to creating conversations and really friendships across the aisle," he said. Merkley said he's suggested to a couple of committee chairs that they try this approach. "They say, 'Oh, that's an interesting idea, Jeff,'" said Merkley, in an ironic tone that makes it clear it's an idea not likely to take bloom anytime soon.

He said he's trying to break through that by scheduling meetings with Republican senators just to get to know them.

Interesting suggestion!

On the one hand, Oregon legislators are certainly no strangers to partisanship. But on the other hand, they only convene every two years, and that is typically only for about six months. So, they spend much more time apart than they do together, seated as Senator Merkley described.

Still... his explanation makes a great deal of sense and I don't find it hard to imagine that the level of partisanship could easily be far worse if they seated as Congress does.

Posted by Kevin at 01:20 PM |

A side jaunt through Indian Country

Like many (most?) native-born Americans I grew up with with family lore which says that we've got some small fraction of Indian blood coursing through our veins. In my case it's allegedly Cherokee blood via one of the matriarchs on my father's side of the family. Not being aware of any other family connection to the Deep South, it would explain the traditionally Southern cuisine um... tradition that clearly goes back several generations on that side of the family. However, I don't put too much stock in the family lore on such thin evidence and in any case I don't believe it's at the root of my enduring interest in Native American issues and which I've written about in various ways on this blog over the years. Mostly my interest revolves around justice, or at least my perceptions of the injustices - both historical and contemporary - done to Native Americans.

So anyway, yesterday I was perusing the LeftyBlogs aggregator which we're a part of out of curiosity over how many blogs participate from the various states. In the course of clicking through each state's feed to scan the most recent entries I ran across two which immediately fascinated me, both because they're about Native Americans and because of the issues being written about.

First was this post on an Alaskan blog written by a Tlingit/Athabascan woman who calls herself Raven. It seems that she is noticing a rising optimism among her peers that she's never seen before, and apparently so do some local Indian leaders. Citing an article in a North Slope paper about a Tlingit Elder,

He’s an optimist, he said, who sees a future where Native and non-Native neighbors live side-by-side, have a sense of responsibility one to another and responsibility to oneself, differences are held up as strengths and where aboriginal people still live on the land.

Raven goes on to cite part of an editorial from Indian Country Today,

Like a freshly sober alcoholic who’s lived too long devoid of hope, I’m still waiting for the rug to be pulled out from under me. But I’m fighting to suspend my disbelief and have some faith that change is on the horizon...

It’s often in the midst of the greatest crises that societies finally find the willpower to reinvent their institutions to better serve their people. With the collapse of the banking system and election of a president fully committed to this undertaking, we find ourselves in a once-in-a-generation political upheaval...

Knowing that we have several Native Americans who read our blog regularly, I am curious as to their thoughts on this.

The other post which amused me greatly is from the Hawaiian Independence Blog that I'll simply quote it it's entirety:

Police and Hawaiian activists exchange citations on Maui

Maui News reports on a peaceful standoff of sorts between Maui police and members of the Reinstated Hawaiian Government group at Waihee Beach Park where the group has been camped since December. The police issued citations for trespassing, but the group intends to issue citations of their own to the police. Also notes that April 3 has been scheduled for the trial of Henry Noa (and two others) on charges of trespassing on Kahoolawe.

The delicious irony of turning around and citing the cops who just cited them tickles my funny bone.

Posted by Kevin at 12:09 PM |

To Amend or not Amend - an unexpected new twist

The other day I wrote about the desire of Senator Feingold (D-Wis) to amend the Constitution so that Senate vacancies are filled by election rather than by appointment. A pair of House and Senate Judiciary subcommittees debated the proposed amendment yesterday and WaPo has the details.

Summing up his reasoning, Sen. Feingold said,

"I believe that those who want to be a U.S. senator should have to make their case to the people whom they want to represent, not just the occupant of the governor's mansion," Feingold said.

Rep. Nadler (D-NY) brought up the same cost of election campaign issue that was brought up here in comments. Others argued that the proposal would infringe on state's rights, which strikes me as specious in light of the 17th Amendment. That horse left the paddock long ago. But a new development seems worthy of serious consideration.

Freshman Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) offered a compromise -- a measure that would change the law, not amend the constitution, by requiring states to hold an election to fill an open Senate seat within 90 days of the vacancy. But it would leave in place the governor's authority to appoint a temporary senator until the election is held.

I'm not completely sure I understand why that would not require an amendment but it is a very intriguing suggestion.

Posted by Kevin at 11:40 AM |

March 11, 2009

Former Fundie-Winger goes on a rant

Looks like I missed this one.

A former leader of the Christian Right has issued a truly scathing and blistering critique to the Republican Party, calling them "anti-American" and a "fifth column" in the country for their efforts to "sabotage" national economic recovery.

Read the rest at Raw Story.

I wouldn't go as far as he does. In particular I disagree with characterizing Republicans as "anti-American". But, strip away the hyperbole and I think Schaeffer makes some very valid points.

(ht: Our Rants & Raves)

Posted by Kevin at 05:55 PM |

Robin Thicke - Dreamworld

This is one of the most beautiful songs I've heard in quite some time! I saw him perform it last night on Carson Daly and was mesmerized. It's hard to imagine that this is the product of Actor Alan Thicke's loins, though...







