There'll Be Some Changes Made

For two years now, the minority party has been able to constrain, curtail, and downright block numerous pieces of legislation in the Senate by using procedural tricks and manipulation of existing conventions like the filibuster. The result has been a shocking and astounding amount of unnecessary governmental gridlock, and the ability to leverage said gridlock to stoke uninformed populism.


In the modern Senate, the cloture of debate is used to end a filibuster; simply charting activity around cloture dramatically demonstrates how often filibusters or the threat of filibusters are used to dictate the Senate's actions.

The passionate Avenging Angel at Daily Kos compiled a fantastic overview of how the filibuster has hamstrung the Senate, including the shocking statistic relayed by Paul Krugman from political scientist Barbara Sinclair that 70% of all major legislation since 2006 has been affected by filibustering.

Now it seems the Democrats are finally endeavoring to reform this abused procedural quirk such that they can actually function. The indefatigable Ezra Klein noted yesterday that Jeff Merkley, the junior Democratic Senator from Oregon, has released a proposal of reforms to the Senate's operating procedures, something that can be taken up at the start of each Congressional convention.

Merkley's proposal is to bring the filibuster back to the originally intended purpose of fostering deliberation on an issue, especially a contentious one. He's offering reforms that would stop the procedural shenanigans that prevent bills reaching the floor for debate, since such debate is a core function of the World's Most Deliberative Body. Instead, the filibuster would be available at the final vote on a bill, such that the robust debate it invokes would center around the full measure at hand.

And should a filibuster be engaged, Merkley's proposal would bring Senators to the floor to actually articulate their concerns, with a mandated number of Senators required to proceed: five for the first 24 hours, 10 for the next, and then 20 to continue. At any point, if there's no one actively debating then regular order is established and votes proceed. As Ezra says:

This is filibuster reform that even the filibuster's supporters can love: It focuses the practice on the tradition of debate and discussion that Senate traditionalists consider to be the institution's indispensable trait."

The fact is that any hope of being able to work with the intransigent obstructionists in the minority party, especially now that they've taken control of the House, will require a reformulation of the rules of the Senate. Otherwise the insanity that will be coming from the House will gum up the Senate as well, and the government will grind to a halt. And that's simply not acceptable.

Post	Reference	More Info
There'll Be Some Changes Made	Song by Benton Overstreet (music) and Billy Higgins (lyrics), covered by Dave Brubeck and many, many others.

You live in a world of illusion, where everything's peaches and cream. We all face a scarlet conclusion, but we spend our time in a dream.

On 8 June 2010, the voters of the great state of California approved Proposition 14, 54.1% to 45.9%. This was billed as a proposition to allow more and varied input to the primary process, primarily to help circumvent the perceived partisan roadblocks presumed to be hobbling California.

The improved input approved by voters is the open primary — also called a jungle primary. Rather than the standard primary system where voters select from within their party's slate to find the candidate to face other party selections in the following Fall election, California's new jungle primary will allow all voters to choose anyone on the ballet, regardless of party affiliation (either for the candidate or the voter). The two highest vote recipients will then face-off on the November ballot. As well, Proposition 14 removes the requirement to list party affiliation, so candidates can now be protean political entities, rather than representing a defined party platform.

Proponents of Proposition 14 insisted the availability of multiple party candidates and the lack of traditional affiliation would break the partisan logjam now experienced in California, where heavily gerrymandered districts allow for the election of very polarized representatives, on both the Left and the Right, leading to stalemates in the State Legislature.

Opponents of Proposition 14 were said to be party devotees who put their political dogma above what's best for California.

But what is the purpose of the political party in a representational democracy? The platonic ideal of direct democracy allows each citizen's vote to directly guide the government. But not only is that not practical, it's not the design of either our State or Federal government. We have a representational system, where the legislative branch is elected per district, with the contest in that district traditionally between the leading candidate for each major political party. Those leading candidates have been determined by the primary election, when intra-party voting was used to decide the leading candidate.

