DemoLiberal : The End of Western Civilization As We Know It!

2011-01-28T05:50:00.006-06:00

Blow-Hard Republicans and Federal Budget Facts

It's quite a treat to watch Republicans (sorry, Tea Party-ers) this year. The first big win of course came last year when the Democrat-controlled Congress voted to extend all tax cuts from 2001, including approx. $700 billion for tax brackets above $250K.

Low and behold, here come the deficit numbers for 2011, and estimated $1.4 trillion! How did this happen? Had Democrats stood there ground and only extended the tax cuts for middle and lower incomes, one could presume the deficit would only be about $700 billion. Better yet, let all the tax cuts expire (with the exception of a few credits) and voila virtually no deficit.

Blame it on health care reform and Social Security...

Because people have an attention span of about 43 seconds, Republicans are able to convince a large number of people that the health care reform passed last year is an overbearing burden on the federal budget. In fact, as reported by every news outlet, over 10 years the health care reform legislation actually lowers the deficit. I don't really care for how it does it, but it does (barring any changes that will most likely come).

And what is with all the Social Security defecit crap. Social Security is a completely separate budget item. It currently runs a modest surplus and is not counted in general deficit numbers. As such, Social Security reform would not change the deficit projections for this year or any year. Is reform necessary? Sure, but using the current budget deficit as a catalyst is deceptive.

Now for the truth...

Medicare and Defense spending...

Together, Medicare and Defense eat up approximately 42% of the budget. Medicare more or less pays for itself although it does run deficits. Defense spending while necessary, should not be this large. Veterans affairs is a separate budget item in case you were curious.

Defense contracts for Cold War technology is probably the dumbest thing we could spend money on. Our current military conflicts are close contact, ground operations that need specialized field equipment, not long-range bombers. Spend money on homegrown forces and not Xe (AKA Blackwater) mercenaries.

Tax Increases...

Nobody wants to say it, but working people in this country don't pay enough taxes. For industrial western democracies, citizens of the United States has an inordinately low tax burden. Partly because of tradition, but mostly because of political flaccidity. Federal expenses (not all good mind you) have consistently gone up from year to year, but actual tax rates have decreased. Not that we haven't had a few tax hikes in the last 30 years, but not enough to offset. Real tax reform should minimally include more/higher tax brackets, elimination of corporate taxes, increase in dividend taxes, and removal of the Social Security cap. It's a painful pill to swallow, but it's been coming for years.

Drug War...

It's not a huge budget item, but the cost of the "War on Drugs" is more than just outlays for DEA agents. There is a human cost that we cannot possibly put a price on, not to mention the burden on state and local governments.

Summary...

The Federal Budget is out of control... actually it's out of balance. We need to sort out our priorities and raise revenues to meet our needs. The Tea Party notion of lower taxation and more minimal government is a noble one, but really impractical when taken line by line. We need common sense and reasonable discord, two things we won't see from the current Congress.

2010-11-06T01:58:00.005-05:00

Election Results: What have we learned?

Not only did Rand Paul win in the U.S. Senate race here, but Republicans nearly swept the ballot locally (with the exception of city precincts, thank god). State Sen. David Boswell lost reelection in what should have been a easy win. Meanwhile, every U.S. Representative incumbent won reelection including two Dems.

I don't know about you, but I didn't learn shit!

I suppose there is a general anxiety or fear out there, but no real reason for the mixed results. Why did John Yarmuth (D-KY3) win? Why not Jack Conway (okay, Rand Paul was a rock star). David Boswell was easily the most popular person on the ballot in Daviess County (67% job approval as of Oct. 1). What the frick?

Obama can finally be President.

Barack "Pussyfoot" Obama can finally give up on this bipartisan bull and actually push some meaningful legislation. Maybe he can submit a budget that cuts spending more than Republican alternatives. That would be hilarious. Let's see how serious these "teabaggers" are about fiscal sanity when presented with a $200 billion military budget cut. How about a truly comprehensive immigration policy that goes after the source of the problem: Illegal hiring?

Let's face it, nothing meaningful is going to get done until the summer of 2012 when people are absorbed in the Presidential contest. Then we'll start seeing some pandering to voters. Maybe Obama's challenger will be a Senator or Representative. Force him/her to vote against something really popular like Bush did to Kerry in '04.

Here's to hoping.

2010-05-12T02:48:00.002-05:00

TOP 5 Policy Changes Yet To Be

Still Up!

1. Proportional Public Campaign Finance

Either ban or significantly limit private funding for elections. Give political parties/candidates, funding based on previous election results. This would require elections with automatic runoffs.

2. Tax Free Investment

Of course you should pay taxes on money you earn (including deductibles). But you should be able to deduct 100% of cash investment that is not "cashed out." If you touch it (AKA sell), it's income and you pay taxes on it. Of course there should still be a Roth IRA option for a limited amount of your investing in mutual funds. Just think, tax-free Roth! Eliminate capital gains and losses.

3. Progressive Taxation With Unlimited Deductions

We really need to raise taxes. Really. Personalized tax brackets. Taxable income is $20,000; You pay 10% flat. Taxable income is $21,000; You pay 10.1% flat. Something like that. Plus, every expense that is necessary or required by law would be fully tax deductible regardless of income. Increase personal exemption and eliminate tax credits. People with high income and low expenses would see a tax increase.

4. Nuclear Power

Of course, I'm nearly guaranteeing a nuclear disaster of epic proportion, but compared to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, nuclear meltdown almost seems preferable. At least we have a plan for that. Even environmentalists are starting to get on board with this one.

5. Medicare Buy-In

The thing that Lieberman supported before opposing it. At least start by letting citizens 55 and older to buy Medicare at a predetermined, income sensitive premium. Just because we're getting rid of preexisting conditions doesn't mean health care will be affordable for these people.

Okay, I'm going to bed. This is getting ridiculous. Fun though.

2010-05-12T02:04:00.004-05:00

Another Late Night (Early Morning) Rant

Ya know, it seems I can't have a coherent string of thoughts in the middle of the day. But for some reason, if I stay up all night: Verbal diarrhea!

It's been a while, so let's see what I can cover.

Health Care Reform

We went from "Universal Health Care" to "Affordable Health Care" to "Health Care Reform". What a year! I would warn conservatives that while "ObamaCare" might seem like a catchy buzzword, linking your opposition to health care reform while simultaneously bashing it, will backfire once many of the provisions become active. You opposed "exchanges" and "banning pre-existing conditions" and "free physicals" and "end-of-life counseling?" Are you friggin' nuts? If I were Obama, I would start using "ObamaCare" as part of my reelection slogan now.

Drill Baby, Dr..., OOPS! Plug Baby, Plug!!

I feel for President Obama. Just as he was trying to build support among moderate Republicans (all 3.5 of them) for "Cap and Trade" legislation by dropping the ban on offshore oil drilling, BP has a huge offshore drilling disaster. Kinda like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. AARGH!

On the upside, Mr. Obama has taken the pragmatic pro-nuclear power approach. Hopefully, that works out a little better.

Tanning Bed + Arizona = Awkward Questions

I don't look illegal...Do I?

I actually feel bad for the police and sheriffs in Arizona. One law just turned a bunch of consummate professionals into career racists. Of course the real racists are having a field day.

Tea Partay!!!

The tea party movement, or--as it used to be called--the Republican Party, has so far successfully defeated two of its power players in major senate races. Charlie Crist is trying to pull a "Lieberman" in Florida and I don't know what the hell Bob Bennett is going to do. John McCain is officially on notice.

Of course, this could be good for Dems come November. If Republicans try to overplay their hand with extremely conservative candidates, moderate Democrats will capitalize. I'm interested to see what happens in the KY primaries next week. Rand Paul appears to be riding daddy's last name to a big win. Right now, I'm supporting Dr. Daniel Mongiardo for the Democratic side. He's actually been a vocal supporter of President Obama since early 2008. Jack Conway is a fairly unknown quantity to me, but seems like he could be a superstar in the party. (He's a pretty-boy* with a good head on his shoulders.) Either way, I like our chances in November.

So far, spring has been pretty good to us progressives. I'm going to research Elana Kagan a bit more before I have a full-fledged rant about her as Obama's SCOTUS Justice nominee. Maybe I'll have another late night before summer.

*Being a person of average appearance, I've always been distrustful of attractive people. They tend to "play" a bit more than the rest of us. My first real political support went to Paul Tsongas in 1992 (I was 16), then Howard Dean in 2004, followed by Bill Richardson in 2008. Clearly, I like 'em average. No offense Dr. Mongiardo!

2009-08-06T09:18:00.005-05:00

Follow the White Rabbit

Just for fun, imagine a conservative Republican paradise.

1. An unregulated free market where the individual thrives, corporations (free from government oppression) can finally pay people what they are worth and provide all the medical care families need, and education is promoted by business interests that can be sensitive to the needs of the local population.

2. Taxes are no longer a problem. They have been eradicated and replaced by voluntary "contributions" to government officials. Given the opportunity to grow tax free, businesses are able to hire more and more people, creating a virtually full employment economy. Because of the amazing GDP growth and the lack of recession and depression concerns, the government enjoys a revenue surplus and is able to fully fund the military.

3. Since people are building wealth at an accelerated pace, tithing in churches reaches an all time high. This allows congregations to increase charitable giving and set up new parochial schools in areas without business-sponsored education opportunities.

4. Abortion is banned in all 50 states and all territories. Higher population growth gives corporations more investors and more opportunities to exploit labor pools that had previously made migrant workers necessary.

5. Owing to such increased profitability, people no longer participate in insider trading, "ledger fixing," and fake hedge funds.

6. Only people who are over age 18 with a high school education are allowed to get married and have children. Because there are no longer tax benefits to it, homosexuals abandon the right to be legally married.

7. The Supreme Court uses the Bible in some landmark decisions, primarily the Ten Commandments. Participating in extramarital sexual relationships is made illegal, execution is approved for blasphemy, and environmental concerns are assuaged because the world is going to end soon anyway. Creationism is allowed to be taught in all schools with no requirements for a purely "science-based" curriculum.

I could go on and on (probably will), but wouldn't that world be just perfect?

Amen.

2009-07-29T10:43:00.002-05:00

American Health Care is Awesome...

...if you can afford it.

I am so tired of the American "exceptionalists" who can't seem to get their heads around several concepts:

1. This is not 1949!

Most families have to have two incomes. CEO's no longer make $250,000 a year. Doctors in most of America don't make house calls. Unions don't control "jack squat." The average person can not afford to pay "retail" for medical procedures.

2. This is not 1993!

Health insurance premiums are not longer payable and not usually paid fully by employers--even the big ones. Drug costs are expanding beyond the reach of even well-to-do seniors. America is even further behind in cost efficiency of health care and ridiculously behind most industrialized nations in infant mortality.

3. Health Care is not a right, but it is necessary!

Who would deny their child or other loved one a life-saving or life-improving medical procedure if given the opportunity? Sadly, many people have been denied just that by a profits driven health insurance system that survives principally by denying coverage, reducing coverage, or shorting the health care professionals of just compensation on the grounds that it cuts into the bottom line.

I heard Rush Limbaugh saying the other day that health insurance should be a catastrophic care only system like car insurance or home insurance. The problem with that is that hardly anyone can currently afford to pay for ANY health care out of pocket. And who decides what is "catastrophic" or "critical?" Shouldn't citizens of the best nation on the planet be allowed to choose when a medical situation becomes urgent enough to be taken care of. The reason health insurance doesn't work is not because people take advantage of the system. Imagine the nerve of someone wanting to have a PSA or a mammogram just so they can avoid the "inconvenience" of having cancer later in life! Sure, car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes or transmission repair, or additional windshield wiper blades that might help avoid vision problems leading to an accident. But car insurance is also seen by many as a "crock of shit" or a "boondoggle," because the repairs it covers minus the deductibles can be many times less than the premiums paid by the car owner. Oh, and if you have more than three accidents in a given time frame, they can drop you. Would Limbaugh's health care have similar caveats?

The truth of the matter is that we can't afford not to have effective, efficient health care within reach of all Americans. America becomes less "exceptional" every day we don't.

2009-06-24T22:42:00.003-05:00

Iranian Unrest, Disappearing Governor, and Don't Ask-Don't Tell

This has been the most interesting two weeks of the year so far...

1. Mahmoud Ahmadenijad is re-elected as President of Iran?

Amid widespread fervor for a reform candidate by the name of Mousavi, the little man (I call him "brown Dubya"), overwhelmingly wins re-election by a 2-to-1 margin. Huh? Well, maybe. Although we don't know the exact circumstances of the election, something fishy is going on. The Supreme Leader of Iran is banning communication and ordering wholesale slaughter of anyone protesting the election results. Dissent is being squelched on a level that an American can hardly imagine. On the upside, fissures in the ruling class are being exposed, and the roots of a new revolution are being seen.
Not to be outdone by President Obama, many Republicans such as John McCain (and his adopted son Lindsay Graham) are calling for a Reagan-style "...tear down this wall" type speech as if it would be a good idea. Imagine, if you will, the "Great Satan" U.S. preaching to the ruling class of Iran and trying to position itself with Mousavi in a sponsoring role. The fissures now evident among the clerics would be erased, Mousavi would probably be imprisoned, and protesters would have to fight an even steeper uphill battle against the ruling class to be heard. I for one am really glad Mr. McCain did not win the Presidency.

2. Oh, Gov. Mark "I thought the Appalachian Mountains were in Argentina" Sanford

Granted, Mr. Sanford is not the first person in power to try and get away with an extramarital affair while in office, but this guy has some cajones to leave his office for five days without telling his staff or other government officials (like the Lt. Governor) where he was going or how to contact him. He essentially created a constitutional crisis in South Carolina because he had an imperative from the Mrs. to get the hell out of the house. Then, instead of going hiking on the Appalachian Trail--as was believed by his staff, he went to Argentina to supposedly meet with or "break it off" with his mistress. What the ....

3. Finally, Obama is dragging his feet on Military policy on openly-gay servicemen and women.

Is this the 21st Century? Gays in the military is not as controversial a subject as it once was. It turns out, even though a change of law IS required to overturn "Don't ask, don't tell," the President has the unique ability as Commander-in-Chief to direct military policy. In other words, he can suspend any active policy of the US military including the enforcement of discharge policies regarding sexual orientation. It's the right thing to do and Obama needs to stop pussy-footing around and get it done.

2009-06-14T01:37:00.005-05:00

Health Care Addendum:

Let me speak to my idea (although I can't claim credit) of a "triple-payer" health care system.

First of all, the term "triple-payer" is a direct restructuring of the term "single-payer." Neither single nor triple-payer systems are adequately described by those terms.

Here's the basics...See what you think.

1. The federal government would not provide health insurance coverage, simply create the nations largest health care group with very specific coverage. Many states and localities already do this to keep down costs.

2. Private and "public" health insurance providers would send blind bids (along with "capacity statements"*) to a central Health Care office for review.

3. The third lowest "per capita" bid (could be neither the highest or lowest bid) from across the nation would be chosen. An offer to buy coverage up to the capacity limit set forth by the individual health insurance providers would be sent by the federal government. Companies would then accept or reject participation in the program. Providers, whether or not they participate, could still sell insurance as a supplement privately.

4. Individuals would then "buy" insurance from the provider of their choice (certain regions would have limited options). Premiums would be based on income, payable to the federal government, and there would be a maximum contribution. Coverage would be mandatory (for those of you keeping track, I've changed my position here).

5. Ideally, the plan would be free from deductibles although a co-insurance of 10-20% would be reasonable for all procedures. Every person would receive one free physical and three urgent care visits per year. Insurance would be individual and portable. No pre-existing conditions.

Pros: Obviously, a health care plan based on income makes this truly Universal and affordable. There would not be an inordinate amount of increased taxation. Employers could still cover workers by paying the "premium tax" on behalf of the employee as part of a salary package. Private insurance companies would not be shut down or made illegal, thereby salvaging a major portion of the economy from collapse. A co-insurance policy allows doctors and hospitals some leeway in the amount of charges. No more Medicare.#

Cons: It's not a "free" system based on a progressive tax model like other countries offer. It is possible that insurers could learn to work together and "game" the system during bidding, driving up overall costs to the government. Regions lacking in accepted bids would likely be "farmed out" to providers in other regions (technology makes this less of an issue, however). Oh yeah, no more Medicare.#

Overall, I think it's a good plan. It takes what is best about the American health care system and tries to incorporate a level of price control and cooperative buying to save the taxpayer trillions of dollars. Like all health care plans, it has faults, but I hope members of Congress and the President seriously consider something like it.

* A "capacity statement" simply estimates the number of people a provider can reasonably cover. It should also include business statistics like workforce and years in service.
# Medicare is a beautiful idea but a horribly inefficient bureaucracy. This new plan takes over the job with few real changes to the individual. No income = No premium.

2009-06-14T00:57:00.004-05:00

WHOA!! Universal Health Care?

Here's the thing...

President Obama is taking on every possible issue in his first year in office. The problem is that he and many Democrats in the Senate seem to think they are still out of power. Why did the stimulus package have tax cuts? Oh yeah, capitulation to the Republicans. That was an extra 250+ billion that could have been used to confront some other issues. Now we are going to have an extended presence in Iraq for the next year. We're getting bogged down in Afghanistan and Pakistan, virtually eradicating any savings we might expect from a "draw down" in Iraq. Now, my party, the party of "Inclusion" is walking on egg shells when it comes to Health Care.

The first problem I have with the preliminary impressions of Obama's health plan is coverage. Voluntary coverage, though it appeals to the American sense of independence, is not good enough. Again, details are hard to come by. Perhaps health coverage of some sort will end up being required by the federal government. Who knows?

Another problem is perception. Regardless of whether this plan passes, and regardless of how good and inexpensive the coverage is, it may be difficult to get a significant part of the population to buy into it. Think about public transportation. In areas where affluent or middle class people use public transportation, it thrives and is able to grow in service quality and coverage. If the only people using public transportation are poor, the local government ends up throwing "good money after bad" in an effort to keep it available. The same could happen to a voluntary public health care plan.

Democrats will have to step up and ask for single payer health care or some similar idea (like my triple-payer plan), or they will be at the forefront of a potential failure that only lends credibility to the Republican arguments about government intervention and efficiency. It could be several election cycles before we recover from that.