Although I don't believe that's her in the video, Robin is married to the stunning Paula Patton. She did grace the cover of his retitled debut album before they were married.

Posted by Kevin at 12:26 PM |

Gingrich calls Limbaugh "irrational"

In a new interview with Essence Magazine Gingrich demonstrates himself to be a seasoned public figure who knows how to control his own message. I must grudgingly admit a degree of admiration because it really is masterful.

After first being asked about RNC Chairman Michael Steele's public spat with douchebag... er... Rush Limbaugh, Gingrich explained,

(Steele's) going to have to learn you have to pick your words very carefully, you have to have thought through what you're trying to achieve, and you've got to make sure how you're doing it.

Then Gingrich demonstrates exactly how that's done in his answer to the very next question.

ESSENCE.COM: The Republican Party isn't tracking well with Americans in general right now, while President Obama has a high approval rating. Why do you think the Republican Party is losing support?
GINGRICH: First of all, in that same NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, both Pelosi and Reid had negatives. And the President's a brand-new elected President. The country has a deep desire for him to succeed. Anybody who does not want the President of the United States to succeed is irrational. Furthermore he's attractive, he's got a nice family, he's articulate, and he represents a sense of hope. So I think he ought to be fairly popular. I would be cautious about over-reading polls.

Posted by Kevin at 10:55 AM |

March 10, 2009

The dirty little secret behind An Inconvenient Truth?

Despite it having been pointed out to me before I don't think I ever really gave human population growth much thought with respect to Global Warming until yesterday when I read this post at Blue Oregon which talks about it in passing. If we are closing in on 7 Billion people on the planet, with a net population growth of nearly 15 million per year, can that be sustained without impacting the global health of our planet? And that figure includes an offset of nearly 9 million abortions per year. Take those away and population growth would jump by over 50% each year.

By way of comparison I checked this date-adjustable population clock to see what the world population was 45 years ago (a little over a month before I was born and pre-Roe v. Wade). It was HALF what it is today. Actually, just under half. So that means that human population has more than doubled in 45 years.

Here's an interesting video which gives a graphic depiction of how quickly human population has grown since the year AD 1:









And here's a virtuoso performance on how to lie with statistics:

After the jump some different population clocks:

U.S. and World Population Clocks via U.S. Census bureau.

I find this World Clock particularly fascinating, although in many respects it's very similar to the one below.

Here's one created from the perspective of India.

Poodwaddle.com

Posted by Kevin at 09:08 PM |

Sen. Merkley on Employee Free Choice Act

Posted by Kevin at 08:40 PM |

To Amend or not Amend, that is the question

While election of individual Representatives to Congress has always been by direct election, per the Constitution. So too has filling any vacancies been by direct election. Until 1913 and the ratification of the 17th Amendment Senators were elected by each state's legislature. Since then we've all elected our Senators the same way we elect our Representatives. But the 17th Amendment only partially modified how individuals become Senators, leaving the manner in which vacancies are filled up to each individual state.

Oregon, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Alaska are the only states requiring a direct election to fill a vacant Senate seat. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (D) wants to change that so that every state follows a uniform system for filling vacancies in the Senate just as we do for filling vacancies in the House.

There seems to be some confusion about whether Sen. Feingold wants to modify the 17th Amendment (along with co-sponsor Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis) as this article in the Appleton Wisconsin Post-Crescent says or whether Feingold wants to do it via a new 28th Amendment as almost every other source, including Sen. Feingold's own website, indicate.

Coming on the heels of the very public, very sordid fiasco in Illinois in attempting to fill Obama's vacant seat the time seems to be ripe for proponents of completing the break with the past.

If you want to keep things the way they are then I suppose calling your Senators and Representatives to let them know how you feel is in order.

If you agree with Feingold... He's got a handy dandy sign up form on his website where you can sign up to be a Citizen Co-Sponsor.

Posted by Kevin at 03:54 PM |

Odds and Ends

The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians has dropped dramatically over the last two decades according to a new survey. And apparently Vermont has displaced Oregon as the least religious state in the union.

A Gaza family has filed a $200 million lawsuit against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli leaders for the deaths of 29 family members in the recent Israeli offensive. Another Gaza family who lost 11 family members in the recent offensive filed an $40 million suit last week.

Cancer patients who talked to their doctors about end-of-life care had significantly lower health care costs in the week before they died. Against the backdrop of exorbitant health care costs this new finding deserves careful consideration.

Posted by Kevin at 01:04 PM |

GOP Congressman admits to playing dirty politics

Our friend Spyder brought this to our attention in comments but I feel it deserves more publicity here.

From Think Progress"

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) “offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.” Dropping any pretense that his party’s opposition to Obama’s agenda is based on anything other than politics, McHenry explained that House Republicans’ only goal right now is to “bring down approval numbers for Pelosi and for House Democrats”:

“We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. “Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”

Think Progress goes on to note that "in fact, McHenry is echoing the sentiments of the House Republican leadership."

Posted by Kevin at 12:05 PM |

March 09, 2009

Warren Buffett chides Congress & President on economy

He chided Congressional Democrats for loading economic stimulus legislation with earmarks... because that unecessarily inflames Congressional Republicans and what is needed right now is cooperation, not partisan fighting.

He chided Congressional Republicans with the reminder that they have an obligation to regard this as an economic war and to realize we have one leader and to support that leader. Another reminder that what is needed right now is cooperation, not partisan fighting.