Because the representatives can't poll every citizen before every vote, the concept of a political party bridges the gap between individual and representative. Officials are affiliated with a party because that party encapsulates a series of political positions which align to that official's beliefs. Voters can select based on party affiliation knowing the party aligns with the voter's beliefs. The party is a shorthand that tells the voter that the candidates are of a similar mind, so voters can feel somewhat confident that party-affiliated representatives will indeed represent the voter within government. Hence a system where you first choose your party representative from the slate of candidates affiliated with your party, then a subsequent vote to choose a representative from among the best of each party.

Well, all that's now out the window with the passage of Proposition 14. Now California voters can choose whomever they want in the primary election. This will be a Brave New World in California politics. And what will that world look like? Well, let's take a look at another state with a jungle primary, South Carolina.

Last week, Alvin Greene became South Carolina's Democratic Party nominee for the U.S. Senate, despite the fact he didn't mount a statewide campaign, nor make any effort to show he represented the party's platform. Not only didn't Mr. Greene campaign, but he's currently facing felony obscenity charges, which would normally be detrimental to a primary candidate. In fact, he is very much an unknown quantity, who may have won election based on nothing more than his alphabetical position on the ballot. He's even been asked by state Democratic Party officials to withdraw from the general election. In short, without party vetting and support, previously unknown candidates can find themselves suddenly elected.

What is more concerning is that only some frantic number crunching from the wizards at FiveThirtyEight has shown that Mr. Greene's election probably wasn't a bold attempt by the South Carolina Republican party to post an ill-qualified and unelectable Democratic candidate in order to ensure a Republican victory in November. Because the South Carolina open primary allows voters to choose any candidate, an organized campaign by one party could drive the election of a candidate in the primary who wouldn't likely survive, or even make much of a showing in, the subsequent general election. If such an effort were to be made, the ideal Manchurian Candidate could be a unknown entity like Mr. Greene.

The question to everyone's answer, is usually asked from within."

I understand that Californians are frustrated with the disfunction in our state. But we should not have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Who would benefit from such a radical overhaul of the party system in California? For the last couple of decades, California has been a Democratic-leaning state who elected Republican governors to provide fiscal oversight. This duality was underscored by the district system that kept Republicans a minority in the legislature, leading to the stalemates that are now so familiar in state politics. In the face of this draw, both parties have been trying to find a foothold to leverage so they could gain the upper hand.

By approving Proposition 14, I believe California has allowed our frustration to blind us to an obvious power grab by Republicans. Now Republicans can field radically Right candidates who will be able to disassociate themselves from any Republican affiliation and portray themselves as moderates, until they achieve office. I fear for the havoc they will wreck upon California.

Post	Reference	More Info
"You live in a world of illusion, where everything's peaches and cream. We all face a scarlet conclusion, but we spend our time in a dream."	Lyrics from the song Jungle Love by the Steve Miller Band

I Never Knew

A few days ago, the folks at Zogby International released the results of a survey conducted in February 2010. In this survey, Zogby asked Americans what percentage of the Federal budget they believed specific categories represented. For example, they asked questions like what percentage of the Federal budget was comprised of defense spending, or Medicare. Then they contrasted the perception of the surveyed Americans against the actual 2008 Federal budget.

To present their findings, the Zogby folks used a simple table, which I believe made it difficult to quickly contrast the actual spend against the estimate of the average American. So I tried to create a chart that shed more light on the results. In the chart above (click to see full size), I've portrayed the 2008 Federal budget in a pie chart, then used smaller bar charts to show the range of the estimates from the surveyed population. (The Zogby survey asked respondents to characterize their estimates into ranges from less than 5% to greater than 20%, grouped in 5% segments.)

Yes, the chart's a bit busy, but I hope that at a glance (or two) you can see, for instance, that defense spending is 21% of the country's budget, and that 41% of those surveyed thought that defense spending was more than 20% of the budget. From this I extrapolate that most Americans have a general conception of how much we spend on defense.

What's interesting here is not where we're right, but where we're wrong. Or as Zogby so dryly put it, "Respondents were furthest off in their estimates for interest on the debt and non-defense discretionary spending."