Think hard Dems! We need leadership on this issue. In addition to health care, we need to confront immigration, tax policy, education, and environmental issues. Don't waste your time on a health care plan that will fail to win over the American people. It will cost you political capital on everything else you try to do.

2009-05-30T08:30:00.003-05:00

Sonia Sotomayor

It's official. President Obama is a pragmatist. Thank god!

First, Ms. Sotomayor is female and Hispanic. The Court is not well represented in these areas. Even a jury has to be made up of ones peers. Call it Affirmative Action or call it pandering, Obama knows what he's doing.

Second, Judge Sotomayor is a moderate. I think many hard line liberals expected Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court to be more of an activist in the areas of abortion and gay rights. Let me say it is unclear how Ms. Sotomayor would rule in these areas, but her other rulings have tended to the strict adherence to judicial precedent. In other words, privacy rights are safe and gay rights are still in question.

Third, Obama's pick will make Republicans eat crow (just like David Souter did for Dems). Based on the Judge's overarching judicial philosophy, she will probably come down on the side of moderates and conservatives just as often if not more so than the liberals. In other words, Obama's pick will move the Court to the "Right."

Lastly, Ms. Sotomayor is helping to bring out the far right's fear of women and Hispanics. Watching Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Buchanan squirm at the thought of a bilingual Justice on the Supreme Court made my week.

2009-05-15T00:30:00.003-05:00

Why I'm A Socialist

A. Socialism is the rule NOT the exception
B. Government taking care of problems is better than government ignoring problems.
C. It just sounds fun.
D. I'm not a fascist.

Why I'm A Libertarian

A. People left to their own devices will evolve.
B. I trust my judgment over anyone in public life.
C. Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
D. I'm fond of speaking my mind.

Why I'm A Democrat

A. It's the only party left.
B. They've always accepted me as I am.
C. Better picnics than Republicans.
D. Probably some genetic defect.

Why I'm A Pragmatist

A. What a stupid, useless question.

Why I'm A Male Chauvinist

A. If you have to ask, you must be a woman.
B. I'm married.
C. I have two daughters.
D. I'm male.

Why I'm A Secular Progressive

A. Religion is divisive and frankly hurtful.
B. I believe in Freedom.
C. The only way to ensure free religion is to remove it from the public arena.
D. I just like pissing off Bill O'Reilly.

Why...

A. 52

DL out.

2007-12-12T15:15:00.000-06:00

Republican/Democrat Primary Rundown

I think that it's time to evaluate what's happening in this big cluster@#%* called a Presidential Primary.

First off, this kind of open field is nearly unprecedented. The only thing that would make it more confusing is if we had a three party system (which we should).

Secondly, the Democrats are far too positive about their choices than they should be, while Republicans have the opposite problem.

Thirdly, the top three candidates on either side are not the most qualified or the least divisive of the parties' offerings. This still confounds me.

Fourth(ly?), Hillary Clinton is a disaster waiting to happen. Democrats would be wise to dump her before she becomes a liability.

In the Fifth place, Rudy Giuliani should likewise be dumped before he splits the Republican party in two. Everything they have built for the last 30 years would be destroyed in one election cycle.

Sixthish, the writer's union strike is seriously effecting my mood. All my favorite television shows are having truncated seasons. Unless something gets resolved soon, we're going to be forced to watch all 24 hours of the 24 hour cable news outlets' programming.

Lastly, Bill Richardson for President!

2007-11-29T15:06:00.000-06:00

The Worst Person in the World*

3rd Worst: Bill Clinton

After spending 5 years defending the Bush administration's WMD screw-up in Iraq, the former President is now (and apparently has always been) in ardent opposition to the war. I remember being so mad at him for calling in to Larry King in early 2003 and basically regurgitating the same bull as the Bush people. Plus, he's stumping for his wife, arguably the most pro-war Democrat running. Talk about bad.

2nd Worst: Mitt Romney

Apparently (according to an exchange about torture with John McCain last night), we can't discuss what is "acceptable" as a culture. When asked if "water boarding" was a legitimate tool in interrogating terrorists, Governor Romney said that "as a candidate for President" he couldn't discuss that. But when it comes to abortion, that "right" should be banned. It's apparently okay to discuss unacceptable behavior when it comes to the behavior of average people, but not President Mitt Romney.

THE Worst: Osama bin Laden

For still breathing.

*"The Worst Person in the World" is inspired by, but is not in affiliation with Countdown on MSNBC

2007-10-30T22:41:00.000-05:00

Post Debate Run-Down

Senator Clinton...Senator Edwards...Senator Obama...back to you Senator Clinton...

The most frustrating thing about these debates is the ineptitude of the "moderators."
I can't stand Tim Russert anyway, but Brian Williams was just following the Russert playbook with regard to questions asked. The question to Kucinich about UFO's was utterly ridiculous. Russert was able to "get" Hillary with a question about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. It was the first time I've ever seen her flustered when trying to express herself. Thankfully, the other candidates are no longer letting her get away with dodging questions and speaking out both sides of her mouth.

Here's the run-down of worst to best:

7. Dennis Kucinich: While I appreciate your candor and honesty, you sound more and more like a socialist everytime you speak. While I'm sure a great many of your supporters like that sort of thing, most Democrats won't buy it. Try to hold your composure when talking about ET's.

6. Barack Obama: Call it coming short of expectations. "Coming out hard against Hillary" means getting a little more energetic in your responses. You have the best speaking voice in the field. Let it get fired up!

5. Bill Richardson: I'm starting to get a little fed up with your performances. I really think you are the most qualified candidate on either side and you have the right ideas. Just start ignoring the questions that are asked like everybody else. Get some shit started. Oh, and don't defend Hillary!

4. Hillary Clinton: For the first time, I can honestly say you lost a debate. This one was all about you. Howard Dean had a similar moment in 2003. And guess who took him down...

3. John Edwards: By far the best anti-Hillary of the night. You didn't handle the trial lawyer contributions rebuttal by Sen. Dodd very well. You always seem a little too privileged to be the champion of the lower and middle classes. Maybe that's unfair, but it's a common perception.

2. Chris Dodd: I think you had the fewest minutes of the night, but they were all quality minutes. You were the first person to give the "right" answer on DL's for IA's without sounding like you were hedging your bets. Maybe Connecticut's illegal population is insignificant enough for you to feel no fear. Either way, you took Sen. Clinton down a peg or two.

1. Joe Biden: I thought you had the best debate performance, even though I think John Edwards technically won. It all came down to the minutes you were given. I have the feeling that the next debate will give you more time to deliver those gems for which you are famous. "Gaffe machine" or not, kudos to you. "Rudy Giuliani...a noun, a verb, and 9/11..." Priceless!

2007-10-18T06:11:00.000-05:00

Kill a Child, Save a Nation

I'm really tired of being told I can't have or do something because of some other dumbass that has or does something dangerous. The latest culprit is over-the-counter pediatric medicine. ApPARENTly, a few dozen kids a year have died as a result of either overdosing by PARENTS or intolerances to medications that are congenital or genetic in nature (inherited from PARENTS). Yet the hundreds of thousands of young children and infants who benefit from these medications with no serious complications are at risk of losing helpful products because of a few dumbass PARENTS (who, by the way, tend to have dumbass kids) and some unfortunate children with rare disorders that will likely incapacitate or kill them later in life anyway.

I'm sorry if I sound a little ticked off, but this isn't the first time this kind of crap has been presented as reasonable thinking by so-called "child advocacy" groups. Many states have made mandatory child restraint laws, products with extremely low potential for harm are constantly being recalled, and PARENTS' hands are tied quite effectively when it comes to forms of discipline. Enough is enough people!

No matter how many protections you put in place, people die. I know it's sad, and we should do what is reasonable to protect everyone we can, but you can't save everybody. Accidents happen. Mistakes in judgement take place. You can't legislate or regulate common sense and caution. It never works.

I'm not opposed to labelling for product dangers. I'm not opposed to safety standards and purity standards (we should have to worry about how much lead our water supply has or whether our child restraint will fall apart at 40 miles-an-hour). But there is a big difference between providing good products and good information as opposed to trying to stop people from doing stupid things. I've never known anyone whose child had died as a result of correct dosage of an over-the-counter drug. Only children with particularly rare disorders (i.e., the inability to process dextromethorphane) are at any real risk otherwise.

Non-prescription drugs have saved me alot of urgent care and emergency room visits over the years with my children. It's amazing how fast a "little sniffle" can turn into a full-blown chest cold without prevention. Tying PARENTS' and doctors' hands from doing what's right for your child's health is no job of the federal government. Just make sure the medicine is free from lead, mercury, or other poisons that aren't listed on the label. Hell, let 'em put out a pure lead supplement, I don't care. If people are dumb enough to give it to their kids, they're probably doing us a favor anyway.

2007-09-07T00:54:00.000-05:00

Progressive, Fair Taxation

Here are some thoughts on tax reform...

I've been reading alot about the so-called "Fair Tax" that is being thrown around by conservatives and even some of my fellows in the Radical Center. First of all, the tax is at best simple. At worst it is nearly regressive (I say "nearly" because I have run tax models with lower tax burdens for lower income people. Without considerable spending by wealthy people, however, the tax can become practically regressive. Therefore, I submit that a progressive income tax should remain. I would insist on some pretty major changes (an overhaul if you will), but the spirit of our current tax system should remain.

There should be built into the tax code deductions for necessary expenses, investment, and state-mandated fees. The personal exemption should be increased to about $10,000 per person ($15,000 for military). I would rid the tax code of complicated tax credits. There would no longer be limits or exceptions with regard to deductions. And if a negative tax liability is realized, a portion (probably 10%) should be credited to the household up to 100% of payroll taxes paid.

In essence, a family of four would not pay any taxes, and would probably see a credit for income less than $40,000 (+$5,000 for every active military individual). Tax rates would have to be raised across the board, but wouldn't likely affect individuals negatively until reaching the upper 5% of incomes. An effective "maximum wage" would be enacted as well. Taxable income over $5 million would be taxed at 100%. Of course, this is more an incentive to invest in stocks, funds, or ones own business than a condemnation of wealth.

Here's a partial list of changes I would suggest:

1. Increase personal exemption to $10,000 per individual in household.
2. Eliminate all caps and income exceptions for currently available deductions.
3. Make state sales tax deductible regardless of other considerations.
4. Make Payroll taxes deductible and eliminate payroll tax income caps,
5. Make all involuntary fees and taxes deductible. (i.e., auto liability insurance).
6. Eliminate all tax credits.
7. Raise the percentage of, and increase the number of tax rates.
8. Make all investments in real business* tax deductible.

Hopefully, that is as clear as mud. Tell me what you think, and feel free to ask questions.

*real business--A business that deals in goods or services. Guaranteed investment such as a interest bearing checking account or savings account would not be deductible. Bank-related stocks would be deductible.

2007-07-20T14:43:00.000-05:00

One Month in a Coma

I like to take a month or two off every two or three months to have a nice, reasonably long coma. Seeing as how not much has happened in the world of religion and politics since I feel asleep, I should be able to sum it all up in a few quips...

...Ann Coulter likes Bush, hates Johns...
...Muslim doctors want to destroy Great Britain...
...Al Qaeda is gaining strength, but we're winning the "war on terror?"...
...Michael Moore wants to live in Cuba...
...Border agents can't shoot drug smugglers...
...Bill Richardson is kickin' ass in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nobody cares...
...Bush commutes "Scooter's" sentence...
...John McCain is losing ground, but again, nobody cares...

and in local news, Ernie Fletcher and Steve Beshear will go head-to-head in two debates in October. I'm sure it will be riveting television.

That about covers it. Maybe something interesting will happen before September.

2007-06-21T02:38:00.000-05:00

DemoLiberal is 4-Years-Old Today

I started my little Deaniac blog on this day in 2003.

Reading some of my old posts reminds me how far we've come, but yet how far we have to go.

2007-06-19T23:36:00.000-05:00

Richardson is Finally Stepping Up

As you may know from this blog, I was once a supporter of Howard Dean for President. And while they are very different, I sensed some of the same qualities in Bill Richardson. Enough so to make me support his campaign.

Around May of 2003, Howard Dean changed. Up to that point, he had been a reserved, yet consistent critic of the Bush administration and his "enablers" in the Democratic Party. At a rally during the spring of '03, Dean became visibly aggressive. The "angry liberal" the press loved and conservatives despised, emerged that day. His campaign skyrocketed. It was a critical moment in U.S. political history. Today, Bill Richardson had what could be his moment.

At the "Take Back America" conference, Bill Richardson "laid in" to his Democratic opponents for their political calculation and pandering. He made a zero residual troops pledge for Iraq, something he's been saying for months, but which noone seemed to hear. The only other "serious" candidate saying similar things has been John Edwards (he's my second choice). Gov. Richardson even called Edwards to the carpet over his support of the "legislation" congress passed last month.

I had hairs standing up on the back of my neck after hearing the Governor's empassioned statements. For the first time in four years, I felt like I had picked the right guy. Only time will tell if I'm right.

2007-06-15T02:19:00.001-05:00

Republicans, Please!

Do everybody a favor and nominate Ron Paul for President. I may not subscribe to the same level of economic libertarianism as Mr. Paul, but I have to admire a man with such a fervor for freedom.

Do I think he has a chance? No. The religious right of the Republican party exerts an amazing amount of influence. Mr. Paul is also a civil libertarian. Oops. Somebody forgot to tell him that's not allowed. Apart from gun rights and the right to indoctrinate (implied), modern "conservatives" have no place for such a thing as civil liberty.

If the Democrats were to nominate a Clinton or Obama, Republicans could offer a Ron Paul to America as a welcome alternative. I would vote for him.

Just do it, don't make me beg.

2007-06-15T02:12:00.000-05:00

ATTENTION!

There's a new "poll" section under the Blogroll. Please cast your vote.

2007-06-10T22:51:00.000-05:00

GM "VOLT"

I just saw this vehicle that is in development at GM. The "Volt" (as it is being called) is essentially the idea I was talking about in the last blog entry. Rather than being a pure "Flex Fuel Hybrid," the Volt is essentially an electric car. The developer points out that this vehicle also sports a flex fuel assist engine for when the electric power (acquired by plugging in) is low.

While this concept car is not exactly what I was talking about, it at least proves that people are thinking about the concept. Score one for innovation.

2007-06-07T17:24:00.000-05:00

The Best Ideas NOBODY Talks About

Do you ever sit in front of the TV when the news is on and see a panel of "experts" talking about their solutions to every problem imaginable? Then, do you often say, "Hey, why not just..." and ramble on about how YOU would fix the problem? I know I do. Here's my TOP 5 list of the best solutions nobody talks about, in no particular order.

1. Flex Fuel Hybrids: Everybody keeps raving about Hybrid Gas/Electric vehicles all the time. If it works with straight gasoline, why not with E85 (15% gas/85% ethanol). The milage numbers wouldn't be as impressive, but it would help solve the problem with ethanol not having as much energy as gasoline, wouldn't it? Just a thought.

2. Triple-Payer Universal Health Care: Now this used to be talked about, but nobody liked it, so they've stopped mentioning it. Basically, the government would cover every American with a Federally-subsidized, privately-managed health care insurance plan with income-sensitive premiums paid by individuals and/or businesses. It would be voluntary, portable, and absolutely American. Liberals hate it because it smacks of privatizing Medicare (which it would). Conservatives hate it because it would cost a few dollars. That must mean it's a good idea!

3. Tax-Free Retirement Accounts: This one's almost stupid. Combine the better aspects of Roth and Traditional IRA to produce a totally tax-free retirement account. Contributions could be limited on an annual and/or lifetime basis.

4. Fair Taxation: Everybody has their own view of what tax fairness is. Taxes are by their very nature unfair. But in my estimation, some taxation is necessary for the government to provide essential services (e.g. roads, military, etc.). "Fair Taxation" to me is not taxing people on what they don't have. If it costs more to live than you make, you should not pay taxes. Even payroll taxes and premiums on that health care plan I mentioned earlier should be partially refundable based on your ability to pay.

5. Open, Secure Borders: This might sound like a contradiction to alot of people, but let me explain. I would like to see northern and southern border security tightened like a screw. I would also like to see more people coming across the borders...legally. Fully fund immigration control and get private interests involved to secure the border and simplify the naturalization process. Then we could pursue the REAL threats to our national security instead of felonizing tomato farm workers in the hopes of stopping Al Qaeda.

That'll give everybody something to chew on at dinner. Leave me your own TOP 5 list in the comments.

2007-06-05T07:08:00.000-05:00

Democratic DEBATE

This is how I ranked their performances from best to worst:

1. John Edwards: He really mixed things up with Clinton and Obama trying to move up in the standings.

2. Joe Biden: He gave some of the most impassioned responses of the night. I've always enjoyed his candor and demeanor. Strikes me as a more liberal version of Harry Truman.

3. Barack Obama: For standing your ground against attacks from John Edwards.

4. Bill Richardson: His answers were a little "heavy," but alot of Democratic primary voters like that. See John Kerry 2004. The media's giving you a hard time for some reason.

5. Mike Gravel: Love to see somebody pick on the big guys!

6. Hillary Clinton: I'm not sure she's trying to win the Democratic primary. We're safer than we were on 9/11? Is she running for Rudy's VP? She still has good stage presence. I'll give her points for that.

7. Dennis Kucinich: He just reminds me of the OLD liberal: Authoritarian, a spend thrift, and enamoured with all things European. We've got to keep him in the race to remind everybody that most Democrats are not to the far left.

8. Chris Dodd: I like Chris Dodd, but this was a pitiful performance. Partly it was due to CNN and the chuckleheads from New Hampshire. He needed (as did many of the lower tier candidates) to "insert" himself into the debate like Edwards was doing. When they don't do that, they look like they're auditioning for somebody's VP or Secretary of State. It's hard to get supporters if they don't think you're serious.

All in all a better debate than MSNBC put on. I can't stand Wolf Blitzer anymore. Some of the questions would have been better served in a "Rock the Vote" debate on MTV. We depend on CNN to be substantive. They're certainly not entertaining.

