How To Ruin The Job Creators

The President-elect ran a campaign determined to mine enthusiasm for raising the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 39%.  The GOP has assured us that such behavior will mean economic Armageddon through the ruination of the people who "create" jobs.  Some sort of magic occurs at 35%.

I do not and no one I know hires a fourth person to do three people's work, that is just stupid.  Everyone I know of that hires people hires someone because three people can't do four people's work, which means that there is that much demand for the product.  If you're going to follow along on this "job creators" theme you're either telling people that rich people having some more money means they will gratuitously hire or that they spend enough money in the market place to drive that kind of demand.  I think we've dealt with the gratuitous hiring part but the demand part is ought to be as easy, 2% of the taxpayers do not buy all that much of anything (well, most yachts).

So what is the real impact?  Let's start with what marginal rate means - anything above an amount.  So, $250,000, after deductions, is taxed at the previous rates and anything above gets hit.  This would mean that of $260,000 after deductions $10,000 would be taxed at 39%.  Follow along, 10,000 x 0.39 is 3,900 and 10,000 x 0.35 is 3500 which is a grand total of another $400.  Holy shit, your taxes on Adjusted Gross Income of $260,000 will go up $400 and with that you will buy... what?  OK, sure we all know this is more about millionaires than than that 250K bunch so here's that number (assuming - ridiculously - that you somehow have $1M in ordinary income) $750,000.  Alrighty, more simple damn math: 750,000 x 0.39 is 292,500 and 750,000 x 0.35 is 262,500 so your 750K costs you $30,000 more.  That will buy one car that these people won't be seen driving or at the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 earning you $1580 at 40 hours for 52 weeks a whole $15,080, just less than two jobs washing the cars they actually would buy.  (no, we're not talking take-home pay)  Why does that millionaire need two additional minimum workers?  Nobody will tell you, they just squeal "job creators."

If people don't have goddam money they don't spend it on products and services.  Those people are called consumers and they produce jobs by consuming.  If 80% of the consumers are competing for 7% of the wealth there isn't going to be a lot of consuming going on out of that share.  What is actually the case is that the "job creators" are destroying jobs by sucking every last cent out of the economy.  It isn't the conservatives' bug-a-boo government that is sucking the life out of the economy, it is their protected class that is doing it.  It is real damn simple - the money is not moving around in the economy.

You can feel free to call it socialism, communism, or "punishing success" to advocate using the one tool the governement has at hand to change economic behavior, taxation, to address this concentration of wealth - but real simply, capitalism can't survive under the current conditions.  Most of the country can do pretty well under capitalism, those who can't can be addressed with an adequate safety-net, but we have today the Reaganism version of capitalism to live with and it ain't working.  Welcome to The Gilded Age aka Robber Baron Era.

People have serious doubts that the President can stick to his 39% rate which will do spit to address the problem and are worried about the safety-net...  Christ on a pogo stick.  Liberals seem to think this recent election did more than stave off absolute disaster.  Can this nation get any stupider about its plutocrat enabling?

The short answer, of course, is - Yes.

Ducking The 47% Tape

I said the 47% tape means spit to the election.  In the face of conservative pundits, GOP candidates backing away, and most of the press I still say so.  r-Money's campaign agrees with me by doubling down and folks like Rush Limpthing are banging away on the point.  Most of those pols that've backed away from the 47% sentiment are going to get right back on board as soon as they see how little practical effect that sentiment has on the poll numbers and how much the GOPers agree with it. (gotta keep that base happy) 

Yes, the statement and the rest of the tape was obnoxious, provided you weren't in the least inclined to vote r-Money.    If you think I'm being a Cassandra, then go tell one of your conservative fellows that you're pretty sure pays no Federal Income Tax that r-Money says he's a moocher and see just how much it changes his mind.  He'll tell you who the goddam moochers are...

There is about a 6% Undecided vote left to fight over and somebody would like me to believe that cadre isn't pretty well split half and half on, "Moochers...WTF" and "Them There Moochers" ?  Really?  You've never seen GOPers panic?  Do you want me to remind you of "The Moooslims Is Comin' To Get Us All"? 

Do you think r-Money dumped his 2011 taxes today to change the subject?  Or do you think maybe he dumped them to keep it all buried in the noise?  14.1% is still lower than the 47%er's payroll taxes, you know...

Really Mr Rather? Paul Ryan Isn't Who You Thought He Was?

I watched with a certain amount of disbelief as Dan Rather blurted out something I considered rather unobservant on Rachel Maddow's 9/10 Show... words to the effect that he was astonished that Paul Ryan has done so poorly in television and other interviews.  Rachel in a rather nice way tuned Dan up.  She pointed out to him some of what I'm about to go off on.

