Politics of Globalism

I've just finished a thoughtful book on Globalism by Joseph Stiglitz. I love this type of progressive, economic/political stuff. It is a brain massage that tickles me in the places my brain likes.
The world is getting smaller. Democrats are progressive, which means they wish to make the world (as it is progressing) work for the many. Republicans are conservative and reactionary, meaning they wish to make the world (as it is progressing) work for the few in their constituency. Progressives want to see stronger international governance (UN, World Bank, World Trade Organization, etc.). Conservatives (of the US variety) wish to see weaker international governance, so that industialized and militarized powers can have free reign to extend their power.
This is an interesting juxtaposition to the political philosophies of America's founding fathers. The early USofA was a federation of independent states and political schools of thought were divided along the lines of those who wanted stronger national governance vs those who wished it to be weaker. What's interesting to me is that *politically* the Democrat-Republican school of thought (against centralisation) defeated the Federalist (pro-centralisation) school. But that effectively, history trumped the political struggle and put a strong central government into place by necessity as the states became more and more interdependent.
I hope the same thing happens in today's emerging global political economy. In the US, the Conservative (anti global governance) forces are winning the policitcal struggle for power. That's a drag, but hopefully the march of history will sweep these short-run gains away in a progression toward global governance.

Protection of Marriage in Massachusetts

From The Boston Globe: "In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," Governor Deval Patrick told a cheering crowd of gay-marriage advocates after the results of the Constitutional Convention were announced. "Today's vote is not just a vote for marriage equality. It was a vote for equality itself."

With Therese Murray (of the great District of fomrerly puritan Plymouth) at the gavel.

Bravo! The good guys won one! Gay people will continue to have the right to marry each other through at least 2012. Freedom, liberty and fairness have won again. Hopefully, other states will be just a morally correct as Massachusetts in the near future. Hooray for "activist judges" and the wise legistlators of this great state!

Dems looking to fix Alternative Minimum Tax problems

re: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702146_pf.html
Democratic legislators are trying to do something sensible - eliminate the huge tax increase placed on some middle class taxpayers and make up the revenue loss by a small tax increase on the very rich. The Republican spin machine has not gotten into gear to squash this in the news media yet, but it will. To no one's surprise, the right spinning catchphrase will be something along the lines of "Democrats want to raise taxes/there they go again" or some such poop.

Unfortunately, the Dems don't have such a spin machine and don't have enough power in the legislature to get past the 'obstructionist' 'partisan' 'political theatre' that the Repubs will employ. The bill will die.

Conservative media bias and Mitt

From the last Republican Presidential Debate:
Wolf: "Knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?"
Romney: "If Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction...we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in."
Wolf rephrased.
Romney - "You can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the U.N. resolutions, we wouldn't be having this -- this discussion."

Um...Mitt...Saddam Hussein DID LET THE INSPECTORS IN!!!! Were you too busy lying to the people of Massachusetts then to pay attention to the run up to war!?!?!?!?!?

Grrrr...Mitt Romney is a clueless liar with good hair and a pretty smile. The media gave him a pass on this one. Not one word about it after the debate.

Politicians are People

A theory on swing voters: A large portion of them choose their candidate based soley on the attractiveness of the image they project. These voters care little or nothing for issues of policy. They want a candidate that looks good to them on TV and in print, and that they expect will continue to look good when they hold office. Two quotes from this type of voter sticks in my mind: 1) "I vote for the man not the party" 2) "Anyone who always votes for the same party is an idiot".

I don't vote for "the man" and I always vote Democratic in general elections. I'm sure that "issues of character" have some role in my own decision-making during primary season, but I make every intellectual effort to remember that I'm not voting for my favorite celebrity. I try to remember that an elected offical is someone who makes decisions about how my country is run, before they are a name and face in the news for me to feel good or bad about.

Voting for a politician based on their profile in People Magazine is an ugly reality of participatory democracy in a media saturated culture. If we let the unwashed ignorant masses have a say, this kind of unfortunate stupidity is unavoidable.