Home Rule

I have been reading a lot on other blogs asking people to support a laundry list of candidates around the country. On the surface, I am all for this. It is imperitive the Democrats take at least one house of Congress or, preferably, both. It is unlikely and will be a huge fight which will take a ton of money targeted at the most likely races to be won.

However, I just can't bring myself to monetarily support candidates who are not going to be on my ballot. It just doesn't seem right. I understand plenty of money is going to pour in to these races on all sides but it just doesn't seem appropriate to me to try to influence other districts. If I want to support a Democratic majority (which I do) and I had faith in their doing the right thing (which I am not so sure about), I would give money to the DSCC or DCCC and let them send money where it is needed. Of course, if history is any indication, they will be supporting centrist losers instead of real progressive candidates.

It seems to me a violation of home rule and downright rude to try to tell people in far parts of the country how they should vote. Unfortunately, money in our electoral system amounts to just that. In 2004, I was very tempted to go to Ohio and help campaign for Kerry or to make calls from here in NY. It just seemed counter productive to flood into another state and try to tell them what's best for them. Would you be more likely to vote for someone if you go a call from some person in Montana telling you to vote for X candidate? It seems like it would make me seriously think about going the other way just to protest the meddling.

Ok, I know, this is a naive idea. It is how politics in the 21st century works. It is in my interests to make sure the progressive candidates win nationally. And yet, I just can't bring myself to do it. I absolutely support Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, but that is Connecticuts call, not mine. I even more would like to see John Tester crush Conrad Burns in Montana and probably a hundred other close races go to the progressive candidate but it still just doesn't seem the right way to do it.

Of course, I don't have any other brilliant ideas of how to bring about change either. Personally, as almost all the incumbent, favored candidates who will be on my ballot are fairly progressive Democrats, I am going to concentrate on the couple of candidates who can make a difference locally. I most likely will be working for Sue Zimet for State Senate to oust one of my least favorite local politicians, John Bonacic. I finally got to meet her this past weekend and, while she wasn't at her best having just come from a funeral, she convinced me she will be on the progressive side of the important issues and also on my side in a couple of local issues.

A Democratic majority in the NYS Senate is a possibility and I will do my small part to help that come about. That is one thing I can do without sticking my nose out into other's business.

Wasn't Jesus a liberal?

I have never understood the religous right; the god-fearing Evangelists who just hate those long haired hippies. Not being particularly well versed in the New Testament (most of what I know of Jesus comes from Jesus Christ Superstar), it always seemed to me Jesus was a bit of a hippy. Down with usury, love thy brother, help the poor, etc. Those ideals seem completely antithetical to everything the religious right stands for. We won't even get into the obvious violation of the Ten Commandments by their worship of the idol which is the American Flag. So why are the vast bulk of church-goers Conservatives.

This article about an Evangelist preacher who speaks out against the use of the Evangelical pulpit in the service of conservative politics (read Republicans) is very interesting. There seems to be, in this country, a strange idea that the separation of church and state guaranteed in the 1st amendment is to protect government from religion. This is not true. If you go back and read statements from the founding fathers (as usual, too lazy to go finding sources but I'll try to update this post later), one would find this provision was meant to protect religion from government. There is no more corrupting force in religion than politics. Religion, in any pure form, cannot exist if tied too closely to worldly affairs.

I am very surprised there are not more church leaders trying to lead their flocks away from politics; conservative or liberal. Of course, it is not hard to see why so many do dip their toes in the waters political. Just follow the money trail. Not just direct funding from conservative polititians and think tanks, but money from conservative policies (vouchers for private religious schools, faith based initiatives, etc) and from their congregations. Attacking homosexuality and abortion sells well. Just see how many of the 'mega-churches' are liberal or moderate. Are there any?

I have said previously I do not understand religion whether conservative, liberal, moderate or even personal. I just have never had the need for all that. But I especially do not understand the whole God-fearing, gay-hating, wealth loving conservative evangelical church thing. From what little I have read of the scriptures, it just does not jive. Maybe I've just read the wrong parts.

At the Syracuse Zoo

Random theory of the day

I think I may have found the source of the anger in the Middle East. It is the HEAT! Forget politics and religion, just get them all air conditioners and reliable power.