Paul Ryan is exactly as much of an intellect as you could expect from someone who takes Ayn Rand seriously once out of puberty... or high school, anyhow.  This ought to be a starting point for anyone talking about Ryan's abilities.  Ayn Rand's writings are about stoking the testosterone fueled imaginings of superiority over 'the other' - the ones who don't run things and just do.  You are aware of 'just do' - they cook your food, they build your house, they clean your house or others houses, they don't get the big bucks and they don't get their pictures in the 'nice' magazines.  Worker bees.  Not one goddam cent the Ayn Rand Superiors have is generated by their own sweat and blood - some pissant worker bee makes the things and gets them their income and those folks are disposable, they are "the takers."  They're takers because they make the shit and buy the shit and want to get paid something for it and they're not grateful to the great men who'd as soon they starved while they work.  If they don't work thanks to the decisions of their betters then they can just starve, or if they can't work because they got dealt a real shitty hand - they should have found a better dealer - like running mate Mitt did.  It is a simplistic world where force and influence are all that matters and where the only consequences are when the truly great are inconvenienced - only a very limited intellect would be impressed.  That is for starters.

Paul Ryan has "shone" within the simplified world of the conservative media and amongst his similarly minded and within a pissant CD in the same state where Michelle Bachman has prospered in a similar venue.  Results are quite understandably different when the surroundings aren't composed of his friends and sycophants and include people who are willing to look at a record and analyze talking points policy.  Wanting something to be so does not make a four hour plus marathon into a sub-three hour one and it does not make the fevered imaginings of Ayn into workable policy and it doesn't make ideology into goddam mathematics.  The real rules of the world say that you can't make money in to match money out without actually doing it - ideology be damned.  The real world says that you can't make rape into several other things without really pissing off anyone who gives a damn about women and after you've tried to do it you don't get to claim it is all a misunderstanding.  Some people pay attention to these things and will question it outside Janesville WI and the GOP House Caucus. 

Why the hell Dan Rather is surprised that a pip-squeak ideologue doesn't do well when challenged on his bullshit is way beyond me.  Paul Ryan's ideas have been in full view for some time and they've not been misrepresented and they stink in practical terms.  To put it simply - they are in practice stupid, if ideologically sound.  Paul Ryan has to deny that a vote for Sequestration was a vote for Sequestration and do it in front of people who say, "What the hell?"  This is from the Party that accused John Kerry of flip-flopping for voting differently on two different variations of a Bill.  Paul says he did it to force a better deal... he voted for what he voted for outcomes be damned and wants to pass that off as principled action.  Yes, he thought he was playing hostage taker just as those GOPers thought the rest of their Debt Ceiling hostage taking was a good idea - real world outcomes be damned.

The unexplainable doesn't get explained by Paul Ryan and Dan Rather is surprised.  When you try to do things that make no damned sense at all it is real hard to make it sensible, or even make sensible responses to questions about them.  The measure of an intellect is not the ability to parrot stupidity and pass it off as policy, the measure of intellect is an ability to face reality and do a somewhat good job of matching your desires to it and working within its constraints.  Buying the idiotic punditry that making stupid policy involves nerve and out-of-the-box-thinking is asking to be disappointed or astonished that its object can't live up to its billing.  An actual intellect knows how to adapt and innovate and improvise in the face of conditions, not hew to wishful thinking that things will just work because it wants them to.

Paul Ryan is a chimera of the right and the teabaggers, not anything more and his resolute stupidity is going to cost the GOPers for uplifting it into something is doesn't in the least resemble.  And yes, they deserve anything they get for it... and if the electorate buys into it, well hell, then we'll get what we as a nation deserve and too bad for those who knew better...  

What Is Too Stupid For NYT OpEd?

It seems from campaigning that maybe Mittens wishes that NYT had said his attack on the auto industry government deal wasn't good enough and wasn't out there to haunt him. Well, sure that's one thing but maybe Bill Keller's Hillary VP OpEd should have gotten the spike. You can read the thing for yourself to see what sort of silliness this thing gets up to in order to make its case, but I'd suggest saving your time and just laughing.

I'm not going to go into it, I read it to see if it was nearly as stupid as it sounded - it was (edit) worse. (h/t JG -BJ)

The Not Mitt Of The Week

I'll save myself the blood pressure hike of analyzing every body's favorite lizard Newt, and you the boredom of repetition. This week or last week the leader is/has been the NotMitt. I can certainly understand the NotMitt sentiment on their side - what they've got is an opposition field that completely sucks eggs. The NotMitts consist of grifters running performance art projects ... and Rick Perry. The Perry Problem is that he's managed to look dumber than a post next to ... posts. (no I didn't mention Huntsman - nobody does)

The GOP adopted a proportional delegate selection process which may cause them some real heartburn this time out. There certainly are smaller areas where MultipleMitt will do well on the basis of not being barking at the moon crazy but that leaves plenty of smaller areas where that barking will be the compelling narrative. MultipleMitt just doesn't create what you could call enthusiasm - well he does in a negative sense. Enthusiasm of some form is what gets people to go out and actually vote for a candidate in something like a Primary and Primaries are notoriously low turnout elections. (even amongst GOPers)

When the voting does start, if somebody is in the position of the NotMitt of the Week they could benefit from Mitten's lack of appeal. If that translates to a loss or very narrow win for Mittens those NotMitts will get a bump with Primaries starting to stack up. Proposing to use logic and reason to analyze how things shake out is a real iffy project with the crazy/stupid. Reason would tend to favor somebody who has run in at least statewide elections and done well and who has money - Perry. There is a reason US House members are under-represented as Presidents. Playing to a small electorate with narrow interests isn't the same thing as appealing to the public at large.