For almost a year now, the media has been covering right-wing reactionary groups that call themselves teabaggers, whose rambling and sometimes treasonous epithets can be distilled into apparent demands to stop Federal spending because we can't support the debt, to stop international aid because the recipients aren't American, and to halt all non-defense discretionary spending. (If only they could make their arguments so succinctly, or cogently.)

And in an effort to help keep this country together, the Obama administration has tried to find common ground with these folks by proposing a freeze on non-defense discretionary spending.

But as the chart shows, average Americans are quite off in their estimates of just how much the US spends in these three areas. Take debt service, please. More than a quarter of Americans appear to think we spend more than 20% of our budget on interest paid on our debt. And the vast majority of Americans seem to think we spend far in excess of the 8% of our budget that we actually use to service the debt.

And the proposed freeze on non-defense discretionary spending will hold the line on 18% of our Federal budget, but will apparently have an even greater impact on the 37% of Americans who think we put even more money than that in this particular budget bucket.

As for international aid, conservative commentators have actually said recently that we don't need to donate to Haiti for their disaster relief because, in part, we already pay them out of our taxes, yet aid going outside the US accounts for less than 1% of the Federal budget. While 28% of those polled were in the ballpark on this item, 60% of the population is wildly off, which seems to feed right into the teabagger fantasies.

So it seems the small-but-loud groups that are clamoring for national and international disengagement based on fiscal inability are, in fact, quite misinformed as to just how our budget is actually spent. Imagine that. (Well, you don't have to actually imagine it, as Zogby's done the research, and I've tried to graph it.)

Post	Reference	More Info
I Never Knew	Song by John Coltrane and Kenny Burrell

And words are made to bend.

Back in 2005, the Republican majority in the Senate was frustrated that the Democrats were filibustering judicial nominees. Democrats, recognizing the long-ranging impact of conservative judges seeded throughout the system, were using one of the few options they had to stop Bush II from enrobing right-wing reactionaries. To stop this, the Republicans threatened to change the rules of the filibuster so it couldn't be used to block judicial nominees; the Republicans themselves called this the "nuclear option."

Now in 2010, the Democratic majority in the Senate finds all their efforts to reform health insurance and to foster more equitable health care in this country blocked by threat of Republican filibuster. So they are preparing to use the budget reconciliation process to combine two current bills — one each passed by the House and Senate — into a single bill on which the entire Legislative branch can vote. They are using the tool of reconciliation that has been used numerous times to enact such monumental healthcare legislation as COBRA (provides continuation of coverage between jobs) and CHIP (insures underprivileged children).

However the Republicans are frightened by the use of reconciliation because it only requires a simple majority vote to pass, just like the same simple majority vote that's used to elect representatives, to remain on the island, even to pick the dinner entrée in many American households. Specifically, the Republicans can't use the filibuster to stop reconciliation, and because they don't have a majority (in either the House or Senate) they can't thwart the planned health insurance reforms.

But because Tyranny of the Minority and "We Want Our Way" don't play well in America, the Republicans have decided to take the scary name of their own threat to rewrite the rules of the Senate and apply it instead to the established and respected tool that's used to move legislation forward: reconciliation. They have started calling reconciliation "the nuclear option" in an effort to mislead the media and scare the public, taking the moniker of their feint at rule-changing halfway through the game and applying it instead to the process that's used in every single Congress to enable the Legislature to complete the tasks for which they've been elected.

(I often take the 85 to get home, however if there's too much traffic I take Highway 9 instead. But that doesn't make 9 the "nuclear highway," just a more expedient option.)

Tonight, Rachel Maddow and my fantastic senator, Barbara Boxer, shed light on the Republican lies being told in an attempt to smear the reconciliation option:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Outright lying to the American people by their elected representatives ought not to be allowed. But if no one's going to enforce the rules about it, at least the media should be exposing it.

Post	Reference	More Info
"And words are made to bend."	Lyric from the song Lies by Thompson Twins

Think for a Minute

Personally, I'm livid about the airliner bombing attempt on Christmas Day, 25 December 2009. Specifically I'm angry that more than eight years after the attacks on 11 September 2001 we still don't have security measures in place that perform whole-body scans or ambient chemical analysis.