He chided the Obama administration for presenting too muddled of an explanation to the American people of what's going on and what is needed. He also forcefully suggested that known controversial issues (such as health care?) should be put on the back burner while the economy is in a state of crisis. Again, because what Buffett feels is needed right now more than anything else is political cooperation.

Last but not least, and not to put too fine a point on it but, Buffett openly mocked the notion that temporarily nationalizing businesses to deal with a severe economic threat is even remotely akin to the "socialism" that reich-wing pundits are using to spread fear through the ranks of their ignorant followers. He pointed out that many businesses have been temporarily nationalized in the past without bringing on socialism.

(hat tip: Huffington Post)

Posted by Kevin at 01:52 PM |

This guy speaks for me too

Herman Welch, Mayor of Waldport Oregon, in a letter to the editor of the Oregonian:

At the age of 74 and after 53 years, I have finally quit the Republican Party and have re-registered as an independent voter.

Most of us understand that the president's economic recovery program
is not perfect and perhaps has flaws. But we also understand that our
country is in the midst of a very serious crisis. The president
understands the gravity of the problem and is trying to do something
about it.

The Republicans in Congress (except for the three who put their
country first and set aside party ideology by voting for the stimulus
bill) have offered no constructive economic recovery ideas except to
continue tax cuts for the rich (if any are left) and offer only
worn-out ideology.

I still believe in having political parties that engage in vigorous
constructive dialogue on economic issues, but as President Obama said
recently, "When the town is burning you don't check party labels.
Everybody needs to grab a hose."

Except for the fact that I switched from GOP to Indie nearly two decades ago, what Mayor Welch says here is as succinct a summation of my own views right here and now as I've seen yet. I expect that a hell of a lot of ex-GOPers will also strongly identify with what the Mayor said.

(Hat Tip: Real Oregon Reality (new to our Oregon blogroll) via Blue Oregon

Posted by Kevin at 08:37 AM |

March 07, 2009

Limbaugh is to GOP success as Kryptonite is to Superman's success

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

So says conservative Republican David Frum in an essay in Time magazine titled: Why Rush is Wrong.

Posted by Kevin at 07:22 PM |

U.S. Barista Championship - in Portland - right now

As much as Oregon's famous brewpubs bookend the later half of the political day, especially during campaign season. So too do Oregon's less famous coffeehouses bookend the first half of the day.

With that in mind, we would be remiss if we didn't point out that the U.S. Barista Championship is going on at the Oregon Convention Center this weekend. The preliminary round was held Thursday and Friday. Today is the semi-final round and the final round will be Sunday from Noon to 3:30.

Regional champions apparently get a pass through to the semi-finals round. Oregon is represented by the Northwest Regional Champion Alex Pond of the Fresh Pot on N Mississippi Ave in Portland, although he's originally from Eugene. In addition there were four other Oregon baristas in the competition. Kevin Fuller of Albina Press, Breanna Lloyd of Coffee Bean International, January Vawter of Blend Coffee and Billy Wilson of BARISTA, all Portland coffeehouses.

While The O has covered the event, I actually learned of it reading the current issue of Portland Monthly. Specifically the feature article which is a rundown of the best breakfast spots around town. Tucked into one corner is a brief review of that critical breakfast component - Coffee, featuring one Alex Pond along the recipe for his prize-winning brew (estimated cost for 4 oz = $10.00)

Alex gives his own picks for best coffeehouses in town while humbly not listing his own. The kid knows his coffee. On the list of three is Albina Press. And who took 2nd place in the Northwest Regional Barista Championship? Why it was Kevin Fuller of Albina Press. Not too shabby considering that Washington state is supposed to be the capital of the swanky cup o' joe.

Posted by Kevin at 03:26 PM |

March 06, 2009

Sizemore and His Sugar Daddies’ Endowments

In a move that quite sadly is probably only token, a judge has ruled that Bill Sizemore can no longer help run or be paid by any non-profit organization unless he gets permission from the court first. He has also been ordered to repay the over half a million dollars he took from his most recent sham foundation.

I say “token” because nothing prevents a charity from paying his wife (the way she was paid to supposedly design websites before) or his children or any one of the thousands of gullible people out there who see him as a martyr for a worthy cause and who would be willing to help him skirt around this decision and keep going. And I say “token” because he is surely smart enough to find a way to avoid paying a judgment; after all, many less clever political figures have avoided paying such judgments in the past and have still managed to have a fairly decent lifestyle. It will be a pain in the backside for him, but it won’t stop him from coming back with more ballot measures or conning people out of their money -- mark my words.

In fact, it appears Sizemore’s attorney, Greg Byrne, is going to probably pay more for this whole mess than Sizemore will because Sizemore’s charity has been shut down, meaning he cannot be paid for his work defending Sizemore and the charity in this case.

Sizemore, of course, swears he’s done nothing wrong. No surprise -- that’s what he always does.

Sizemore said that he was within his rights to use money from the American Tax Research Foundation, a Nevada nonprofit that he controlled, to purchase a car and pay for his daughter's braces -- among other personal uses. …

Sizemore said he drew an income of $115,000 a year, according to an agreement he made with the foundation "when I began working with them." Included in that agreement, he said, was a car allowance, an expense account for travel, "and health insurance or the equivalent in cash, which is how I paid for my daughter's braces."