This debate probably didn't change much of anything. Edwards, Biden, and Richardson might get a bump. Hillary didn't do herself any favors with the core Democratic primary voter. In her mind, she's already "put this thing to bed" and is now running against the presumptive Republican nominee. I doubt we'll roll over that easily.

2007-06-01T23:02:00.000-05:00

Bill! Oh Really?

Now, I listen to conservative talk radio on an almost daily basis (at least whenever I'm in the car). Today, I heard Bill O'Reilly on his usual rant about the "liberal" media. Of course he hates liberals, that's a given. Of course he's glad that Air America is devoid of lucrative sponsorship. Of course he's glad that most liberal publications have seen their circulation drop precipitously. But today, he said it was due to a "backlash" from the principally traditionalist and conservative buying public. Excuse me?

What Mr. O'Reilly seems to be missing is what draws people to media in the modern day and age. Do you think that people are listening to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. because they are echoing their beliefs? Perhaps some do, but I guarantee that most listen for the same reason they are drawn to Howard Stern: Entertainment.

I love conservative radio. I can't stand most liberal radio. I'm a liberal. Do you see the problem? Rush Limbaugh is entertaining. He's a bloviating idiot who speaks his mind and ridicules people who don't share his narrow world view. That's entertainment!

On the other hand, liberals don't have the same "pinache" that Rush Limbaugh exudes. Listening to most liberal talk shows (if you can even find one) is kind of like watching paint dry in slow motion. I don't even know what that means, but it's boring, okay. Liberals have often found themselves caring too much about the policy issues they speak of and not the entertainment value of their presentation.

I love Al Franken. He's a talented comedian and writer, but his radio show bores me to tears. Think about it. Would Stuart Smalley be funny without video? I doubt it. That's what it's like.

Here's my point. People have stopped listening to liberal radio because it's boring. They've stopped subscribing to liberal "rags" because they're too heavy on policy (and you can get the same info on many blogs). Entertainment sells, even crude, offensive entertainment as purveyed by Bill "O" and company.

Bill was also failing to mention two of the most successful shows currently in media: "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report." Shows that he consistently attacks. I enjoy these shows more than any radio program. They disseminate information, and they do it with liberal bias; but mostly they entertain. If more liberal media outlets would emulate this approach, the patrons of good quality entertainment will return.

2007-05-31T17:57:00.000-05:00

Sleep Good

Steve Beshear is our man. Primary voters voted on May 22 and gave him a substantial vote for the Democratic nomination considering the size of the field. We actually avoided a runoff. He will face off against current governor, Ernie Fletcher in November. I wish Mr. Beshear the best.

It's been a slow start to the Presidential primary season. The field of Democrats is still pretty much where it was before the first debate. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all clustered at the top in national polls. The polls in Iowa show some movement, but it is more or less insignificant. My man Bill looks to be gaining some support in early primary states, so that's interesting. Otherwise, boring.

The next Presidential debate is set for Sunday, June 3rd. Maybe some news will come out of that.

2007-05-15T17:41:00.000-05:00

Taken at Liberty

Jerry Falwell is dead at age 73.

Who gives a shit?

2007-05-11T00:19:00.000-05:00

Atheist Blogroll

Visit the Atheist Blogroll to see a comprehensive list of blogs written from an atheist, agnostic, or freethinking perspective.

Free thinking...now there's an idea.

2007-05-09T17:52:00.000-05:00

The Libertarian Left

I recently took a "political ideology" quiz and was told that I am a "Left Libertarian." Not that I needed to know that, I just like to see how other people label me.

What is a "Left Libertarian?"

A "libertarian" generally believes in limited or no government. Period. A "leftist" believes in government control of corporate interest as it relates to other "rights."

Both ideologies have difficulty inhabiting the same space, but in my case do so on a regular basis. It's a strange feeling being able to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly (both of whom I despise) and come away with many points of agreement. Most of my disagreements with them have to do with degree.

For example, I believe that self-determination and hard work are far superior to government assistance, but I also believe that the government should help people when they are incapable of helping themselves. It is my sincere belief that America is the greatest nation on Earth, but I am not blind to injustices done in her name. I accept that "people of faith" are well-meaning and charitable, but I also realize that religion divides people more than it brings them together.

Being "liberal" or "progressive" is not the summation of my existence. I imagine that is true for most people who wear those labels with pride. While I believe that I have found the "right" path, many will disagree with me. I have never run from an argument I didn't think I could win. In fact, I often find myself agreeing with arguments I once considered laughable. Try it sometime. It is very liberating.

If you haven't, take this quiz and leave a comment about your results.

"Come, let us reason together"--Isaiah 1:18.

2007-05-08T01:04:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Miller Quits,

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

This is twice in two consecutive governor's races that my preferred candidate dropped out within weeks of the election. What gives?

I could see dropping out two or three months before the primary, but damn. The election is two weeks away. You hate Steve Henry and Bruce Lunsford so bad that you alienate your supporters? I can't say that I was a fanatic about your candidacy, but you were the only one I could stand to look at and listen to. I hate political calculating.

Ironically, Bruce Lunsford, who has done well in recent polling, was the last candidate to do this to me. Of course, you are supporting Steve Beshear which is a little better than Lunsford's endorsement of Jody Richards, and a hell of alot better than his eventual endorsement of Ernie Fletcher in 2003. I will consider Mr. Beshear, but like many of your supporters, feel unimpressed or disgusted with the rest of the Democratic field.

Again, I am left disillusioned. Don't make me root for Anne Northup!

2007-05-04T10:43:00.000-05:00

That's it, I'm endorsing Bill Richardson for President

I've been leaning toward endorsing Bill Richardson for President for a couple of months now, and his latest remarks on immigration just cinched the deal. Here's a transcript of an older immigration speech from his governor's office that reports the same information with a bit more detail: Reform Speech from Bill Richardson

Here are the high points:

1. Secure the Border--Richardson supports doubling the number of border patrol agents, adding high tech security devices, and tearing down fences that don't work and send the wrong message.
2. Penalize Employers--He also supports raising the minimum wage and fining businesses that hire illegals.
3. Amnesty--He doesn't call it that, but admits that the term will be used against him. It's alot more complicated than that.
4. Work with the Mexican Government--Richardson realizes that there will always be a weak link in the chain of immigration reform unless the border is secured from both directions. He's already met with President Calderon as New Mexico governor.
5. Increase the number of Legal Immigrants--Just to accommodate the family members of current illegals who will become permanent legal residents, Richardson supports doubling the number of available family visas.

To me, these ideas are common sense. He lays them out articulately and with the wisdom afforded a public servant with his experience. I had not sought to endorse a candidate this early, but felt that it was necessary before Hillary sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. More on that later.

2007-05-03T11:30:00.000-05:00

The Promise of Nuclear (or Nukular) Power

If there's one thing that "gets my goat" about environmentalists, it's their aversion to anything that could help the environment. Mention solar power, wind power, or biodiesel and they get all happy. Mention nuclear power or ethanol and they start to have seizures. There is virtually as much power in one pound of enriched uranium as in 3 million pounds of coal. Solar power and wind power are nice supplements, but you would have to build arrays larger than the Mojave Desert to power Las Vegas alone. I have some "solar solutions" as well, but lets stick to the nuke plants.

Europe and Asia use Nuclear power for the bulk of their energy needs. Fission power plants produce less air and water pollution than coal plants. Their greenhouse emissions are on par with natural gas power (primarily from the production of the fuel rods). They are expensive to build, but are less expensive to operate than any other type of power plant. The bulk of cost goes to employment which is good for the economy. Sure sounds horrible.

The one downside (other than up front construction costs) is the idea of waste disposal. Seeing barrels of nuclear waste is enough to make the most conservative environmentalist cringe. But think of the alternative. If coal power waste was treated nearly as carefully as it should be, there would be thousands of barrels of waste for every one barrel of nuclear waste. Nuclear power's political downfall is its most admirable aspect: Containment. The net environmental impact coupled with job creation and more energy independence (most of our uranium ore comes from Canada) makes nuclear power the best alternative for our ever-expanding energy needs.

It's not perfect. No energy source is. But until hydrogen fusion becomes a reality, we will need many more nuclear plants to help the environment and "fuel" economic development. Somebody just needs to grow the cajones to make this point on the national stage.

2007-05-03T11:22:00.000-05:00

Republican Candidate Debate (Forum more likely)

Tonight on MSNBC, the ten current Republican candidates for President will have a go with Chris Matthews. I don't expect very much, and since I can't vote in the Republican primary, I will probably have limited comments. It should be interesting to watch though. Keep an eye on Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. They should keep the debate interesting.

DL out.

PS--Beware of Reagan idolatry.

2007-04-29T01:13:00.000-05:00

Debate Rundown...

Okay. Here's the "down-and-dirty-I'm-up-at-1:15-in-the-morning-three-days-after-the-debate" rundown of how the candidates measured up.

First of all, let me say, I was not happy with this debate format. I hate group interviews that are called debates. This was a "speed forum" if nothing else. That being said, here ya go:

1. Hillary Clinton: Can this woman get any more fake? If I had never heard her speak and had no idea what she stood for, this performance would have made me her fan. As such, I give her the debate-winning prize. Her strong answer on the terrorist attack question and believable tone reminded me of her husband. Good going. (A)

2. Barack Obama: Who was this guy? Stick to the platitudes. They are your strong suit. Unfortunately, you are running for the Democratic Party nomination. If you don't get some policy points in your presentation before Labor Day, you'll be sunk. You said more words than anyone on stage, and yet you said nothing of substance. Down you go. (C-)

3. John Edwards: That $400 haircut looks just like your $50 haircut. Too bad that story got attention prior to the debate. I think alot of people were looking more at your hair than your platform. Overall, you gave very succinct answers that were heavy on policy. I like that. (B+)

4. Joe Biden: "Yes" was the best answer you gave all night. You dodged Mr. William's questions like a pro. I was particularly intrigued by your answer on the Virginia Tech shooting. Considering none of the gun laws you mentioned would have been useful in this case, what was your point? Thanks for complementing the Democratic field of candidates. Don't fawn over Hillary too much, though. (B-)

5. Bill Richardson: For experience, policy positions, and downright balls, you are my favorite candidate. However, you did yourself very few favors in this "debate." Did you have trouble hearing the questions? If not, were you constipated? Your answers were garbled and you looked uncomfortable. If I didn't like you so much, I'd give you a lower grade. (B-)

6. Chris Dodd: Stiff. Boring. At least you gave a creative answer on abortion and Justice John Roberts. (C+)

7. Dennis Kucinich: You have improved so much since 2004. Fmr. Sen. Gravel made you look almost sane. You earned a high grade, but your still just a bottom feeder used to make other candidates look more reasonable. (A-)

8. Mike Gravel: Dude! You like to scream, don't ya! I can't stand people who are too angry to make a convincing argument. (D)

Overall, a disappointing night for me. I can't stand Hillary Clinton, and yet, she did best everyone on tone and content. She probably just added to her already burgeoning lead in the polls. Everyone else gained a little name recognition and introduced themselves to primary voters. Hopefully the next debate will be more inspirational.

2007-04-25T16:58:00.000-05:00

First Presidential Primary Debate of the Democratic Party Candidates

Airs tomorrow at 7pm Eastern/6 pm Central on MSNBC. All eight candidates will be there:

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel.

I'll be commenting on their "performances" sometime after the debate.

2007-04-25T16:45:00.000-05:00

Screw Democracy!

I'm tired of people complaining about the lack of "democracy" in America. I know that sounds strange, but not if you think it through. Our representative form of government allows us the ability to bring our petitions and grievances to the government regardless of popular support. I've seen enough "recalls" and "ballot initiatives" to know how dangerous pure democracy is. Under a pure democracy, all minorities would be forced to accept the will of the majority. Then, if the previous minority attains majority status, there could be legal retribution.

Our Constitution has stood the test of time for a host of reasons. Primarily, I believe it is due to the checks and balances offered by our representative government. The majority, represented by the House and President must deal with the less democratic Senate and Supreme Court. It has worked very well (with a few exceptions) for the last 200 years. Let's not mess it up. Keep democracy at bay.

2007-04-23T17:11:00.000-05:00

Virginia Tech and Gun Control

Since the horrible events at Virginia Tech occured, I have heard alot of Democrats and liberals calling for a renewed effort to pass gun control legislation.

Bad idea.

First of all, I'm not a big supporter of gun control. Personally, I believe you should fear a government that fears the people it represents. Yes, there are nut jobs out there who will use guns (even legally purchased ones) to commit horrible acts, but most of us are honest, law-abiding citizens. I don't even like guns, but I think every person should be allowed to carry one wherever they go, even on airplanes. Do you think there would have been a single highjacked plane on September 11th if 20 or 30 guns had suddenly appeared from passengers' jackets? (And for those of you worried about "cabin pressure." That myth was already busted. Watch the Discovery channel once-in-a-while.) If students and teachers at Virginia Tech had been "packing," it's possible that a dozen or more lives might have been spared.

Let's not have knee-jerk policy decisions based on horrifying and emotionally-charged events. That kind of action gets us things like the "Patriot Act." And that's not good for America.

2007-04-15T11:34:00.000-05:00

KET Candidate Debate--Governor's Race, Democratic Primary

Monday, April 6, 2007, 8pm Eastern/7pm Central

Live on KET stations and at www.ket.org/election

2007-04-12T17:57:00.000-05:00

So easily offended.

This whole Don Imus controversy has brought to mind some interesting characteristics of the human psyche. Our egos are totally incapable of insult, and even though other parts of our psychology are supposed to protect us and diffuse such comments, we appear to have lost that ability.

Muslims get offended when "Westerners" use the image of Muhammed (PBUH).

Christians get offended when Jesus is portrayed as a happily married man (or something less than the chaste western European that he really was).

People of color are offended when worthless old has-beens use racist language for the purpose of inciting controversy (looks like that worked out well), and white people get offended when black people call us out for having deep-seeded racism.

Illegal immigrants get mad when asked to learn English.

Telling a woman she is attractive in a workplace is tantamount to rape (if the perpetrator is ugly, of course).

Well, I believe Muhammed must have been really ugly (PBUH). I'll have my daughter draw a picture. Jesus was an unmarried 30-year-old Rabbi? With followers? Black people need to clean up their own racist language and stop worrying about what white people think, and white people need to stop over-compensating for what is obvious deep-seeded racism. Guilty! If immigrants, legal or illegal, can't learn to speak English, they don't deserve to be citizens. And if I weren't married, I would tell every woman how attractive she is and hope that I'm not so ugly that I get reprimanded.

We're not always going to get along, Rodney King, but that doesn't mean we have to crucify (no offense, Jesus) each other over the words or our mouths or the impulses of our primitive nature. When someone offends you to the core, wait for an apology. If an apology comes, do not treat it with disregard. "I'm sorry" is one of the hardest phrases to utter (especially if you haven't learned English). Remember, wise AND ignorant people have something in common: They've both pissed somebody off.

2007-04-10T10:12:00.000-05:00

Addendum for "Imus"

I do not intend to be "glib" about the remarks made by Don Imus. They were reprehensible and he should be held accountable, but I've been hearing things about "laws" and "you can't let somebody get away with this." Why not? Freedom is a bitch. You can't have it AND deny it to others.

I should be able to say whatever I want in whatever forum I want, regardless of how offensive and cruel it may be. There can be private oversight (i.e. firing someone for racist or sexist remarks), but public policy should have no incursion into the basic right to free speech.

Don Imus is an idiot, and should probably be fired. But if he isn't fired, he should be able to show up on his next day of work and say whatever he wants without fear of imprisonment or other state punishment. I mean, we still let George Bush have a microphone! Candor and intelligence are not prerequesites of freedom. That's the last word.

2007-04-09T23:45:00.000-05:00

Imus in the Mourning

I don't know what it is, but I never could stand Don Imus. Racist comments aside, the man is about as fun to watch as a bowl of cereal. In fact, the few times I've attempted to watch his simulcasted radio broadcast, I've found myself looking at the Corn Flakes in my bowl for entertainment. Who cares what he said about the black female basketball players at Rutgers? Although, if it gives CBS and NBC a reason to get rid of him, it's fine by me. I love MSNBC from 8 am to 10 pm, everything except for Imus (and those stupid "In-Depth Investigation Documentary Crime Stories").

On a related note: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson need to be hogtied. Let the likes of Chris Rock and Bill Cosby speak for people of color. At least they are still relevant. Moving on...

Should Imus be fired for his comments? Maybe. But he should definitely be "let go" because he's a has-been, a boring, washed-up old fart with nothing original to say. Trust me, Howard Fineman will get plenty of airtime without him. Give Allison Stewart a morning show with a Hispanic co-host in Imus' place. That'd be useful AND ironic.

2007-04-04T12:18:00.000-05:00

What is up with John Edwards?

This is not the same guy who ran in 2004. I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm glad you admit that you were wrong, but color me skeptical. You railed against Howard Dean in 2004 and now are trying to court the same voters. That's one heck of a conversion. Be genuine. You either have bad judgement, or you are a con man, which worked well for Bill Clinton, but if you think we want to go through that again, you're crazy.

Oh, and sorry about your wife.

2007-04-03T21:18:00.000-05:00

A little bit about myself....

Since the candidates aren't giving me much to work with, I thought I might share a little bit about my life and my views. I'll try to be brief for those of you with ADD like myself.

I had a confusing childhood, although pretty typical of a person in my part of the world. My parents were and are Southern Baptists, but raised me to be a staunch Democrat. Now, of course, they are big fans of Fox News Channel...

...Sorry, I blacked out for a minute. Something about Fox...

....I really apologize. Anyway, getting past that...

For a long time, I tried to harmonize my views on civil liberty (all very progressive) with my religious tradition (arch-conservative). I basically depended on those in my church who took a very simplistic view of our faith: Love God with all your heart, and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation. It was easy enough to ignore all of those ugly social views while I was a teenager and more concerned with what the girls in the pew in front of me were wearing than what the Pastor was talking about. Then came college.

There is a reason religious people look upon organized education with disdain. I tried to insulate myself from non-Christian influence by attending a Baptist college. Big mistake. They force you to take religion courses to graduate. Add to that a gay roommate who wanted to become straight because his religion told him that was the thing to do. Begin my "crisis of faith."

