Answer 5 questions to see if McCain will make a better President than Bush. There is an extra set of questions after that quiz that I highly recommend signing in for as well. I didn't do to well with 2 out of 5 correct answers. Clearly I am an optimist.
Here are some excerpts for the laziest of my readers:
Senator Obama's political opponents tend to try to paint him as some kind of lightweight, which he most definitely is not. Two, I think he's at or near the top of the scale of intelligence of anyone in political life today.
You can see how smart he is in his background -- for example, lecturer in constitutional law at University of Chicago; before that, president of the Harvard Law Review.
But it's also apparent when you interact with him that you're dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He's crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information -- smart.
Then when asked if voters should be concerned that Obama hasn't had a lot of experience as a manager or leader, he said this:
Watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action.
At the time, I wasn't sure what to make of his answer -- political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those?
Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win -- and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
Finally, when asked about his foreign policy experience - on whether voters should be concerned he said this (paraphrasings of poster):
First, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.
Think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.
One of the biggest legacies Bush Jr. leaves behind is one of distrust and dislike of Americans by other countries. Even in places where we have traditionally been viewed well, our image is tarnished. Pre-emptive wars, ignoring diplomacy, and overbearing trading rules will do that. I hadn't thought mush of it before but, Obama has a better chance than anyone to mend those relationships simply by being who he is. That is a powerful idea for me.
...and that has nothing to do with the estimated 60% of the GOP caucus voters being Evangelical born-again nutjobs. Wait, yes it does. American has about as good a chance electing someone named Huckabee as Ron Paul has of avoiding comparisons to Ross Perot. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned before, I have a similar feeling for my (and Iowa's) preferred candidate, Barack Obama.
My electability concerns regarding Obama have more to do with his race and my negative perception of the people our country than any name he could have, however. Despite the fact that most people I meet seem rather progressive, I don't think the U.S. is ready to elect either a woman or a black man at this time, for whatever reason. And that sucks. Luckily, the GOP doesn't have their act together this year so it will likely be close if they are running against Hillary or Barack.
If Democrats want to put the best candidate up in November they will choose Kucinich. If they want an attempt at making history they will nominate Clinton or Obama. If they want to win, they will put the most electable candidate, Edwards at the top of the ticket. Such is the state of our country, unfortunately.
For those who missed my post some months back over on Refactr's blog this video should be a great introduction into the concept of too much choice = less satisfaction. I truly believe we more productive, more creative, and ultimately, happier if we have to work within constraints. Unlimited choice is not ideal, despite what we have been told.
Every time I watch the Jaywalking segment on the Tonight Show I attempt to convince myself that Jay actually has to ask hundreds of people his simple questions to get the few truly stupid responses he airs - that there just aren't that many dumb Americans.
Increasingly, however, it is becoming harder to make that argument to myself. My fears are starting to be corroborated by newspaper reporters and school teachers who are saying that America's youth are getting stupider.
We are, as far as urban public education is concerned, essentially at rock bottom. We are now at a point where we are essentially churning out ignorant teens who are becoming ignorant adults and society as a whole will pay dearly, very soon, and if you think the hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemmings have been bad for the soul of this country, just wait.
It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.
I want to think that today's teenagers will merely "learn on the job" so to speak but I am not so certain. While my experience with Gen Y in the workplace is limited, it seems that some fears are well-founded. Initiative does not tend to be a strong trait while entitlement does. Couple these characteristics with a less learned mind and we could be in for some rocky times in the good 'ol U.S. OF A. It is perhaps not an overstatement that it could be these internal forces rather than anything coming at us from the outside, that brings about our demise as the last of the superpowers.
But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year, noting all the obvious evidence of teens' decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words "agriculture," or even "democracy." Not a single student could do it.
This Salon recap of an Op-Ed originally published in the NY Times on Aug. 19 by seven active-duty U.S. soldiers. Two of its authors have since died and one was shot in the head and wounded. Besides being written by active duty soldiers in Iraq, the piece is also noteworthy for how it cuts to the core of the issues the campaign in that country has faced for the past five years and offers solemn conclusions for the future.
Among the "highlights" are:
- Reports that Iraq police and military details have, in many cases, been corrupted, and either allow acts of violence occur against U.S. personnel, or even actively support those actions.
- We are arming Sunni militias who, it is feared, will challenge the Shiite-dominated government for control, in the vacuum that will be the U.S. pull-out.
- Recent assessments of improved conditions in Iraq have been made by the mis-informed and do not represent reality for most Iraq's who have been living in constant chaos and fear for 5 years now.
The biggest failing of our "leaders", however, remains the fact that they looked at the invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam Husein's as the end state of this mission without having any plan in place for what happens next. Several costly mistakes pointed out in the article need to be reversed but the largest error, hearkens to my last post - but requires actual action:
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
For whatever reason I was not motivated to post yesterday. I wanted to post, but I couldn't get myself to do it. What I wanted to do was to post a positive story about Arabs and/or Arab Americans and make that sort of a tradition on this anniversary, here at Alt Text.
When this idea was conceived I was thinking in these specific terms but wanted to change the way people thought of this day - a day now linked to a war that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or making us safer. I wasn't looking to start a meme or actively market my idea, just post some positive news.
Reading Seth Godin's site today I came across his post about how we can market our way closer to an end to terrorism. In the post Seth writes how you cannot beat terrorism with guns and prisons - those consequences do little to affect the terrorist's mind and could do even more to fuel the creation of new terrorists. After all, terrorists are just people who subscribe to a particular idea - an idea that America and the West are immoral - heathens that are bent on destroying their culture and robbing them with the resources.