I know I get grumpy when it gets above 85F. Queens almost blew up when they didn't have power for air conditioning and the weather was around 90F. It is regularly over 110F in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Yes, I know it is a dry heat. Still, heat is heat. It bakes the brain and makes us act strangely. It has been studied (I don't have time or inclination to track down the study right now) and found that violent crime doubles in Miami when the temperature goes over 90.

So maybe the most important player in the Middle East peace talks should be Carrier and Con Ed (ok Con Ed might be a bad example).

Note: none of this post is to be taken at all seriously.

Sometimes ya just gotta stop talking

A good post by MyDD about the problem the public has with the Democrats. It isn't their policies. On almost any given issue (gay marriage being one major exception), a majority of the American public will agree with the Democrats position. Universal Healthcare, getting out of Iraq, expanding alternative energy and on and on. So why do the Democrats keep losing?

Mostly, as the article articulates clearly, it is because the Democrats do an absolutely horrible job clearly stating what they stand for and why. Sometimes they are quite good at publicizing their position but seldomly as clear on the why. Sometimes they are even good at getting out the why, but then are strangely scant on the what. Usually, they are a bit mealy-mouthed about the whole thing.

As someone who seldomly knows when to stop talking and who will end up arguing all sides and speaking in archaic circles, I understand where the Democrats are coming from and why the public is turned off by them. The only thing the public may hate more than electioneering is nuance. The arguments that Kerry was a flip-flopper every time he hinted there may be another side to the story are a prime example. Heck, that is probably why Senators have such a hard time getting elected president. It is the chamber of nuance (Santorum, Coburn and others not-withstanding).

That is why Howard Dean, Paul Hacket and Ned Lamont appeal to so many people. They came out and said what they believed in and why and didn't falter when confronted. They didn't apologize if something they said was a little crass (like Durbin and a meriad of other Democrats). When was the last time you saw a Republican (who wasn't about to go to jail - see Duke Cunningham) apologize for anything?

If I ever run for office, as I hope to, I will run on pure principal. It may be hard to campaign on that as it is hard to come up with sound bites. Basically, I think we need politicians who are commited to listening to the issues and the debate and doing what they really think is right, party and re-election be-damned. Like we will see that anytime soon.

They Hate Our What?

First, contrary to what the right-wingers might say, I do not condone what the terrorists, insurgents, Muslim militias or any other murders have done. Also, I do not hate America though I have no trouble admitting to being a Bush-hater. The two are NOT one and the same. Now to my point...

I simply don't understand how so many Americans can act like they have no idea why the Muslims hate us so much. Bush and the punditry say they "hate our freedom". Is that why they so want to restrict our freedom? So the terrorists will hate us less? Anyway, that is the most bizarre excuse for anything I have ever heard. What does that mean? Do they think the terrorists on the other side of the world are upset because we wear shorts and skimpy bathing suits?

Or, is it possible they hate us because we meddle constantly in their affairs? That we supply the bombs that are raining destruction on their heads. That we support Israel over any legitimate issues they may have. That we prop up dictators (including Sadaam for a decade or two) who oppress their people and steal their wealth. That we invade their countries without cause.

I am not saying the Arab and Muslim cultures are the easiest for Westerners to deal with. They are stubborn and often brutal. They have a far different perspective on the value of life which we simply cannot comprehend. How many Americans are willing to kill themselves (along with others) to be sure their families are taken care of? I would guess not too many. We would certainly run out of suicide killers before too long if we had to resort to guerilla warfare.

There is, of course, also a lot of history of Western interference in the Middle East. Many of the borders are drawn artificially by the British and/or international community. Israel was pretty much ripped from the grasp of the Palestinians with little consideration for their rights. Americans may have a short memory. We are friends with the Germans and the Japanese and even the Vietnamese. The Arabs, however, have a very long memory embedded in their culture. They also know how to hold a grudge in a way American's will never understand. Not that the Arabs have had a chance to allow their anger to subside in the past 50 or so years.