It actually cracks me up because “them” at the foundation was him. He had an agreement with himself.

In an October court hearing, the unions alleged that Loren Parks and Dick Wendt, two wealthy industrialists who have bankrolled Sizemore's ballot initiatives, donated more than $1 million to the tax foundation and that Sizemore has since used much of it for personal expenses.

Here, I am forced to tell a humorous story. Some time ago I wrote a post about how Sizemore had moved to Klamath Falls and had found himself a new sugar daddy -- one Dick Wendt. Just today, I noticed someone had hit on that article as a result of a Google search for “sugar daddies with big dicks.” I'm sure the person was disappointed with what the article said, but at the same time it really was fitting. Only in this case it was the sugar daddies getting fucked. And rumor has it Dick has taken it long enough and has booted Sizemore’s sorry ass out the door. Which is why he is now in Redmond writing bad religious articles for a right-wing website.

As for Loren Parks, rumor has it he, too, cut Sizemore off, but I also know he is easy prey for Sizemore and has been brought back from the abyss on numerous occasions for more lucrative milking. He may have been playing coy with the AP when he told them today, "I really don't want to discuss Bill's involvement. In the first place, at 82, my memory is not the best. Secondly, I agree with what Bill is doing and have supported him." Or maybe he’ll just be a good guy for now and help Greg Byrne out and pay his bill. If he does that, then you know it’s just a matter of time before he’s sending paychecks to Cindy Sizemore for website design or something like that.

Posted by Becky at 09:28 PM |

Monsanto Cotton is Killing Soil

A new study by an Indian research foundation, Navdanya, has found that Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bt-cotton is killing the soil where it is being planted in India.

A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).

In 3 years, Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%.

Actinomycetes are the microorganisms which break down plant material and replenish the supply of nutrients in the soil. Without them, soil quickly becomes sterile and unable to support crops. And their benefits to humans are not limited to merely enabling the growth of food – since actinomycetes were discovered in 1940, they have become a source for hundreds of naturally occurring antibiotics.

But destruction of actinomycetes is not the only problem researchers found:

Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.

Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.

At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food.

These genetically modified cotton crops are currently being grown on nearly 19 million acres of Indian farmland – land which, if the studies are accurate, will in a few short years be rendered entirely infertile. Meanwhile, the European Commission is pressuring GMO free countries to introduce the crops.

The research organization that headed up this study was founded by Dr. Vandana Shiva, a world-renowned, Canadian-educated physicist who has been internationally recognized on numerous occasions, including receiving the Global 500 Award of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1993 and the Earth Day International Award of the United Nations for her dedicated commitment to the preservation of the planet.

Posted by Becky at 10:08 AM |

March 04, 2009

Catching up with an old friend

I've mentioned several times in the past that I had two best friends in high school. Well, I just recently got back into contact with the one that I've known the longest. He has deliberately limited how much information can be found about him online so I'm going to respect that and just refer to him by his first name, Dave.

Dave's been in the Army for 21 years and is a veteran of three seperate conflicts - the Gulf War, where he hitched a ride on the back of a tank in the first American forces to enter Kuwait City, the Iraq War and whatever we want to call our adventure in Afghanistan. He's been deployed twice each to Iraq and to Afghanistan and his son, also in the Army, is currently deployed somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan too.

My other best friend from high school, Ron, is also in the Army and is currently deployed somewhere in Iraq right now. But unlike Dave, who is initimately familiar with the business end of the United States Military, Ron is an officer and a medical professional - which of course is an ever-present need dictated by the business end of the operation. Dave is soon to be promoted to 1st Sergeant, which, as I understand it, is a lateral promotion from his current rank as a Master Sergeant. Same pay grade but significantly more responsibility.

I'd last been in contact with Dave and his wife in 2002/03. The last I'd heard, Dave was headed to Hawaii as Rumsfeld built up forces for the invasion of Iraq. Dave's wife, a civilian employee of the DOD, and I used to chat somewhat frequently when Dave first headed to Hawaii because each was a connection to Dave and it made it easier to deal with the unknown. I remember her being extremely skeptical of President Bush's public argument for invading Iraq. As I recall, Dave was skeptical too but he was much more fatalistic about it - why dwell on something beyond his control?

For those who followed my involvement with the Oregon Senate primary race in 2007-08, this is the backstory to why the attacks on Jeff Merkley because of his vote on HR2 provoked such a visceral reaction in me. Or perhaps the better way to describe it would be: why I so readily indentified with Jeff Merkley's stated reasons for voting in favor of HR2.

Unfortunately it took the accidental death of a mutual friend for Dave and I to get back in contact with each other. And it was distressing to learn that his wife is struggling against cancer which seems to be in remission at the moment.

Life sure has taken us in very different directions. But it's funny... just reading an email from him takes me back in time to when he and I were nearly inseparable and reminds me that I was closer to Dave than to my own brothers - which is actually still true. Each of us had the other's back in circumstances that meant a great deal to the other and which nobody else could/would, and therein lays the basis for our bond. Life goes on but some things endure. As Dave is fond of saying, blood is thicker than water. Which might seem strange given that we're not blood brothers. But to the small core group of us who shared those formative high school years together, it makes perfect sense. As I'm sure Dave can appreciate better than the rest of us, it's akin to military veterans who shared the same battles and had each other's backs for better or worse.