Anyway, shorthand (very shorthand), I followed a new path that acknowledged the problem with organized religion. I became a humanist and a spiritualist with an agnostic theology (an oxymoron, I know). This freed me to look at solutions to the world's problems through more practical means. I no longer believe that right belief is the path to salvation. Taking care of your fellow man (just like Jesus taught) and giving of yourself (also as Jesus taught) is the true path to salvation. I cannot guarantee there will not be reward and punishment in the hereafter, but I feel certain enough that it doesn't concern me.

That's me in a very small nutshell. Feel free to comment and dig deeper. Let me know about your personal journey.

2007-03-26T11:09:00.000-05:00

Hello World!

I've just awoken from a three-year coma induced by the 2004 Presidential Primary, and I see that we have a lovely new slate of candidates to choose from. Oh, and I heard that in my slumber Democrats regained control of Congress. But we're still in Iraq? Oh well, give 'em time. They're not used to having this kind of power.

I haven't made up my mind about the Democratic candidates, yet. They do, however, appear stronger than the Republican choices. We'll just have to wait and see. Kentucky is having a governor's race this year which will probably take up the majority of my blog until primary time (May 22nd). So far, I like Jonathan Miller for the nomination, so that means he has a snowball's chance in Hell of actually getting it.

If you want to see what I've really been up to in the recent past, check out my MySpace page at www.myspace.com/germylee.

So until next time...

2004-03-27T18:52:00.000-06:00

9/11 Investigation and Gay Marriage...Again

First things first...

Get over 9/11! I'm speaking to my fellow Democrats, liberals, ABB people, and radical moderates. You know who is responsible for 9/11? Radical right-wing Muslims with nothing better to do on a weekday. Was the Bush administration at fault? Probably,...but so were the previous 42 administrations.

We Americans, with our Jesus-lovin', money-makin', mold-the-world-in-our-image attitudes have been taunting would-be terrorists for centuries. Until recently, terrorist attacks were primarily regional activities, much like civil war or revolution. Europe is still fairly unfamiliar with foreign-based terror. The recent attacks in Spain are a rare exception, but of all Western civilizations, their religious zeal and contempt for Islam is second only to our own.

Stop pointing fingers at George Bush and company with regards to 9/11. They were simply continuing policies laid out for decades previous to their arrival. It is hard to imagine that such an attack could have been accurately predicted or avoided. Instead, focus on the Bush administrations post-9/11 actions. They successfully alienated a unified world, failed to capture Bin Laden, and led an unjustifiable invasion of Iraq for political gain. Bravo!

Now onto the familiar topic of gay marriage...

2004-03-25T13:55:00.000-06:00

Liberals Unite! (but not right now)

Two important things are happening this year: The destruction of the Bush administration and the election of a Democratic President.

The first event must precede the second, but in order to do that, we need as many people/organizations going after G.W. as possible. So before you send your hard-earned money to John Kerry or the DNC, consider other organizations like Democracy for America or MoveOn.org. Do a google search and find a group of people who most closely follow your political philosophy and give donations to them. Republicans and conservatives have been doing this for decades, and we are just now playing catch up.

Consider the effect on the average undecided voter watching multiple television ads sponsored by different groups as opposed to the effect of one group or person sending a barrage of political messages to that individual's TV screen. I believe we will be more effective on the whole with this method. Continue to give to the candidate and the party, but reserve your more substantial contributions for your favorite groups. You will be much happier with your investment in the long run.

As a side note, I work for neither "Democracy for America" or "MoveOn.org" in any official capacity, although I do support both whole-heartedly.

2004-02-10T23:15:00.000-06:00

Cheer Up Kerry! Why the Long Face?

Even though I once considered myself a John-Kerry-sorta-guy, I became a true believer in the kind of change that was the emblem of the Howard Dean campaign. Between media driven "Kerry frenzy" and less-than-polished performances by Dean himself, Sen. Kerry looks poised (at least at the current moment) to take the Democratic nomination. But before Theresa breaks out the Dom Perignon a word of warning: regardless of the nominee, beating George Bush will be exceedingly difficult. Here are some reasons...

1. Economic Growth--Even though "W" had very little to do with it, the business cycle favors him in a big way.

2. Money--Howard Dean gave us some hope in this area, but John Kerry can only mortgage his assets so many times. George Bush has and will continue to have an advantage in this area.

3. Iraq--Yet another achilles heel for John Kerry. The vote for authorization (for the Iraq invasion) was created for political cover. It looks like Bush might get one more chance to use it. Howard Dean has a different, less popular opinion, but at least it is different.

4. The Gore-Dukakis Combo--Howard Dean is a McGovern-Clinton type candidate: passionate, progressive, and innovative. John Kerry is boring, aloof, and liberal.

The nomination is not wrapped up as far as delegate counts, but that is little comfort. The media, not the average American, will decide who is newsworthy and electable. Our only hope as Democrats (should Kerry prevail) is that when the media is done flirting with the Senator they will not go back to loving Mr. Bush. After all, they had a love affair with Gov. Dean just a few weeks ago. Happy Valentines Day!

2003-11-09T21:27:00.000-06:00

The Stars and Bars

Howard Dean is a man that shoots from the hip. He also tends to get shot in the ass. Let's clear up this whole "confederate flags on pickup trucks" issue.

First of all, they exist. I've seen them. In Kentucky, in Alabama, in Georgia, and in every southern state I've been to. Secondly, not all people who venerate the "stars and bars" are racists--no matter what Al Sharpton thinks. Thirdly, Howard Dean is dead on the money (even if he openned an old wound with his comments).

We need voters. These guys and gals are voters. We Dean supporters in the South are not going to concede a single vote in this election. Howard knows that, and that is why he said what he said. He is convinced, and he may be right, that social conservatives in the south have been voting with Republicans because they have been told it's in their best interest when it is obviously not.

Your kids are going to be taught about sex in school...Blacks and Hispanics will take your jobs...Abortion on demand will be the law...They're coming for your guns...The military will suffer...Your taxes will go up...We'll lose our sovereignty as a nation...They hate God...Gay marriage will destroy society...Government will just get bigger and more intrusive...

...All because you vote for a Democrat!

Howard Dean has hit on a nerve. Sure he's gonna hurt some feelings. Black people hate the Confederate flag because it represents the South's defense of slavery. Southerners hate being called out on an issue that is so close to their hearts--especially by a Yankee. But to ignore the issue and pretend it will go away is more irresponsible than taking a little political flak. It was Dean's willingness to concede the issue to his critics that got me upset, but certainly not enough to quit supporting him.

On a related note, John Edwards needs to spend more time in the South if he thinks that this statement offends a majority of Southerners. To borrow his attitude: "We don't need people like John Edwards telling the rest of the world what we Southerners think. Who died and made you President of the Southeast?" Bite me, John!

2003-10-27T22:55:00.000-06:00

Kucinich's Blues

Representative Dennis Kucinich is feeling a little slighted, and he may have a good reason. Howard Dean is airing an ad in New Hampshire that, among other things, criticizes his Democratic opponents' support for the Iraq resolution in 2002. Kucinich feels that it is an unfair characterization of his position. So?

Half of New Hampshire doesn't know who the hell you are anyway. You haven't made any headway in the polls because of your all-or-none attitude about every issue. You haven't got the chance of a two-legged cat in a dog pound to get the Democratic nomination for President. AND you look funny (cheap shot), and your name sounds like something coming out of the mouth of somebody sneezing.

I wouldn't doubt that the person who wrote the ad (improvised?) forgot you were still running! These three "special" candidates have raised less money than Jenna Bush, and they have fewer supporters combined than people who saw "Gigli." Perhaps they should reconsider their "professional" goals. I happen to think all three of them have great ideas. I would even consider supporting Carol Mosley-Braun if I thought she had a real chance at beating George Bush, but it is past time for these well-meaning individuals to exit gracefully.

2003-10-07T21:41:00.000-05:00

What a Nap!!

I feel like I've been asleep for over a week. Between trying to get a local Dean movement going and fighting some sort of virus or something, I haven't had time to wash my "whites," much less blog. It was a nice "vacation" regardless.

Lots to talk about...

CIA Leak (aka Plame-gate, Leak-gate, Wilson-gate, etc.)

First thing's first: Can we rename this "controversy"? What happened to originality in the press? Is Watergate really the last big political travesty on which we can capitalize? How about "Plame-Contra" or "Wilson-'S' and 'L' Scandal" or "The CIA Leak-Winski Affair." I personally prefer the last one. It could even be the title of a made-for-TV movie starring Melissa Gilbert and Stockard Channing. Lifetime could show it twice a day for a week.

Yes, this is a horrible situation. People's lives are at stake. But is this the worst we have on the Bush administration? Come on, Bush and Rove can get out of this one easier than a pornstar can get out of a speeding ticket. What about the "big" controversies? Oh yeah, a majority of Democrats supported the President when he lied about WMD's in Iraq. They have sunk to the level of the "impeachers" on this one. Let it go. We can't win this one. It only makes us look stupid and petty.

The California Recall

Voting is wrapping up in California in the biggest freak show since Temptation Island 2. The sad thing is it might actually work. Sure, Gray Davis is the most worthless pile of pig droppings ever to pop up out of the Democratic party, but Arnold? Come on Cali! You wouldn't put Hulk Hogan in the Governor's mans--maybe you would. Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't taken steroids in over 20 years, but he probably still tests positive. Maybe it's best. If Gray Davis is governor of California next October, it might do the Dem presidential candidate more harm than good. At least Mr. Schwarz. is easy to make fun of.

Bob Graham Drops Out

I know I said I wanted him to, but I must say that I am sad he was the first to give up. It was time, but Carol, Dennis, and Al are still out there sluggin' away. Bob had more money and more experience than all three of those guys! He probably set a good precedent, though. I only hope that the "others" follow suit before they bleed to much time and energy from the more "probable" candidates.

Oh, I'm sure there's more to talk about, but I'm addicted to politics and I have taken precious time away from watching Recall returns (isn't that redundant?) to type this. Perhaps there will be more fodder for my comments tomorrow...there always is!

2003-09-29T10:56:00.002-05:00

Bush's Credit Card "Statement"

This is the statement I believe George W. received on September 11, 2001. Enjoy!

Dear Mr. Bush,
Due to recent catastrophic events, the following changes have been made to your account:

You know have unlimited credit.
We have lowered your interest rate.
We have enstated "No hassle billing," just pay when you feel like it.
There are now no income requirements, so if you lose revenues, you will not lose your account.
We will extend your credit limit throughout all times of war or financial crisis.

We have set some limitations on your card, however. The following is a list of items that are no longer fundable by our company:

Senior Citizens,
Veterans,
Children,
School Expenses,
Roads, Bridges, Rail, etc.,
Health Care Expenses,
and any other important programs not mentioned above.

If your card is stolen, call "We-The-People" for a new card. You will be responsible only for the first $5.6 trillion charged while the card is out of your possession.
In the event of your death or unfortunate circumstance, the credit on your account will be transferred to your next of kin (or Dick Cheney, if available).
Enjoy all the benefits of this card, but remember, the American People Credit Company reserves the right to cancel your account at any time. Spend responsibly.

Your Card Information (as it appears):
George W Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
APCC Card
Card No. 1107 2000 0911 2001
Expires 01/2005

Thanks again for choosing to be a user.

2003-09-28T23:04:00.000-05:00

Why Are You Still Here?

Not YOU!

Can somebody tell me why we still have 10 presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination? I have to say I love all of these guys, but they're really "stopping up" the debates and the press coverage.

Carol, we love you, but do us a favor and leave! It looks like the "men's only" sign might just have to stay on the White House for another four years. Nice try, though.

Dennis, we...well, we..., please go away! Your great mind and liberal fervor would be wasted in the White House. Stay where you are or run for a Senate seat. That could be good fun!?!

Al, Al, Al, Al. Mind if I call you Al? You are a spark, a ray of light in an otherwise "dark" field of candidates (if you'll excuse the irony). Perhaps you could be a speech writer for the eventual Democratic candidate. We can't afford to lose you altogether, but I'm afraid you're taking up too much time.

Bob, I don't think there's anything wrong with a VP candidacy. Maybe you don't either, but there you are. Every time I turn on the television, there you are. As one of the most likeable politicians in the country, you have managed to acheive one of the lowest likeability ratings in the group. Whether or not you have any money, you should bow out gracefully before you make a fool of yourself and ruin it for this ticket: Dean/Graham 2004!

Just think. If these four got out now, the remaining "debates" could potentially give up to 16 or 17 minutes of speaking time per candidate. Maybe we could move beyond one minute answers. After all, liberals and left-leaning moderates (and Joe) need more time to explain themselves than G.W. does. We normally don't see the world in black-and-white like he does. We can rarely give a "yes" or "no" answer to any question, yet with the field of candidates at 10, we have very little choice. For those of you who support one of these four candidates, it may be time for a little reality check. There are two things you can't survive a political contest without in this country: Money and voters. These four have little of either. They all have contributed so much to the process and have brought many issues to the forefront that might otherwise have been ignored, but I'm afraid it's time to say "goodbye."

Don't you even think about it, Hillary!

2003-09-26T23:40:00.000-05:00

Visitor # 2000

As of today, my site has logged 2000 visits in just a little over three months in existence. That is roughly 10 times the number of visits my previous (now defunct) site received in 2 years. Big kudos to the Dean campaign for allowing an "angry white man" a link on their blog page, and big thanks to those of you who tune in day after day to see what I might have to say. It has been a wonderful outlet for me, and I hope to continue this effort into the indefinite future. Please feel free to e-mail me with questions, comments, or topic ideas. I really enjoy reading them, and I almost always answer--just ask some of the visitors.

So again, I ask you to log on, visit often, and most importantly, get off your ass and VOTE in every election! I want my country back!

2003-09-25T23:19:00.000-05:00

The New York (Economic) Debate

Wow, what a show! I thought Dean was going to blow a gasket, and who could blame him. Almost every candidate on the stage was gunning for him. This should prove once and for all the formidable frontrunner that Dean has become. Now, I give you the traditional rundown of the debate.

10. Gen. Wesley Clark--Why didn't you just send a taped statement to the effect: "I'm not sure what I believe in or stand for, but I'll get back with you in a few weeks." We could have saved 6 minutes for more delicious Gephardt/Dean banter. Welcome to the "party!"

9. Dick Gephardt--For sinking to the lowest level yet. Howard Dean is not a "Gingrich" Republican, although the comparison could help him with the inaccurate "liberal" label.

8. Joe Lieberman--We just can't get enough of that Jewish wit and charm combined with a no-holds barred New England attitude...Oops, sorry I was watching a Woody Allen film just before the debate, my mistake.

7. John Kerry--For someone who WAS a frontrunner, your not acting very comfortable on stage. Perhaps you need a viagra?

6. Dennis Kucinich--I admire your moxie, but when are you going to start running for President instead of Wisconsin Governor?

5. Carol Moseley Braun--Easily the most classy person ever to run for President. You need a lot more passion and intensity if you want to get anywhere in this race.

4. Al Sharpton--I think they forgot you a couple of times, but that's nothing new. Your shifty, but your awfully funny.

3. Bob Graham--The most improved performance of the debate series. I saw passion and potential. Your setting yourself up as a terrific VP candidate should you lose the nomination.

2. Howard Dean--Aside from a few brief flashes, you controlled yourself very well in the face of attack. The way you deflected policy "flip-flops" was ingenious and unassailable. This is why we love you.

1. John Edwards--For reminding us to keep our eyes on the prize. You are positioning yourself as a potentially dangerous challenge for the other nine candidates. Thanks for not boring us with the whole "my father worked in a mill" spiel, by the way.

2003-09-24T22:43:00.000-05:00

Discussing Liberalism (Part 2)

The liberal economist...

While I don't really classify myself as a liberal when economics are involved, compared to the Bush administration I might as well be Karl Marx. Didn't we debunk "voodoo" economics (a term coined by none other than Bush the First)in the 1980's ? Why are so-called conservative Republicans recycling this tripe? Anyway, I'm not here to talk about the conservatives right now. I am here to discuss liberal economics first (more on conservatives later).

The basic principle of liberal economics is not even an economic principle. Essentially, liberals believe that we must do whatever we can to insure equal opportunity regardless of a person's "caste" in life. They also believe that the federal government should fund all major infrastructure projects (highways, mass transit, education, health care, etc.). The liberal "economist" agrees with the notion that taxes should be a top-down system; that those who make the most should sacrifice the most for the good of the nation. They also believe that taxes should be based on overall expenditure requirements and that tax burden should be a secondary concern.

I know that this may be gibberish to some, but it is important to understand the basic principles of liberal economics in order to decide with which aspects you agree or disagree. One's ignorance of such ideas only leads to confusion when voting for a candidate for public office.

I consider myself a "radical moderate" when it comes to economics. I support the liberal notion of centralized federal funding of important infrastructure. I also support the idea of a top-down approach to taxes. But I am very concerned about the overall tax burden on the American people in all classes and its effect on the economy in general. When asked issue by issue, most Americans probably fall in this category, but consider themselves conservative simply because they want a lowered tax burden. I have no such delusion.

First of all, "conservatives" of the 21st century are not the same as the fiscal conservatives of the mid-20th century. Their commitment to decentralizing infrastructure and eliminating entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) is much the same, but Ronald Reagan's revolutionary tax policies took that commitment one step further. Reagan adopted the idea of job growth/economic prosperity through tax cuts during his tenure as California governor. The basic idea is that all tax cuts are good for the economy regardless of their immediate effects on the federal (or state) budgets. By passing some of the largest tax cuts in American history (although the tax burden was arguably high) the new conservatives hoped to bring about unprecedented prosperity, insuring their continuing control of the federal government. It did not work.

As most "moderate economists" realize, an economy is not the "bitch" of the fiscal policy of its respective government. Whether liberal or conservative or down-right libertarian, government fiscal policy is a way of dealing with budget realities, not economic cycles. Now, does that mean that no effect whatsoever can be felt from "bad" fiscal policy? NO. All it means is that fiscal policy is a very tiny portion of a largely uncontrollable machine that governs the direction of the economy. Economies depend more on consumer "mood," global weather patterns, and the "price of tea in China" (in case you ever wanted to have a response to that inquiry) than on how high taxes are and how much the government spends on infrastructure.