But the former administration — on whose watch occurred 9/11 and the shoe bombing incident which parallels last week's attempt in many ways — and the minority party — who are currently thwarting efforts by the Obama Administration to staff the TSA — have decided to try to shift the conversation away from substantive security reforms and from their failed records by attempting to blame the President for this recent attack.

Thankfully, Rachel Maddow did what much of the media couldn't, and took a couple minutes to examine the statements made by the former vice president and others, revealing the mischaracterizations and outright lies being spread:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(If you can't view the video above, a transcript is available on the Rachel Maddow Show website.)

Some of the most egregious, self-serving, and un-American statements:

• Dick Cheney insisting that prosecuting the alleged bomber using our American court system is actually catering to the terrorists, despite the fact his own administration followed the same legal course for several famous terrorists, including 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and "shoe bomber" Richard Reid.


• Multiple Republican representatives and party flacks insinuating that President Obama was ignoring the issue because he took 72 hours to respond, when it took Bush II a full six days to comment on the Reid bombing attempt.


• Republican Senator Jim DeMint's outright lie that President Obama "doesn't even use the word" terrorist anymore, when there are multiple examples of the president doing just that. And this statement is from the man who has spent the last year blocking Obama's nominee for head of TSA.

But the topper is the minority party's demand to use a military tribunal system to try the alleged perpetrator of last week's attack. Nothing I say could be a better response than the one from Ms. Maddow:

The rallying cry now from Republicans is that we shouldn't try the Christmas bomber in civilian court—that, instead, he should be tried in a military tribunal, declared an enemy combatant. I mean, what's the value of a military tribunal here, other than trying to make political hay out of this case? Really, what's the justice, anti-terrorist, counterterrorist value on this?

You really think this kid can't be convicted? You really think we don't have enough evidence beyond the—beyond the, I don't know, 300 or so eyewitnesses who were on the plane? The fact that we have the weapon that he tried to use? The fact that he confessed? You think that's not enough to get this kid convicted?

You have that little faith in our criminal justice system? That little faith in the rule of law? You don't believe that a supermax federal American prison is capable of holding this kid? You think it might be cool, instead, to martyr this kid as some impressive soldier, instead of some idiot confused rich kid who couldn't even handle blowing up his own junk with a bomb that was secreted in his own underpants?

We're supposed to take national security advice from you guys?

Really?"

But after a year of their increasingly deranged shenanigans, I can't be too surprised by the Republican response to this. I am, however, deeply disappointed in the media for not being able to call out any of the aforementioned shenanigans. Or as Ms. Maddow put it:

Again, my friends and colleagues in the media have two choices in covering this. You can just copy down what the Republicans and Vice President Cheney are saying, and click “send,” call it journalism, or you can actually fact-check those comments and put them into context. Your choice. It's your country."

Post	Reference	More Info
Think for a Minute	Song by The Housemartins

Go tell it on the mountain, over the hills, and everywhere.

Looking back on the decade past is a common activity 'round about New Year's Day. I was marshaling my thoughts and thinking about how to best characterize my feelings when I found the always-enchanting Devilstower over at The Daily Kos posted precisely the political retrospective I wish I could have written.

It's really worth reading from the top, and you should do so now. But if you don't, here's the nut:

They will try to disown it, and God knows if I was responsible for this mess I'd be disowning it, too. But the truth is that the conservatives got everything they wanted in the decade just past, everything that they've claimed for forty years would make America "great again." They didn't fart around with any "red dog Republicans." They rolled over their moderates and implemented a conservative dream.

What did we get for it? We got an economy in ruins, a government in massive debt, unending war, and the repudiation of the world. There's no doubt that Republicans want you to forget the last decade, because if you remember... if you remember when you went down to the water hole and were jumped by every lunacy that ever emerged from the wet dreams of Grover Norquist and Dick Cheney, well, it's not likely that you'd give them a chance to do it again.

