Why the Hate Crimes Prevention Act Should be Attached to the Defense Bill

(Also published on the Huffington Post)

Let me state this up front: I'm not a fan of the political practice in Congress of attaching unrelated measures to bills that are considered must-pass legislation. I think it's a political tool that tarnishes our government and makes a mockery of what a legitimate government should be.

As the Senate votes today on broadening the definition of federal hate crimes to include people attacked based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disabilities, Democrats have attached the Hate Crimes Law to the Defense Bill, which, if you have been paying attention at all over the last eight years, is about as "must-pass" as legislation gets in today's political climate. But I don't see this as an unrelated matter the way many Republicans in the Senate do, including Senator John McCain:

"While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars we're going to take up the hate-crimes bill," McCain said, "because the majority leader thinks that's more important, more important than legislation concerning the defense of this nation." And later: "The Senate will pass a highly controversial, highly explosive piece of legislation to be attached to the authorization for the defense and the security of this nation. That's wrong."

What exactly defines the defense and security of a nation? I would argue that the defense and security of the nation implies the defense and security of its citizenry, of its people. Otherwise, just what exactly are we defending? Now, say what you will about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but those who have supported these wars have always defended them as our only means to fight for the right of every U.S. citizen to continue to live that life promised to us, one in pursuit of happiness. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is commonly referred to as the Matthew Shepard Act, named after a young man who was kidnapped, robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. Defending the American people is not only a matter of fighting people far away who might one day come to this country to try once again to do us harm. It's a matter of defending our people against the small-minded, bigoted, hate-filled people already within our borders who would seek to do harm to fellow citizens.

Attaching the Hate Crimes Prevention Act to the Defense Bill in not in contradiction to what that bill should do (i.e. help those looking to defend our country and its people). Indeed, the Hate Crime Prevention Act looks to do exactly what the Defense Bill should be set up to do: defend the nation and allow its people to live freely.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put it well when he said, "If their country doesn't stand up for them, if we don't stand up for them, who will?" It is important to fight against anyone who might look to bring terror (and a crime like the one perpetrated against Matthew Shepard is most certainly terror) into the lives of people only trying to live freely. Just because John McCain thinks it's more important to defend a uniformed soldier in Iraq than a young homosexual man in Wyoming doesn't mean the rest of us have to come to that same conclusion.

Am I Taking Crazy Pills?

This from The New York Times today:

"The ability of the diminished minority to delay the bill signaled growing unease in Congress, among Democrats and Republicans, over the levels of government spending in recent months and the staggering increase in the federal deficit."

Ahem, excuse me? "[I]n recent months"?!?! WTF?! Have these people even been paying attention to this country's spending over the last eight years? Under the Clinton Administration the gross debt in the U.S. went from the low-three trillions to the mid-five trillions. Under Bush II it jumped from there to over ten trillion.

But only in "recent months" has there been a growing unease among Democrats and Republicans. Give me a break.

(Some graphs and charts for those numbers, here and here.)

The 44th President of the United States

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land -- a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

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

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions -- who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment -- a moment that will define a generation -- it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed -- why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

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

This is Rich

Or sickening, or maddening, or just completely ridiculous...I can't even tell anymore.

An article in today's New York Times entitled "Bailout Is a Windfall to Banks, if Not to Borrowers" begins with this precious little bit:

At the Palm Beach Ritz-Carlton last November, John C. Hope III, the chairman of Whitney National Bank in New Orleans, stood before a ballroom full of Wall Street analysts and explained how his bank intended to use its $300 million in federal bailout money.

“Make more loans?” Mr. Hope said. “We’re not going to change our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the public sector as they see it to have us make more loans.”

You have to love this. As though it wasn't the business models and credit policies of banks that got us into this whole mess. This guy acts like the banking system has been a model of prudence, and maybe his bank was. But I doubt it. I have a friend who works at a small bank, as a lender, who did act responsibly before this whole fallout and he and his bank have gotten fucked from the business models and credit policies of other banks. And his bank hasn't seen a dime of TARP I.