The Administration apparently has decided that the eventual nominee will be MultipleMitt. I don't know, they're pros and all, but I do wonder if that disqualifies them from figuring out how this will go. The professionals and establishment keep beating the drum about Multiple being the only one with a chance against Obama and thus getting the final nod. One could point to some '10 elections and scratch his head.

This could give me a headache... OMG, I just realized I'd spent all these words to tell you nothing.

Iowa Looms Over The GOP

Mitt is getting money at a nice rate, and sadly for him in Iowa; he's still Mitt. Mitt of the MA health care and Mitt of Mormonism and Mitt of all kinds of flippery-floppery. Tim Pawlenty is as exciting as watching paint dry for Iowans who want fundamentalism and firey Barack bashing. For Tim to attract the real money boys of the GOP he'd have to show something real - like winning Iowa. Winning Iowa may mean having to get past a Bachman who will feed Iowans fundamentalism and attacks which would mean going where a Bachman would go which is poisonous to other states. If Bachman gets in and wins Iowa, (big IFS) that would put the GOPer money boys in a real state. South Carolina (of all places) directly follows Iowa and the idea that a victorious Bachman wouldn't beat the weak sauce of Mitt and Tim doesn't pay much attention to South Carolina.

Sure, I'm ignoring Santorum, Gingrich, and Cain; if you think that's a fault you've kind of paid little attention to them. This mess the GOP is in has been building for years and it seems to me to be deserved. It is of their own making over a decades long process of catering to groups who will not be satisfied with simply having no alternative. Those folks may not be the money of the GOP, but they are the ones who will vote and are not interested in mushy ole Mitt/Tim.

The money part of the GOP might be really displeased with a Bachman as a candidate, but this is what they've purchased over the years and in order to pursue their plutocratic agenda must please. If you want people to vote against their economic interests you have to give them something to distract them - that's your Bachman.

It ought to be real easy to gloat - but then I'm a Democrat and have to deal with ... that. What? Yeah, I'm not a bit satisfied with "not as bad as them."

Lessons Not Learned

What Democrats and Republicans have learned or not learned from this mid-term election is open to question. There is one thing that is for sure, Americans did not get what they wanted. The argument will now be about what it was that they didn't get.



I'm getting to listen to Dan Boren (D-OK) talk about how the Caucus needs to move to "the center." This is the kind of thing I'd expect from someone with seriously limited intellect and the news media in general. This is the kind of stupidity that reads getting blown out of the House as disdain for liberalism rather than fury over lack of accomplishment. This in the face of huge accomplishments.

You wouldn't know it from the polling. The Democrats own the Bankster Bailouts, Ds will raise your taxes - despite lowering them, health care death panels, failed socialism. Ask yourself why clear untruths are held valid by voters. It would seem that Democrats were really bad at letting voters know what they were trying to do, what they had done, and how it benefitted Amvericans. They were particularly bad at letting the GOP set the terms of the debate. You would think that with about 1/3 of the stimulus cost being tax cuts and voted against by the GOP that voters might think differently about who is on their side economically. Nope. Wall Street reform legislation was almost totally opposed by the GOP and yet ... anger at banks landed on Democrats.

I'll lay you a bet, the damn Democrats will attempt some move to the Right in response to their own ineptitude at communication.

Voted Today

I turned in my OR vote by mail ballot today. Sometimes I turn it in days after receiving it sometimes on Election Day - for no special reason. Voting here is easy to do and was easy choices this time. I won't talk about the loca races or initiatives but it was easy to vote for Sen Wyden (D) and even easier to vote agains Rep Greg Walden (R-OR02) and Dudley (R) for Gov. It isn't as though John Kitzhaber (D) former Gov and running for it again has shown a lot of interest in E OR but he's running against a know-nothing same old (R).

It's pretty much the same across the nation, but it looks as though stupid same old crap or crazy wing crap are the beneficiaries of vote against. Damn, I'd like to talk about how special Democrats have been these last two years, but that'd be ... well, difficult. It isn't as though they haven't gotten things done, but somehow they managed to do it while pissing off people on both sides and not even pleasing the so-called middle. You'd think that would require real effort.

I won't make predictions about Election Day outcomes other than that whatever majorities (D)s have had will be much smaller. It was a bit tempting to just sit back and not vote to let crazy have its run and maybe finally teach this country a lesson. But no, that isn't in my nature - for some reason I keep believing (an emotional response) that people will get it, eventually without too much suffering. Thinking might easily lead me a different direction, so we'll let that go.

Announcing that this blog is probably done resulted in more comments on one article than a month's worth have gotten. I'm not that much concerned that a dozen or fifty or a thousand read this thing, but I don't like talking to myself. I have no idea if I'm just a crazy guy yelling or if people agree or not and can expand on my thoughts. This election has stirred a lot of things up and I'm not the only one around with feelings and thoughts on it and I'm curious. I'm always curious and some have stated that they'd have commented if they'd known it mattered. As a vanity project this thing can just go away and this is as good a post to say "Good-night."