They are constantly reminded of their backwardness and inferiority to the West. They have rampant poverty in oil-rich countries where the royalty is supported by the West. They are never allowed to develop beyond third world dictatorships. Contrary to the rhetoric of the Bush administration, this is by design of the power-brokers in the West. We are not in Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East. We are there because we wanted to put our own puppet regime in place. Just look at the right-wing reaction to Iraq's democratically elected Prime Minister taking Israel to task. They can't believe our puppet would speak out against our wishes. That is Iraq's representative government. I am curious what happens when Iraq has a completely free election in which a Prime Minister who is openly antagonistic to our government is chosen.

When it comes down to it, the Arabs are not stupid or ignorant. They know where the bombs and tanks are coming from. It may be Israeli's driving the tanks and dropping the bombs, but they say 'Made in the USA' on the side.

What will it take to make the American public understand that it is not our supposed freedom the Arabs hate but the actions and policies of our government?

Friday Kid Blogging

Having fun at Hershey Park.

Gridlock by Design

I don't understand why everyone seems surprised that Bush got 5 1/2 years into his term before he had to use a veto. For the bulk of that time, his party had control of both houses of congress. Also, the Republican party is one of the most lock-step parties ever. Sure there are a couple of moderates left (Snowe, Collins, Chafee) but lets face it, the Bush administration essentially had direct control over congress since 9/11. How could anything he didn't approve even get to his desk to veto?

Sure there have been big pork-filled spending bills he could have turned back to make a point. But most of these were backed by the more powerful members of the Republican leadership. Did anyone really think Bush would kill those bills? What else was he going to veto? The aweful energy bill? Cheney and company wrote it. The misguided bill to keep Teri Schiavo alive? He orchestrated it. Just about everything to come out of congress for the past 5 years was either directly proposed by Bush or at least ok'd in advance.

Which brings me to my point. Our government was meant to be gridlocked. The founding fathers designed checks and balances not only to keep the government honest but to prevent it from doing too much, too quickly. They felt that government by compromise would prevent the worst abuses of power. With three branches of government and two houses of Congress, there should be a reasonable expectation that some arm of government will be held by an opposition party who will keep the other party in check. That system has broken down with only the judicial acting as any kind of check on the powers of the Republican party and that is shaky.

I think the best overall national strategy the Democrats could use would be to make each and every congressional race a referendum on, not just Bush's performance, but the overall need for government, any government, to be checked by a viable opposition. It is never fun and always risky to run on a platform of 'the other guy must go'. Of course the Democrats need to stand for something on their own and not just be the other party.

But I think an argument could be made that these platforms should be developed locally instead of at the national committee level. Let the individual candidates forge the way they think best. Let them follow their conscience and concentrate on the local issues. Let the Democratic party be the party of personal conviction and not blind-eyes and rubber stamps.

Meanwhile, the national committee should be making clear the only way to check the authoritarian power of the government is to win at least one house of Congress. Americans are not confortable with an unconstrained government. They will understand, if reminded enough, that this is the only solution to our current problems.

The Democrats will need to be careful not to push this to the extreme or let Rove frame their position is the most extreme sense. Talk of impeachment or prosecuting the Bush administration for their many crimes needs to be kept to a minimum. I love what Russ Feingold was trying to do when he pushed to censior the president, but the Democrats were probably correct that it was a political loser and put them in a bad position. Witch hunts are not the way to go here. But sensible oversight must be restored and winning congress is the only sure way to achieve it.

Middle East Motives

I have always been confused by just what each faction in the Middle East is trying to accomplish via the use of violence. For example, the only possible outcome of Hezbollah kidnapping some Israeli soldiers is to bring misery on Lebanon. That is the established Israeli response. It is no surprise. Sure Hezbollah is always looking to hurt Israel, but what are the two soldiers really going to get them.

Israel for its part seems to have exactly the wrong response. Hezbollah doesn't give a damn about Lebanon. If everything I've been reading is correct, Syria and Iran are the main movers behind Hezbollah. Lebanon's security forces are not just unwilling to contain Hezbollah; they are unable to. So what does the bombing of Lebanon accomplish? As far as I can tell, the only thing it is doing is pissing off the Arab world (even more). Is Israel threatened by the recovering economy of Lebanon. They should welcome it. Rich and middle class people do not (or almost never) become suicide bombers. Now that Lebanon is getting rolled back 10 to 15 years, I see some more destitute, despairing terrorists strapping on bombs soon.

So Lebanon is caught in the middle, again. You have to feel for these guys. They just pushed Syria out and got their tourism industry rebuilt and in the span of days they are back to square one.