For this John C. Hope III (It's like a name from a movie about a Depression) to act shocked that people would expect him and his bank to do with the money it received from the government what it was supposed to do (i.e. lend) is enough to make someone sick. I can't stand the hypocrisy in all of this.

Now, to amend what I just said. I used the word "supposed," but that probably isn't quite right, is it? Because, just as it did leading up to the Iraq invasion, Congress completely panicked on this one and didn't set up any checks and balances for how the money was to be used. Check out this precious bit from this story:

"Individually, banks that received some of the first $350 billion from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, have offered few public details about how they plan to spend the money, and they are not required to disclose what they do with it."

Why the hell aren't they required to do so! Why would you write a check to any institution whose business model and credit policies had sent a whole financial system into a free fall without putting in place the means to track how that check was being spent? I mean this is dumb getting dumber.

Because of Congress' lack of foresight we end up with this:

"A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen banks around the country found that few cited lending as a priority. An overwhelming majority saw the bailout program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future."

I would be one to argue for a market-driven system, a survivor of the fittest kind of living, if the "fittest" weren't only that because of the support they are given. If banks and other financial institutions could actually keep their houses in order and everyone on Main Street were flailing about in their own financial crisis, then I'd say, we got ourselves into this, we have to get ourselves out. But, for the banks to be in such a bad way, receive loans (even though they themselves wouldn't have lent money to themselves, given that it would be such a bad investment), and then solely use it as though it is theirs to invest...and then to act as though they had some sort of inalienable right to it, as though it's a given that they should receive money while everyone else suffers, well, it's almost too much for one person to take.

For a more thorough analysis (and maybe less pissed off, or at least he doesn't swear in his analysis) of the financial crisis, follow Robert Reich's thoughts on Guernica, where three days before this story in the Times he already told us all of this when he wrote "But the easier and probably more correct argument is that American taxpayers wasted $350 billion. No one knows exactly where it went -- at least two recent reports reveal that the Treasury had no idea -- but we do know the money did not go to small businesses, struggling homeowners, students, or anyone else needing credit, which was the major public justification for the bailout."

Robert Reich on Guernica

If they're going to use the second $350 billion here are some suggestions how from Robert Reich.

And by the way is anyone else sick of hearing about how only a small percentage of the people in this country actually understand the inner workings of our financial systems and therefore those people have to stay in positions managing the money from these bailouts? They obviously don't understand it very well, otherwise wouldn't it follow that we wouldn't be in this mess? It's like if you took your car to a mechanic and he told you how everything in your car works, but then couldn't even change your battery. I don't care if you can tell me how it works. Make it work. Or change it completely and put people in charge who can actually make a new system work.

On Dealing With the C.I.A.

Is anyone else concerned about the apparently necessary way the C.I.A. has to be dealt with? As though if the organization is offended in any way they will just take their ball and go home and leave the rest of the country to figure out “intelligence” on our own, or at least one of the other members of the Intelligence Community will have to figure it out without them.

This is from the New York Times yesterday in an article entitled “Obama Reluctant to Look Into Bush Programs”:

“At the Central Intelligence Agency, in particular, many officers flatly oppose any further review and may protest the prospect of a broad inquiry into their past conduct.”

Of course they do and of course they would. For the last eight years they’ve been taking directions from an administration that arrogantly changed the definition of torture, so that when its members said they did not torture, they would have a definition that made that statement true. Using the old definitions and agreements between nations simply would not do, so they made their own rules. It’s no wonder that those involved with this redefining would “oppose any further review.” But who cares?

Obama says that “at the C.I.A. you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got [to] spend all their time looking over their shoulders,” and the Times article says, “Mark Lowenthal, who was the assistant director for analysis and production at the C.I.A. from 2002 to 2005, said if agents were criminally investigated for doing something that top Bush administration officials asked them to do and that they were assured was legal, intelligence officers would be less willing to take risks to protect the country.”

I realize that clandestinity is inherent in an organization like the C.I.A., but the law is the law, or should be. The Bush administration didn’t necessarily think so, and the C.I.A. was presumably willing to go along with that administration and its new definitions.