Ungovernable

In the previous post I wondered how it will be possible to govern this place with things like FauxNews taken seriously. That aspect is bad enough, and the prospect of GOP gains (any) this fall may seem to have serious outcomes like gridlock. That exaggerates a future that exists now. The House has passed a lot of bills and you may have noticed that only a few have made it through the Senate. What the House gets up to means next to nothing if it can't get past the Senate. It certainly is true that if the Senate balance shifts at all (it will) the room for compromise moves away from two or three GOPer Senators to enough that anything a Democrat can live with can't be done. (except maybe start a damn war) ((well, give the show to the wealthy and corporate))

Some of this is thanks to the Democrat's own inability to sell anything they do. Some of this is thanks to the theme of "having a Democratic majority" in Congress. This is true in the House but what the Senate's composition and rules mean is that no such thing ever actually existed. That means that bills got stupidly compromised to appeal to people who wouldn't vote for them if hell froze over and what the public got was a ration of shit involving the bills and the process; and Democrats got the blame.

The fact that the public is too stupid and self-involved to take time to understand what has been done and why it was done as it was really only means that we will get the government we collectively deserve. Yes, for the foreseeable future the government of this nation is going to really suck. Boys and girls, the House terms are only 2 years but lost Senate seats are worth six years and the existing GOP seats are pretty safe and a look at the replacement candidates ought to really scare any sane person.

The lack of posts on this blog reflects a growing feeling on my part that continued activism is meaningless in regard anything I'd want to accomplish. Not letting the GOP do what it wants for the next decade isn't much of a goal for me. Part of the problem is too many decades of me watching this shit and the give a damn button is about worn out. Oh, I'll vote against the GOP and in some cases, like Wyden and Merkley, vote for Democrats but I'm beginning to feel like "so what." As for posting anything on this blog, it's getting pretty doubtful and the couple readers will easily find something better to do with their time if this goes away. I feel pretty bad for some sizable chunks of our nation - that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

Clowns, Clowns Everywhere And Nary A Brain To Think

With Democrats in general starting to close the gap in likely voters one could be forgiven for beginning to have some belief that the general intelligence of voters exceeds that of rocks. The fact that a low turn out Primary election resulted in candidates with extreme views by an infuriated discarded segment of the electorate isn't all that meaningful, the fact that such candidates can poll even somewhat close to mainstream candidates isn't encouraging to such a view of the breadth of intelligence. This is particularly true in the face of it being all of two years since the clowns wrecked the economic bus.

I have stated pretty clearly that the remaining Republicans after the '06 and '08 house cleaning are ... well, obstructionist clowns. This is what happens when close districts lose the moderates of a Party leaving a small minority in totally safe districts/states. Picture for yourself these people being joined by the likes of Sharon Angle and so far I haven't seen any evidence that the prospective newcomers are any less clownish than the incumbents.

There has been a fair amount of howling about how the 'base' won't come out because they're upset with Pres Obama over the lack of progressive elements to legislation. Other than a mere handful who think something about punishing Democrats I've seen no such evidence. Starting at the beginning, for this group to be upset would mean they're paying attention to politics, which would mean that they know who gets to take over and what it means - unlikely and not in evidence. Now if you were to broaden the idea of base out to those who ordinarily vote Democratic and include low information, low enthusiasm Democrats who don't pay much attention to more than day to day needs and the effects of the recession on their immediate lives - you can get to a serious problem for Democratic candidates. Independents, who say a pox on both your houses, are a real problem for Democrats in that they don't feel much of a reason to vote for either.

It seems that maybe the White House has gotten away from taking swipes at its own side and gotten to the point of saying why voting will count. It may be true that in the GOP talking badly about the President of your own side is bad form, but that isn't the way Democrats work. The President's own Party will yell at him ... and then vote for him and the Party. The ones who don't yell don't because they're not paying attention and/or think it won't matter that they do. They also are the ones who are easily discouraged into not voting.

I don't give enough of a damn about hit numbers to bash segments of the blogosphere to get defenders and pilers on going at it. I do give a damn about vote numbers and who gets elected. I do give a damn about the rightward drift of this country and the abandonment of large parts of our society and worse - the dehumanization of parts of our populace.

If you're thinking that the results of the past year are short of what you wanted - I'll agree, in spades. If you're thinking the Democrats and the President have failed to communicate with the public - I'll once again agree in spades. If you're thinking it doesn't matter who is in office - I'll call you a psychiatrist. If you're thinking any of this is the fault of Democratic left activists - well, I don't think much of your ability to analyze. If you'd like to look at the results being the outcome of the GOP voting nearly universally as a unanimous bloc to oppose any Democratic initiative - I'd listen.

Maybe you ought to contribute to our shared destiny by at least voting.

And I know perfectly well that if you're reading this you will regardless of my incitement.

California Prop 14 - Top Two Primary Stupidity

Maybe it figures that an :Austrian would celebrate Prop 14 but you would think citizenship and governorship might clue him in. Prop 14 doesn't require partisan identification and allows for same party general elections.

What isn't generally known is that a State has no control over a Party's primary, what they have control over is what they will finance. The gerrymandering of districts in CA (no they're not alone) means that the outcome in some districts may well be two people from the same party running in the General and it also means small parties are cut out entirely. If the State Parties go along with this crap they deserve to be held up to mockery.

