Light at the end of a tunnel of doom

I'm still reeling from Tuesday's Scott Brown win. Today I'm feeling better.
The Boston Globe has an article today where they go to the three main epicenters of Massachusetts liberalism: Amherst, Cambridge and Provincetown. It felt good to get a reminder of the strength of my State's liberalism. The recent election made me feel a bit ashamed to be here. Then I thought about it.

I put myself in the shoes of a suburban middle class voter. Which is not too difficult because that's what I am. Except I went a little further and meditated on things I have heard my fellow suburbanites say in the last week or so. Anger, frustration, fear and more fear. Mainly economic fear for their own futures. Martha Coakley (and President Obama) have been focused on health care reform. Massachusetts has already reformed, and has nearly universal insurance coverage. Scott Brown could have said nothing and just smiled pretty for the cameras and he would have gotten a lot of votes from Massachusetts suburbanites. As it was, he got more than a lot, he got a whole big lot of suburban votes. Health care reform for the rest of the United States is nice, but it ain't at the top of our priority list. It certainly isn't at the top of mine.

Scott Brown was greeted with great fanfare in Washington, yesterday. At the same time, President Obama was laying out his newly minted priorities in the face of the Republican victory in Massachusetts. He pounded his fist as he admonished the banking industry for contributing to the woes 'on main street'. He railed against the institutionalized corporate money in our political system that was approved by the Supreme Court. He also signaled that he would be willing to consider breaking the healthcare overhaul bill into smaller pieces.

Re-regulating banks and overriding the Supreme Court's decision to grant unlimited political spending to corporations and unions are two ideas that would have a tremendously positive effect on our American financial and political systems. These fantastic practical applications of law to help the working class are a difficult sell in the marketplace of American ideas that the voters hear. The Fox Party (aka Republicans) will stomp their feet, suck their thumbs, and in the deep voice of Limbaugh and the pleading whine of Beck will cry "SOCIALISM!" This will be their cry heading into the mid-term elections. It may win them a few seats or it may win them a lot of seats. I wouldn't place a bet either way.

But good can win here. My country could gain some needed financial and political protections in the very short run that would serve it in the long run. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when the senior Senator from my State hangs out with the new junior Senator. I hope the junior Senator can be manipulated...I mean negotiated with to do the right thing and support these reforms. Now is the time.

How did this happen?

I'm writing this to kill some anxiety as the Brown vs. Coakley results are coming in. It looks like a loss for the good guys. How can this happen in a state with 3-1 Dem-Repub registration? Good question.

Here's my take. The Dem Party walked slowly into this very short race. There was virtually no turnout in the primary and a pretty high turnout in the general. This tells me that the uninformed, normally apathetic middle ground 'independent' voter decided this election. Coakley was the only name candidate in this race, which is how she won the primary and she coasted into the general election as the national Republican machine was pumping huge piles of cash into advertising in the state. Meanwhile, the Dems just coasted.

Brown is a pretty boy who's main campaigners were Mitt Romney, Bill Weld, Doug Flutie and Curt Schilling. He walked through the primary and was a great vessel for the Repub machine to sell, while the TEA Party PAC and their ilk pumped cash into the local advertising market.

The 'independent' voter, the ignorant middle (as I like to call them), buys the shit that is sold to them in advertising. The don't think, they don't remember the recent results of Republican power in the GW Bush era. They buy what is sold, and they bought the Brown candidacy with all the thought and consideration that they would spend in selecting a fatty sandwich for their drive-thru pleasure.

Thanks to the ignorant 'independent' voter and the cash pumped into the state from PACs, the Republicans have pulled off something miraculous. They snagged a Senate seat in the formerly great State of Massachusetts.

Sarah Palin: Someone get this woman a book PLEASE!

Duh of the day. I am sure there will be many more of these. Really stupid answer in many many ways.

Election anxiety and one year of Obama

It hasn't really been a year, but close enough. Next week we Massholes get our chance to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late great Ted Kennedy. I am a bit worried that the bad guys will win. There is some disillusion with the Obama Admin on the left, lots of anger toward Obama on the right, and (just as natural as the right anger) lots of apathy in the middle. Massachusetts is 3-1 Dem-Rebub in registered voters, but low turnout could mean victory for the evil Republicans. The right seems pretty fired up, and the left not so much.