For all I know, we may never be able to eliminate terrorism and animosity towards us (especially as we are sitting atop the world in terms of wealth and consumption). But what we can do is try to create another idea that can combat those to which the terrorists subscribe.
We have not been very successful invading and bombing our way to changing minds but we do know how to market our ideas. The problem right now is that somewhere along the line, our leaders decided that the time for crafting this sort of idea, had passed and they have been busy reinforcing the old ideas that terrorists have of us.
We are already at a place in time where many people are fearful of expressing racist thoughts and that may eventually give way to the idea of racism finally disappearing. In the same way, maybe some day, the idea of attacking innocents as a means of affecting change an the idea that the Western countries only want to hold down and plunder the rest of the world may seem crazy. Unfortunately, for now, there are far too many people willing to do participate in the former and far too much truth to the latter. Even powerfully crafted and marketed ideas need to eventually mirror reality.
I attended the MnDOT open house at Roseville High School last night, or I should say I walked through the job-fair like gym full of MnDOT employees. I was pleased to see that there were folks asking all sorts of questions, but disappointed that it wasn't a town hall style meeting, however, that is only because I like arguments. The format used was likely a much better way for "nice" Minnesotans to engage in dialog.
As I was walking out, a reporter stopped me and I gave him this, more or less, paraphrased statement:
"Ben Edwards, an Arden Hills resident who crossed the 35W bridge every day on his way to work in Eden Prairie, said he didn't want Minnesota "to miss an opportunity to do something special with this bridge," including a unique design and transit options. He said that his commute was no picnic before the collapse and isn't much different now, and that he'd be willing to wait for a bridge that did more than increase vehicle capacity."
It sounds as though, there are at least some signs of compromise showing up from the Governor's camp regarding future support for light rail lines over the new bridge. It sounds a little bit like parents telling their kids that they can stop at the go-cart track "on the way back", hoping they shut up and forget about it.
I, for one, believe the $400,000 daily cost of not having the bridge is a bit of a farce. I travel this way often and my commute has not really been affected. We are very lucky that Highway 280 is there, and it's conversion to a temporary freeway has gone rather seamlessly. Pawlenty warns that allowing for future light rail lines on the bridge would increase the cost:
"It will be a fair amount of additional money" that would not be reimbursed by federal dollars"
Minnesotans have had some aversion to new taxes lately due to the nice propaganda machine that is the GOP, but if you step back and look at the planned transportation projects and the new bridge project, the big picture becomes clearer.
The anticipated Central Corridor project which will link downtown Minneapolis with downtown Saint Paul by way of the University of Minnesota campus and University Avenue includes plans to have light rail trains travel over the Washington Avenue bridge. This is a bridge I walked over many times in my days and "the U" and it will need significant work to be able to handle the additional weight of light rail trains. In fact when you compare my estimate of $150 million (out of my ass) with another $170 million to build a tunnel near Coffman Union on campus (that figure is not out of my ass but I cannot find where I read it just now) you are looking at over $300 million in additional spending on light rail. The extra half year and $100 million on this new bridge, that we have to build anyway, starts to look like a bargain for the tax payer. Don't you think that if we are really building a bridge that has a 100-year lifespan, we should spend 100 days considering our options and what we can anticipate for transportation needs for the next century?
OK, the last thing I want to address is the idea that this is just a highway bridge and it should rebuilt without thought to aesthetics. Our state could certainly use another icon, and a bridge over the countries largest river seems like a good place to start - especially when you consider that (for better, or for worse, we will soon lose the loved/hated Metrodome from the Minneapolis skyline. I don't think we need the Golden Gate Bridge or anything, but something with some character that can be identified in a photo shouldn't be too hard to ask. Hey, true visionaries can even find ways to make manhole covers things of beauty
I have tried not to post about this subject because, as my wife reminds me, it just lends credibility to the wackjobs out there but this seems like big enough news because there are actually people out there that let some old German dude in a dress make up their minds for them.
Yes, out of nowhere a voice of reason from within the religious world! The pope has said what reasonable people had concluded long ago. Namely that evolution and spirituality need not be mutually exclusive. "While there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God." He goes further. stating "that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
In addition Pope Benedict had word about the environment and our role as stewards.
"Benedict also said the human race must listen to 'the voice of the Earth' or risk destroying its very existence" and that "willfully damaging the environment is sinful."
This is the best name/acronym for a group, ever. ANTI-FASCIST. (the blurb about this Minneapolis-based group is just "below the fold" on the linked page. And this is possibly one of the *best* quotes from a government official ever:
"What the ANTI-FASCISTs don't understand is that free speech is fine as long as you don't do it in public," said a representative of Homeland Security. "We're waging a War on Terror, and freedom of speech just isn't what it used to be. Fences, tear gas, and paddy wagons are important tools for preventing terrorism. Show me a picture of protesters with access to convention delegates and the media, and I'll show you free speech that's completely out of control."
FNB politics can be tricky to write about, and to pin down, because it relies on surfacing deep-seated anxieties and archetypes that, when revealed to the light of day, appear ridiculous.