Parties are free to finance their own Primary process and the State is not free to interfere with that process if it follows what is set out as a due process. I may be a Democrat and in favor of Democrats winning, generally speaking, but I do not approve in any manner of the dilution of the voter's will.

What upsets me particularly is that my state, Oregon, has an unfortunate tendency to ape the idiocy that California comes up with.

What Does It Mean To Have Rights?

***Feb 27,2007*** Someone from England Googled into this and it has been a regular archive hit since it was written. I don't think it will seem dated today.

I will start with a disclaimer, an entire library could be written on this subject and I'm not going to.

The US government recognizes some rights, the basic documents of our form of government set some out. These documents begin officially with the Declaration of Independence, there are preceding documents, but this one is officially American. The Declaration sets out two ideas that form this nation's soul, that certain rights precede all forms of government and that when a government no longer serves its people they have the right to change it, violently if needed.

The Revolutionaries fought a long, bitter war against a government they previously had every reason to believe was their own. This experience taught them that their belief in inherent rights could come into conflict with a government's interests and that a government might not represent its citizenry. They had no interest in repeating the experience and tried to pre-empt such a thing's recurrence. They argued long and hard about the Constitution, having failed with the Articles of Confederation to create stability, in order to make a system which was strong enough to withstand the competing interests of its citizenry and flexible enough to meet those interests. Some things like Habeas Corpus they considered basic enough in Law to survive mention in the basic document, the Constitution, others were not so well codified and yet considered of great import. These others composed the Bill of Rights, a formal recognition of rights that were not derived from government, or created by government, but actually superior to government. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence were given codification or enumeration.

The things that they had declared in embarking on war with the most powerful nation in the world was now set out in definite wording. These men never intended that these rights superseded responsibility in action nor that a right allowed the destruction of our fellows, they assumed that simple humanity required an end point to the exercise of a right. They also were more inclined to err on the side of the individual's sense than the government's interests. It is important to remember that these individuals were primarily of English descent or of English Law culture and had watched and finally fought the disintegration of their relationship with their government over a clash of interests. They knew these issues first hand.

When you accept the idea of rights that are superior to and precede governance you have set a high ideal. You put your government out of business in areas where it has almost always interfered. These are areas that the citizenry has strong feelings and beliefs about, areas that governments have always used or suppressed in service to their interests. No one can deny that religion, as an example, is an issue that is of tremendous import to members of society and that its co-option by government is a powerful tool. It is extraordinarily dangerous to government to let it loose for free expression, government takes a large blow to its interests. Each of the rights that were enumerated is similarly debilitating to government and dangerous in the hands of individuals. The Framers were engaging in a risky course of action.

That brings us to us. We are engaged in a risky enterprise, the exercise of rights that all previous governments restricted in one way or another. The government cannot tell us to only praise it with our words, it also cannot tell us not to say mean hurtful things. It cannot tell us that to say one group is unfit to be within society is wrong and forbidden, it must allow us to go our own way. We can say that our elected officials are liars and cheats in the service of unelected elite interests. This creates a possible source of chaos that the government is forbidden to interfere with. The very few limitations the government is allowed to attempt to enforce are those that involve direct deliberate harm to other's rights. Virtually the only protection offered the government is in the transmittal of government secrets. Even in this arena the government treads on very thin ice, it has of late asserted privileges that it may find are specious. Just in the narrow limits of free speech and free press the situation is fraught with risk to order and civility and particularly to government.

It is easy in our modern world to become comfortable and believe we have safe and secure lives and it is a mistake. We live in a system that encourages and supports dissidence, and finally places the tools of rebellion firmly in the citizenry's hands. This systemic deprivation of power of governance is so deep and broad that its beneficiaries often are not aware of it. The tools of sedition range from speaking and gathering together, to having the arms to fight, and protections from governmental investigations. Every direction the government turns it is constrained. This is not the recipe for quiet sedate life if the people do not wish it and frequently despite their wishes it is not.

Because government, the enforcer of societal order, is so constrained it falls on the citizenry to exercise its rights in manners that do not create harm to their fellows. It falls to the citizenry to make informed and reasoned votes for those who represent them. It falls to the citizenry to be responsible for a government that allows and encourages cooperative society. The onus for failure of the system and violent reaction falls on those who have the very things that so constrain their government. There are those who would place restrictions on rights in the name of order and security, they would attempt to undo the system because its own members are failing it. This is misplaced responsibility, if a situation requires redressing it is not because rights are too broad, it is a failure of those responsible for the structuring of our relationships, which is finally the citizens.

We have the most glorious of opportunities, a government restrained and citizenry empowered and that is where we start. Almost a quarter millennia ago we put into operation the most daring and audacious experiment in history and we stand or fall on our own. We cannot blame the hamstrung and hobbled government, we are the power. Let us take ahold with both hands and move this forward, not fall back into the decay and decadence that is all previous governments.

Harold Ford Running For NY US Senate Seat?