So who are the winners so far? Only Syria and Iran seem to be coming out ahead right now. We will see if that continues or if they, particularly Syria, get pulled into open war. I don't think it will happen unless Bush totally loses it and starts listening to Bill Kristol (what a freaking nut).

As far as losers, I would have to say Israel isn't helping itself, Lebanon is getting totally screwed, the US is looking helpless and the Arab people are getting played, again.

Reluctantly said...my wife was right

When Bush was first running for president back in 2000, she said that, if he became president, he would get us into a war. She said it would be by saying something stupid to a world leader but that has only been a small part of the problem. Actually, she wasn't entirely correct. Bush hasn't just gotten us into a war; he has gotten us into WAR. Unending, hopeless, pointless WAR. It amazes me that when I think the worst of Bush, he still surprises me by being even worse than that.

Do people still remember back in 98 when it seemed like world peace might not be so far away. What warring there was seemed small or at least controllable by UN Peacekeepers. Sure there was Serbia and hot-spots in Africa, but the Middle East was mostly calm and Palestinian statehood seemed just around the corner if they could just work a deal for Jeruselem. How long did it take for Bush to turn that all around? I think the Israeli deal was over before 9/11. Once Israel knew we would back whatever they decided and not hold them to any real concessions, there wasn't much reason for them to work with the peace process. Everything else in the Middle East was already festering. Sadam had to know they were coming for him one way or another and the rest of the Middle East was already tensing. 9/11 was just an enabler. I do not believe things would be that much different if it had never happened. This administration was hell bent to act militarily in the Middle East. Any pretext, real or manufactured, would have done fine. It seems so long ago now since peace and prosperity seemed everywhere.

Right now, I am just happy Bush is keeping his mouth mostly shut about the Israel/Hezbollah crisis (at least when he knows the mike is on). I can't remember which blog made the point but doing nothing is probably the best thing we can ask for Bush to do at this point. He has us pinned down in Iraq so we can't respond militarily to anything or even give a credible threat to do so. We simply do not have much bargaining power remaining. Sometimes doing nothing is indeed the best action to take.

National Embarrassment

I am one of the first to laugh at Bush's multitude of stupid jokes or goofy Bushisms but I have always assumed (hoped) that, one-on-one with world leaders, he actually could straighten up and speak intelligently. I think the conversations overheard at the G-8 Summit can finally put a rest to that idea. Bush truly is a national embarrassment. He is just as crass and impatient with important world leaders (Blair, Putin, etc) as he is with the White House press corps. I always figured the press corps just didn't deserve to be treated any better.

I remember when Bush was first running for president the press was falling all over itself saying how he was the guy you would want to have a beer with while Gore was stuffy and academic. Do you really want to have a beer with the president? Is that our standard for the leader of the free world?

I want someone who is demonstrably smarter than me; not someone who can speak to the average American at their level. The President is not supposed to be 'average'. He (or she, but who are we kidding) should be the best the country has to offer. I want someone who speaks well, even if they have a country twang. I don't think Clinton's or Carter's speaking ever embarrassed me.

Worse still than Bush's tortured speech is his piqueish sense of entitlement. Other world leaders have issues they are dealing with also. If they don't address your issue immediately, it is not a personal affront. If they speak a little long and you are 10 minutes off your schedule, then you might miss your favorite show on TV when you get back to DC. Get a damn Tivo.

Thursday Kid Blogging?

I am going to be away and busy so it is Thursday Kid Blogging this week and light to no posting over the weekend. So here they are:

Go Rahm

I love it when Democrats will actually stand up and call out B.S so much the better if they can use clever word play in the process. Check out this clever little speech from Rahm Emmanuel.

The Problem with Bloggers

The final impetus for me deciding to create a blog was the in-fighting amongst the big Bloggers (Atrios, DailyKos, Instapundit, Little Green Footballs, etc). Even Glenn Greenwald, who early on I appreciated for staying focused on the issues, has fallen into sniping at the idiocy and disingenuity which is the right wing blogs. No single blogger, including mighty Kos, has so much power that the rest of us should be analyzing their every word.