To a large extent my perceptions of public figures is based only upon how the news media (a term used very loosely here) chooses to present them. I have been too naive to realize or too stubborn to admit it, but I just have not known the extent to which political parties use back-channels and media-types to conduct swift-boat style attacks on the character of their "enemies" and just how effective such attacks have been. While I admit to being oblivious to Edwards' manhood being called into question (for the most-part), I have known about the attacks on Hillary as far back as before she was first lady. The attacks on Barrack are a little more covert, but comments by Rush Limbaugh (shown below), while appearing humorous at first, are no doubt attempting to bring up (in some people) antiquated fears of black men "stealing" "our" white women. It is outrageous!
One of Limbaugh's ongoing jabs is that white female reporters find him sexually irresistible. "Snerdley is convinced Maureen [Dowd] wants Barack Obama," he sighs. "I don't even want to go there." He depicted Time's Ana Marie Cox as helpless before Obama's overpowering sexuality, putting the following thoughts into her head: "Well, there's no question the power is crackling through his jeans!"
In the interview Butler addresses why he smashed his guitar on Saturday Night Live a couple weeks ago (it was cutting him and he hated it) and speaks about society and religion today (not to mention how much being a kid sucks). He sounds smart and thoughtful and it goes a long way to helping me forget the smashing of the guitar - plus I really love their new album Neon Bible and their show a couple years ago was among the top 2 or 3 concert experiences of my life..
Here is something he told the interviewer at the very end of the interview that strikes a chord with me because it captures a big part of why I am so angry with the way things are going in our country and in me.
When you read Martin Luther King's speeches about Vietnam, it could be today. Just change the word, and you're talking about the exact same situation. We're basically causing spiritual death in our country by doing what we're doing. At a certain point, you become morally unable to do good in the world, because the country gets so cynical and depressed, there isn't the force of will to try and change things. I definitely feel that in my generation, this kind of fatigue. And I feel that myself. You've got to fight it.
I realize that am opening myself up to many of the criticisms that are typically hurled toward progressives when speaking on this subject, but still, I persist. Even though my final conclusion on this matter may hearken to Churchill's words about democracy, or free market capitalisms is the worst form of economy, except for all the others. In fact, there may be no other option that works well in tandem with democracy, but that is fodder for another post. I have truly mixed feelings and thoughts on this matter.
What I have been thinking about recently, and what discussions on the topic inevitably come down to is human nature. There was a time when I felt very different than I do now, but as it stands, I have very little faith that the masses are capable of making rational decisions regarding their own welfare outside of what is immediately in front of them. I believe foresight is often forgotten over years of just subsisting. So it isn't that people (and I am primarily talking about the 80% of the global population that isn't in the middle or upper-classes) are stupid (although I won't discount the place ignorance plays), but more that they aren't afforded the luxury of thinking about how their decisions today will effect their lives and the lives of their families for years to come.
I know that we are squarely within the honeymoon period and past actions should speak petty loudly, but I wanted to write this before all the optimism and bipartisan dissolves. President Bush has really impressed me with the way he has handled himself after the midterm elections. There were no signs of petulance, or anger and the comments he has made have seemed very open, honest, and humble. I think the whole country appreciates the way he has responded.
Bush wasted no time in holding meetings with the new speaker of the house and the new majority leader in the senate and has publicly called for bipartisan cooperation.
My attitude about this is that there is a great opportunity for us to show the country that Republicans and Democrats are equally as patriotic and equally concerned about the future and that we can work together.
Likewise, his stated openness to "new ideas on Iraq" from the incoming democratic majority sounded sincere. And even his candidness about the timing of Rumsfeld's "resignation" has been refreshing, with him stating that they didn't want to announce such a thing in the midst of the campaigns for fear that it would not bode well for GOP candidates.
There is still a good chance that his response has been carefully crafted and is part of a large plan to make the Democrats look bad in the coming weeks when there will surely be clashes with a lame duck congress and the President trying to get some things through congress before January. Maybe Bush is really feeling that his administration can compromise. We may find out later this month but I know, I for one, will believe it when I see it. It will be a move outside of Bush's comfort zone and compromise is not something he has done in the previous six years in office. But maybe his admission that his side got "thumped" has truly brought some humility to the man.
I don't really like Bill Maher. I think he is smug, pompous, mean-spirited and generally unfunny. It may seem odd then, to have two posts quoting him in such short order, but occasionally he cuts right to the bone of an issue. Here is one such case:
Of industrialized nations nearly all have universal health care and none doubt evolution
We are no longer inventing as we once were, and now we will be losing out on the breakthroughs of stem cell research because some people think it is is like cloning or abortion. (see our ranking in literacy)
We owe China 1 trillion dollars and we are even in debt to Mexico.
Great nations do not torture people and hold them without trial.
We are #1 in something however, cocaine consumption.
* "According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks 77th in the world in terms of the impact of our spending on the health of our people. Why is the American health care system is so inefficient? How is it that we succeed in spending more than twice the money other industrialized countries spend on health care per capita and yet rank below them on overall health care statistics?" [Connecticut Green Party]
Bill Maher has a new set of talking points for the Democrats. I think they are fairly good. See the abridged versions below:
1) When they say, "Democrats will raise taxes," you say, "We have to, because some asshole spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden." In just six years the national debt has doubled. You can't keep spending money you don't take in, that's not even elementary economics..."
2) When they say, "The terrorists want the Democrats to win," you say, "Are you insane? George Bush has been a terrorist's wet dream, and nonpartisan commissions have confirmed that he's a recruiter's dream: theirs, not ours. And, he has exhausted our military without coming away with a win, the worst of both worlds." Bush inflames radical hatred against America and then runs on offering to protect us from it. It's like a guy throwing shit on you and then selling you relief from the flies.