If wrongdoing occurred, then we can get into the discussion of whether the C.I.A. was only acting on orders and therefore if its members should or should not be the ones held accountable. But that is a different discussion (See: Donald Rumsfeld, the Army, and Abu Ghraib). To simply not examine the C.I.A.’s past actions because “any effort to conduct a wider re-examination would almost certainly provoke a backlash at the country’s intelligence agencies” is not a good enough reason. To not move forward on a re-examination because it might offend some people and make them less willing to do their job in the future should not be the basis upon which we decide whether or not to take a look at the last eight years.

Crossposted at Guernica Magazine

Dear Mr. President

Dear Mr. President,

I have had tears in my eyes on and off since last night when you took the stage in Grant Park, Chicago. When you implored us to fully believe that mantra "Yes we can," repeating it calmly and humbly, I knew it was finally true.

Your face, as you walked onto that stage last night held something often shadowed by your confidence (though your confidence is of a different sort than we have come to know, so refreshingly lacking in arrogance). You were humbled and in your humility, you cemented your humanity. And it was all there on your face, before you spoke one word. People have praised and attacked your oration these past several months. But there, standing before tens of thousands in Chicago and millions more watching across the world, you did not need to say a word. Your face held more eloquence than any speech you have ever given.

When you did finally speak, your modesty did not allow you to run away to some perch of hyperbole and expectation, too lofty to reach. Even in this moment of jubilation, you were realistic. And you showed great respect for your listeners by not making grand promises that would leave us disheartened in the end. Instead you did what you have done until now. You told us the truth. You told us that the road ahead will be long. The road ahead will be difficult. And you reminded us once again that it was not you that allowed for your standing there in Grant Park (though our praise may outweigh your modesty today), but us. As you have called on us before, you asked us to believe not just in your ability to bring change, but to believe in ours as well.

This last point is what will make you a great leader, Mr. President. No matter how many times it is repeated, let this fact never lose the weight it carries: You have inspired millions of people across the world to believe that their voices matter. Where before they had none, today they have one. And it is loud. And it is clear. And it is spoken through you, Mr. President.

As the world celebrates--and it is truly a world celebration--we recognize that there is so much work to be done. You would not let us forget this, even in your proudest moment. Today the real work begins. Having taken a giant leap for man, we are still great leaps and bounds from where we wish to be. You know this, Mr. President, as well as anyone. Still, today, facing in this new direction, the sun shining brightly on my face, I join the world in this celebration. And I say with more fervor than I have ever said before: I am proud to be an American. Because being an American today once again feels as though I am a part of the world.

Thank you for that, Mr. President.

Yours sincerely,
David Doody

An Election Day Poem

When I was in New York this past week I was lucky enough to attend a poetry reading where the poet Rick Barot read. He went out on a limb and read some very new poems. They were excellent, and I'm sure will only get better as he edits. After the reading I told him that I particularly enjoyed one, which was about John McCain. I told him that it did something that I felt I would currently be too angry to do in any form, namely humanize John McCain in a way that none of the "war hero" propaganda has done over these last few months. Rick was nice enough to give me that poem, which inspired a poem of my own, and Rick's reading of it--so soon after writing it--has inspired me to share my poem (something that, if you know me, you know I don't do easily). It is about as new as a poem can be, and may, in the end, look very different from this, but I am going to share it here, now.

Election Day, 2008

for Rick Barot

You fell down before I did, but while I was listening
to gospel music this morning I cried in the shower.
You fell, but I keep breaking down.

They’re telling us a new day is rising, and I’m too nervous
to believe them. There’s a landing strip on the other side,
they say, but I don’t even recognize what we’re flying.

Much less how to touch down softly.

We are all jungle cats skinned and placed on display
in markets we didn’t even know existed.
Our meat isn’t sold, but left where we were shot down

and skinned.

And these days I have learned to hate the flies
for being flies,
their lack of compassion for me.

I am angry. Other poets can still humanize
those in whom I can’t see the humanity anymore.
They sign their poems and hand them to me.
This is the closest I will get to understanding.

But maybe tomorrow I will break down for other reasons.

Michele Bachmann "Represents" Minnesota on Hardball

Admitting that the United States is imperfect is not the same as being "anti-American."