Because they will. Given half a chance — less than half — they'll do it again, only worse. "

I remember well the media's interest in Bush II as our "MBA President." No dithering meaning-of-"is"-is lawyer like Clinton, but rather someone who will run American government like a business. Imagine that!

Except the goal of business — especially those shady shell games like Arbusto — is to create profits. The explicit charge of American governance is to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of each and every citizen. Two wholly different aims, which should be targeted in significantly different ways.

In business, when you appoint your unqualified cronies to high-level positions, you get their loyalty and support in inter-office politics. And if they don't follow through on their responsibilities, the reduced departmental expenditures can translate to greater corporate profits.

Do the same in government and what do you get? Americans drowning in their own attics.

(But, hey, at least the government could listen in on their phone calls and read their e-mails. You know, before they died.)

Representational democracy is not a for-profit enterprise, and its primary purpose is to protect and engender the citizenry, not to foster unregulated capitalism. To forget this is to say you'd like to relive recent American history, circa 1999 - 2009.

Post	Reference	More Info
"Go tell it on the mountain, over the hills, and everywhere."	Lyrics from the holiday classic Go Tell It on the Mountain, performed by Frank Sinatra (and many, many, many others)

I'm the leader of society since I got mine.

So, it turns out that faux populist Glenn Beck is really just a war profiteer. Nice.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Beck - Not So Mellow Gold
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

All his schtick about the downfall of America isn't actually based on personal philosophies or political views or even racist tendencies, it's all just good old fashioned market manipulation. He's fomenting civil unrest because that leads to economic uncertainty which leads to investment in precious goods, specifically gold, and he's the paid spokesman for a gold trader.

Well, it's great to know that undermining the foundations of this nation is an acceptable way for commentators on Fox News to make a profit. And if it's OK for the employees to do that, I wonder if the network itself has any qualms about the practice.

Post	Reference	More Info
"I'm the leader of society since I got mine."	Lyrics from the blues standard I Got Mine performed by Ry Cooder (among many others)

Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears!

The morning of the Fourth of July, I attached a steel flagpole bracket to the front porch of my house, so I could fly the American flag proudly on our Day of Independence.

Afterward, I looked up and down my block, but mine was the only flag I could see. I knew that two blocks down in front of Fire Station #1 there was a flag flying, and two block in the other direction there'd be a flag in front of the Louden Nelson Community Center, but mine appeared to be the only American flag on a residence that I could see.

Perhaps my neighbors didn't have flags. After all, it's been eight years since most anyone around here has had any faith, let alone pride, in their government. Or perhaps they couldn't fly a flag, as many of them are renters and don't have the right to attach a flag to their house or apartment.

No matter. My personal admiration for the Obama administration was enough to inspire me to proudly raise the Stars and Stripes, and there could not have been a more beautiful day to do so. The sky was clear and blue and the temperature was mild; a perfect day to sit on the porch with Jake and offer a hearty greeting to the passersby.

Addendum: after reading this post my friend Gregory chided me, saying I should "fly the flag regardless of whether or not you support the particular Commander In Chief currently in place. I think it's particularly important to remain patriotic during the troubling times in America while we work to make it better." And he's right.

In my haste to finish a blog post, I used the Obama administration as a shorthand to represent the social and political awakening taking place in the United States during the past couple of years. It was a lazy characterization, but worse it left the wrong impression. I raised my flag on the Fourth of July not because I support only this specific CINC, but because I am so proud that people across this nation are electing responsible representatives and demanding accountability from officials, and I believe the current administration is encouraging and supporting this resurgence of citizenship.

In the most literal sense, a flag represents a country; a marker used at multinational gatherings. But when you, an individual, raise a flag it's no longer a simple marker, it's a proxy for your own patriotism. It becomes imbued with your beliefs about citizenship, governance, rights, and responsibilities. And if the country doesn't currently match your beliefs, flying the flag is an inspiration to you to work for the greater good. (This is also why many people find it so offensive to see the Confederate flag flown, as they don't want to believe there are people in the US currently striving to divide the Union and enslave parts of the population.)