Does it really matter that Glenn Reynolds is an idiot? Pointing it out only gives him more attention and linking to his idiotic blog just gives him more traffic to brag about. Most of the issues are minor, personal slights which I really couldn't care less about. Who cares that they are all, in Atrios' words 'whiny ass titty babies'. Would we expect anything less from people who blindly follow a leader who has sold out everything they once professed to stand for?

The energy spent in-fighting among the prime-time bloggers would be far better spent focusing on big media and the corruption in Washington. I realize that no one is surprised, but how is it Atrios and Greenwald haven't even mentioned Novak admitting that Rove is his source for the Valerie Plame article. Why is Rove off the hook? For that matter, why is Novak's not being dragged through the mud for publishing classified information which actually did compromise national security? Probably because they are too busy bitching about Deb Frisch and why the right-wing bloggers are up in arms when they regularly call for worse for public and semi-public figures. Who cares?

It is getting to the point where blogs which were once good reads about real issues are becoming in-crowd gossip columns documenting petty insults and laughing at what the other guy is wearing. Come on guys, there are much bigger fish to fry!

Update: After taking a new look at Glenn Greenwald's blog and Atrios' blog Eschaton, I think I may have an idea of what is going on here. I am not a conspiracy theorist, in fact I resist conspiracy theories with all my being, but after reading this article on MyDD, I have formulated a disturbing hypothesis. MyDD points out that right wing blogs are not as important as progressive blogs for many reasons which seem valid to me. These are, in a nutshell, less readership and redundancy as they are no different from the tactics and talking points of the actual Republicans. Given the increasing power the progressive blogs are now enjoying, is it possible the right-wing blogs are trying to dampen their effectiveness by dragging everyone down into fighting between the blogs? I would not put this past the Republican tacticians to coordinate an attack to dilute the message the blogs were effectively spreading.

Syd is dead

Syd Barrett is dead at age 60. He will always hold a special place in my memories of High School and College. Bike, Effervescing Elephant and The Gnome are the songs I sang most often to my daughter when she was a baby. I am not sure why I got away from those songs with my son. Syd, you will be (and have been) sorely missed.

Still, it always strikes me as odd when a celebrity who hasn't been heard from in years dies and you still feel a sense of loss. I guess it is the memories which are dredged up and the finality that there never will be a comeback; no matter how bad an idea that would have been anyway.

In honor of Syd (compliments of oldielyrics.com):

An Effervescing Elephant
With tiny eyes and great big trunk
Once whispered to the tiny ear
The ear of one inferior
That by next June he'd die, oh yeah!
Because the tiger would roam.
The little one said: "Oh my goodness I must stay at home!
And every time I hear a growl
I'll know the tiger's on the prowl
And I'll be really safe, you know
The elephant he told me so."
Everyone was nervy, oh yeah!
And the message was spread
To zebra, mongoose, and the dirty hippopotamus
Who wallowed in the mud and chewed
His spicy hippo-plankton food
And tended to ignore the word
Preferring to survey a herd
Of stupid water bison, oh yeah!
And all the jungle took fright,
And ran around for all the day and the night
But all in vain, because, you see,
The tiger came and said: "Who me?!
You know, I wouldn't hurt not one of you.
I'd much prefer something to chew
And you're all to scant." oh yeah!
He ate the Elephant

Bye Syd!

Terror

When a building explodes and collapses in NYC, everyone first thinks 'Terrorism'. People go scurrying for cover like it is the end of the world. Why is that? Are they still that skittish from 9/11 or from being reminded of it every 15 minutes by the government? This does not seem to me to be how New Yorkers would typically act.

History is going to remember the Bush administration as the 'Terror Administration'. Not the Administration which fought or conquered terrorism (as if that is even possible), but the Administration which used Terror (note the big T) to get its way in all things. It is not coincidental that whenever things get too hot politically, there is a new terror alert. I believe this is extremely unhealthy.

As a more personal example, I have several friends who had strong premonitions that there would be a major disruptive attack on or around July 4th. Is this realistic? The terrorists have shown themselves to be more concerned about their own timetable than any American holidays or key dates. I would bet that many of them don't know 7/4 has any meaning whatsoever just like 9/11 didn't for us not so long ago.