The actions of the Congress and the President have been a bit weak for my liking. I would prefer much a more progressive health care bill, strong financial regulations, more federal stimulative spending, a more progressive tax structure and some actual action on expanding rights for gay Americans. So I understand the disillusion on the left. But I'm not angry. I understand that the right is very powerful, especially within the Democratic Party. Obama has dealt with this strength admirably.

The Obama Administration has negotiated with the legislature and made great progress on all the fronts I have listed, with the exception of gay rights. I cut them slack on the latter because they have had so many more pressing issues to deal with. The Republicans left behind a near wasteland of damage done by their years of ideological foolishness. America's standing in the world is at a low because Bush and his constituents found diplomacy distasteful. America's economic power was shattered by years of Republican and Democratic non-regulation of capital markets. The US health care system has failed lower income citizens and costs have spiraled out of control, mostly for lack of government participation in this market.

I would finish with the message to my disillusioned and angry citizens that this is how our constitutional republic is supposed to function. Elections create winners and losers.
Conservative TEA Party, Republicans: You lost. Keep up the obstructionism and inaccurate rhetoric. That is what you are supposed to do, and it is working. You will gain some ground in the mid-term election.
Disillusioned Democrats: Keep pounding on your people to move left, I want my government to go with you. Cut Obama some slack, he has to work with the very committed right wing. He could act like they don't exist, but that would just be out Bushing the Bushies.
Apathetic Middle: Shut the fuck up if you don't have an opinion. Don't vote, don't argue, don't even try. If you can't work up enough energy to have an opinion, then just plop your ignorant ass in front of your large television and keep your jokes to yourself.

My favorite quote from Ted Kennedy's "True Compass"

"I feel that Ronald Reagan led the country in the wrong direction, sensing and playing into its worst impulses at a moment in history that called desperately for a higher vision. The term 'government' was degraded into a working synonym for 'ineptitude' or even 'hostile entity.'"

Makes me feel not quite so alone in my reaction to Reagan. Kennedy is much kinder to Reagan that I have ever been, but this quote sums up the harm he has done to my country. Harm that is still repeated by his conservative followers every day. I don't want to pull a Glenn Beck crying act, but it breaks my heart that the Reagan ideology has is so strong even today. It undermines the good instincts of people who know their duly elected government can do good things.

Dumbass Economics

Here's a piece of a little argument I had on a comment section of a podunk newspaper site recently:
Me: "Reagan was a great marketing device, creating debt through tax cuts and huge military spending were the reality. Creating TARP, bailing out AIG and Leaman were Reaganomics in action - engineered by supplysiders, Greenspan lovers and other conservatives."

Some conservative dumbass said: "Tax cuts don't create debt, they increase tax revenue but stimulating the economy. How do you think Bush had the money to spend too much. It was actual real money. Not Obama bucks that keeps flying off the presses. Do some research on the tax revenue, not the tax cut."

The views expressed by the dumbass in question are very stubborn. The idea that tax cuts create tax revenue is just stupid. Plainly illogical, historically inaccurate, mathematically impossible, but believed as fact by American Conservative ideologues. What a shameful state of affairs this is.

Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, stimulated economic demand, spurred economic growth and exploded the national debt. GW Bush did the same thing, Obama is trying to do the same thing but is coming up against the old Reagan (and Jack Kemp) supply side argument that tax cuts increase tax revenue.

Did I mention that is stupid?

Obama Nobel funnies

TedObamaCare

A few days ago we donated a few bucks to St. Jude's Hospitals via a campaign at a chain restaurant. We had a little family discussion about sick children, charity, cancer, and death over a nice basket of warm chips and cool salsa. Our 7-year-old son gave this some thought for a few days.

As he was considering the discussion, Ted Kennedy was being buried and I have been toying with how come up with a large co-payment I need to make to have my gallbladder removed in the face of so many other bills and our recession-battered income.