3) When they say, "Cut and Run" or "Defeatocrat," you say, "Bush lost the war -- period." All this nonsense about "the violence is getting worse because they're trying to influence our election." No, it's getting worse because you drew up the postwar plans on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebee's.
4) When they say that actual combat veterans like John Kerry are "denigrating" the troops, you say, "You're completely full of shit."
The great presidential speeches tag cloud allowed me to quickly scan the speeches of all the presidents for keywords and gives a good idea of the theme of each speech. It is a wonderful resource.
My first conclusion from looking them over is that the first Bush, was the true compassionate conservative of the family. Compare George W's last State of the Union Address in which Terrorist, confront, strengthen, and offensive are some of the most frequently used words (he does use the word compassion as well) to his dad's Inaugural Address in which love, bless, loyal, prosperity and prosperous are used frequently (not sure what to make of the large number of uses of the word blowing).
Another interesting thing to note how both Bush's used the word bipartisan frequently early on in their terms but then its use dwindled to nearly nothing (until W's last speech where it makes a comeback)
I encourage you to play around with this thing. It is super interesting and you can even learn about the major themes all the presidents needed to address throughout history.
I know it is getting full when my dad says he is now firmly on the Barack Obamawagon*, but is anyone else worried about what GOP and other political detractors will do with Barack's surname?
But reading the front-page headlines and watching the breathless TV coverage five weeks before the election, one could glibly assume that the fallout from the Foley frenzy will be the tipping point that will produce a Democratic sweep in the House. Especially seeing the Republicans in full meltdown, vacillating between fetal-position defeatism and a desperate effort to find a scapegoat.
Really? This is the tipping point? What about all the things the American people now know about Bush and the the Republican congress that allowed all of this? What about...
...the National Intelligence Estimate tells us that the invasion of Iraq has created a greater worldwide terrorist threat, making us less safe.
...and those are just in the last week! If you go over the last six years there are so many more, but is America listening?
...but the key question here is, how much bad news can the Republicans take? Sooner rather than later the weight of the evidence should tilt the scale against Republican control of Congress. For given the way things are going for Hastert and the White House, it can't take much of a tipping point for the Democrats to get those 15 needed seats.
Here is one strategy they could use: label Foley as a Democrat as Fox "News" did during the O'Reilly Factor.
How long will the American people allow this type of crap from their "leaders"? From their press? Clinton made a strong showing but the Republicans have corruption and deviant behavior down to an art form.
I enjoy reading Thomas Friedman, at times. He has his gems and his worthless crap. His latest New York Times editorial (TimesSelect) brings both to light. Here's the good:
So here is my fervent wish: For the sake of the country, I really hope the Republicans lose the House and the Senate to the Democrats — by one seat in each chamber.
It is so important that the Republicans lose, because if the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice team can get away with the grotesque incompetence they have exhibited in Iraq — a war that was not preordained to fail, but was never given a proper chance to succeed — it makes this country look like a banana republic.
If on the morning after the election these people come out smirking that their efforts to scare the public into voting again for their candidates worked, and therefore they can just stay the present course in Iraq — which is not working — it will send a terrible message about our democracy. It will tell us that the country is so divided, and so many districts gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, that performance does not matter any longer. Unless you are caught sending e-mail to a Congressional page soliciting sex, your seat is safe.
But, Friedman's weakness (and coincidentally why he is continually called on for his opinion despite being wrong most of the time*) is that he thinks we need to govern from the center and that the center is where everyone should be. I heartily disagree and believe that we need more extremist politicians (on both sides) in Washington. How can you have healthy debate and fully vetted policies when everyone is stuck in the mediocrity of the centrist. Sure final laws and decisions may reflect compromise and that is a good thing, but we won't get that from starting in the venter. We need actual leaders in Washington, with actual opinions. We don't need people watching polls and campaigning for their entire term. We need more Wellstones. We need more Hatches. We need less cowards. We need less opportunists.
* Friedman has said the tide in the war in Iraq would turn in six months so many times, people have coined the term Friedman to mean "a period of six months".
I am now officially planning my next vacation for late August 2008, preferably outside the U.S. I guess it is either that or get arrested for the first time. Hmmm, both sound tempting.
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
This graphicical representation of where U.S. tax monies go is rendered in Flash and available in poster-sized prints. It is very nice and represents a lot of work. The larger the circle on the image, the larger the percentage of the budget is spent on that thing. My only complaint would be that some of the iconography seems to clutter it up and make it difficult to quickly see what you are looking at.
After the attacks on September the 11th, 2001 then New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, said that the losses were likely to be "more than we can bear."
Joan Walsh in a piece at Salon, as part of their 5 years after series writes about this toll and the continuing toll we pay for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Walsh points out that the 2,873 deaths from that infamous day have now been surpassed by the deaths of American soldiers, with almost 2,700 dying in the unrelated battleground in Iraq. When you add in almost 30,000 U.S. military casualties and a reported 46,307 dead Iraqi civilians, the full toll of this war should start to settle in and Walsh asks if this is more than the American and Iraqi people should have to bear considering the lack of focus this war has had and the erosion of the war's only success in Afghanistan - with rebels and repression reappearing there - we risk losing any ground we gained there.
She also laments the loss of "national and international unity we enjoyed after the attack":
the warmth I felt from friends and acquaintances and even strangers those first raw days, a seriousness and purpose I felt more broadly in the following weeks.