The reason my friends have these feeling is because they have it pounded into them day after day. These people aren't even very plugged in. They are not spending all day watching Fox News or even CNN. They aren't reading blogs. It just permeates the air. An irrational fear of Terrorist Attack. They didn't want to plan anything for the 4th because they felt like we would have no power. They warned my family about going to Rockaway Beach in Queens (where we had a fantastic time) because they were sure something would happen. This just isn't natural. We aren't meant to live this way.

However, if you can get people to feel this way all the time why would they mind losing liberties? They have already restricted their own liberty themselves. If the government can assure security for the people in exchange for a loss of liberty which is already perceived as being gone, then who is going to stand up and say no.

Am I saying there will never be another disastrous, tragic Terrorist attack? I would be surprised if that were true. Do I think the government should step back and not pursue the Terrorists and use the finest surveillance techniques to stop them? Of course not. But that doesn't mean they can't do that within the confines of the law and the Constitution. Oversight and separation of powers is written into our Constitution. It is not up to the Executive Branch to decide what laws apply or to shut out Congress and the Courts from their responsibilities of oversight.

Most of all, there is no reason the people have to be reminded at all times that they are imminently going to be attacked. We are not going to be made more vigilent and careful, we are going to be more pliant for an imperial take-over of our government.

Kid Blogging

Ok, so it is Saturday Kid Blogging this week. I got a bit too busy yesterday cleaning for a party today. I don't think I have ever worked that hard for so long in a day. Anyway, to make up for the lapse, here are two kid picts for the price of one. They were both taken last weekend at our wonderful friends party in Rockaway.

My first Random Commentor

Hurray for small successes. I have received my first comment from a reader who I did not specifically invite! Thanks Kate!

To honor this momentous occasion, I have granted Kate a permanent (or at least semi-permanent) link on my site. May it bring her many happy returns!

Delay

It has been a bad year for Tom DeLay. He can't even successfully not run for office. His attempt to get off the ballot as the Republican nominee has been rejected. It will be interesting to see how he reacts. Does he campaign for a Republican write-in candidate or just cede the seat to a Democrat. I can't imagine the latter. Of course, there is still an appeal to go through so we will see if it stands.

I am not sure exactly where I stand on this. I will always enjoy seeing DeLay and the Republicans get slapped around and I understand the Democrats must play the same BS games as the GOP (heck, the Dems probably invented most of the electoral games) if they have a chance to win, but I don't like the idea of confusing the electorate for political gain. A democracy should work on transparency and an educated electorate, not obfuscation and technicalities. How idealistic is that?

So while I am happy the Republicans are in a bind, I just can't wholeheartedly get behind this subversion of what I feel democracy should really be about.

Getting to blogging daily is a bit harder than I thought. I guess there may be a few gaps. Still, I will try to keep them to a minimum.

Atheism Articulated

Sometimes I am challenged about being a devout atheist. What does that mean? Do I have any moral foundation at all? Where do I find purpose? The answer is often difficult for me to clearly formulate.

Then, out of the blue, comes a far more eloquent articulate voice to say what I cannot. It was a true 'driveway moment' when I heard Penn Jillette on This I Believe on NPR. This is old, but if you haven't read it or heard it, check out. I think every atheist and secular humanist should memorize it.


Edit: Thanks to Scott for catching my bad link.

Liberal Elitism

The right in this country has done a great job of marginalizing old-style liberals in this country. Whenever they start describing the 'liberal problem' of Coastal educated, secular elitists, I can only see myself. Given they are starting the debate at that point, how can I even get involved in the argument? But why is that? Why should the liberal voice be sidelined.

It seems to me the country has done pretty well under the watch of liberals (FDR, maybe Clinton) and less so under the watch of conservatives (either Bush) with Reagan being an arguable exception. On an issue by issue basis, a large majority of Americans agree with liberal policies and yet somehow liberalism is bad, elitist and downright evil. I am not saying everyone needs to agree with me or that I know best (though in my worst moments I sometimes act like I do) but how did the liberal argument get totally excluded from the table of ideas?

Patriots or traitors

I don't think I can tell the difference anymore. Sometimes others say things much better than I can so read Hume's Ghost's excellent post here on Unexplored Territory.

I am getting very tired of the misuse and spin of language to sway opinions. How could anyone even suggest the NYT has been treasonous. Do they even know what that means? Maybe they should try looking it up.