As the political tone of the country continues to "float" to the right of center, liberals are destined to sound more and more like moderates while conservatives are bound to become slaves to the Reagan-omics of the far right. As such I find myself in a position to welcome real economic liberals to the middle. Together we can fight for universal health care, education funding, solvent Social Security funds, AND a lower tax burden. There is a large pool of money available to give back to the American people, and it's called the national debt. If we can use sound fiscal policy to balance the federal budget and pay down the debt, the American people are bound to be the benefactors of politically expedient tax relief.

What Bush and Company have done is dig deeper into the future repositories of American wealth, requiring even greater sacrifices for the next generation. Taxes will be higher, programs will have to be cut, and the economy (as independent as it is) will suffer. Now is the time to stop the borrowing of our children's and grandchildren's future to pay for a little comfort now. Vote for people who will guarantee the fiscal responsibility which we used to count on conservatives to handle.

to be continued...

2003-09-22T15:41:00.000-05:00

Bush's Faith-Based Initiative

Just a quick one...

I want to know why conservatives are supporting this idea. Isn't it a major "tenet" of conservatism that money belongs in the pockets of citizens and not in government programs? It seems to me that conservative Republicans have gone against their basic beliefs on this issue in order to please a powerful special interest group: Evangelical Christians.

This is the same administration (and Congress) that wouldn't fund their own "No Child Left Behind" Act. The same folks who cut special education programs because we didn't have the revenue. It appears as though Republicans want to be able to eliminate useful programs on the basis of prinicple, with which I cannot argue, but they also want to be able to insure their survival by "over-funding" wasteful or discretionary programs that appeal to conservative constituencies (defense, faith-based orgs., etc.). But the most asinine thing is they refuse to take tax-payer money to do it, resulting in bigger deficits, potentially higher interest rates, and an uncertain fiscal future.

I just wish they would be honest with the American people. Sure, I know it would cost them elections, but at least they wouldn't make such big "asses" of themselves. That's our job!

Discuss at quicktopics.com

2003-09-17T21:43:00.000-05:00

Discussing Liberalism (Part 1)

It seems to me that there may be some misunderstanding of what it means to be a "liberal." Not that any full understanding can be made, but I have seen some gross misrepresentations of "liberals" of late and would like to try and clear the air. The following is the first in a series of "essays" committed to the task of defining, if not grasping modern liberalism.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives some keywords for understanding liberalism, and I think they are quite appropriate. Liberals are openhanded, licentious, loose, and broadminded. With the arguable exception of "licentious," I believe that M-W is very kind to the word.

"Liberals" are openhanded. By the very nature of the philosophy (which we will discuss in-depth later), "liberals" are generous, benevolent, and egalitarian. We believe that all human beings have the potential for goodness if given the proper environment and tools. As a political philosophy, modern liberalism focuses on righting inequality and correcting social status for the disenfranchised. "Liberals" created Medicare, Social Security, and the graduated income tax (laying the national tax burden mostly on the wealthy). Charity is a notable characteristic of "liberals."

"Liberals" are licentious. Essentially, "liberals" are bereft of a strict moral code, particularly with respect to sexual morality. This is mostly accurate. Modern liberalism takes a "hands off" approach to most issues of religious or social morality. We believe, for the most part, that one's personal behavior (assuming that it doesn't interfere with the individual rights of another) is one's own business. We also believe in a fair system of dealing with "moral" offenders. "Liberals" are more likely to support treatment of drug abusers rather than jail time. We are also more likely to provide inexpensive treatment of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases which may or may not be the result of promiscuous sexual behavior. As a general rule, we do not "dismiss" people based on their personal morality or lack thereof.

"Liberals" are loose. "Loose" is a hard word to define, but I believe that this again refers to the moral "flippancy" that is characteristic of modern liberalism. It could also refer to the way we approach most issues, which brings us to the final notion:

"Liberals" are broad-minded. This is probably the best adjective I can think of to describe the philosophical tendencies of "liberals." Most true liberals approach the discussion of all ideas with an open mind and a rational method. Rather than base their decisions solely on ideology, "students" of modern liberalism seek empirical evidence to back-up their assertions--I have often changed my mind on a variety of issues based on the re-working of scientific data and new experiences. Because liberalism does not require specific beliefs, liberals have a much broader range of opinions than non-liberals (conservatives, facists, reactionaries, etc.) within their "ranks." This makes it very difficult to "pigeon-hole" liberal philosophy, but it is still possible to discuss the general basis for liberal ideas.

to be continued...

Email discussion ideas for this or any other socio-political topic, or you can discuss any topics on this website here.

2003-09-16T07:38:00.000-05:00

A Winning Combination

For those who think beating George Bush is impossible, I give you...Election 2004!

Democratic candidate* wins tight race with powerful incumbent. Drawing on the deep base of the Democratic party, the candidate won the electoral vote 271-267. Margin of popular vote victory was also close with less than one million votes separating the two candidates. Third party candidates received less than 1% of the overall vote, making it clear that anti-incumbent forces made a rare "pact" to win this election. Florida was not a concern this year as the Democratic candidate* did well in such states as Ohio, West Virginia, and Michigan. In a somewhat expected turn, the Republican incumbent received victories in Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Traditional Democratic states such as New York, California, and Massachusetts were won by slim, yet comfortable margins. No state, however, was close enough to have a "2000-type" recount effort or court challenge. For the second time in 12 years, a popular Republican incumbent has been defeated by a populist Democratic challenger*. In other election news, Democratic challengers for Congress were also elected giving Democrats a two vote majority in the Senate and a much more managable minority status in the House. Voter turnout was greater than 70%.

How would you like to wake up the day after the general election in 2004 and read that? It CAN happen. We need Democrats (of all philosophies) to get off their collective ass to make this work. America cannot afford four more years of war, unemployment, and fiscal deficit. Our children cannot afford to pay for mistakes that we allowed to be made because we were too lazy or too apathetic to VOTE.

If you are 18 years old or older--even if you are Republican--please, register to vote. Vote often and intellegently. Never in the history of this country (with the possible exception of 1932) has it been more important to let our voice be heard. If you are a liberal or left-leaning moderate and need a reason to vote, read the rest of this blog or link to one of the blogs on the Dean blog. Feel free to contact me if you need help.

*A name has been left out for a reason. I may be a Howard Dean supporter, but I will vote with a clear conscience for any of the Democratic nominees. Come November, we all better "fall in line" because you can guarantee the Republicans will--not you "Republicans for Dean," of course.

2003-09-15T21:43:00.000-05:00

Why I Love America--the Stupid

I hope this comes off a little mean. We deserve it!

It's good to know that at least 30 percent of this country has a brain! When I heard the news that roughly 70 percent of adults in this country believe in a Iraq-9/11 connection, I was aghast! Not even the Bush administration, with all of their past deceptions, could have come up with a humdinger like this. SEVENTY percent--that's more than 2-to-1--I, I, I need a shower!

Then it occured to me, this is how George Bush became our President in the first place. A vast majority of people in this country are afflicted with acute stupidity (or they are, at the very least, ignorant). Take Alabama for example (as I often do): A Reagan-Republican, a tax cutting, government-phobic conservative, proposes a tax hike on the wealthiest Alabamians while giving tax RELIEF to the lower class. (Something has to be wrong when a guy like that proposes a class-based tax hike). Again, by an eerily similar 2-to-1 margin, the measure is defeated. The same group defeated a state lottery which, with the most conservative estimates, would have produced around $50 million in revenues for the state government. StUpId!!

So, now, Alabamians with less lucrative careers, will be forced to pay higher taxes (as a percentage of income) than their more lucrative counterparts. And as those lower income residents cannot afford the luxury of private boarding schools, and cannot afford to live in a "nicer" neighborhood; their children will be forced to attend public schools with a dwindling tax base for operations. Class size will increase, school programs and activities will be axed, and teachers will lose their jobs. And just like here in Kentucky, prisoners will most likely be released from jail because they cannot afford to keep them. DUM-B!

Then I found the most asinine display of ignorance in a very unexpected group. A majority of Democrats now believe that George W. Bush will most likely be re-"elected" in 2004. By a frighteningly familiar margin (2-to-1), Democrats believe that, regardless of who gets the party's nomination, the incumbent will survive to reign another four years. What the @#%~! Please tell me that the polls have been rigged! Please tell me that Democrats (the smart people in this country) misunderstood the question. Don't they realize that George Bush's reelect numbers are dismal? Don't they realize the powerful "weapons" we have to use against George Bush? Apparently not.

We "intellectuals" have to do a better job explaining to the American people the atrocities committed by this administration. We have to do a much better job at convincing the citizens of this country that our ideas are better than conservative Republican ideas. If we lose next year, it will be because of stupidity. People who don't vote: Stupid! People who never pay attention to the world around them: Dumb! People (especially Canadians) who can't name the capital of Canada: All too common and just plain pathetic.

2003-09-06T00:49:00.000-05:00

Thank GOD for the Religious Right

I just watched entirely too much of a Larry King interview with James Dobson. I hope this doesn't come off as "ranting." :')

I know I've "gone off" on Alabama Justice Roy Moore, but there is a much larger problem at hand: the "religious right." Once upon a time, they were called the "Moral Majority," although one could argue that they were never "moral" or a "majority." Having said that, the evangelical Christian "lobby" in this country is still a powerful and influential group. They vote consistently Republican (and boy, do they vote), and they are almost exclusively white and sub-"urban". Many of them are "comfortable" financially, although it is not necessarily so.

The religious right ferociously attacks liberals and progressive organizations (ACLU, GLAAD, etc.). This is just a sampling of their common complaints:

1. God has been removed from our country.
2. Homosexuals are dedicated to destroying the American family to promote their own "agenda."
3. The public school system is devoid of religious expression because liberals won't let prayer and Bible reading exist in them.
4. Abortionists are destroying the basic moral structure of our society and bringing the wrath of GOD upon us.

As I am sure you are all aware, Christianity and Christian worship have been banned within the borders of the United States. Gays and lesbians have been given the right to marry and adopt children in 49 of 50 states--Hawaii was the only exception (all marriages in Hawaii were made null and void EXCEPT gay marriage). Atheist organizations have been given tax exempt status, and there is now a Department of Atheism and Agnosticism in the Cabinet. Churches are being downsized every day with public schools taking over the education of religious institutions. All references to God have been taken off the airwaves by the FCC, while the teachings of Buddha are seen nearly every half hour on PBS. Folks, this suppression of Christian moral teaching must stop. I mean, domestic violence is up 300%, the divorce rate is more than 85%, and more than 20 church buildings are destroyed every hour to make room for "gentleman's clubs" and strip malls. If we do not act now, the entire faith system of our country will falter.

This, of course, is total bullshit. Christianity is as strong today (with a few modifications) as it was in the 1950's (the so-called "hay day" of evangelism). New, larger churches are being built in every city and town while the public schools nearby have to hold classes in trailers. Organizations purely religious in nature have tax-exempt status. No laws have been made to expressly ban religious behavior in the school building (spontaneous prayer and Bible reading--initiated by students--are not illegal). What is the big issue with these people? They get mad because a federal judge ordered the removal of a two-ton monument of the "ten commandments." They cry because gay men can have anal sex without fear of prosecution. They blame abortion for 9/11.

The religious right needs to get a clue. Much like conservatism, religious "fervor" is also a disease. Religious people are not bad people. They are mostly average people with the same sorts of problems that you and I have. I appreciate and celebrate the right of ALL people to worship as freely as they please, but they must also realize that an ever-growing majority in this country do not believe as they do, and those others have rights as well. Practice your religion faithfully, but please, don't force it on others. Remember a basic American principle: Your rights END were my rights BEGIN.

2003-09-04T21:49:00.000-05:00

The New Mexico Debate

Welcome to the latest in a long line of Democratic debates aimed at winning the presidential nomination of their party. For most Democrats, this was the first time they had seen many of these candidates. For some, such as myself, it was just another Thursday night with the Dean campaign. If it wasn't obvious, two candidates were acting like frontrunners in this campaign. Howard Dean was one; John Kerry was the other. The only problem: Only Howard Dean is a frontrunner.

Again, Howard Dean did an excellent job going after President Bush and promoting his own agenda. John Kerry has apparently not figured out the value of "platitudes." He is still trying to run his campaign like a chemistry class. Dean has figured out that simple statements, catchy slogans, and the occasional attack on the incumbent are the proper ingredients for winning the "hearts" of Democrats.

I also saw a new Dick Gephardt, tonight. I'm afraid he might be coming off a little desperate, however. He wasn't reprimanded enough for continually going over the time alotted, and looked like a regular ass by answering questions that were never posed to him. To his credit, Mr. Gephardt linked himself to the Clinton administration, but nullified much of his argument by knocking Clinton's passage of NAFTA. Don't get me wrong, in a contest that will be summarized primarily with "soundbites," Gephardt did himself a great service by putting memorable lines into his answers.

Joe Lieberman's attack on Howard Dean was predictable, if not a little anti-climactic. Dean was able to twist himself out with a slight flop, but Joe Lieberman, because he was the only establishment candidate to do so, looked a bit foolish in attacking Dean. Had Howard-bashing been the agenda for the night, it might have been a little more effective. Instead, the attack came off looking like a desperate "cry" for attention. Sorry Joe, people are going to start calling you "Sore Loserman" again if you're not careful.

Al Sharpton gets a 10 again for not showing up in the first place. The field is too large as it is. With the possibility of a tenth candidate (Gen. Clark) joining the race, many Americans may simply lose interest in the whole process until extremely late in the game. It could make this a contest decided in March rather than February. Very exciting! Blah.

So, my rankings are as follows...

8. John Edwards--Who IS John Edwards?
7. Bob Graham--Future Dean supporter?
6. Dennis Kucinich--Angry white man; Socialism never looked so scrawny!
5. John Kerry--His big moment to shine (didn't happen). Need more jokes, less "wonking."
4. Carol Moseley-Braun--Smart woman. I just wish she were from Mississippi.
3. Joe Lieberman--New bad-ass of the party? The RNC forum is THAT way-->
2. Dick Gephardt--Nice to see some fire, Dick. Ouch! No comment.
1. Howard Dean--So nice to be in the lead. Just keep ridding the storm!

2003-09-03T17:10:00.000-05:00

Dean-biscuit

I think that says it all! GO DEAN-biscuit!

picture courtesy of MSNBC.com

2003-09-03T11:23:00.000-05:00

Foreign Policy Based On Petulance

Howard Dean has recently begun attacking the Bush administrations foreign policy with a bit of "english major" humor. To use Al Franken's terminology, it is essentially "kidding on the square" or humor with a great deal of truth behind it. Whether Dean thinks he is kidding or not is unimportant. What is important is the truth behind the statement: "...foreign policy based on petulance."

Just to make sure I had a case, I looked up the meaning of petulance. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines petulance as

the quality or state of being petulant.

Petulant--
1 : insolent or rude in speech or behavior
2 : characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor

Although the precise word never occured to me, the gist of the notion had. I remember when we were trying to "court" countries from within the United Nations to support our resolution in Iraq. The Bush administration said that the UN would become "irrelevant" if they chose not to follow the course we had chosen. Then Donald Rumsfeld called France, Germany, and Russia "old Europe" as a jab at their willingness to "veto" the will of the United States (only France and Russia have veto power in the UN). After the whole freedom/french word substitution game and the pouring of French wine down sewer drains, the State Department spokesman has recycled this garbage, calling the western Europeans "chocolate makers". Yes, "petulance" seems to fit just fine.

If it wasn't already clear to the American people, Howard Dean has found one more way to bring a case against the policies and statements of this miserable administration. Using "fifty cent" words makes the point even more powerful if not a little bit humorous.

2003-08-29T00:23:00.000-05:00

Larry Kudlow's Opinion

Just a few minutes ago, I sent a response to a National Review article written by Larry Kudlow. Per the recommendation of the DDF, I am now posting my response on my blog. E-mail me with your opinion.
-------------------------------

This e-mail is in response to the most recent editorial by Larry Kudlow referencing Howard Dean.

Why must you misrepresent the facts? I found no less than three misleading and/or false statements in this article.

1. In reference to Howard Dean's health care plan: Dr. Dean has repeatedly made the point that a "universal," single-payer health care plan (like the one proposed by Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, and Sharpton) cannot pass. Dean's plan is easily the least ambitious amongst the Democratic candidates, with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman who has none. Expansion of Medicare for those who cannot afford insurance (voluntary participation), and a "buy-in" program involving the federal employee insurance plan. That's the whole plan! No dismantling of the current insurance system. No mandates or entitlements.

2. With respect to the deficit: I wish I could understand your mathematics. Perhaps you have a magical calculator or something, but just looking at the numbers I find it difficult to see how $2 trillion in tax cuts over ten years accounts for only one fifth of an approximately $1.4 trillion deficit over the same period. Are you saying that had the tax cuts not been enacted the deficit would only be lowered by $300 billion? Nope my calculator will not do that math. Correction in terms: Deficit becomes debt, which is NOT temporary without a consistent budget surplus.

3. With reference to the "tax cut repeal": While it is true that Howard Dean will fight to repeal President Bush's reckless tax cuts, it is doubtful that this will have the effect you predict. Many predicted the same economic "travesty" when Bill Clinton and a Democratic congress passed the economic plan of 1993 which included major tax increases. The repeal of Bush's tax cuts would render taxes at a level less than that of 1997, at the height of our economic prosperity. Besides, Dean has a wonderful record in Vermont of cutting taxes when it is feasible.

I find it amusing that Howard Dean frightens "conservatives" so much. After all, progressives in Vermont complained that he was TOO conservative. Dean supporters such as myself find themselves in a welcome position: Conservatives call us liberal; liberals call us conservative. That's definitely attractive to the center of this great nation. See you in November!

Respectfully,
Jeremy Raines

PS--you can join the Dean campaign at www.deanforamerica.com or www.republicansfordean.blogspot.com.

--------------------------------
I recommend reading the article for yourself and responding if the mood strikes you. All budget data is courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office via www.cbo.gov. Most everything else is common knowledge. :D

2003-08-27T00:13:00.000-05:00

What a Wonderful Day!