And points out many of the things that this administration has done to earn the ire of the American people:
Since that time, though, we've seen hubris beyond imagination. We've watched an unbridled executive-branch power grab, warrantless wiretaps, the curtailing of privacy rights; a pervasive smog of secrecy descended to obscure our government. Outrage about torture, rendition and secret prisons here and abroad is dismissed with a flippant "We don't torture" from the president. And all of it has been shellacked with an ugly culture of bullying in which dissent equals treason, shamelessly, five years after the attack. Last week it was Donald Rumsfeld comparing war critics to people who appeased Hitler; this week we had Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying they're the sort who would have ended the Civil War early and let the South keep its slaves. Their intimidation is meant to say that the very freedoms worth fighting for -- the right to dissent, the right to question our government -- might have to be abridged while we fight. Politically, that truly is more than we can bear.
The article loses some steam toward the end and I wish it would have stuck closer to its theme, its mantra, is the toll more than we can or should bear? Perhaps some additional focus could also be placed on what we have gained, such as more enemies.
A growing number of analysts, many of them former top government counterterrorism officials, say the notion of a "war" on terrorism is the wrong strategy.
In relying overwhelmingly on bombs and bullets, they say, the United States has alienated much of the Muslim world, driving away even moderates who might be open to Western ideas. The West has largely failed to offer a positive vision or deal with the root causes of Islamic extremism.
I have often said that people who play the lottery are paying a voluntary tax on stupidity, but without much conviction. Today, after passing my second Powerball billboard I realized that playing the lottery is very stupid. Here is my undeniable proof:
Given the chance I believe that 99.9% of people would take $20k over a 1 in 146,107,962 chance at a big jackpot of, say, $100 million.
Given the historical return of the stock market of 10.3%, a $2 a week investment in an index fund for 30 years becomes $19,974.
The Show is my most favorite thing on the web. During a show last week Zefrank likened the results of President Bush's statements to those desireable by the terrorists, themeselves. While he didn't go so far as to say he actually was a terrorist, one message board user, lachme, did, and did so with a concise elegance:
ze may not have said it, but i will -- george walker bush is a terrorist.
he uses fear and terror to manipulate people to do what he wants. his followers bomb and kill the innocent while he spouts ideologies to justify these murders. he ignores the rules of honorable warfare and considers himself above the law. he is a religious zealot who is completely intolerant of those of faiths differing from his.
Create a carbon tax -- basically a tax on energy calculated based on its carbon content -- and use the new revenue to provide offsetting cuts in the income tax, the payroll tax, or both.
The whole package should be revenue neutral, meaning that it will not increase or decrease the total amount of revenue the government collects. The money will simply come from different sources.
The idea is a great one and constitutes a progressive tax that also happens to be completely "fair".
The tax burden will go up for those who use more than the average amount of carbon-based energy and down for those who use less.
In the grand scheme of global injustice (e.g., being born in a malarial village in rural Africa), that just does not strike me as terribly unfair. If you contribute more than your fair share to global warming, traffic congestion, air pollution, and propping up a repressive regime in Saudi Arabia, then you should pay more.
And if you bicycle to work from your modest, solar-powered home, then society should cut you some slack.
The only drawbacks I see are that the tax base could erode as more people reduce their carbon usage and the cost of reducing carbon usage could cause some inflation in consumer goods. I like the idea of axing the income tax altogether and instead using just a carbon tax and a sales tax (with some modifications for luxury and near-luxury items to make it less regressive). Something like this tax is the only way to get people to seriously consider reducing their use of fossil fuels. Smugness can only get us so far.
On Thursday, the House is expected to take up a Republican resolution supporting the tracking of financial transactions and condemning the publication of the existence of the program and details of how it works. The resolution says Congress "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs." Democrats are proposing a variant that expresses support for the treasury program but omits the language about the news media.
I am sure that similar resolutions had been made in Communist China and Russia as well as Nazi Germany. The first step toward control of the media is "expecting cooperation". [Source of quote was the NY Times - subscription required)]
This post could be about how out of touch congress is to be trying to do what they have been doing recently. Namely, trying to repeal the estate tax, shooting down an increase in the minimum wage (when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is 21% lower than it was in 1979.), trying to make permanent the many tax cuts they gave the rich, etc.
It could have to do with the fact that the Republicans have been returning to their wealthy roots for the better part of the last 15 years and only now are people waking up to the fact that the GOP doesn't give a damn about the middle class unless it is time for them to suck up for their votes by pandering and distracting them issues that don't matter (immigration, gay marriage, and the like).
In a recent article titled From Class War Politics (subscription required), Paul Krugman gives us some history:
Before the 1940's, the Republican Party relied financially on the support of a wealthy elite, and most Republican politicians firmly defended that elite's privileges. But the rich became a lot poorer during and after World War II, while the middle class prospered. And many Republicans accommodated themselves to the new situation, accepting the legitimacy and desirability of institutions that helped limit economic inequality, such as a strongly progressive tax system. (The top rate during the Eisenhower years was 91 percent.)
And what of distractions?
But if the real source of today's bitter partisanship is a Republican move to the right on economic issues, why have the last three elections been dominated by talk of terrorism, with a bit of religion on the side? Because a party whose economic policies favor a narrow elite needs to focus the public's attention elsewhere. And there's no better way to do that than accusing the other party of being unpatriotic and godless.