Dave says that he's staying in the Army for three more years. Which probably means at least another tour of Afghanistan or maybe Iraq (where he just returned from a few months ago), but hopefully not. He has more than held up his end of the bargain with his country of birth. But then again, he's very good at what he does and I can understand in my own small way why he might willingly put his life on the line once again.

I'm positive that people like Mac McFadden or Tom Carter, being veterans themselves, understand it all too intimately. But I hope that the rest of my fellow citizens can appreciate the huge fundamental difference between soldiers, airmen and sailors in uniform and the politicians who determine where they go and what they do when they get there. Whether soldiers, airmen or sailers agree with the politicians is irrelevant. The former have no choice in how the later choose to use or abuse them.

Posted by Kevin at 10:57 AM |

March 03, 2009

Rush Limbaugh’s Thrilling Speech

Hart Williams alerted readers this morning to a most amazing editorial by Andrew Breitbart in The Washington Times, in which Breitbart discusses a recent speech he heard. To read it, you would think perhaps someone was describing one of the President’s awe-inspiring speeches. Describing the speech as an “experience” that “could have altered the election had it been delivered early last fall by any Republican presidential candidate,” Breitbart began his gushing review. The speech, he said, was clear-headed, timely and sometimes rambunctious,” and its “elated” national audience responded with statements like “Best speech I have ever seen,” and the “Most thrilling thing I’ve seen on TV” – a speech “that will be talked about for years and even decades,” better than Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric. It “hit the ball out of the park.”

Did I mention the awe-inspiring orator was “that mountain we call Rush” Limbaugh? Yes, it’s true. The Republicans are so upset that the Democrats have managed to get an incredibly, truly inspirational speaker elected to office that they’re pretending they have a really awesome speaker on their side, too. And the only reason the rest of the world doesn’t agree, don’t you know, is because the “drive-by media” – the “Fourth Estate” – are going “rabid,” trying to “demoralize the right” by portraying the speech so differently than it was given that they have effectively created “a completely different event.”

Well, maybe I misjudged el Rushbo yesterday when I zeroed in on his accusations that President Obama was trying to incite “fear, angst and crisis” instead of using his oratory skills to encourage America to be the best it can be. So let’s take another look at his “most thrilling” speech, shall we? Bear in mind this person is currently being anointed as the voice of conservatives in America.

I would like to introduce to you my security chief, a man who runs all of my security. His name is Joseph Stalin. Joseph, would you please -- [Laughter ] I am safe from any liberal attack, in public, because they would be afraid of offending Stalin. [Laughter]

So funny.

Okay, granted, after that irritating quip Rush told a really funny joke about his own ego, and I am fully capable of having fun with politics and laughing. But this Stalin thing was not funny.

Sadly, it wasn't his last insult. The next one characterized a certain unnamed speech-giver who uses a teleprompter as having beliefs that are “the result of a deranged psychology,” whereas conservatives’ beliefs come from their “heart.” What Rush seems not to notice is that Democrats are people, too! American people - patriots. So if you keep that in mind, then his very next statement is really obviously not from his heart:

Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause]

When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt.

Unless that person is a Democrat who is exercising his or her constitutional rights by advocating liberal views, meeting with other liberals, and voting for liberals. Or unless that person is so beaten down by circumstances that he or she is no longer capable of doing the good old bootstrap thing.

And on that subject – in a soft-pedaled attack on social services and efforts to help the downtrodden – Rush gets quite impassioned:

We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it, but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. [Applause] We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them.

Tell that to the person whose parents or caretakers abused and neglected them for years, who is, as an adult, so dysfunctional they simply never will be able to live a productive life. Tell that to the person who was born disabled, physically, mentally, or emotionally. Tell that the person who has the unfortunate luck to have been run through the wringer of life a little harder than they were prepared for and who fell apart because of it. Tell that to those who are still struggling to overcome a long history of discrimination and the devastating impacts it has had on their entire family structure. Tell that to the soldiers who have come back from combat no longer able to work. We have a welfare system for a reason.

An then let me just quote this part without comment, as the racism is as self-evident in this as it is in the horrible cartoon published a couple weeks ago by the New York Post.

We don't hate anybody. We don't -- I mean, the racism in this country, if you ask me, I know many people in this audience -- let me deal with this head on. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America, if you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year. [Applause]

It was not us asking whether Barack Obama was authentic. What we were asking is: Is he wrong? We concluded, yes. We still think so. But we didn't ask if he was authentically black. We didn't say, as some Southern Christian Leadership Conference leaders said: Barack is not authentic, he's not got any slave blood. He's really not down for the struggle, but his wife is. So don't expect the race industry to go away. Southern Christian Leadership Conference -- you may not know this, because it wasn't reported in the Drive-By Media -- the racism, the sexism, the bigotry that we're all charged with, just so you across the United States of America know, and you'll see demonstrated here as the afternoon goes on, doesn't exist on our side. We want everybody to succeed. [Applause]

… take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us. [Applause]

Okay, sorry, I will comment, but just a little. The “constituency groups” he’s talking about are black Americans. He is calling them dependant, complaining, griping, and poisoned, waiting for someone to take care of them. Just in case it wasn’t clear to you.

Then he lays into President Obama. After praising his amazing speaking skills (“No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this.”), he turns around and kicks him.