Top two things that made my day:

1. I received my copy of Al Franken's new book.
2. The Howard Dean campaign (my people) met their one million dollar goal.

Al Franken is one of my favorite satirists and writers. His bold, irreverent style help balance the hardcore hate-speech coming from the conservative press. I hope his book sells twice as many copies as Ann Coulter's Treason. In case you're not familiar with Ms. Coulter (click here for a clip from her book), she is a ultra-conservative who believes that liberals are un-American. Democrats, she says, are "preternaturally" prone to treason. Al Franken points out numerous errors--with proof--from her previous work of fiction, Slander. If you have $20 lying around the house, I urge you to purchase Franken's new book. It will open your eyes to the "crap" that's being fed to us daily through allegedly "liberal" media. Now for my favorite part:

I saw Howard Dean in New York on C-SPAN this evening. I had a very busy day--family stuff--and hadn't had a chance to watch the running totals for the fundraising event online. When they showed the tally at the time, I was ecstatic! We actually pulled it off. His stump speech has become very focused and refined. Even after such a whirlwind schedule, he was able to keep his composure and articulate, passionately. This campaign is going to take front-runner status and run with it.

I do have a word of caution for Dean supporters, however. Labor Day weekend is upon us. For some of you new to this game (politics), this is when it "gets ugly". As the official front-running campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, and most of the nation, expect some very harsh criticism. Don't be discouraged, though. It happens to all major players at this point. Be vigilant. If you see questionable commentary on the Dean campaign or Howard Dean personally, investigate, corroborate (always double-check sources), and then retaliate. Respond honestly and bluntly. People in politics don't respond to weak or unverified arguments. If we tell the truth and are humble in our disagreements, we cannot lose. Get involved and keep contributing. This thing ain't over until the Cowboy goes back to Crawford. You have the Power!

2003-08-26T01:08:00.000-05:00

This Atheist Nation

I just can't let this "Ten Commandments" thing go. I want my friends in Alabama to toss this joker out of office as soon as feasible. His "civil disobedience" is costing Alabama its credibility and is playing games with state and federal constitutions. Yes, it is true that the U.S. Constitution--the ultimate rule of law when its laws are the more stringent--does not explicitly deny the type of statement being made by Justice Roy Moore. It does, however, explicitly deny the right of Congress to make laws regarding the establishment of religion. It also limits the Congress' ability to make laws denying the free exercise of religion. My problem with Roy Moore's "monument" is not that it violates the Constitution of either the U.S. or Alabama. What bothers me is the "spirit" with which this monument was constructed and placed.

It is obvious to me that Justice Moore wanted to make a political statement. It would have been just as meaningful for his devotion to God to put a plaque on the wall of the lobby or a marble tile inset in the floor; something that would not detract from the well-defined purpose of the building. His agenda was to be a martyr for the very powerful fundamentalist Christian lobby in Alabama. He wanted to turn that courthouse into a media frenzy, attracting the kind of attention and voters that gets one elected to this kind of post. You can't tell me that he didn't expect the order he received from the federal court to remove the monument. In fact, he counted on it. Had they said, "it is perfectly fine to glorify God and the Ten Commandments on public grounds," it would have been an empty victory. No media coverage, no angry mobs, no outraged Christian base. Roy Moore is depending on this protest to keep him in office and donations.

Am I saying that Roy Moore is doing this simply for political and financial reasons? No. I believe that Justice Moore believes everything he says, and that his placement of the monument essentially stems from a genuine desire to serve his LORD, faithfully. That being said, the afore mentioned, less provocative alternatives would have sufficed without nearly the same "hub-bub" and legal wranglings. If Roy-boy thinks that this courthouse belongs to him (even though his name is on the lease) perhaps he should pay to keep it staffed and maintained instead of leaving the "tab" to Alabama taxpayers. 'Nuff said.

We need a change of climate in this country. Fundamentalist Christians are due for a much needed "dose of reality". Their argument--which I recently heard reiterated by the beloved Jerry Falwell--that this is a nation founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles, is flawed. I will concede that the very early settlers of this country were persecuted Christians--of the conservative variety, I might add. It was not, however, those same conservative Christians who so effectively "wove" this nation into the grand Republic she is today. A handful of truly conservative Christians stand out in the rhetoric and debate of the late 18th Century, but for the most part, our forefathers were Anglicans, Unitarians, Deists, and yes Atheists. Although many of our early government documents contain reference to GOD, the Creator, or the Almighty One; one must deliberately stretch the meaning of these references to decipher any mention of a strictly Christian deity. Throughout history--that is, prior to the Enlightenment of the 1700's, deities were used in official documents for the effect of giving the legal a hint of the "ethereal". Arabs, Greeks, Romans, and Britons all used mention of certain higher powers to give their law decrees the full endorsement of the divine. The desired result was unquestioning allegiance from the general public.

Although this practice was dying out by the time our forefathers "created" this nation, use of divine "signature" was seen as traditional and effective. They were right. Had they not used these words, it is likely that some of the more important concepts they wanted to emphasize might not wield the same strength. Lines like "that our Creator endowed us with certain unalienable rights..." would be less effective without mention of the divine. This line, authored by Thomas Jefferson--a Deist, cannot be taken to refer literally to the Christian GOD or Creator, but simply a literary device that highlights important aspects of a legal document. Even our money envokes the power of the divine, giving it far more weight in the minds of the average citizen than it actually has.

Another thing for fundamentalist Christians to remember is this: You already own this country, and there is no need to "win it back". When Fred Phelps speaks in his Westboro Baptist Church--a bastion of homophobic zealots--he does not have to answer to any political authority in this nation. His "church" operates tax-free, he can buy supplies for his congregation tax-free, they don't even pay taxes on property used for religious purposes. As a prime example of a church that would be shut down for its views in a liberal, authoritarian regime, Fred Phelps continues to preach freely regardless of how much hatred he breeds. Churches, which worship freely, are found on every street corner. No one has ever been persecuted for believing in God in this nation, although political dissenters have. Thousands upon thousands of tax-exempt ministries (including media outlets) are pumping pages and pages of religious propaganda into the homes and minds of millions of Americans. All of these, as well as many charitable organizations, operate freely, without regulation, and for the most part without taxation for the ultimate purpose of molding this nation in their image. I fail to feel pity for such a powerful and unrestricted lot.

Feel free to practice your religion, faith, or "personal relationship" (whatever you prefer to call it). Just leave me out of it. When I have to go to the courthouse for whatever unavoidable reason, I want to do so without experiencing proselytization. Put the Ten Commandments on the wall, respectfully, but don't forget to be fair (since it is a courthouse) and place Solon's principles of government, Hammurabi's Code, the Napoleonic Code, and the Magna Carta along side it. Love GOD, love each other, but please respect every American's freedom to love neither.

2003-08-22T23:51:00.000-05:00

Leave It to Howard

August has been a fairly boring month in politics; that is to be expected. The story of the month has been the California recall election, in particular, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I know it's important, but I fall asleep every time the pundits say "more on the recall effort when we come back." Give me some news, please.

Then, today, as I am cruising my regular sites on the web, I see that the "bat" is back on DeanForAmerica.com! For those of you new to the Dean campaign, the "bat" is a new twist on an old fundraising tool. Most commonly, fundraisers (Easter Seals, Salvation Army, etc.) have used a technique I call "SFFE" or self-fulfilling fundraising effort. The organization will present a symbol (typically a thermometer or mountain) to show progress in a particular fundraising event. Much like the cheering at a sports event, the more the fundraising succeeds, the more people are inclined to contribute to help it succeed. The Dean campaign has discovered the immense potential of such a tool and has combined it with the power of the internet. This is the third time that they have used this tool, as far as I am aware. It helped to give Dean's campaign the best fundraising quarter of all the Democratic candidates. It showed that we could challenge Dick Cheney's fundraising machine by raising more money from more people. Now, we are apparently going "toe to toe" with one of G.W.'s million dollar fundraising events. August just got more interesting.

If this event is as successful as I think it will be, the press should eat it up. The rest of the Democratic field will have to look in horror at the insurgent candidate taking the lead, again. The third quarter will look better than the second. We will prove that Bush is vulnerable, not just on the issues, but on grassroots fundraising as well. Leave it to Howard and Co. to make politics fun and meaningful for a great many disaffected voters. Happy contributing!

2003-08-20T21:06:00.000-05:00

Chief Justice Roy Moore

In case you weren't aware, I lived in Alabama for four years while my wife earned a professional degree. I am quite aware of Judge Roy and his antics. It seems the rest of the country is now getting equal media coverage. See the NY Times article that was released today. (Free password/login required.)

This "waste of environmental resources" called Justice Moore believes that he is taking a "moral" stand for all believers (Christian fundamentalists). What he is doing is much more sinister. He is thumbing his nose at the federal court establishment and subjecting the state that voted for him--yes, that's right VOTED--to fines of five-thousand dollars a day, allegedly in the name of religious freedom. What Justice Moore fails to recognize is that a great number of people (the South included) find little or no inspiration from his GOD or his "ten commandments". Alabama has multiple reminders of the power and might of the Christian religion. There are churches of numerous denominations on every street. Birmingham, where I resided for the term of my "imprisonment" in Alabama, probably has MORE churches than streets. My point is this: With so many reminders of GOD and the power and influence of Christianity in the state, Roy's expression is infantile at best.

I don't know whether or not it made national news at the time, but Judge Moore had this immense two ton plus "monument" moved into the courthouse under the cover of darkness, and ultimately, at the taxpayers' expense. At the time, I thought there would be a public outcry for his removal from office. There was not. However, a case was brought to a higher federal court in Alabama. On November 18th of last year, a judge in that court ordered the monument's removal by August 20th of this year: TODAY. The federal judge should be applauded for standing up for religious freedom, not Roy Moore. Unfortunately, however, the "religious right" in this country will stand behind the Chief Justice and will give him faithful martyr status regardless of the outcome.

Any expression of religion that crosses that invisible wall between itself and publicly financed interests should be fought furiously. It is in the interest of all parties involved that we refrain from mingling public law and private religious opinion. Religion defines all of us in one way or another, and removing it from our decision-making would be impossible and unnecessary. However, when religious opinion becomes one's sole reasoning for policy positions, we have to question that person's ability to make sound, rational decisions. Alright, I have to quit before I get a nosebleed.

This nation is not a democracy. The majority, real or imagined, does NOT have the right to inflict its will on the "minority". This is an essential part of the American legal tradition and one of our greatest "gifts" to the laws of other countries. The fact that our forefathers made it a part of our Constitution unequivocally proves that they were visionaries. But that's another topic for another day.

2003-08-19T15:14:00.000-05:00

Mr. President: Get Your Ass Back to Washington!

President Bush's month-long vacation in Crawford, TX is disturbing to me. We have troops being attacked in two theaters of war, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is facing uncertainty, and John Ashcroft is trying to pass an "addendum" to the Patriot Act that would make us less free and no more safe. I think it's time for Mr. Bush to get back to the White House. This is no time to attend fundraisers for a "no contest" primary. This is not the right time to get photo-ops in front of staged haystacks. As terrible a president as Bush is, he should do his best in the seat of power to control the situation. Come on! You're the President! Act like it!

2003-08-15T23:47:00.000-05:00

The Media, Conservative Pathology, etc.

I love the news media! Somehow, they manage to raise the ire of every single political philosophy. Liberals say they're too "conservative," conservatives say they're too "liberal," libertarians and independents say that the media "panders" to the two major political parties, but what is the truth? The truth is, every media outlet has conservative, liberal, and independent-minded journalists and anchors.

Ann Coulter is a conservative. Al Franken is a liberal. They both have books on the shelves of your local bookstore. Your bookstore also has Garfield comics, Harry Potter, and Bibles. All that we can clearly say about media bias is that it isn't clear. Books and journal articles about media bias always tend to glare over one very crucial issue: The bias of its author. There will never be enough "liberal" press for liberals, there will never be enough "conservative" press for conservatives, all we will be able to appreciate through our narrow world view is the mirror image of our own political ideology. Fellow liberals, stop saying that the media is conservative! It does no good. Fox News will continue to exist, if only to make us more angry. Watch CNN, listen to NPR, but continue to check in on conservatives once in a while. If we are ignorant of their motives and their agenda, we will be ill-prepared to defend against it.

Bonus Topic:
Conservative Pathology

We liberals must remember that conservatism is a disease. It is not one easily, but one that needs to be understood. "Conservatism" is an old word with new meaning. Well-meaning conservatives who stand for fiscal responsibility and "American" moral values are not the people of whom I speak. I am talking about the "neo-Reaganites" who, in the name of economics, are lax on deficit control as long as the tax burden is lowered, quick to the "trigger" on foreign affairs, and repressive of legal rights for people who do not share their restrictive moral views. They are scared, oppressed, under-educated people who are easily "led" and rarely "lead." I'm not talking about President Bush. I'm talking about the "droves" of zealots who "elected" him, and also elected hundreds of other conservatives in Washington, D.C. George Bush is just the latest in a long line of people to capitalize on this disease.

People who have this disease believe their leaders without question. They decry any attempt of liberals or moderates to indict these same leaders. If George Bush says "jump," they say "how high"? What is most sad about this pathology is the ridiculous extent to which those affected will go to defend obvious problems with their leaders. George Bush can do no wrong. Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, can do nothing right. Even when the two are in agreement, those with this illness will "spin" the agreement as a political ploy of the "left" to compromise the purity of Bush's plans. These are slaves without physical "masters." It is the saddest of epidemics, and liberals should lend a hand to stop it. Through electing another Democratic President AND Congress, liberals/moderates can prove once again that we are better at governing than ultra-conservative leaders. We can give them the things that they need and relieve their fears about the future. We can offer them peace and equality without compromising their basic freedoms. I am hopeful that we will find a cure for this disease in the near future. As of the current moment, however, the disease is spreading unrestrained and most affected are unaware that they have it.

If you or someone you know has this disease, get help. Inform me if you see this terrible disease in your own neighborhood.

2003-08-12T11:12:00.000-05:00

The Sheet Metal Worker's Forum

Last night, seven of the Democratic presidential hopefuls participated in a discussion forum in Philadelphia. The event, sponsored by the Sheet Metal Worker's union, was televised in part on MSNBC and in full on C-SPAN.

As you already know, I have thrown my support (and my money, however limited) behind Howard Dean. He did not steal the show last night, however. Don't get me wrong, he did fine, but he looked very tired. Al Sharpton showed the most vigor and passion on the stage full of sick, hungry career politicians. I will never forgive Sharpton for things he has done in his past: his anti-semitic remarks, and accusing innocent police officers of wrongdoing even after they are acquitted. But Al looked like a real "contender" last night, typically a role I reserve solely for Dean. Al Sharpton will never get the Democratic nomination, but I hope he stays in the race simply for his ability to get the crowd "worked up" about George Bush's failed policies.

The REAL disappointment for me was John Kerry. At this point last year, I was an ardent Kerry supporter. I thought his criticisms of the President as well as his speaking style were a perfect fit for me. What I saw last night was a different man. He was boring, he was long-winded, he was patronizing, and worst of all, he was co-opting Dean's platform. I have news for John: If people want to vote for Howard Dean's ideas, they will probably vote for Howard Dean.

Lieberman was predictable. He has been on a media blitz of late, labeling Howard Dean and party progressives as "outdated". Of Dean he said that following his extreme ideologies would lead the Democratic party into the "political wilderness". Sharpton also took offense to the Senator's remarks and quipped about the "exodus" story from a different perspective. In my own opinion, if Joe Lieberman wants to compare himself to Moses, that's fine. We must remember, however, that Moses lead the Hebrews IN the wilderness for 40 years and DIED before he could see the "promised land". Not a very positive analogy if you ask me.

The rest of the pack--Moseley-Braun, Kucinich, and Gephardt---said pretty much what I expected. They all approved some form of "universal" health care like we tried to do ten years ago. Kucinich's stance on NAFTA will win him points with the extreme left of the labor movement, but even Dick Gephardt has apparently "tweeked" his stance on the trade issue to appear more centrist. Carol was the most eloquent speaker on the panel, and as usual brings a good deal of civility to all of these discussions. If she were from the South, I would tout her as a VP possibility for Howard Dean. As it stands, however, only Graham or Edwards (neither of which were at the forum) could choose her, and their chances for getting the nomination seem more distant everyday.

To sum up, Dean gets an 8.5 (not his usual 9.9) for looking "tired" but being intelligent regardless, Sharpton gets a 10 for his use of humor, Kerry gets a zero for exceeding his time limits and boring us to tears, and the rest of the pack gets a 6 for being on message but failing to peak our interest. Next time: Fewer candidates and fewer time restrictions--that's my nickle's worth of free advice.

2003-08-06T23:42:00.000-05:00

Why a "Dean-style" Campaign Is The Only "Style" That Will Beat Bush

It's all about beating Bush. We know that. The Democratic party primary will boil down to finding the best candidate to accomplish that feat.

Taking a look at the current evolving political environment we see some disturbing developments.

1. The California recall election: Two likely scenarios could play out in California. One possible outcome: Gray Davis is not recalled, and an unpopular Democratic governor remains in office. Another outcome: Davis IS recalled, and a Republican most likely takes the governorship. Either way, the Democratic presidential candidate will have a hard time getting positive help from the executive branch in California.

2. Money: Bush is a veritable fund-raising juggernaut. Democrats raising funds from our large contributors will never match the incumbent President. Large contributors (outside of Hollywood and Labor Unions) are sparse and undevoted within the Democratic party--we simply refuse to cater to their interests (tax shelters, off-shore incentives, etc.).

3. The South: President Clinton made modest inroads into the Southern vote in '92 and '96. His charisma and style won him points with suburban mothers and youth in the southeast. One could make a similar case for the Midwest in that case. But the only major special interest groups in the South that support Democratic candidates are those of minority groups (organized labor is virtually non-existent). Not to prejudge the coming election, but minorities don't typically vote in large numbers. They are less than enthusiastic when it comes to politics. Very few minorities are directly affiliated with special interest groups, anyway.