A new book, Polarized America : The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches looks to take on some of these ideas. The only problem with all of these incriminations of the right is that someone had to vote these pricks into office. And that is why the American public is ultimately to blame for allowing such a huge gap to form between the rich and the poor. Voting in the right people can go a long way towards ensuring that have a better, stronger country in years to come. That is only going to happen by raising the bottom up and making sure that the way of life for the poor is markedly improved. Anyone who thinks raising the top to higher heights will benefit society more than raising the bottom up, has some serious perspective problems - trickle-down is a lie.
There are some commentators who long for the bipartisan days of yore, and flock eagerly to any politician who looks "centrist." But there isn't any center in modern American politics. And the center won't return until we have a new New Deal, and rebuild our middle class.
While I am glad that (mostly) Democrats stood up to challenge and stopped the latest affront to the nation’s poor, it is still incredible to me that so many people think our current estate tax laws are a bad thing. The best explanation for the recent success of the right-wing in the American political landscape is their ability to craft a narrative that resonates with the American people on a level that transcends issues and economics (not to mention good sense). Books like George Lakoff’s Don't Think of An Elephant are a like a beacon, exposing this truth and like a manual for how others may craft their own stories, helping them to identify with the masses.
Though it is in the guise of a discussion of tax law and policy, Death by a Thousand Cuts is actually a story of how an ambitious few, crafted a message that has been slowly winning people over to the wrong side of the estate tax debate. A side nearly none of the people belong on.
The estate tax was the most progressive part of the American tax system, because it rested on the principle that the wealthy few, if they were not willing to bequeath their money to charity, should not be permitted to pass it all directly to their heirs. It had been on the statute book for nearly a hundred years, and throughout that time it had been generally assumed that there was widespread support for the idea that unearned wealth passed between the generations, creating pockets of aristocratic privilege, was not part of the American dream. Because it was a tax that so obviously took from the relatively few to relieve the burden on the very many, there seemed no possibility that a sufficiently large or durable coalition of interests could ever be formed to get rid of it. Yet during the 1990s just such a coalition came into being, and not only did it hold together, it grew to the point where the clamour for estate tax repeal seemed irresistible.
I am doing a bit of housekeeping around here so you may notice some posts that may be a little dated but which I still feel are valuable and so I am publishing them as I forage through nearly 100 draft posts over the past few months. This is one such post...
Mr. Bush proposed an array of savings in domestic programs, including big reductions or cuts in 141 programs. Critics asserted those reductions would do little to ease the deficit even as they imposed real hardship on some people, constituting pain for little gain. Gene B. Sperling, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, compared it to a man who leases three fully loaded Hummers, finds it stretches his family's budget to the breaking point, and decides his family has to start buying cheaper peanut butter.
"They're trying to create a framework where it seems the government can't do anything dramatic on child poverty or helping people between jobs because there's too much discretionary spending," Mr. Sperling said. "And their own numbers show that's flat out wrong."
This idea has been discussed before, bleeding the bleeding heart, and it basically stated, is that you starve the social programs that liberals care about so that they have to put forth their own private efforts and resources to work in place of public funds and resources.
From time to time, because I have professed to be planning not to have children, articles are forwarded to me on the subject. Then if I read them, post about them, or try to discuss them, I often get accused of attempting to justify my decision. I have writtenmanytimesbefore about the subject and I always get mixed comments on such posts.
While support, and good-hearted discussion, is nice I, too often, come away from such exchanges truly feeling like I do have to justify my decision to people, or to be more dramatic, society at large. It (not-procreating) isn't what organisms are supposed to do (our design makes that embarrassingly obvious) but we do a lot of things we likely aren't supposed to do. But we have workarounds (or loopholes) for that now. We don't have to blindly reproduce because that is "what we are supposed to do".
An American Sociologist Association study from late last year reports findings that I have suspected (and seen proof of in the lives of friends and family) for some time: parents are not happier than adults without children. Here is the full study report (PDF). This information does little for me, but may provide, some bit of comfort for others considering the same path.
I started this post about a month back when a new Newsweek study claimed to have ranked the 1000 (or so) best high schools in the U.S. A quick review of the list piqued my curiosity as a majority of the schools were in the south and none of the top 100 were in Minnesota or Wisconsin, two states renowned for their education systems.
There are 27,468 high schools in the U.S. Only 7% of the top 100 were in what I consider the Midwest, with another 10% in the West, 31% in the East, and a whopping 51% in the South. When you look at the full list the picture gets a little less skewed but still suspicious with the Midwest containing 11%, 26% in the West, 28% in the East, and 34% in the South. In fact, only 2.7% of the top 1068 high schools were found in Minnesota or Wisconsin.
It turns out that the study employed some rather dubious metrics based upon a ratio devised by Jay Mathews that took into account the number of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate tests taken by all students at a school in 2004 and then divided by the number of graduating seniors for each school. This measure doesn’t even come close to helping determine the quality of a High School. In fact, the only thing it suggests is which schools stress AP and IB testing.
Serial No. 3817131 is a photo essay by a female member of the Israeli Defense Forces about female members. While I have known for a long time that Israel makes use of conscription, or mandatory participation in the military, and that females were not exempt from such service, these photos still took me aback. When I look at them I feel as though they are depictions of models or some strange reality tv show, anything but real soldiers, trained to fight and kill. Despite these feelings, however, the fact is that they are not fakes. They really are soldiers.