President Obama has the ability -- he has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners and punishes -- and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America. … How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen? And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it? It saddens me. … President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis, he is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he's forgotten it's not his money that he's spending. [Applause]

And these people just ate it up. Shocking, really, the lack of capacity for rational thought.

Here’s what he had to say about the poor:

You know why they're poor, you know why they remain poor? Because their lives have been destroyed by the never-ending government hay that's designed to help them, but it destroys ambition. It destroys the education they might get to learn to be self-fulfilling. [Applause] And it breaks our heart. It breaks our heart.

I call bullshit. Come on. I live in a small town that has a lot of poor people in it. Hard working poor people. Some work full time and still need government assistance to make it. They won’t ever not be poor for a variety of reasons. But to say that government hand-outs have somehow destroyed their ambition, or that they aren’t self-fulfilled is ridiculous. Rush is simply entirely out of touch with the reality of life in a lot of America. He wants to keep more of his money so he can hire the poor “constituents” to shine his shoes and clean his house, and he’s probably pretty pissed off that he has to pay them a minimum wage that still is not enough to “make it,” let alone rise above the poverty level. The self-centered philosophy he is pushing is as extreme and unacceptable as the group-centered, anti-individual communist philosophy he likes to set up as the only other alternative available.

Next Rush blames the massive national debt and the sub-prime lending fiasco on the Democrats. He blames them for dumbing down the schools. He blames them for destroying poor families by paying women to keep having babies, “no more father needed.” He calls the people at the focus groups who raved about the President’s speeches “losers,” saying they “hear Obama speak and think that the next day their gas tanks are going to be filled up and get a new house and a new kitchen and a new car.”

And then he gets the crowd of Republicans really going:

President Obama, your agenda is not new. It's not change, and it's not hope. [Applause] Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.

Believe it or not, at this point the crowd is just so darned excited they start chanting “USA, USA, USA…” Meanwhile, I’m thinking OMG, OMG, OMG… And then it gets even worse, and if you read nothing else I’ve quoted here you should read this quote:

It is not their task, it is not their right to remake this nation to accommodate their psychology. I sometimes wonder if liberalism is not just a psychosis or a psychology, not an ideology. It's so much about feelings, and the predominant feeling that liberalism is about is about feeling good about themselves and they do that by telling themselves they have all this compassion. You know, if you really want to unhinge a liberal it's hard to do because they're so unhinged now anyway, even after -- but all you have to do is say you know that the things you people do, the things you people believe in are cruel. That's the last way they look at themselves. They are the best people on the -- they're the good people. You tell them that their ideas and that their policies are cruel and the eggs start scrambling. I have learned how to tweak liberals everywhere. I do it instinctively now. Tweak them in the media. And no reason to be afraid of these people. Why in the world would you be afraid of the deranged?

This is the great speech that has conservatives feeling so incredibly inspired and unable to see why the “drive-by media” is calling it “ugly” and “incendiary.” Oh, wait, that was what the new (black) RNC Chairman, Michael Steele said about Rush. By the way, he has since been forced to apologize to his massa.

Rush next ignores the fear-based mind control to which America has been subjected for the past eight years and says of the man who seems to have finally brought us hope:

President Obama… wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day.

OMG, OMG, OMG…

… the Democrats and Obama are asking you to feel better simply on the basis that they're going to get revenge for you, but your life isn't going to improve, somebody else's is just going to be destroyed and they want you to be happy over that. That's sick. And that is not the United States of America. [Applause] Besides, as far as John Kerry is concerned, if it wasn't for his varicose veins, he would be totally colorless. [Laughter]

All of this is actually okay, though, because Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer and not a politician.

There is a story Rush tells that underscores for me how dishonest he is, at least with himself. After being flattered and wooed by the former President, who was exactly the sort of Republican Rush claims to want to eliminate from the party, he seems oblivious to the fact that he himself was every bit as susceptible to Presidential charming as those he criticizes:

The Tuesday before the inauguration, President Bush invited me to the Oval Office for lunch. And it was on and off the record, some of the conversations. And he brought out, interesting, at the end of it -- my birthday had been the day before. He brought out a chocolate birthday cake, a microphone, and stood beside me with Ed Gillespie and sang happy birthday. Photographers taking pictures. I wish my parents were alive. My parents wouldn't believe my life. They came out of the Great Depression. They didn't think it was possible for somebody who did not go to college -- and even for people who did -- they didn't think this was possible. Life has changed so much for the better in this country.

That's why I cringe when I see what is in store. So as I'm flying home from lunch, I'm watching television and I see that the word has leaked out that Obama is hosting a dinner with conservative media pundits at the home of George Will. I said: I wonder who these people are? [Laughter] In the media, one of them is going to have to leak it. Sure as heck, one did. Now, we all know who were there. And let's see -- I can't remember all the names, so I won't mention any. But let me tell you Obama's purpose. Does anybody really think that Barack Obama had dinner with a bunch of conservatives hoping they would change his mind?

CROWD: No!

RUSH: Hell, no. His purpose -- and his purpose really wasn't to change theirs -- his purpose was to anoint them as conservative spokesmen.

And of course, that was exactly why Bush kissed Rush’s ass – it worked, too. Nevertheless, it is an extremely cynical viewpoint that Rush takes. He assumes that all the Republicans who are being wooed by the President are as frivolous and motivated by selfish interests as he is. Maybe he knows something about Republicans that I don’t know. But I refuse to believe that none of them are willing to reach across the aisle and work with their fellow Americans purely for the good of this country.