States like Minnesota are getting a lot of attention these days as we close in on the final two weeks of the race for the presidency. Political parties and the media alike are looking at the states that could swing the election one way or another. Unfortunately this week one of Minnesota's representatives (and I use that term loosely) Michele Bachmann found a national stage on Chris Matthews' Hardball to fan the flames of Sarah Palin's recent incendiary statements.

Steve Perry, writing for The Minnesota Independent, had this to say about the interview:

"Following Rep. Michele Bachmann's appearance with Chris Matthews [Friday], America is learning what many in Minnesota already knew, which is that putting Bachmann in front of a live microphone is like handing an excitable 15-year-old a bottle of gin and a loaded gun. The only question is when something unspeakable is going to happen."

What seems to be getting the most attention (even prompting a challenge for Bachmann's Congressional seat from within the GOP) is Bachmann's call for the media to investigate members of Congress to see which ones may have "anti-American views."

The problem with statements like this, as well as Sarah Palin's "Our opponent is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists... " is that they allow Americans to never have to learn from the past and change for the better. If something is already perfect then there is no reason to change it.

These statements are in direct contradiction with anything these leaders of the GOP might say about future change. When Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann claim to know that mistakes have been made and, therefore, changes need to be made, well, that is contradictory to the idea of perfection. Either something is perfect or it is imperfect. And (spoiler alert) nothing, including America, is perfect. Therefore, stating that you want to change what is wrong with it should not be seen as being in opposition to loving it.

When we strive for the best possible version of something, we are refusing to sell it short. When we say that the U.S., like everything else, is imperfect, that it needs to be worked on--in order to learn from where we have been and end up in a better place--that in no way should be seen negatively.

And it certainly should not be seen as anti-American. Allowing the country to continue down the same path, deeper and deeper into failure, should, however, be seen that way.



Crossposted at Guernica Magazine

The RNC That Should Have Been

I love the editing in this clip. Just how confused and sort of pissed off McCain looks. (Thanks for sending, Molly.)

Poor Judgment

Way to Go America!

I just voted in every national poll asking the question "Who won last night's VP Debate." I don't think I've ever voted in such a poll, but it seems that for the time being these things play a big role in people's opinions or at least people put a lot of trust in them. So I went ahead and cast my votes for Joe "six pack" Biden. I was pleasantly surprised by these polls. Even the Fox News polls had Joe "commutes in and out of Washington everyday, proving he is not part of the boy's club that is D.C." Biden winning the debate like 59% to 40%. Maybe Americans can see through the note-card reading, tag-line saying, unable to actually answer a question, winking b.s. that was Sarah Palin's side of the debate last night. Thus, Wat to go America!!

If you feel like taking a couple minutes to respond to these polls click here>>>. Every little bit helps, right?

Ok, I wasn't going to write any more about last night's debate, because it already seems like spinning wheels (everyone seems to be on the same page), but I have to talk about the woman who was commenting on msnbc.com immediately following the debate. I think it was Geraldine Anne Ferraro, but I can't find the video. Anyway, she said something along the lines of she wanted her granddaughters to be able to look back on last night as an historic moment for women, and she thought that, given Sarah Palin's performance, they would be able to do that. I am still floored by some women's response to Sarah Palin. It really does seem that only because she is a woman they feel proud. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why is this not more of an insult? Why does any woman who actually has even a minimal amount of intelligence feel anything resembling pride when this woman speaks? I'm baffled by it. If anyone has seen the clip from msnbc.com please let me know, so I can post it.

Point, Counterpoint

I left a response to a post Dustin put up over at Blogs Are About Ego and thought I'd put it over here as well, as a point/counterpoint post. Let the discussion continue:

Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything

It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.

Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson


Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.

But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.

The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.

The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody

You Don't Even Have to Change Sarah Palin's Words to Make Fun of Her on SNL

Watch Sarah Palin's original answer here, then watch the SNL spoof on it. Tina Fey pretty much just reads the transcript.

What to do About the Finacial Crisis: Some Ideas From Great Minds

I have been posting all of Robert Reich's blog posts about the issues on Wall Street lately at Guernica Mag. He was the secretary of labor under President Clinton and gives very clear explanations and solutions to the current woes. Read those here, here, here, here, and here.