Harold Ford has expressed interest in running against Gillibrand for the NY US Senate seat ... and has been taken seriously enough for the NYT to interview him on the subject. Some people not from NY might wonder what could possibly interest New Yorkers in a Tennessean former Congressman who lost for that Senate seat to a Republican distinguishable only by his skin color.

Maybe being a Bank of America vice-chair making about $1 Million per year while being Morning Joe Scarborough's talking point pal is it. It isn't like BoA doesn't deserve a Senator from someplace with an actual population and certainly being near wingnut Joe's yes man proves cross aisle appeal. Somehow four years out of Tennessee politics has turned him into a pro-choice, pro gay marriage type of guy despite his Tennessee policies. I hear tell NYC is a tough place.

He tells the NYT and anybody else who cares that Harry Reid and other leaders won't tell him how to vote. Boy, that's something in short supply in Democratic Senators, Joe Lieberman needs some more pals. Ford is pretty proud of being a capitalist, I'm not sure what that involves at BoA considering the amount of time spent on his TV career.

I guess if New Yorkers vote him in they deserve him, but I'm not sure the rest of the nation's Democrats deserve a Senate Caucus that much more of a mess. What BoA deserves I'll leave to those with a more impolite vocabulary.

Maine, Another Loss Of Humanity

I had some fears about the outcome of the the Question 1 in Maine with this initiative happening in an off-year election. Motivated base voters come out and it is difficult to persuade the ordinary voter something like this matters to vote on. This resulted in another "direct democracy" vote to strip fellow citizens of their humanity. While I might think the issue of Civil Rights falls on the side of gay marriage, it becomes so convoluted in legalese that it is arguable. I don't want to argue, I want to win.

I find it entirely offensive that my law-abiding fellows are denied the same rights and responsibilities the rest of us have, and that is about Civil Liberties. It is an essential human drive to establish stable long term relationships - families. It is essential for evolutionary reasons and societal reasons and it is not optional as a drive for most. It is not a construct of the legal establishment, it is a survival mechanism that has simply been recognized and formalized by the legal system. It is of such human import that whole structures both legal and religious have grown up around it. Another vote has been taken that denies our fellows their humanity.

I don't see how people in that group wouldn't be angry - I am a member of the heterosexual majority that isn't denied anything by this vote and I'm sad and disappointed. Denying people their humanity asks for fury and fury begets poor decisions. I'll be damned if I'll begrudge this community anger, hurt, disappointment, and impatience; they have been harmed at a very basic level. They asked for nothing extra, just to be recognized as fully human and were denied. Again.

I'm going to ask for something, for that rage to be channeled into creation, for that energy to be used to accomplish rather than harm allies and potential allies. Oregonian LGBT organizations are taking a longer term approach. The plan is to put a same sex initiative on the ballot in 2012, a Presidential election and to use the time between now and then to educate voters in a fairly low key manner. The object is to defuse the confrontational aspects before a vote, to swing public opinion into line with their objective well ahead of a campaign and to hold the vote in a year where activated base votes have less effect. This is about patience and work.

I know that throwing things and breaking things to hit back feels better than buckling down and working. It also doesn't work. There is collateral damage involved in anger and that damage discredits a movement. On something like a tax measure everybody who pays taxes has direct skin in a vote, this is different and some alliances or potential alliances are fragile. Mine is not, but I don't represent enough voters to win these things, those who do are subject to alienation by extreme rhetoric and behaviors. You are trying to appeal to a sense of fairness and humanity in people who are not directly affected, that is the goal and target - not splashy demonstrations of anger.

I am an ally, I am not suggesting complacency and I am not suggesting that having an emotional reaction to having your humanity denied is silly. I am talking about winning and that requires a strategy that recognizes both the strengths and weaknesses of a movement and accounts for them. If the object is to win, then do that.

So, What Do These Elections Mean?

There were elections Tuesday, as you may have noticed. There was bad news in Maine for same sex marriage, and NJ and VA elected Republicans as Governors. These were the big talking points on the NEWS. There was a lot talk about what this means for Democrats. Funny, the two Federal Elections that are about - well, Congress apparently didn't mean a thing in that theme. CA10 elected a more liberal Democrat in the Primary and he crushed the Republican. The Democrat who was supposed to be a sacrificial lamb in NY23 won. I don't think any of this really has national relevance other than Maine means it still is hard to get voters to approve same sex marriage, and particularly in an off election.

The Hoffman, Owens, Scozzafava mess in NY23 has some meaning, but the ones who should be paying attention probably won't. I have made the statement that principles matter quite a few times and that I admire standing for them. It is also a fact that other people with other ideas are involved in the political process, across parties and within them. If one takes an all or nothing stance in politics the usual result is nothing.

I cannot count the number of times that my Party has let me down, and I don't get to feel alone or singularly victimized. Republicans can quite validly make the same complaint. It's those other people. You know the kind, people who think they should have a voice whether they're in complete agreement with me or not. They also get insistent about it by voting. If you want to get anything done, you're going to have to take them into account.

They have managed to prove that they can upset the applecart in a ho-hum no-brainer off year election. Influence well beyond numbers through noise is a long respected political tradition...