That's the context of a little discussion from last night:
- Dad, what is cancer?
- It is a serious disease that can get into almost any part of a person's body and has to be treated by doctors. Adults and children can get it, and it can kill them.
- Does it cost money to see doctors?
- Yes
- So, it costs money to save your life?
- Yes
- (Sarcastically) Um, that's kind of stupid.
- Yes

I shared a little tidbit of this on my Facebook status, which prompts an unexpected discussion about health care. The fact that this surprised me is a bit of a testament to my stupidity. The Conservative responses were about 'responsibility' of the individual, rights of providers to be paid and other things that seemed to have little to nothing to do with the central point that my son was making.

Conservatives also made the argument that 'government will screw it up worse' with great confidence. Libertarians and Reagan lovers recite the mantra as if it were true and anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid, misinformed or just naive. There's a physical fact that these people do not accept as even possible, it is the economic concept of public goods. Their existence run the gamut from national defense, to societal safety nets like publicly sponsored health care. I'm at a loss as to how to make this argument because arguing that public goods exist is like trying to argue that the earth is round. It just is.

That point my son was making is this: He is a child. He has no money. Lack of money should have nothing whatsoever to do with life or death decisions people make to seek and receive life and health. He is kind of making the point Senator Kennedy made over and over throughout his 47 years in the Senate: Health care should be a right. How can anyone disagree with such a simple concept? Only government (as much as you might hate this fact) can guarantee a right.

Mike Huckabee - Republican Asshole of the Week

“Proponents deny that the bill would devalue older people’s lives, or encourage them to accept less care to save money. But it was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don’t have as long to live might want to just consider taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them,” Huckabee said.

“Yet when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die, of course not,” the former Republican governor said. “He freely did what most of us would do. He chose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments.”

From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26554.html#ixzz0PbNZGHmk

I would have gone with John McCain for snubbing Vicky Kennedy after speaking at Ted's wake, but I'm not sure what motivated him. If he was hiding his tears from the camera, his a bit less of an asshole than he would be if he was pointedly turning away from her.

Whatever the case, Huckabee's comments are horrible on two levels. He misstates Obama's position, then he uses his mistaken premise to claim that Senator Kennedy would disagreed with Obama. Shameful.

What's wrong with this person?

This chick looks very confident and passionate. I wonder if she is a lousy speller or if she really has issues with pubes.

Karl Marx's "Capital"

This summer I'm slogging through Karl Marx's masterpiece (aka "Das Capital"). I borrowed it from the library, and it seems that I have a first American printing from 1911. All the name calling and stupidity from the right wing over the first few months of the Obama Administration made it an attractive thing to do. I am about half way through.

The pages of the copy are thin and fragile. There is at least one section of pages that are missing. Some of the print is spotty, maybe due to age or poor quality of printing in the first place. I feel like I have something beautiful and original in my hands and am eagerly trying to take it into my brain. All this made more fun by the idea that nearly 150 years after it was written, this book is a bit naughty. Marx is a man who is especially vilified by the American right wing; so much so that the left can barely speak his name.

This is some early, crude economic thought and sophisticated political thought that was (like every intellectual pursuit) a product of the time it was conceived and written. Lifting the ideas and placing them into a different historical context twists the beauty of its originality. This is especially true of Marx. I'm trying to keep in mind that it was written in the middle of the 19th century.

It was a time of early industrialism and international trade. It was marked by slave trading, child exploitation, racism, sexism, pollution, dangerous working conditions and near feudal politics in much of Europe. Given that context, it was entirely sensible to make labor vs capital the central antagonism is his economic model.

God supports abortion

Let's assume for a minute that God really did create all that surrounds us. That would mean God created the scheme that women carry babies inside their bodies during the nine months from conception to delivery. God is effectively giving the control of that supposed person (also called children and life by pro-lifers) over to the woman who is carrying them. That implies a tacit approval of abortion (the choice made to end that "life"). Hence, God's scheme of creation is an approval of abortion.

Maybe God didn't create the system I've described and a fundamentalist reading of the manmade scriptures in his supposedly holy books should override the natural laws implied in said creations.