So, what's the solution? I think it involves two ideas, both with the same basic concept at their base: Grassroots organization. A grassroots movement will both insure good voter turnout (statistically favoring Democrats) and widespread fundraising efforts. Republicans make up approximately 40 percent of voters; the same as Democrats. The difference is voter turnout and party loyalty. Republicans can depend on that 40 percent in their favor. It is a credit to Democrats that this is not true for us. We are more open-minded and inclusive. This produces a natural inequality, however, that must be made up by increasing the total number of Democrats (and Independents) who turn out at the polls. Thus far, only one Democratic candidate has proven adept at doing this.

Howard Dean may not beat George Bush in 2004, but he must be given the chance to run against him "head to head". Gephardt may have labor, and Joe Lieberman may have the DLC, but Howard Dean has more ardent supporters nationwide (in the South, also) than any other candidate. He is the only candidate that can give George Bush a "run for his money" (pardon the expression). He is the only candidate that can inspire new voters and the disenchanted to vote for a major party candidate. Democrats must realize the need to support this candidacy; our very future depends on it.

2003-08-06T16:25:00.000-05:00

A "Just" War

So far, two top-tier presidential candidates for the Democratic party have defined their positions on the Iraq war AND have stuck with them. These two candidates: Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman. Obviously, I have sided with Howard (as we affectionately call him), but I appreciate Joe Lieberman's consistency as much as I disagree with it.

What defines a just war? Is it the "ends" the "means" or something more ethereal, more abstract. Apparently for Mr. Lieberman, "just" war is a war from which a positive result is attained. For Howard Dean, a "just" war is a war that has at its heart the best "moral" interest of the United States and the world. I agree with Joe (as does Mr. Dean) that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was a justifiable goal. However, timing and TRUTH are everything in this matter. Not only was this the "wrong war at the wrong time," but misrepresentation of intelligence as well as an unwillingness to compromise on the world stage has cost us the "moral" leadership of the world--too high a cost for any outcome.

Perhaps the Senator does not realize the importance of truth-telling in foreign affairs, not to mention telling the truth to the American people. President Bush "fumbled the ball" on this war. We were spending billions of dollars on a "justifiable" war on terror, from which our attention has now been averted. The President lied about pursuing "diplomatic" solutions through the international community. The immanent threat of Iraq to the American people is now in serious doubt. Intelligence was manufactured, or at best "twisted," to best defend a shaky case for invasion. More billions of dollars will be spent re-building a country WE destroyed and there has been little or no "liberty" brought to the Iraqi people.

Hopefully, for the sake of our nation, freedom and prosperity will come to the Iraqi people in the near future. Our soldiers fought a "beautiful" and successful war, but unless peace is maintained, Iraq could be left in worse shape than we found it. If we want real progress in the Middle-East, we must elect a leader who will not misrepresent our interests around the world. Apparently that is NOT Joe Lieberman.

2003-08-03T17:22:00.001-05:00

Broken Promises; Irresponsible Actions

If anybody out there still doesn't think that the Howard Dean campaign can "take it to Bush" on the economy, let me give you a flashback to some comments from President Bush's 2001 State of the Union address. Keep in mind that these statements are prior to 9-11 and the war on terror. They are powerfully damaging nonetheless, as you will see.

My budget has funded a responsible increase in our ongoing operations. It has funded our nation's important priorities. It has protected Social Security and Medicare. And our surpluses are big enough that there is still money left over.

Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. (Applause.) We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. (Applause.) At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. (Applause.) That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history. (Applause.)

We should also prepare for the unexpected, for the uncertainties of the future. We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs. For example, after a strategic review, we may need to increase defense spending. We may need to increase spending for our farmers or additional money to reform Medicare. And so, my budget sets aside almost a trillion dollars over 10 years for additional needs. That is one trillion additional reasons you can feel comfortable supporting this budget. (Applause.)

We have increased our budget at a responsible 4 percent. We have funded our priorities. We paid down all the available debt. We have prepared for contingencies. And we still have money left over.

Now, look at some segments of the 2002 State of the Union address. Remember that we were fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan at the time--as we still are today; Osama bin Laden was "enemy number one". Iraq was supposedly not a concern in the 2001 speech. Also keep in mind that the President promised that there would be "almost one trillion dollars" over the next ten years for such an eventuality as increasing defense spending. That's about $100 billion per fiscal year. Read on...

The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

It costs a lot to fight this war [on terror]. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training -- and they also deserve another pay raise. (Applause.)

My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades -- because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay. (Applause.)

Regardless of what this country went through on September 11th, to say that President Bush's tax cuts were irresponsible and dangerous is an understatement. The President was well aware of the price tag of war. It is also easy to infer that the President was willing to go to war with Iraq much sooner than the administration will admit. I am tired of this kind of "leadership". It's time for the American people to stand up to an administration that supports failed foreign and domestic policies, no matter how sincere in its intentions. Vote for Howard Dean.

2003-08-02T18:27:00.000-05:00

Gay Marriage Part 2

Pardon me if I go on another "rant".

What in the world does the Bible have to do with legal rights in this country? Where in the KJV# or NIV## or NJB### or NKJV#### does it mention freedom of speech? Where does it mention freedom of the press? Where in the hell does the Bible call for people of African descent to have equal voting rights? Where am I going with this?

I spent the better part of my life as a Southern Baptist, the single largest "conservative" Christian denomination outside the Roman Catholic Church. We were taught that homosexual behavior is "sinful"--a belief to which Bush alluded in his recent press conference. The legalization of "gay marriage" would purportedly "sanctify" homosexual behavior to the nation and lead to a steady deterioration of heterosexual marriage. What Bullshit!!

First of all, this country has a long-standing tradition of separating "Church" and "State." Many of our forefathers (Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) believed that allowing religion to seep insidiously into governmental policy would bring about a stagnant nation not unlike ancient cultures that put ideology over substance. Sound familiar? Today, less enlightened reactionaries* would seek to boldly infuse religious teachings that have no basis in scientific fact on the general population, and the American people are "eating it up".

The problem is threefold: The institution or practice of "marriage" is neither sacred nor unchanging, the government has a responsibility to ensure the basic freedoms and equality of its citizens regardless of religious affiliation, and gay marriage, as a legal right, doesn't infringe on the rights of legally espoused heterosexuals. Christians don't like homosexuality. The leaders of conservative religious organizations are afraid that allowing legal gay marriage will "soften the appearance" of gays and lesbians to young people withing those organizations, thereby creating more and more subsequent tolerant generations. God forbid!!

This is an issue that will eventually be played out by the court system. Unless by some "prohibitionist style" revolution the amendment being proposed by congressional Republicans passes, gay marriage or an equivalent right will be upheld by the Supreme Court--even as conservative a court as we have, I guarantee a 6-3 split in favor of gay marriage. The Constitution is silent on marriage, as it should be. Therefore, the Court will choose to obey the Constitution and leave it as a matter for individual states to decide how to best provide equal rights for its citizens.

Now, all we need is a gay couple to try and get married in Mississippi (random conservative state). The court system will take it from there.

#KJV--King James Version (Holy Bible)
##NIV--New International Version (The Bible, the new favorite of conservatives)
###NJB--New Jerusalem Bible (Holy Bible, catholic style)
####NKJV--New King James Version (All the poetry of the KJV without all the calories)
*reactionaries--political philosophy to the right of conservatism; based on the principle of a "return" to an idyllic age of virtue (for example, the 1890's and the 1950's in America)

2003-08-01T11:05:00.000-05:00

Classic "W"

Get a load of this!

I've asked Congress to fund $100 million for the Compassionate Capital Fund. That's a fancy word for providing money for organizations like the Urban League to teach some of these small faith programs how to apply for grants, how to help manage and train their staffs. In other words, I fully recognize that some of the programs in some of the neighborhoods need management help.

That's a fancy word... I guess his audience (mostly black Americans) isn't smart enought to know what the word "fund" means. This guy expects more than 9% of the "black" vote in this country? He'll be lucky to get 9% of the "white" vote at this rate.

What about a little "truth in advertising" once in a while?

Words in "italics" quoted directly from the speech transcript on www.whitehouse.gov

2003-07-31T00:03:00.000-05:00

Progressives Unite!

You are more powerful than you think. Whether you're a Democrat, Independent, or Green, more than likely you dislike the direction in which this country is headed. Most of all, you dislike the man who was "elected" to be its leader in 2000. We must put aside differences and stand together. Republicans and conservatives seem to have no problem uniting behind a common cause, regardless of the differences of opinion. Just look at Rudy Giuliani and George Bush. I know that they have huge differences of opinion, but I also know who Rudy will be "pulling the lever" for in 2004. We have to have that same kind of unity in order to rid the White House of this tyrant who has worn out his welcome. Save your protest votes for 2008 when Washington is no longer held hostage by the extreme right.

For an extended argument on this topic follow this link to read a well thought out article quoted from The Capital Times.

2003-07-29T10:07:00.000-05:00

GLBT High?

Maybe I'm off base here, but when did we start segregating students by sexual orientation? I've been reading the articles about the new PUBLIC school in New York City that will offer a gays-only environment. The argument is a good one: due to safety concerns (because homosexuals get abused by other students), a program was started to give gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender (GLBT) students an academic program of their own in which they wouldn't necessarily have to mingle with students who were hostile towards them. This program grew into a large enough movement that the creation of a school was proposed. And as far as I can tell, the school will receive public funds.

Now, I don't oppose security for all students, and I don't oppose the right of GLBT students to get a quality education; but what kind of message are we sending to other children in the NYC public school system? I'm afraid that this could be a dangerous precedent that leads to further division within student bodies on the basis of race, gender, and religion.

We are taking three steps backwards in the cause of human rights. I don't know what GLBT organizations are saying about this, but if they are truly concerned about fighting for equal rights, they should propose some alternative to this plan. In the future, I want my child to meet people of all different types when she goes to high school, not just the people who are like her.

I need positive and negative feedback from other progressives on this issue. E-mail me with your opinions.

2003-07-28T22:54:00.000-05:00

Hey Joe!

What is wrong with Joe Lieberman? Is he being blackmailed by the same people who are extorting Bill Clinton? The recent remarks he made concerning Iraq were at best confusing. Its not okay that the President misrepresented intelligence to the American people, but because the war is somehow "just," we should get over it, and not worry about "16 words" in the State of the Union?

Republicans and some "conservative" Dems like Lieberman harshly scolded former President Clinton about lying to the American people. Congress voted to impeach the President for committing perjury on a matter of sexual behavior, but it's okay to send troops to Iraq for so-called "security" reasons which have little or no basis in fact. I'm no longer certain where Joe's loyalties lie.

Bill Clinton is no longer running for public office and has the luxury of making off-hand, snide remarks about people in his party, but when you run for the Presidency of the U.S. in a major party, you have to be sensitive to the mood of the majority in that party. Only in a handful of states can Republicans vote in a Democratic primary, but most of them will vote for Al Sharpton of Dennis Kucinich, knowing that it would only be too easy for Bush to win against them (obviously a debatable point).

To be fair, if Joe Lieberman truly believes that the war was justified regardless of the mishandled or overplayed intelligence report, then that's fine. I just wouldn't expect to win the nomination from the party.

On the whole, we are tired of the lies (yes, I said "lies") and shady practices of this administration. We don't need our "representatives" out in public defending it. We will not let this subject go, because it has at its roots the very fabric of integrity and morality of government. We cannot afford to further lose confidence in the ability of our leaders to tell the truth, especially when war and human lives are at stake.

Perhaps the conservatives in our party will join together and find a way to put this man on the Democratic ticket. He will lose. It's like Harry Truman said, in a very "cola-taste-test" fashion, "When given a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, the people will choose the real Republican every time." If you wish to vote for the "Republican wing of the Democratic party," Joe may be your man.

2003-07-27T12:14:00.000-05:00

Bush’s Fiscal Policy

I am confused by the so-called “Jobs Growth” package passed by President Bush. I thought we had already debunked “trickle down” economics. Here is a hypothetical situation that illustrates my point.

Let’s say that every one of the Fortune 500 companies is given a one million dollar tax cut. Now suppose that every dollar is used to create 40 middle/lower income jobs paying an average of $25,000.

Assuming that all of President Bush’s tax cuts are still in effect, the average tax bill for these workers would be less than $2,000. Forty employees paying two thousand dollars in taxes is $80,000. The government has lost approximately $920 thousand in tax revenue per company.

In fact, it would take the creation of roughly 500 jobs per company to pay for a “small” 500 million dollar tax cut. If a company is not to lose money on its payroll--which most refuse to do, that means each would need to see an additional increase in net profit of $12.5 million. Who is going to contribute to such a staggering figure if only 20,000 median income jobs are created per year.

The White House estimates that its economic policy, along with general economic cycles will create over 5 million jobs in the next year alone. While this is a fantastic prospect, the solvency of our federal budget is still in question. If each of the 5 million jobs created made the liberal figure of $30,000, they would still only generate around $30 billion in tax revenue (also a liberal estimate). The deficit this year alone is $455 billion. It would take ten years and a modest increase in GDP* every year to accomplish paying off the new debt created in one year by this administrations economic policy. Most disturbingly is the administrations own estimate that the budget deficits will only gradually decrease over the next ten years. Hmm?

The big lie is that massive tax cuts are passed as “economic policy.” The truth: massive tax cuts starve the federal budget, making it necessary to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

We have seen the President playing both sides of the field. He passed some of the largest tax cuts in history, then he proposed pseudo-progressive reform of Medicare. If he is re-elected, he will no longer have to “fear the reaper.” The budget deficits will continue to climb, the national debt will soar, and social programs will no longer be safe from the “axe.” Once the American people realize they have been duped, the Democrats will have to take over and raise taxes and increase spending to salvage important entitlement programs, again setting ourselves up as the bad guys. It’s a vicious cycle that could go on for generations unless the people of this country step in and do something about it, now.

This is why I decided to support Howard Dean. As President, Howard Dean has promised to repeal the Bush tax cuts and rescue entitlement programs while fighting to balance the budget. I have a baby girl who will have to deal with the consequences of our actions. We need a responsible leader who won’t spend our children’s inheritance on risky tax schemes. In fact, the damage may be so severe that many of us in our twenties and thirties will feel the first long-range effects of these decisions. If things do not change, our taxes will go up further than ever, and Social Security will no longer be assured when we retire. Help those of us who care about the future of this nation and our own well-being by supporting Howard Dean for President.

*GDP–gross domestic product

2003-07-26T23:07:00.000-05:00

Something Positive

If you are like me, you watch lots of political programming on cable news. One common complaint I hear from conservative pundits is that there is a lack of message from the left. It does appear that this is true, considering how much all of us (progressives/liberals) hate the Bush administration. But just to show that it is possible, I offer my positive vision for the future of America.
------------------------------------------------------------

I see a future for our nation that involves every American. A future in which different views are allowed and not censored. I see a time when the government listens to its boss: the people.

I see a future that leaves no one sitting on the street, wondering from where his or her next meal is coming, and where he or she can go to escape an encroaching thunderstorm. The people of this great nation will join hands in the common goal of ending homelessness and poverty for all those who do not choose it.

I see a future in which the sick are given adequate treatment regardless of their insurance. All Americans will be guaranteed health care by the government, both preventative care and care for the treatment of illnesses. No longer will tax payers be required to pay a premium for their own insurance and pick up the "tab" for those who cannot pay.

I see a future nation that brings out the best in its citizens by encouraging them. A citizenry that believes, in the face of adversity, that all is not lost. A people who look foward to tomorrow without fear of destruction.

I see a future in which I and my children will be able to visit foreign nations and be proud to call ourselves "Americans." A future world that is more unified by the common cause of peace than divided over ideological views of defense. A time when we see the end of "Wal-Mart" patriotism* and a return to real "moral" purpose.

I see a future nation that grants the same opportunities to all of its citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation; not as a privilege, but as a birth right. A nation that recognizes the freedom of all people to choose the "how" and "what" of their lives at will, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others. A country that leads the world in human rights instead of "bringing up the rear."

I see a future populace that values schools more than prisons, the environment more than a "quick buck," and peace more than war--a nation of individuals who, with few exceptions, have their priorities in order.

I see a future in which we will celebrate each other. Difference will be considered a value. We will spend more time in discussion than in argument. Love will cross all boundaries and philosophies.

I see a future that has as its base the defense of freedom. No one will call for limits to liberty, and everyone will support the liberation of the oppressed throughout the world. Military might will no longer be used for invasion, but for assistance.

*"Wal-Mart" patriotism--The type of "patriotism" that is expressed by a $15 flag, a $2 bumper sticker, and gratuitous recitation of The Star Spangled Banner and "The Pledge of Allegiance."
------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that Democrats and liberals in general start talking about these issues soon. Trust me, I understand the desire to destroy President Bush, but there are more important things. This vision points to general, optimistic, progressive themes that we feel are crucial. They represent the best thoughts of a majority of Americans. We have the best platform to ensure the realization of this future, and the American public needs to hear that.

2003-07-25T21:38:00.000-05:00

Yoda for President?

Follow this link for proof positive that Dick Gephardt is "literally" turning into Yoda.

"Against the war, I was."

photo courtesy of C-SPAN

2003-07-25T21:15:00.000-05:00

Osama who?

Has anybody else noticed the convenient absence of Osama bin Laden from nightly news coverage? Man! This administration is good!

I remember less that a year ago how hard it was to go through 30 minutes of cable news coverage without hearing something about the "most wanted" terrorist in the world. Now you would think that Saddam Hussein magically absorbed all of Osama's "evil," and killing him will end the threat of terror.

At least Uday and Qusay are gone. Maybe George Bush will absorb their "evil" and become our "Uber-lord." Come on, when the American people wake up and realize that this entire operation was a political attempt to divert our attention from a less than successful "war on terror."

Thankfully, not all of us are fooled.

2003-07-24T16:44:00.000-05:00

Clinton and Bush

It is not all that surprising to see former President Clinton defending the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. After all, Bill Clinton is still trying to build a legacy. A legacy that doesn't judge him too harshly on his dishonesty and personal failures. For Clinton to "call out" George W. Bush for lying would be like the "pot calling the kettle black." Neither is the former Prez worried about hurting the public standing of the Democratic presidential contenders. It would be a lot harder for Hillary to run against an incumbent in the primaries in 2008.