What they'll try to make of this is anyone's guess - really - but there is word that Sen DeMint is going to back DeVores over Fiorino to face Boxer in CA and DeVore is another ... baggery type. Not that it matters much, Boxer would have to do something incredibly stupid to lose. One does have to wonder what'll happen in FL, though because it is not nearly as meaningless. If they can Primary Christ out they'll have dumped a real probably win and Rubio isn't that at all.

If this seems a bit rambling, I've got a flu bug going on and I'm feeling real poorly. Excuses, excuses...

Iranian Election Oddities

At some point after its institution theocracy damn near guarantees stupid results. Because in recent history theocracies have been established as a reaction to bad government, there may be an intellectual component to them, a reaction by the curious and self-actuated to repression. That component may for awhile ensure a level of good decision making and somewhat blunt the effects of religious rigidity. When religion is the ruling component of thought a certain ossification of thought occurs, the answers to all situations are contained within the relevant holy book which seriously undermines creative thought turning it to the aim of sophistry.

The idea that a holy book contains all the answers to a society's issues is based on the belief that the words are divinely inspired and that divinity will have foreseen all possible developments. Most of these holy books are many centuries old and have been previously mutilated by the political concerns of other power structures and their own power structures. I will not argue about belief system's moral structures, these are matters of faith to their adherents and not subject to such but that holds the seeds of their governmental failure. There is a rigidity of thought involved in the blind adherence to ancient thought.

Problem solving starts with the assumption that something new and out of the ordinary has occurred, a thing not covered by the previous systems for dealing with issues. If the systems existed there would be no problem, it would have been dealt with. This means the solution lies in modifying, restructuring, or abandoning previous models - creativity. Thinking "outside the box" is not encouraged by the religious establishment, the box is the definition of a religious establishment.

Iran's social and economic and diplomatic situation has been changing ever since the 1979 Revolution. The situations that pertained in 1979 do not exist or have modified radically and yet the same thought runs the show. Decision and the decision process continues to operate on the basis of old information and is proving to be incapable of dealing with changed situations. Iran is not longer threatened by Iraq or the United States, its economy is in tatters, and its society is showing dissatisfaction with its narrow structure. The regime is forced to attempt to maintain the status quo by increasingly transparent subterfuges which only inflame the proponents of improvement. This collision means that reason as solution will be less and less likely requiring violence from both sides. This is bad for all participants.

I have no crystal ball or deep insight into Iranian society or leadership and no way of predicting the levels of violence or outcomes. Societies are bound together by general agreement about their foundations and when those agreements are broken or violated the divisions are broadened. If the divisions are sufficient a point is reached where there is no chance of reconciliation and someone has to go. I don't know if the outcome of the Iranian election represents one of those points or not, but it is clearly a symptom of failure.

Baker County Inauguration "Ball"

Baker County Democrats and Andrew Bryant's Mad Matilda Restaurant put together an Inauguration Ball (minus the fancy dress, dancing, and bands) Tuesday. A large screen TV played and the lunch menu and beer, wine, and beverages were available. Since I'm rotten at estimating crowds accept this 50 person estimate for what it is, probably. My familiarity with the political scene allows me to state that while the majority were Democrats there was a significant presence of non-affiliated and Republicans.



The building is approximately 1880s construction and retains much of its character while being comfortable and conducive to sociability.

The purpose of the party wasn't to make partisan gains or make presentations, the idea was to celebrate the peaceful electoral change of government. It certainly also was to celebrate Barack Obama the President, both as a new government and as a man.

Mad Matilda's is a good friend to Baker County Democrats and we are proud to help support a local business by holding events in their venues. We have used a couple businesses for our events rather than utilize public builidings or spaces and the reasoning behind this is that these businesses are a part of Baker's economic engine. Most of BCD's membership is either employed by or owners of small businesses - and I mean small business in the classical sense, not the Republican model. We understand that doing business is a large piece of what makes for social and economic success.

If there is a political end in our use of private businesses it is that it certainly is not harmful to our reputation with the Chamber of Commerce as a demonstration of our good will. We hope to be able to make more and larger concrete demonstrations of that as time goes along.

Congratulations Senator Jeff Merkley

From Northeast Oregon we send our congratulations to our newest Democratic Senator. We are finally done with the fake moderate Republican years of Gordon Smith. If you start with the Senator Elect's childhood story as the son of a mill worker and first college graduate in his family and move through his experience in the Dept of Defense, Habitat for Humanity, and finally as an Oregon legislator and House Speaker you have a recipe for competent Oregon style political action.

It would be easy enough to view my enthusiasm as being through the lens of partisanship, and yes I am considerably more left than Gordon Smith. But that can be set aside when taking a clear look at Jeff Merkley, rather than the quiet go-along get-along do-nothing behavior of his predecessor you can look for Merkley to take an active part, to actually legislate. I have no idea if Gordon Smith was disinterested in the law writing process or just not competent to do it, but you really have to compare Smith to Wyden and wonder, "what????"

It isn't unfair to compare Gordon Smith unfavorably to a popular and exceptional Senator. He had 12 years and most of that time with a Party majority to act in the interest of Oregonians and the nation and these interests are not mutually exclusive. If you take a real look at the mix of industries and lifestyles within Oregon you have a virtual microcosm of the US. Jeff Merkley is a different breed of politician from Gordon Smith and I am glad to have this change.