And then there's this from Barack Obama late last night:

The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.

Congress and the President are debating a bailout of our financial institutions with a price tag of $700 billion or more in taxpayer dollars. We cannot underestimate our responsibility in taking such an enormous step.

Whatever shape our recovery plan takes, it must be guided by core principles of fairness, balance, and responsibility to one another.

Please sign on to show your support for an economic recovery plan based on the following:

• No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.

• Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.

• Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight.
Show your support and encourage your friends and family to join you:

http://my.barackobama.com/ourplan

The failed economic policies and the same corrupt culture that led us into this mess will not help get us out of it. We need to get to work immediately on reforming the broken government -- and the broken politics -- that allowed this crisis to happen in the first place.

And we have to understand that a recovery package is just the beginning. We have a plan that will guarantee our long-term prosperity -- including tax cuts for 95 percent of families, an economic stimulus package that creates millions of new jobs and leads us towards energy independence, and health care that is affordable to every American.

It won't be easy. The kind of change we're looking for never is.

But if we work together and stand by these principles, we can get through this crisis and emerge a stronger nation.

Thank you,

Barack

Another Conservative for Obama

Any rationally thinking person can see the game John McCain is playing. If I were a conservative (especially one with strong religious beliefs) or a woman I would be offended by his attacks on my intelligence. That is apparently how this guy, Wick Allison, feels. He has a column in his magazine, D, that addresses why he feels Obama is the better presidential candidate. The article is titled "A Conservative for Obama." Read it here>>>

It's refreshing to hear from conservatives who aren't buying McCains BS, especially from one who used to be on the board of directors of the National Review, a magazine that I am not all that familiar with, but in which today this idiotic story was published as the main feature on its home page. Really? If that's the type of nonsense you lead with, I don't feel much of a need to go any deeper.

(Thanks for sending the article, Molly)

"Trouble the Water" Opens in Mpls.

A documentary on Katrina and the government's lack of response is now playing at the Lagoon in Minneapolis. If you're in the Twin Cities go check it out.

Republican's Love Nixon

Though Republicans always extol the virtues of the Reagan years, when it comes time to practice what they preach they are much closer to Nixon.

Illustration by KAL from the Economist


My favorite part of this article from the Economist (Thanks, Trev):

"Nixon's original insight remains as true now as it was in the late
1960s: lots of liberals do, indeed, look down on flyover Americans as
stump-toothed imbeciles and, for some strange reason, lots of flyover Americans resent them for it." (emphasis added)

Why do you care if someone from Vermont or New York thinks you're an idiot?

Link Round Up

It's getting hard just to keep up, isn't it?

Well, since these days I'm wearing my political thoughts and concerns (and anger) on my sleeve more and more, the good people around me are sending me a lot of important links to important stories. Here are a few of those:

Not a lot of national attention given to the police state that was St. Paul during the RNC (if you read local sites like The Minnesota Independent and Twin Cities Daily Planet you were kept abreast.). Here's something from the New York Times>>>

McCain's radical ideas for the health care system would result in fewer young people covered and unsophisticated consumers into a marketplace that is driven and controlled by sophisticated salespeople. It will be the housing crisis all over again (as this article points out): The people selling the product on the "open market" know all the ins and outs and are only out to maximize profits, all the while hoodwinking the consumer who, necessarily based on both parties' job descriptions, knows less. And guess who will pay the price when everyone involved gets burned? If you don't know the answer to that, you haven't been paying attention, which is exactly what this article argues>>>

I've talked about McCain's total reversal of the man he once was on this blog before. Here, in the Washington Post Richard Cohen does it as well. He says, "His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for." I'd take it a step further and take out the "personal" before the "treason." The decision betrayed this country's trust in politicians so greatly that the man should be put on trial. Along with all his cohorts who have committed crimes against this country and many others around the world for the last eight years. I wouldn't change another word in this article>>>

Sarah Palin is Barack Obama's shadow:

In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other."