Therefore, I should have been as eager to raise my flag last year or the year before as I was this year. It should have been as natural as studying position papers, donating to progressive candidates, canvassing loved ones, or any of the other things I've been doing to help America reach her potential.

Post	Reference	More Info
"Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears!"	Lyrics from America the Beautiful — words by Katherine Lee Bates, melody by Samuel Ward, covered by Mannheim Steamroller (and countless others)

We Didn't Start the Fire

On 16 June 2009, the United States Global Change Research Program released a comprehensive report entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The USGCRP integrates input from 13 different federal government departments and agencies in an effort to help the US cope with global climate change.

I downloaded the full PDF copy and was looking it over when I was struck by a particular graphic.
On page 90 of the report is an illustration of temperature increase across the continental US, specifically projected increases in the number of days in which the temperature will exceed 100°F. Naturally the chromatic scale for the graphic runs in the so-called warmer colors, with a deep red representing the hottest temperatures. Looking at the worst scenario as a whole, therefore, gives the distinct impression of the country descending into a fire, with tongues of flame licking right up Texas, Arizona, and California's Central Valley.

Other than climate, what do those areas have in common? That's right, as America grapples with the equality of treatment for all her citizens, these areas seem to be, time and again, focal points for the narrow-minded and intolerant people who fight against marriage equality, employment equality, civil rights recognition, and who even threaten to secede.

Time and time again when efforts are made to treat all citizens equally, these areas lead the charge that fairness and respect for all will lead directly to Armageddon. Sure enough, look at the map: the flames of Hell are headed right toward them.

But the cause isn't gay marriage, it's their own damned SUVs.

Post	Reference	More Info
We Didn't Start the Fire	Song by Billy Joel

Babe I'm Gonna Leave You

In the darkest days of the Bush II regime, I investigated the possibility of California seceding from the United States. I found organizations like Free the Bear that posit our state — the seventh largest economy in the world — would be able to leave the Union of the United States of America and survive as an independent republic. But these groups never accurately characterize the likely response of a modern USA should a state try to secede and strike out on her own.

Eventually I came to realize that a large part of California's strength was her place in the Union.

Now it seems Conservatives are learning these same lessons. The folks in Texas have started to imply that secession is a topic of conversation. And as much as I'd be delighted to see them leave, perhaps they might want to review this analysis from the editors of Foreign Policy of what would happen should they try to dissolve the bonds of our Union. It's not a pretty picture:

In short: the state of Texas would rapidly become direly impoverished, would need to be heavily armed, and would be wracked with existential domestic and foreign policy threats. It would probably make our failed states list in short order."

Update: On the other hand, Ezra Klein ponders how the US would benefit from being Texas-less:

After Texas Governor Rick Perry fired up a Tea Party audience by musing about secession as a response to federal tax rates, I spent most of the day idly considering what it would look like for America if Texas seceded from the union. More trains! Universal health care! An end to an important hybrid food culture!"

Update 2: And Nate Silver takes a look at how Texas secession would help Democrats:

• If Texas were not in the Union, the Democrats would currently have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — or at least they would once Al Franken gets seated. This is because, in a 98-seat Senate, only 59 votes would be required to break a filibuster.


• If Texas were not in the Union, the Republicans would operate from a significantly weakened position in the House, since the net 8-vote advantage their congressional delegation gives them in the state (they have 20 seats to the Democrats' 12) is by far their largest."

Post	Reference	More Info
Babe I'm Gonna Leave You	Song by Led Zeppelin

Running in Fear from Imaginary Assailants

Ezra Klein at The American Prospect made a fantastic observation today regarding the Dow Jones Industrial Average:

Anyone else noticed that the Dow Jones Average now serves the same purpose on cable news shows that the terrorism alert level served between 2001 and 2004?"

I really wish the mass media could do a better job of framing economic (or political) issues instead of falling back on simple, athletically inspired metrics like "up" or "down," "ahead" or "behind."