I think that if there is a draft again in the U.S. it should be comprised of everyone across a certain age range and should include women. Then, I think we will finally stop and consider the merit of any actions that deploy those kids and put them in harms way. I think photos like these would go a long way towards ending war.
Also, sorry about the title for this post, I sort of dared myself to do that.
An article in yesterday's Star Tribune stirred my pot a bit and got me thinking about the cartoon degrading the Prophet Mohammed and the ensuing uproar, hand-wringing, and torching of embassies. In the article, the owner of my favorite Middle Eastern deli, Holy Land in NE Minneapolis, takes the issue to heart in much the same way much of the Muslim world did and posted the following in his establishment:
Dear Customer. The Denmark newspaper published a cartoon degrading the Prophet Mohammed. The Denmark government refuses to apologize to the Muslim world for this; therefore Holy Land management decided to join the other business leaders in the world to boycott all products made in Denmark.
In the article, Holy Land owner, Majdi Wadi claims that if some of his patrons (a diverse bunch to be sure) have an issue with his boycott, they should come talk with him. He even says if they can convince him to change his mind he will take the signs down.
I respect freedom of speech," he continued, "but I think there must be limits. I think there should be an international law to protect beliefs. It is wrong not to respect Jesus. It is wrong not to respect Buddha. And it is wrong to not respect the Prophet Mohammed.
Now I would love to go and speak with Mr. Wadi, but being Minnesotan, there is a pretty good chance that confrontation will never occur. So instead, in typical passive-aggressive (aka "Minnesota nice") fashion, I will lay out why Holy Land should reverse its policy and why I am now boycotting one of my favorite markets.
The boycott is asking for something from the wrong people. It wrongly states that "The Denmark newspaper" published these cartoons. It was the Jyllands-Posten. The Danish government is not, nor should it be, under any obligation to apologize for the free speech, its citizens make use of.
The boycott targets the wrong people. Don't buy the newspapers and magazines that printed the degrading cartoons. What do the people who make chocolate and cheese have to do with these cartoons other than living in the same country? Only 150,000 (of more than 5 million) Danish people even see the Jyllands-Posten newspaper each day.
When people start to decide what the limits of free speech are, then we are all in trouble. You cannot protect beliefs with laws against speaking out against such beliefs. What if my belief is that Quentin Tarantino was a prophet? Does that make claims that some of his movies suck ass, blasphemy?
Living in America means that you may, if you choose, practice freedom of speech and must also be tolerant of others rights to do so. Presumably that is one of the main draws, bringing countless hopeful immigrants to this country each year from places, like Vietnam, China, and yes, even the Middle East - places where it isn't always acceptable to speak your mind.
For one reason or another, I have never been much of a consumer of magazines. In many respects I am grateful for this. Time is always an issue and I can rarely get through a full magazine before the next one comes. But I also do not like the waste magazines generate. It is very visible and apparent to me as I retain stacks of magazines and then have to recycle them. That being said, there are a few magazines to which I really ought to be subscribing:
The New Yorker - I am always impressed with the content of this magazine and the esteem that it has throughout my network of friends and beyond. It hits right on most of the issues it tackles, and does so much better than the daily newspapers.
Paste - I love to find new music and film and Paste makes it easy. Not only can I read about a ton of great artists and projects that are just coming out, but I can also see and listen to them thanks the CD or DVD included with every issue. They are right on with my tastes too.
Aperture - The few times I have seen this magazine I was very impressed and since I would like to be a better photographer it would help me out.
National Geographic Traveler - Travel magazines are hard for me. I really feel like I need a good one and this one seems very good (though I am tempted to want the traditional National Geographic instead).
Make - I am curious and love to build stuff (or rip stuff apart. Is there another magazine that is better suited to those types of activities?
Wired - The only magazine on this list that I actually do get. I like it, I really do, but more and more often, I get this type of news via the osmosis known as being online.
These were all listed in the order I would like them. If anyone knows how I can get any of the following delivered free for a year let me know. Anything else missing?
A couple that didn't make the list but were very close were:Dwell, Real Simple mostly just because I don't think I would have time.
I doubt I will find many things to agree with Christopher Hitchens about but on this Islamic cartoon "scandal" he and I can agree. In a column at Slate Hitchens makes my argument much better than I could about why the fanatics in the Muslim world are hurting themselves and are even somewhat successful in their goal of affecting and changing life in the United States and other "western" countries.
The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent.
We cannot, and indeed, should not, refuse to publish such a cartoon as that published first in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Our news media should not bow to extremism in any of its forms — there is sensitivity and then there is fear and cowardice.
I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings.
Hitchens doesn't reserve his criticism for just the weak-kneed U.S. media or the over-reacting extremists but also lashed out at the Bush administration for its own trampling of the 1st Amendment and disregard for upholding its own rights in the face of such scrutiny. He closes his rant with the following remarks:
And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
Well, David, that’s the dark little secret that only your Grandpa and a few others knew. These people weren’t anti-religious as much as they were anti-Christian: anti- the majority religion that made America, America. They weren’t against Allah or African gods. They hated the Christian God. Many simply despised Christians of Faith, hated them as people.
I want to make sure no one thinks I have any problem with Christmas. I love the secular celebration known, now, as Christmas. I love the secular spending spree it has become. Actually I am not crazy about the consumerism of the season (much like these guys who showed up at the Church Mall of America last week) but I admit I do get into the "spirit" of it and time I get to spend with family and friends. I am just tired of people getting on their high horse about things - this time of year especially. This writer has a few (coarse) words for those same people at - ahem, pardon my French, fuckchristmas.org
Here is an excerpt:
Christmas isn’t fucking Christian. Ok, now we’re talking.