Now in conclusion, I want to turn to another matter which Rush also mentions in his speech – the controversy over his having said he hoped Obama would fail. It is an absolutely stupid controversy in my opinion. He has been very clear, if you read it in context, that what he means is he wants Obama’s liberal agenda, which Rush opposes, to fail. I see nothing wrong with his having said that. But in light of the following utter misinterpretation of the Democrats’ position on the war, I no longer feel the slightest bit of sympathy for poor ol’ misunderstood Rush Limbaugh:

Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail!

CROWD: Yes!

RUSH: They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's Dingy Harry Reid waiving a white flag: [doing Harry Reid impression] "This war is lost. This war is" –

[Cheers and Applause]

They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton -- [Crowd Booing] -- said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Petraeus. We're in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?

So back to the beginning. Remember what Breitbart said about this speech? It was an “experience” that “could have altered the election had it been delivered early last fall by any Republican presidential candidate.” It “was clear-headed, timely and sometimes rambunctious,” and its “elated” national audience responded with statements like “Best speech I have ever seen,” and the “Most thrilling thing I’ve seen on TV” – a speech “that will be talked about for years and even decades,” better than Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric. It “hit the ball out of the park.”

OMG, OMG, OMG…

Posted by Becky at 03:51 PM |

UC Berkley law degrees worthless?

Via McClatchy News Service:

In a memo written five days before President Barack Obama took office, Steven Bradbury, the then-principal deputy assistant attorney general, warned that a series of opinions issued secretly by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel "should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose."

...

Although Bradbury noted the "extraordinary — indeed, we hope, a unique — period in the history of the nation," he concluded that several legal arguments in the memo were "either incorrect or highly questionable" and "should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose."

John D. Hutson, dean and president of Franklin Pierce Law Center, said the Yoo memo gave "precious little analysis to even the slightest hint of limitations on the president's power."

Primary co-author of the memo in question? UC Berkley Law Professor John Yoo who teaches, among other things, "Constitutional Law" and "Separation of Powers Law."

Would you turn to a flat-earther to study astro-physics?

Would you turn to a white supremicist to study civil rights?

Would you turn to a Biblical Creationist to study evolutionary biology?

Then why would you turn to the likes of John Yoo to study Constitutional Law or Separation of Powers Law?

That UC Berkley hired Yoo to teach Constitutional Law and Separation of Powers Law speaks to their competence as well.

Posted by Kevin at 06:55 AM |

March 02, 2009

The Drudgery of Matt Drudge

Today's Drudge Report features a headline that is designed to create the impression that Obama is fiddling while America burns. At the top of the page, in big bold red letters, is the headline, "Fear: How low will it go?" accompanied by a graphic depicting the plunging stock market for the day. A little further down the page is this headline:

DANCING THE RECESSION AWAY: CONGA LINES, PARTIES, COCKTAILS AT OBAMA WHITE HOUSE...

The article that Drudge links to tells a little different story, however, than his blatantly partisan, anti-Obama headline:

The flurry of entertaining is in keeping with the Obamas' promise to make the White House a more open place for everyone.

The governors' dinner was "a great kickoff of what we hope will be an atmosphere here in the White House that is welcoming and that reminds everybody that this is the people's house," Obama told the state chief executives after they had dined on Maryland crab, Wagyu beef, Nantucket scallops and citrus salad.

"We are just temporary occupants. This is a place that belongs to the American people and we want to make sure that everybody understands it's open," he said.

Perhaps Drudge would feel better if the President of the United States was feeding his guests something less special and making sure their time spent at the White House was more austere. Maybe if they had to engage in a bit of self-flagellation first and then wear a cilice while in the building it would be more suitable in this time of crisis.

Seriously, this drives me crazy. Does Drudge actually believe this is the first President to have parties and serve - gasp! - cocktails at the White House?

The article continues:

Some Obama guests say he immediately puts them at ease. He indulges them and serves cookies, too.

"People like me felt comfortable in his presence," said Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., a self-described "poor country boy" who said he felt like a "freshman going to the senior prom" when he attended a White House reception for leaders of the congressional caucuses.

"Sometimes when you're in the presence of the most powerful person in the world, in the most powerful democracy in the world ... I was in awe that I was comfortable," said Honda, chairman of the Asian Pacific American Caucus. "I think that's his style and how he grew up, who he is.

"He's down to earth and engaging," Honda said.

Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican from Arizona, was one of those invited to watch the Superbowl with the President, who actually stayed to watch the game. His response was very positive:

"I think the value of social interaction like this is not so much that it co-opts anyone in any way. It certainly didn't in my case," said Franks, who described his conversation with Obama at the party as substantive. "I think it humanizes and personalizes opponents. We can diminish politics and try to work together for what's right for the country."

Humanizing and personalizing opponents? Diminishing politics? Working together? Prioritizing what's right for the country?

No wonder Drudge is so upset.

In that context, it is quite fascinating to read through the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC this weekend. In particular, this paragraph caught my attention:

... this is why I think it's such a waste for a man as gifted as President Obama with the communications skills, you know he could wipe out the Republican Party. He can wipe out the Republican Party if he would inspire this country to be the best it could be, but we don't have to worry about that because that's not what he wants. He wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day because that clears the decks for President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers, which are abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated. Doesn't matter. They'll have control of it when it's all over. And that's what they want. Because they think they can do it better.