Post	Reference	More Info
Running in Fear from Imaginary Assailants	Song by Charlie Hunter Trio

The Evil That Men Do

That jackass Phil Gramm is at it again. He gutted the regulations that kept economic disasters like our current predicament from happening, but that wasn't enough. Now he's responsible for Swiss bank UBS becoming a haven for tax evaders.

Daily Kos contributor Devilstower has the full scoop, complete with references and citations. It's not pretty, but it's an important read. Check it out.

Post	Reference	More Info
The Evil That Men Do	Song by Yo La Tengo

Your Time is Gonna Come

Lyin', cheatin', hurtin, that's all you seem to do
Messin' around, every guy in town
Puttin' me down for thinkin' of someone new
Always the same, playin' your game
Drive me insane, trouble's gonna come to you."

The leadership of the Mormon church strongly urged members to donate millions of dollars — some estimates reach $20 million — to pass Proposition 8, according to the Los Angeles Times.

This is all I gotta say to ya...
Your time is gonna come."

According to a New York Times review of the book The Mormon Corporate Empire, the church is worth more than $8 billion, and it has wide political power. Its strength is based on the devotion of six million members worldwide; three million of them live in the United States. The authors say their premise is ''that the Mormon financial/political enterprise is not simply an American success story but rather an ongoing crusade to reshape our society and its democratic institutions.''

So, all the ads that duped California voters into thinking Proposition 8 would victimize children were sponsored by a fringe religion in Utah.

I hope Californians keep that in mind as they consider their Winter ski vacations, their Summer hiking trips, and any stays at the Marriott hotel chain, which is owned by a wealthy Mormon family.

Post	Reference	More Info
Your Time is Gonna Come	Song by Led Zeppelin

Good Times Bad Times

From my house I can hear the people gathered in downtown Santa Cruz, cheering for President-elect Barack Obama. Horns are honking, passers by are whooping, and someone out by the high school is setting off actual, professional-quality fireworks.

And I'm glad, too. Glad for the country and glad for my neighbors who helped change the course of this great nation.

But while the thought of Obama as president-elect should be cheerful, my heart is heavy because the citizens of the once-great state of California have decided to enshrine fear and discrimination into the state constitution.

As of 5 Nov 2008, 00:45 PST, with 63.6% of the precincts reporting statewide, Proposition 8 was passing, 52.7% to 47.3%. This means select California citizens will be constitutionally forbidden to marry, despite the fact the California Supreme Court has said such discrimination is wrong. In other words, even though a group of judges — legal scholars — has evaluated California law and said that forbidding marriage from a specific group is illegal, the voters of California have overridden them to ensure such discrimination is constitutionally sanctioned.

This despite the fact that states such as Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York have voted to recognize the validity of all marriages, regardless of gender composition. So much for the idea that California is at the vanguard of personal rights and freedoms.

I never thought I'd see this once-great state fall so far.

It seems Californians have decided the separate-but-equal postulate put forth in Plessy v. Ferguson is actually valid. But that idea is 112 years old, and was soundly rejected in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Regardless, the Mormon church has been able to convince a majority of Californians to deny basic societal rights to a small group of citizens. I'm sure they're proud of themselves.

Post	Reference	More Info
Good Times Bad Times	Song by Led Zeppelin

Would you take the wings from birds so that they can't fly? Would you take the ocean's roar and leave just a sigh?

Yes, I had an earlier post about the discriminatory nature of Proposition 8. But it was long and somewhat obtuse. Here's the gist, short and sweet:



At one time California had laws that discriminated based on race and ethnicity. We've moved beyond that, as you'd expect from the greatest, most diverse and accepting state in the Union. There's no reason to backtrack.

Post	Reference	More Info
"Would you take the wings from birds so that they can't fly? Would you take the ocean's roar and leave just a sigh?"	Lyrics from the song Don't Take Your Love from Me, written by Henry Nemo and performed by Nancy Wilson (among many others including Frank Sinatra, Etta James, Louis Prima and Keely Smith, Julie London, etc.)

New World Coming

There's a new day dawning that belongs to you and me. There's a new voice humming; you can hear it if you try."