That’s right, that Yuletide cheer you’re spreading? What exactly do you think Yule is? It's the fucking Pagan celebration of solstice. And those “Christmas” traditions? They’re not just like Pagan rituals, they fucking are Pagan rituals. Way before your Jesus got all magical with the bread and fishes, the Romans were celebrating the birth of Mithra on . . . guess? Go on – guess. December fucking twenty fifth. What a weird coincidence. Practically the whole thing is ripped off from the fucking Druids and the Romans. Twelve days? Check. Exchanging gifts? Check. Mistletoe? Check.
Despite some conservative groups attempts to focus attention (and government resources) on the make-believe “War on Christmas", which is absolutely absurd, there still happens to be real wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan the cost of which, in both human life and dollars, continues to rise.
The White House is set to request an additional $100 billion for war-spending bringing the total spending on this war to almost $500 billion. That is half a TRILLION dollars; $500,000,000,000. Here are some ideas on how we could have better spent this money:
Each day 24,000 people die of starvation. This war has been going on exactly 1001 days. In that time 24 million (24,000,000) people (18 million were children) have starved to death. We could have given each of them $20,833. Think about this. We could have ended starvation in the world or we could have invaded Iraq. Which do you think would have done more to improve how people feel about us? Which would have made us safer? Hey Christian busy-bodies, do you think you might have found something to protest now?
Or we could have given every single person in Iraq (pop. 26,095,283) $19,160 each. The average Iraqi salary for 1 year is about $600. Do you think nearly $20,000 might go a long way in making sure they like us and don't attack us? Maybe we could have convinced them to overthrow Saddam themselves.
Or given every person in the Middle East (minus Israel – we give them enough) $2774. - My wife thinks that the heat may be a trigger for all of the unrest over there. I tend to think we could win their heart and minds (not to mention their pocketbooks) much easier if we gave them all TV's with satellite programming. Let's see: $285 for a room air-conditioner, $219 for a TV and $1000 or so for satellite and a year's worth of programming makes $1504. After giving these to each person (not even every household) we would still have enough left over to give each Middle Easterner $1250.
What if we divided this money up to everyone in the developing world (I am defining this as all countries except The U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan)? We could give each person in the developing world (pop 5,134,373,609) $97. While this may not sound like a lot it would make quite a difference in the lives of those 5 billion people as a full 20% of the world's population still gets by (or doesn't) on less than $1 per day.
Or simply divide the money amongst every person on earth (pop 6,420,102,722) and they would each get $78.
Maybe we could have used the money at home. Surely we could have made ourselves safer here in much better ways. Up to this point you (the American taxpayer) has spent $195 million each day* of the war (note: this does not even include $150 billion in new appropriations). I cannot even imagine this figure, and what we could do with it. Luckily some kind folks at Democrats.org have done research to this effect. This is what we could do each day with $195 million.
Each day we could provide 3.97 million households with an emergency readiness kits.
Each day we could close the financing gap for interoperable communications in 41 small cities, 36 mid-sized cities, or 6 large cities so that federal, state and local first responders can talk to one another during an emergency.
Each day we could purchase 780 fire trucks for improving local emergency response capabilities.
Each day we could employ 4,919 fire fighters, 4,222 police patrol officers, or 7,052 paramedics and emergency medical technicians for one year each.
Each day we could double the federal budget for nuclear reactor safety and security inspections to ensure that these potential terrorist targets are adequately protected.
Each day we could pay for 1,101 additional border patrol agents to better guard our borders against potential terrorists.
Each day we could provide 9,750 port container inspection units to detect hazardous materials being trafficked into the country.
Each day we could provide 1,332 explosive trace detection portals for airport screening of passengers, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
Or maybe we could use the money to educate our children:
Each day we could cover the full cost of attendance for one year at a public college for more than 17,100 students.
Each day we could provide more than 79,000 needy college students with a Pell grant.
Each day we could enroll 27,000 more children in Head Start.
Each day we could employ 4,269 elementary school teachers or 4,027 secondary school teachers for one year.
The U.S. healthcare system could sure use some work, would this money help Americans feel safer, moe secure, and healthier?
Each day provide health insurance coverage to 344,500 working Americans to give them a break from the rising cost of coverage.
Each day provide health insurance coverage for one year to 380,900 uninsured children in America.
Each day employ 3,597 additional registered nurses for one year.
Each day immunize every person over 65 in the U.S. against influenza 4.6 times over.
Each day immunize every baby born in the U.S. last year against measles, mumps, and rubella 14.2 times.
Having a job tends to add a certain amount of security, what could we have done…
Each day One day in Iraq could provide unemployment benefits for almost 722,000 unemployed Americans for one week.
Each day fund Social Security retirement benefits for one day for over 6.75 million Americans.
Each day provide comprehensive safety and health training to 121,875 workers.
Each day pay for an increase of $3.34 per hour in the wages of every minimum wage worker in the country.
Each day provide paid sick leave to half a million workers for an entire year.
American's could have had all of these things (and that was just 22 days worth for spending). We are now at 1001 days of war. How much more do you want?
* Based on Department of Defense obligation data for fiscal year 2005, the daily cost of the Iraq war was $195 million, as of June 30, 2005. This amount reflects costs as they are incurred, not the total amount appropriated or available to