Thanks for making this run, Jeff. It was a tough race, in political terms and in personal cost. I am intimately familiar with the size of this state and the challenges involved in running and I appreciate your sacrifices on behalf of the citizens of Oregon and commend you for that. Our citizenry needs to have an appreciation for what it means to make this kind of commitment.

Election Night '08

Baker County Democrats are meeting up at Mad Matilda's on Main Street in Downtown Baker City, OR. I'll be somewhat live blogging throughout the evening and posting pictures and what ever crosses my little mind. It is right this minute 4:30 PST. If you expect real serious election coverage, well this ain't it, mostly this is about having some kind of record.

Mad Matilda's is the upper picture. Below is Elliot Averet who is 16 and chaired the local Obama organization, quite ablely. Folks are coming in at this point.

CNN a few minutes ago called SC for McCain, with about 6% of the vote, not a surprise to anyone - apparently.

This is how we're going to watch this and they just called NH as Obama's. Mark Warner (VA) was just called. Nobody is cheering yet. But Warner looks to have had a blow out, John King says the VA Republican Party will be having a serious talk with itself.

5:40 CNN says PA goes to Obama. That got cheers. People are starting to look happier. My seat mates just admitted to being more relaxed. 5:54 NC Kay Hagen beats Dole - Hagen is actually outperforming Obama. Boy that got an Oregon cheer.


The Halloween star minus the outfit and make-up.

The gang, some more of, Peggi Timm long time Democatic activist and communityheavy hitter is left foreground, left in rear is Marilyn Dedeck, Baker Co Democrats Chair. This is minutes after a couple pretty Democratic happy news events.

We're watching on CNN and Bill Bennett is a panel member, I keep hoping to see him cry.

Baker County Commission candidate Randy Joseph sporting a confident and capable expression. Randy is currently a member of the County Planning Board and a great advocate of renewable and efficient energy within Baker Co. He was one of the earliest and is the most informed and dedicated advocate for using Mason Dam at Phillips Resevoir for hydro-electric through the county.

CNN says at 16 % reporting that Ohio goes to Obama, as you can imgine that got eheers. I think 16% in that state is a bit soon, but...

6:45 New Mexico to Obama. David Gergen looks not only self-assured but pleased with how things are going. Ah Bennett, I'd say bitch-slapped is the best description of his expression and tone. It hasn't quite gotten to a whine...gads I loath that prick.

So at 8PST Obama has 279 and I think Democrats are happy. Still a lot of results that matter to Oregonians.

Marilyn Dudeck Baker Co Democrats Chair is pretty happy.

The scene from Chicago is astonishing. That is just flat out a lot of people, happy people. Damn...

McCain's concession, is graceful - on his part. This is a tough audience to do that with, that problem is of his own making. The audience certainly likes Sarah, that is their problem as well. Boos are no suprise for Joe Biden or for Barack Obama, I think John is not pleased by this.

Bruce Raffety, Chair Emeritus who took us through the tough sad times, gets to cheer. Finally.

We're waiting for Barack to speak and for the Oregon results to come in. The Merkley/Smith competition is a big deal. A whole lot of us are sick of the Faux moderate Smith, not to mention what it means in the Senate. And here come the NEXT President of the USA. I cannot imagine how excited Michelle is. Do you have any doubts what is possible in this country? "we are and always will be the United States of America," an elected President who can say this is such a Change.

Compliments to John McCain are answered with cheers, muted to be sure, but not a boo I could hear. The difference is marked.

The President elect. A man with the nerve to use his winning speach to tell the crowd and the TV that things will not be just fine, that we will have to work together. I do have to say, "Wow." That was a kick ass speach, thanks to everyone who voted, no matter for whom, thank you.

It is fun to win for a change.

I think I'll go home and wait for Oregon to finish.

By the way. if you look at my picture on the sidebar you'll notice quite a bit of grey. One of the consolations is that I have a clear memory of a good understanding of why three civil rights workers wound up buried in a dike and I have within my life seen this country move from that to this.

Election Predictions

I've been pretty good at this without any fancy tools, but this time I'm a bit nervous. I've told my nervous Democratic friends Obama by 5-7% and that large margin doesn't scare me. It's too wide as a prediction, so I'll cough up with one, Obama by 7%. Not only will I go there, but I'll call the Electoral College at 340 and frankly expect to miss by being low. The electoral college is a number that can explode with small vote shifts, the thing could go to the 400 neighborhood depending on no more than a few thousand votes in a few places.

Jeff Merkley is going to beat Gordon Smith by 3% unless E OR surprises me and pushes that number up. We've done what we could to limit the damage, we'll have to see.

Don't be surprised to not see a lot of other names here. Most of the other races are too far out of my political radar to do more than guess which is pointless. Our state wide Democrats should take all their races and that's as far as I'm willing to go. Kurt Schrader shouldn't have any problems putting away Erickson, but I won't hazzard a guess.

Feel free to toss in your $0.02 in the comments. I can take public ridicule for going out on this limb.