Notice that I started this post by pointing to Matt Drudge's "Fear: how low will it go?" headline. His site is nonstop fear every day. I know because I check his site out multiple times a day to see what that group's message is. I don't believe it is a coincidence that he is ramping up the fear at the same time that Rush is blaming the fearmongering on the President.

Personally, I have great respect for the way President Obama has approached the crisis we are experiencing. He has approached it as a responsible grown-up and a leader. He is acknowledging it, he is telling us to be strong because it will be hard, and he is reassuring us that we are a great people and fully capable of pulling ourselves through it. All the "fear, angst and crisis" talk is coming from the right wing. They are in fear, angst and crisis today precisely because the President is inspiring this country to be the best it can be - something the last Republican president was never able to do.

Posted by Becky at 01:41 PM |

The Grand Old Racist Party looks to white pride for redemption

Attendees and speakers at last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference filtered their current political status through the lens of race, led by former Congressman Tom Tancredo and Peter Brimelow, editor of the "immigration restrictionist" web site VDare.com.

Brimelow, like Tancredo, scoffed at the idea that the Republican comeback would come when the party reached out to Hispanic voters. "Republicans fluctuate between disastrous and catastrophic with the Hispanic vote," he said. "The problem that Republicans had was that they didn't turn out the white vote, and they didn't get as large a share of the white vote as they should have. What reason did McCain give them?" (emphasis added)

These are the same racists who suggested last November that Obama only won because he is black, apparently through a combination of minorities voting for one of their own and self-loathing whites voting to assuage misplaced guilt for being white. Which of course explains why the Rev. Jesse Jackson became the first black President in 1984 and was re-elected in 1988, as well as the similarly successful runs by Alan Keyes in 2000 and the Rev. Al Sharpton in 2004.

Anyway, attendees apparently decided that if they just pretend that the abysmal failures of their reich-wing political policies and tactics over the last fifteen years never happened and they can convince America that it's actually still 1993... that they can get a "do over" and presumably do it right this time.

In the meantime they've apparently decided that Obama's election was a fluke powered by that evil "mainstream media" bias for Obama and against Palin. Because, y'know... being able to see Russia really does make her an expert. Likewise, if I walk to the corner of the block I can see the local hospital and that makes me an expert in practicing medicine... And since I've driven past one of Intel's premier facilities where cutting-edge computer processors are developed that makes me an expert in that too. Ditto for making pizzas 'cause I live a couple blocks from a pizza joint, veterinary medicine 'cause I live one block from one of those joints, etc., etc., etc. Heck, I drove past a cop earlier today. I guess that makes me an expert in law enforcement too.

Posted by Kevin at 11:53 AM |

March 01, 2009

The Lobbyist/Expert Conundrum

Today's LA Times has an interesting piece about how Obama's "change" theme is being tested again. This time with respect to lobbyists and earmarks. It goes on to observe that,

... in recent months, lobbyists and health insurance company representatives have been meeting behind closed doors -- with the White House's knowledge -- in the office of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to debate options for a new health system.

Here's the thing that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. As David Brooks observed, "There’s a word for lobbyists: experts". Which is more true than not, in my estimation. Brooks went on to suggest that Obama's stated goal of trying to run Washington without them is absurd. Glenn Greenwald tore into Brooks for saying it and described lobbying as bribery. Not to be outdone, Democrats.com jumped on the bandwagon and observed that the Founding Fathers ranked bribery second only to outright treason as grounds for impeachment. Again, a valid observation, IMO.

So, we're seemingly stuck between a rock and a hardplace. Much of what is generously described as "lobbying" is very slightly disguised bribery. Yet many lobbyists are experts in their chosen fields - which is why they make effective lobbyists. Members of Congress are voting on massively long and minutely detailed legislation and rarily have the time to read it all, much less make sure that they understand it all. Much of the time their relatively meager staffs aren't nearly populous enough to do it for them. So lobbyists have exploited this reality of modern legislation in the world's only super power by helping to explain the minutia to members of Congress. Sure, they could decieve the members. But do you think they'd get a second or third chance? I seriously doubt it.

Before I wrap this up I'd like to point to an AARP Bulletin piece over a month ago observing that Obama's Lobbying Rules Surpass Those of Previous Presidents, Experts Say. That article from January 22nd pointed to two executive orders and three presidential directives by Obama laying out stringent lobbying limits which, as the title of the piece observes, surpass those of previous Presidents. Today's March 1st LA Times piece observes,

Obama's proposals keep coming.

On Thursday, the president laid out initiatives targeting earmarks and lobbyists. Obama's budget outline contains plans for websites that would show how much lobbyists are spending in pursuit of government contracts and which members of Congress are asking for earmarks.

We're only just over a month into Obama's four-year term and already we can see a pattern of Obama coming back time after time to the lobbying conundrum with new restrictions or legislative initiatives. Understandable, his harshest critics don't mention any of that when they charge him with hypocrisy. What else would you expect from those who got fat on the lobbyist gravy train? A voluntary diet? Not likely!

I don't have the answers. But I do believe that both Brooks and Obama are speaking to facets of objective reality when they observe, respectively, that lobbyists are the experts and that we need to take back control of our government from lobbyists. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Posted by Kevin at 07:36 PM |