Or maybe we are just a bunch of imperfect human beings with no special insights into God's plans or the ultimate black and white ideas of right and wrong that we often espouse. This being the case, we should allow the Mom to make the decisions her heart tells her to make and not judge her when she does so.

July 4 Semantics

This was the day that the elites in Congress declared themselves independent of The King of England. It was a political step toward the violent means they used to found my country. The word 'freedom' was not the preferred sound bite at the time: 'liberty' was.

Today, 'freedom' is the word that is most often used in connection with 'patriotism' and the July4th-iness of this holiday. It is a word used in politically-minded rhetoric to claim self-righteousness, innocence, and moral superiority. Unfortunately, the general American usage of this word has rendered it nearly meaningless. For a word to be useful, there must be universally (or at least commonly) accepted definition. No such definition currently exists.

All is not lost, however. I like to keep in mind that 'freedom' is just a word. There are many others. I will try to use them in the future.

Milton Friedman's supporters

Milton Friedman is dead, but his ideology is very much alive. This is from Stephen Moore, a right-wing economic writer for the Wall Street Journal late last week:

The myth that the stock-market collapse was due to a failure of Friedman's principles could hardly be more easily refuted. No one was more critical of the Bush spending and debt binge than Friedman. The massive run up in money and easy credit that facilitated the housing and credit bubbles was precisely the foolishness that Friedman spent a lifetime warning against.

That was an easy refutation because it does not defend against the best finger pointed from left to right. My left finger does not point to the fiscal habits or the personality of GW Bush. The finger points to lack of regulation of financial markets. Something that Friedman LOVED with all his cold, 'enlighted self interest'ed heart. I have seen no refutation of this finger by any of the Friedman/Reagan/Jack Kemp lovers of the world.

I have seen some of these defenders attempt a defense by pointing at de-regulators like Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Jimmy Carter. That's a lame defense because the named Democrats were wrong as well. Friedman's ideas were still bad, and worst of all they harmed the world. Another lame right wing defense of their principles is the claim that the real culprit is Bush's "liberal" spending binge. I cry 'bullshit' to both these arguments.

And yeah, I mentioned Jack Kemp who was the last of these three to pass into the great beyond of freedom, God and selfishness. Friedmanite Alan Greenspan has come out and admitted that capital markets were under-regulated, I like to imagine that Friedman would be genius enough to see that the facts now refute some of his principles. I'm certain that the vast majority of his followers are not genius enough. They will hold onto his ideas, wait for the next opportunity to put them into action, damage the world economy again, and blame others in turn.

Democratic Socialism

This is cool:
What is Democratic Socialism
Some stuff I can dig on, without all the right wing spin.

Bush's principles, popularity and pragmatism

Last night, GW Bush spoke for a few minutes and answered some questions in front of the Economic Club of Southern Michigan.

Bush said his 2nd most troubling time was the near economic collapse last year. Told inaction would lead to a crisis worse than the Great Depression, Bush said he decided he had to intervene to prevent widespread stock market collapse and bank failure.

"That's a sobering moment," he said. "I thought about it, and I didn't really want to be that president. So I abandoned free-market principles."

Later in the Q&A portion he was asked how he wanted his 'legacy' to read in the history books. "I hope it is this," Bush said. "'The man showed up in the office with a set of principles and he was unwilling to sacrifice his principles for the sake of popularity.'"

Hmmm....He was will to sacrifice them in the face of facts and practicality over the nation's finances. I think that's a great thing that he should be lauded for. Pity he wasn't willing to give up his principles in the face of facts earlier or on other policy matters.

Oh, and he also said the words "freedom" and "God" countless times. I guess that would be the extent of his principles.

Memorial Day

Strictly speaking, this American holiday is supposed to be about paying tribute to the people who have died in wars in the uniform of the USofA. But nothing is so cut and dried. It never is.
Should we honor those who died fighting against the Union in the US Civil War? Native Americans who died for their nations, against the Federal government? People who served, but didn't die? People who served and died as Americans on the Tory side of the Revolution?