A call to bring everything into the light to be examined by Deepak Chopra>>>

I was sent an email called Different Outlooks, which I assume many people got--it seems like one of those viral emails that makes it's way around quickly and people talk about it for a while. Still, if you haven't gotten it in your inbox, it's worth checking out. Since the author is, apparently, unknown, I'll just link to the first blog that came up when I googled "Different Outlooks Obama Palin." Looks like you may be able to stock up on some Obama gear at this site, too. Read the list of different outlooks here>>>

For a woman "to vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, 'Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs.'" I have said on this blog that I think John McCain's citizenship should be revoked for his Palin decision. Let me say this as well: If you are a woman and you vote for McCain/Palin, you will have your feminist card revoked. I'm not 100% sure I have the authority to do that, but I do know with a McCain/Palin vote you will do nothing to help the advancement of your gender (check McCain's voting record on issues that are historically of concern for women voters) and in fact will be setting back the cause that so many women--and men--have fought for for so long. Here it is: She is a pretty face who can deliver a prepared speech. That's it. Now some say the same thing about Obama, but, if anyone seriously takes the time to compare the records of the two, the claim does not hold up (and Obama can hold up in an interview; Palin's handlers won't even let her be interviewed after the Charlie Gibson debacle). If you are a woman who votes for McCain/Palin, you have never known a time when girls were shipped across the country to have their babies, where the only people affected by abortion laws were the poor and minorities. And apparently you don't care to learn about those times. More from Gloria Steinem here>>>

An unbelievably important issue that does not get enough attention: election fraud and votes going uncounted. Even if the number is 100 and not the staggeringly high numbers some people claim (180,000 votes not counted in Florida), that would be enough for a massive investigation into this issue. The biggest elephant standing in the room right now is that racism still looms large in this country. We like to think that having Obama as a serious contender for the Presidency sweeps that all under the rug. Well, it doesn't. This county is still a hugely racist one, and the manipulation of votes is a testimony to this. Check out a preview of a documentary about this issue here>>>

My mom said this evening that "The media makes the news, it doesn't report it. And it makes me sick." Well said. Here's a story from Glenn Greenwald on Salon that eerily reports the consequences of this fact (and it is a fact). (This is an old one, and many of you are probably fully aware of this story. Sorry, I'm behind on all the details of it, so I'm posting it here>>>)

Thanks to all who send me this much needed information. It is our responsibility, since the mainstream media doesn't seem to really want it, to spread this news to as many people as we can. Keep talking. If we talk about the issues, the Republicans cannot win an argument. Go ahead, keep talking about Palin, but talk about her lack of qualifications and John McCain's recklessness in choosing her. And talk about all the other issues, too. Every day for the next month and a half. That's all the time we have, so say as much as possible from now until then.

John Cusack and Chris Farley

In an article in the Huffington Post yesterday John Cusack had some insightful and scathing things to say about the McCain/Palin ticket taking the horrid and criminal tactics of the Bush/Cheney years to a whole new level. Scary thought, but one that's becoming easier and easier to imagine the more and more these people talk...and by talk, I mean lie. Can you imagine looking back two years from now if McCain is president (or maybe it would be at his funeral when president Palin is being sworn in) and thinking, "Wow, I sure wish W was still president"? I can. I had no idea that this threat existed. I thought we had seen the worst.

But, you're probably wondering just what Chris Farley has to do with any of this. Well, here's a bit from Cusack's piece at HP:

Now, no one in their right mind -- including reasonable independents and Republicans -- wants to double down on neocon ideology, but here comes the "maverick" and his economic advisers to use the crises we face to implement more "change" and "reform" to the system by privatizing everything in sight. Is this what the American people want? When they are aware of it, the answer is always no. It's the same bullshit re-branded.

Remind you of something?

Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

(From the 1995 movie Tommy Boy starring Chris Farley)

Replace "customer's" with "country's" and "daughter's" with "economy's" and I think we have a pretty dead-on description of what we've had to deal with and what we will continue to deal with if we let McCain/Palin shit in a box and stamp it with the Bush seal of approval, the same seal of approval that, as Cusack put it, allowed for "a fuck of a lot of innocent people die." All the while being branded and guaranteed as the right thing to do.