Don't get me wrong, I love Bill Clinton (platonically, of course). But I have never said that everything he says is the "gospel." He needs to get used to the fact that he is no longer the leader of the Democratic party. Bill, thank you for making this country a better place in which to live. Your recent statements, however, might convince enough impressionable individuals to cast their vote for a man who is obviously leading our nation down the wrong path. If this continues to be your PR mode, perhaps it is best that you stay out of politics until WE call you.

Thank You,
"The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"

2003-07-23T13:30:00.000-05:00

The New Conservative "Spin Doctors"

I remember the Clinton years very fondly. As I have said, I didn't agree with many of President Clinton's positions, but he had an eye for economics, and the passion to get things done. During these years, however, the moderates and conservatives in the press called the administration officials who "cruised" the talk-show circuit, "spin doctors." Conservatives in particular were hostile with these so-called "doctors," and tore them apart on conservative-friendly talk shows.

We have now seen a switch. Democrats have lost control of both the legislative and executive branches of government. Their voices are hardly a whisper compared to the booming rhetoric coming from the "right."

Now that Democrats have decided to question a Republican administration on their policies, Republicans are hitting the talk-show circuit becoming "spin doctors" for the Bushies.

2003-07-18T12:13:00.000-05:00

misStatement of the Union

Recent controversy over the President's "State of the Union" address prompted me to investigate the speech further. I have presented some of the more disturbing moments and, just for fun, have added some commentary. I will admit that some of my points are "picky," but hey, we hold the President to a higher standard (or so I've been told). Enjoy!

We will work for a prosperity that is broadly shared, and we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people.

We won’t share with the poor, the homeless, and the non-tax paying lower class. People of unfortunate circumstances don't deserve our prosperity...they didn't earn it.
Every danger? We attacked Iraq without physical provocation, yet North Korea builds nuclear weapons that could be attached to rockets that could reach California.

...we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations.

But it’s okay to have a $455 billion deficit and increase the national debt to record numbers, because no future government will have to deal with that.

To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation.

Funny, our economy came out of recession just fine after Bush (41) and Clinton passed sweeping tax increases. Yet our economy continued to falter after both Reagan and Bush (43) passed record tax relief packages. Hmm, maybe there’s something to this "fiscal responsibility" thing after all.

...we are holding corporate criminals to account.

Yep, that Martha Stewart really had it coming...what was she thinking giving herself a .0001% raise and deceiving investors. Mr. Lay’s day is coming, too...in about 35 years or so. All he did was ruin the lives and retirement accounts of a couple thousand people.

The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes -- and it will help our economy immediately...

Did you hear that: immediately! Like ten years from now. Semantics!

Our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small businesses

Someone needs to inform Bush that most businesses don’t look at income taxes in their bottom line. For a definition of “bottom line”: gross income minus gross expenses. State license fees, yes. Operating costs, yes. Income taxes (although painful) are a springtime inconvenience for most companies, even small ones.

It's fair to tax a company's profits. It is not fair to again tax the shareholder on the same profits. (emphasis mine)

The old "double taxation" line! Dividend taxes are only “double taxation” if based on direct profits. Dividends typically come from profits based on stock performance, related to, but not directly attained from sales. Any money that changes hands is potentially subject to taxation. That also goes for the so-called "Death" tax.

The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth, and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C.

I couldn’t agree more.

I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year

Wait a second, wouldn’t that be around $80-100 billion in increases. There’s more than that outlined in this speech, not to mention the cost of occupation in Iraq and the exorbitant increases in defense spending that have recently been discussed.

Yet for many people, medical care costs too much -- and many have no coverage at all. These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care.

Valid statement, if taken ideologically, but "nationalized" health care by its very nature would cover all citizens of the U.S. and control costs.

To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of higher cost, the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be unfairly sued.

The “primest” cause of higher health care costs is greed and unchecked power. Certainly, there are frivolous law suits against health care establishments, but not enough to cause a significant rise in all health care costs. Besides, who is to define "fairness" except the justice system? It is the place of courts to hear all law suits and judge those cases based on their merits.

I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion.

Oh, yes, I think it would be much better for them to die outside the womb and possibly take the mother with them. Our priorities for human life are skewed. We (meaning the general populace) tend to put more importance on the life of an infant or fetus than we put on its parents.

And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning.

Truth be told, most of us started as the object of an experiment (big laughs). Honestly, what is the big stink about human cloning? One day, cloning technology could be more important than the toaster.

We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country.

Yet it goes against principle to increase funding for AIDS research.

...outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons...could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

First of all, nobody is going to “give” these things away. Secondly, if Saddam Hussein is suspected to have sold weapons to terrorists over the last two years, why haven’t they tried to use them? I guess it depends on your definition of “hesitation.”

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again...And we accept this responsibility.

Yes, this was taken out of context, but it’s pretty funny that the words were so close together...continuing.

...the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.

Apparently not.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

First sentence to be proven wrong from this speech, although the administration still calls it “technically correct.” There will be more, I assure you.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Questionable intelligence? Some intelligence people have dismissed this claim as well. They cite reports that conclude the tubes could be used more readily in conventional weaponry.

He clearly has much to hide

Of whom are we speaking? If it’s Saddam, he hid it so well that noone, not even people who worked with him, can find anything. I wonder if Saddam could have found the weapons to use them.

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

First of all, I don’t want to come off like I’m defending Saddam Hussein, but he did rule a country in the Middle East. Weapons are usually a security item, not simply for use in domination.

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

Yet again, a case that’s hard to prove. Luckily for Bush, it’s also hard to disprove, which is why it was such a big part of the case for war.

[speaking to the Iraqi people] Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

Now as far as most liberals are concerned, this should have been the case for invasion. It would have immediately put us in the role of nation-building (which the President condemns) and given the Iraqi people something for which to hope. The WMD “distraction” was a way to make war more palatable for the nations neoconservatives who will ultimately decide the fate of George Bush's political life.

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make.

Apparently not so profound as to bring forth a good case or iron-clad evidence.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended.

This is just bullshit! No president ever got re-elected for refusing to go to war.

And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.

Very true, except war was not forced upon us. We forced war upon the world.

The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.

Just a disagreement on the nature of God here. God apparently got in no hurry to extend liberty to the world. After all we are arguably the first “free” country in the world, and we are only 226 years old. Technically speaking, "liberty" was the gift of the "Enlightenment" age which had a distinctly "anti-religion" vibe to it.

2003-07-17T00:16:00.000-05:00

The Shrinking Democratic Field

Their going to start dropping like flies in a few months, and Howard Dean won't be one of them. Amazingly enough, the former Governor from a small, white, rural state has enough money to keep him in the race for a long time. Dennis Kucinich is too much of an ideologue to raise broad-based support (and money). Al Sharpton--who I like, by the way--is unfortunately tied to his pre-candidacy allegiance to the NAACP and Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. In other words, he might scare the rich whities. Carol Moseley-Braun looks to be having too much fun to win anything. She is eloquent and progressive, but not passionate, and not bold enough to make a dent. All three of these candidates will most likely be out by early fall--with the possible exception of Kucinich.

The "establishment" candidates--with the exception of Kerry who has lots of money, if little passion and few "hot button" issues--look like sitting ducks, unsure of where the money will come from, and when their issues will become the issues of the day. Joe Lieberman in particular looks foolish considering his stance on Iraq, and his consistent unwillingness to stand up for progressive ideas. Graham and Edwards have failed to branch out of their home states (important though they are).

(Aside)...Is it just me or does Dick Gephardt look more and more like Yoda everyday?

Don't get me wrong, I will vote for whoever makes it out of the pack next spring, but my primary vote will go for Howard Dean. Unfortunately, I live in Kentucky where the primary is in late spring, so the nominee will most likely be chosen by that time. Depressing yes, but many of you who live in more important nominating states can make a difference for the Democratic party. Vote for Howard Dean and take a stand for principles that can make our country a great place in which to live, again.

2003-07-14T12:21:00.001-05:00

Intelligence, The White House, and WMD's

Talk about backtracking...the White House's latest argument for the inclusion of the uranium/Africa connection in Iraq is priceless. Roughly quoted, all administration officials ("Condi" Rice, Ari Fleischer, Don Rumsfield, etc.) are saying that the statement was technically correct: Code for "we did it on purpose." Because the statement was credited to British intelligence and they had not yet falsified the information, it was excuseable, if not foolhardy, to leave the comment in the speech. Besides (they say) it was just "16 words." Bullshit!! We never depend on foreign intelligence that contradicts our own. They knew it was wrong when they said it but said it anyway because they knew they could use this argument if the statement gave them trouble. If Clinton had done this, the Congress would already be in impeachment hearings--after all, he lost the trust of the public over eleven words. When will America wake up and realize that this administration will stop at nothing to impose its "doctrine" on us. They have been caught in this instance and will be caught again I assure you.

On a similar note: Where are the weapons? I have a feeling that if WMD's are not found in the next few weeks, this "uranium in Africa" story might just swallow any chance of President Bush's election chances. I love this possibility but am sad that it had to come at so high a price. The death of hundreds of our soldiers and the loss of credibility in the world are not acceptable. Whoever becomes President in 2005 has to heal this nation and reverse the horrible predicament in which we now find ourselves.

2003-07-12T09:00:00.000-05:00

MasterFraud

The number of soldiers lost since May 1st in Iraq...72.

The amount of deficit in the federal budget...$400 billion.

The national debt at the time of this post...$6,659,226,260,487.87.

The number of well-known, false justifications for war in the State of the Union address...1.

Having enough ammunition to unseat George W. Bush...priceless.

2003-07-09T22:23:00.000-05:00

Bush in Africa

Isn't it great to see George Bush continually taking pages out of Bill Clinton's game book? At a time when the President's approval numbers are high, yet slipping, it is fun to watch him steal Democratic platform projects such as Medicare prescription coverage and money for AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa. Now he is visiting Africa much like Bill Clinton did some five years ago.

Let's be honest, it is great that President Bush is stepping off the war train for a few days and tossing some bread crumbs to the African continent. I feel privileged to have a President who understands the plight of the African people and is apologetic for the long history of slavery that scarred relations between our people.

Give me a break! The party that ended slavery but then decided to give re-segregationism a try in the 1960's is apologetic of slavery? Try some real action for once. How about funding the so-called African AIDS relief program? How about not using words like "quota" to describe the now extinct admissions policies of the University of Michigan? How about offering universal health care to the poor of this nation, many of whom are of African descent? This PR tour may be fooling some weak-minded individuals, but intelligent, rational people in this country will see right through this diversion.

Democrats will keep a majority of the "black" vote in this country for the foreseeable future. Until Republicans offer something in the way of honest aid to people of color in this nation, I will hardly believe their integrity with regards to aiding the people of the African continent.

2003-07-05T10:50:00.000-05:00

Liberal Suicide?

I have been disturbed over the past few months (no comments, please) that the press is undermining the efforts of "progressives" to gain the attention of the electorate. Even now, after the undeniable success of Howard Dean in the Democratic primary, news pundits are still talking about him like he is a long-shot for nomination. They compare him to McGovern and Mondale, saying that he would prove a "very risky choice" for the Democratic party: potential liberal suicide.

This characterization shows not only disrespect for McGovern and Mondale's honest (yet futile) attempts to take the Presidency, but it also shows a lack of knowledge about the electorate. The most recent Supreme Court rulings should give some clue to that change. Even though the overall "conservatism" of the court is undeniable, they have reached some increasingly moderate to liberal-minded decisions in regards to sodomy laws and affirmative action (albeit typically a 5-4 vote). Polls indicate that an increasing number of Americans (particularly youth) support the idea of equal rights for gays and a decreasing number of Americans are affiliated with extreme views on abortion. The religious right, to which George Bush owes much of his success, is faltering. The center (moderates/independents) of the electorate is leaning more to the left than in the previous three decades. Considering these facts, it is hard to imagine a rout on par with the Nixon vs. McGovern or Reagan vs. Mondale next year, particularly when you consider Howard Dean is a pro-gun, fiscally responsible (some say conservative) candidate running on a progressive social platform.

If it values ratings, the press will rethink its coverage of this election before it gets into full swing. Bush could win re-election--that's always possible, but not because Democrats choose to define themselves apart from the extreme right in politics and embrace liberals and progressives. Where we (Democrats) typically lose is in our ability to organize and energize voters, something Howard Dean has already proven he can do. If the press continues this type of coverage, they could be "eating crow" for some time to come.

2003-07-05T00:17:00.000-05:00

Patriotism and Independence Day

We sure are patriotic, aren't we? Ever since 9/11, Americans have hidden behind the flag and justified anger. Patriotism was considered a weakness by our liberal forefathers. In fact, Thomas Jefferson is noted as saying, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism (italics mine)." This was not a definition of patriotism, but rather a slap, a sarcastic condemnation of patriotism. Our founding fathers (the majority, anyway) viewed our new "republic" as an evolving "beast" that gave control to the general populace to change any policy not consistent with current ideals. They certainly did not see the development of an ever-growing imperialistic "power" like the country from which they declared their independence. We were to be a loose collective of rational, scientific-minded idealists ever searching for a better way through discussion and action. That is why we have Constitutional protection of speech. That is why peaceful protest and assembly can never be denied (yes, even burning the flag). We have semi-democratic elections to ensure the best government for the current population (I say semi-democratic because of our use of the electoral college in selecting the President and Vice President--the only offices elected by said process). Ideally, our evolution should never end if we stand by our forefathers dreams. Some of the "powers that be," however, would undermine this process, and in doing so, doom our nation to the fate of Rome and Greece by usurping (a word I never use) our rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

I consider myself a "patriot," if only to deny sole use of the word for people who adhere to a specific and narrow-minded view of this nation. Patriotism, as defined by our forefathers, is the lack of patriotism. Once you become satisfied with the state of the union, you defeat the very process of evolution that insures its survival.

2003-07-01T15:52:00.000-05:00

Gay Marriage

First of all, I am a heterosexual, married to a lovely woman (just celebrated 3 years), and have a beautiful baby girl.

Since when am I special?

I am offended on behalf of homosexuals when I hear some "conservative moral law officer" talking about this topic. They use words that I heard often when I belonged to a Southern Baptist church. The problem is this: legal issues and moral issues are seperate in the eyes of the Constitution. Our liberal forefathers probably never gave a thought to the issue of gay marriage (or many issues we deal with daily). There are, however, barriers between purely religious beliefs and legal rights.

1. Churches cannot be forced to sanctify or legitimize gay marriage.

2. They cannot legally be forced to marry homosexuals within their walls or even using their ministers.

3. Moroever, religious institutions are not and will not be required to meet the same hiring and admitting standards of other, non-religious, for-profit businesses and organizations.

But by the same token, churches, synagogues, and mosques cannot enforce their moral "philosophies" on the legal definitions used by our courts.

The state of Vermont recognizes what they call "civil unions" between same-sex partners to the benefit of their society. As a result, many states have passed or are considering bills that would disallow "civil unions" brought about in other states or countries (Canada?) from being recognized in their states. I live in one such state, as many of you do. This is an issue that will be brought before the courts and I believe "civil unions" will be upheld.

Score: Constitution-one; religious right-zero.

2003-07-01T15:32:00.000-05:00

Rant #1

What is up with the press' coverage of the Democratic primary? I find it ridiculous and personally insulting that the entire media industry (liberal, moderate, and conservative) is still calling Howard Dean a "liberal" and "unable to win in the general election." Although not entirely decided myself, I believe that anyone who can come from "unknown" to leading the pack in fundraising deserves the attention of a major candidate. Every liberal or left-leaning moderate in the country should take a personal affront to their statements. True, liberals don't vote. True, no liberal candidate has won the presidency since FDR. "The times they are a'changin'." No longer should liberals take a back seat to the prevailing view that we are a minority in the political landscape. We should take pride in what we believe and understand that we can change the political climate in this country if we choose. I am calling on all liberal Democrats to make a statement in the upcoming Presidential primaries, and I am calling on all like-minded, unaffiliated people to make a statement in the 2004 general election. We have a lot more power than the press gives us, and we should make it our personal goal to shock the Hell out of the Bush campaign next year when we hand them the keys to the street. Go HOWARD DEAN! Make us proud!

2003-06-30T09:50:00.000-05:00

RAVAGE the Vote

One thing and one thing only will beat George Bush in 2004...voter turn-out. I have always wondered why liberals and left-leaning moderates don't vote. Maybe they feel that their voices aren't loud enough. Perhaps it is because liberals are more likely to be disenchanted with the electoral process and government in general. My opinion is this: liberals--because of their own actions--are unrepresented. The reason liberals are disenchanted with the process is that they refuse to participate.

When liberals vote--like they did for Ralph Nader in 2000--they make history; when they refuse to vote--like they did in 2002--conservatives win the day. There is no good reason why any American should omit their voice from the electoral process. Even if your vote is "none of the above," you will still be heard and counted (unless you live in Florida--no guarantees there).

Wouldn't it be great if the Democratic base nominated a Dean, Kucinich, or Sharpton and then a massive grassroots movement of liberals united to elect one of those to the Presidency? Our voice, the voice that built this great nation would get to be a part of the process again. If you thought what Bill Clinton acheived in the '90's was great, just wait until a real progressive gets in the White House. I doubt we will ever go back, and that's just what Bush and Co. is afraid might happen.

2003-06-23T14:28:00.000-05:00

Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Forum

Of the candidates present, Al Sharpton was an almost guaranteed success. Most of the "white" guys on the stage seemed out of sorts and reaching for answers to burning civil rights questions. Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt were trying to moderate their comments in an effort to satisfy both liberals (along with civil rights activists) and moderates (mostly white middle class). The effect was no less than disturbing. As democrats, it should be our goal to give "minorities" a reason to vote. Support "affirmative action" relentlessly, oppose racial profiling in all of its insidious forms, and work toward massive reconstruction of public schools in urban and rural areas. I think we need new leadership in the Democratic party--to coin a favorite phrase of the media--and get away from the half-assed populism that puts money above principle. Let the Republicans deal with the money people, we'll deal with the majority.

2003-06-21T16:59:00.000-05:00

Democratic Field of Contenders

The current field of democratic presidential hopefuls is actually looking good for a change

I am particularly happy with a few of the more "progressive" candidates. For example, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich give me hope that all is not lost for liberals and Democrats.