Memorial Day also seems to have something to do with buying mattresses, riding motorcycles and grilling meat over an open flame. It is a day when some Americans make an extra effort to remember a particular loved one who has died (though not necessarily a veteran).

I just watched a baseball game and thought about stuff like this. That's patriotic enough for me. The Minnesota Twins are better than I thought, and I did like the red, white and blue caps that both teams wore. America, I think I'll keep her.

World Government is happening

Yeah, that's right - I'm for increased centralization of world governance. First I came out of the closet as an avowed liberal, then an admitted socialist, and now this. No, this doesn't make me anti-freedom or unpatriotic. And I don't hate God either. It is just more of my confrontational pragmatism that is at work.

This has been a long, slow evolution since men first came together to divide up the fish and game they killed, and the women they mated with. It is seen in the origins of the United States of America. All the big world trends point toward a smaller world, and a necessarily more global form of government.

There are many among us who hate this. From anti-globalisation lefties, anti-UN and pro-StatesRights righties, to '9-11 Truthers' the falling barriers to world cooperation and order are demonized and fought. But this trend is unstoppable. It can be resisted and slowed but the world is getting smaller. Little by little, day by day we are linked by technology into a more interdependent world. This makes more interdependent nation-states inevitable.

Better to roll with it, and make it work than to resist it completely.

Patriots and Socialists

American right-wingers are working hard to frame current political thought and issues around these two words. They want us to think that Democrat = Socialist and Republican = Patriot. I've been bumping up against it quite a lot lately. The debate around buzzwords is so stupid, I find it hard to wrap my mind around it. I want to go on more about this silliness soon, but in the meantime Bill Maher wrote a nice rant about it, quoted here:

There's a name for people who do the right thing for their country, even if it involves sacrifice. And no, it's not "socialists." It's "patriots." We all know the modern definition of a patriot: It's the person who pays the least taxes and listens to the most A.M. radio. But that wasn't what it always meant.

Patriots want their fellow citizens to be able to go to the hospital. They want to make sure no one sells them bread made out of Chinese skulls. They want a country where the deer and the antelope can still play - and not just so Sarah Palin can shoot them from a helicopter. Patriots want to burn less coal and buy less oil. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof and Ronald Reagan had them removed. You've heard of "opposite marriage"? This is "opposite patriotism."

Rush Limbaugh celebrated this Earth Day by praising coal-fired power plants and the plastic bag, while Glenn Beck cheered a man on while he cut down trees.

During the campaign, Obama suggested that one simple thing Americans could do to help with fuel-efficiency was check their car's tire pressure. And Republicans freaked, because to them, every suggestion for the common good is a direct attack on their personal liberty, and it's unpatriotic to interfere with anyone's God-given right to be big, dumb and selfish.

When the President suggests things that will help the greater good, that's not a slight against your fragile manhood. I know, you're a rugged individualist. But you're not - you're just a schmuck.

Going back to Reagan, all of our leaders have predictably and reliably told us that government is always the problem, never you my precious, perfect American citizen. You are always perfect just the way you are, like a precious little snowflake. A beautiful, precious, 350-pound, pig-ignorant snowflake.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/05/08/2009-05-08_americans_please_wash_hands_before_criticizing_obama.html#ixzz0F3lV9XPh&B

The Lying Liberal

I supported John Edwards' primary run for President. His positions on issues of governmental policy were the most similar to my own. He did not seem a particularly down to earth guy. As it turned out, he was treating his wife and family very badly during this time. I make no excuse or have no regret for supporting his candidacy.

You see, as a thinking person I see a difference between government policies that best serve my country and private behaviour that serves or dis serves individuals. I find these sorts of private scandals entertaining, but I'm not looking for proof of hypocrisy in my politicians. I'm looking for government policies that are good for my country.

So, the next time the headlines are full of a public offical taking drugs, cheating on their spouse, nailing a prostitute, reaching between stalls in a public toilet, etc. I will laugh and enjoy the spectacle. It doesn't color my liberal ideals one little bit. For me, liberalism's core principle is pragmatism in public policy. Hypocrisy between public and private behavior does not matter.