Coming in peace. Coming in joy."

Not sure what you want for the future of this great nation, but I know what I want. It's specified in the clip above and I'll be voting appropriately on 4 Nov 2008.

Post	Reference	More Info
New World Coming	Song written by Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil, performed by Nina Simone (and covered by Mama Cass)

Communication Breakdown

Now because he knows that his economic theories don't work, he's been spending these last few days calling me every name in the book. Lately he's called me a socialist, for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class." — Senator Barack Obama

Personally, I believe sharing your PB&J makes you a good American, not a bad American. But clearly that's because I'm a godless heathen who wants our enemies to prevail.

Post	Reference	More Info
Communication Breakdown	Song by Led Zeppelin

Get Up Stand Up

Please vote.



It's the only legal way to cancel out (or support) your neighbors.

(Anyone notice Neighbor John in the video? Or was it Neighbor Gary?)

Post	Reference	More Info
Get Up Stand Up	Song by Bob Marley

Drop the Hate

There are a lot of claims and counter-claims circulating about California Proposition 8.

Sometimes — as when determining grammatical structure or mathematical function — a helpful technique is to substitute a different value for one of the primary variables in the matter at hand, be it a sentence or equation. This can remove, for example, a semantically loaded element and replace it with something more universally accepted. Without the emotional cloud overhead, you can better evaluate the matter objectively.

One group has done this, taking an advertisement in favor of Prop 8 and substituting "interracial" for "same sex."



This substitution deftly manifests the discriminatory nature of the proposition. It makes clear what could have been confusing: Proposition 8 has only one goal, to codify prejudicism into the California Constitution so that the opinions of a few narrow-minded individuals become law for tens of millions of Californians.

In fact, with this simple substitution, the pro-8 group is quickly hoisted by their own petard.

Now — on the cusp of what could be a glorious 21st Century — there are very few people who would even attempt to defend a ban on marriage between different races, or different religions, or different classes. We've all seen many happy unions, and have probably learned to not even speculate on how a given match will fare in the future. Sure, he parties all night and she spends all day ministering to the aged and infirm; that doesn't mean they won't have a long and fruitful marriage.

So remember, when you go to vote: No on H8, No on Prop 8.

Post	Reference	More Info
Drop the Hate	Song by Fatboy Slim

For All to See

Just yesterday I heard someone say of Barack Obama, "there's nothing there." This is a persistent charge against Senator Obama, frustrating not just because it's false but because there's abundant information available to refute it.

So it got me thinking I could gather Obama's most recent and relevant policy positions into a blog post, only to find the hyper-efficient Obama/Biden campaign had just posted a fantastic two-minute video summary:



Here are the major points:

• Stimulate economy with a tax cut for 95% of working Americans. Families making less than $200,000 a year will get a tax cut, which will directly improve their finances.


• End tax breaks for companies that relocate jobs overseas, and instead create tax credits to reward companies that create new jobs for Americans.


• Help small businesses, the true economic engine of America, weather these tough times with low-cost loans.


• Position America to be competitive in an uncertain future by working to reduce the healthcare costs that are a massive drag on our economy, breaking our dependence on foreign oil so we're not reliant on some of the world's most unstable regions, and making sure all American children have the education they need to succeed.


• Bring about a responsible end to the war in Iraq, a war that costs the US $10 billion a month. Yes, $10 billion every month, even though the Iraqi budget now shows a surplus and we currently have the largest deficit this country has ever seen.


• Active management of the new bailout plans underway, so that the benefit goes to taxpayers, not corporate officers.


• End the current tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of this nation's citizens so as to fund tax cuts for 95% of all working Americans.


• Close corporate tax loopholes, often inserted into spending bills and budgets at the last minute by lobbyists working for companies and industries.


• Audit all Government spending, with the goal of ending programs that don't produce cost-effective results.

Clear, reasoned, responsible plans that will better America by directly benefiting the vast majority of Americans. Substance centered around what this country needs right now. Right there for all to see.

Post	Reference	More Info
For All to See	Song by Buffalo Tom