To Pay Taxes, Or Not To Pay ...

There is no doubt in my mind that more Americans should be paying Federal Income Taxes.  The operative word in that sentence is "should."  There is a damn good reason why the word isn't "can" without severe economic consequences.  It has everything to do with how the economic pie is carved up and what the reality of Taxes, in general, is in this model of economic dysfunction.

The first thing to address is what those non-Fed paying are paying and one my move out of Oregon has emphasized to me.  Most Americans pay sales tax and depending on the model in operation in a State, just how much the low and middle income pay for their State's operation.  This mess of a tax seems to range from about 5% to 7+% and though what is subject varies, food groceries are mostly out, every day needs are hit along with the more major purchases like vehicles and this hits a much larger share of income for low and lower middle income groups than anybody else.  There is an unholy mix of sales tax along with State income taxes and most of them are pretty damn regressive.

If you take a wage or salary anything up to $110,000 is subject to a tax of about 14% and there is no deduction on that (that rate can easily revert to the 15.3% rate).  You can go ahead and consider Mitt's published rate of about 14% on his millions of income.  Unless you're a church or favored Corporation you pay property tax and whether you own, "own", or rent you're paying these.  There are, of course, all kinds of specific taxes and fees like gas taxes and maybe the most insidious and nasty where tip receiving employees have their minimum wage slashed.

If you look at wages and salary that have been flat or falling versus inflation over the past 30 years you begin to get a sense of the impact of Federal Income Tax.  But that is really only a small part of what is going and talking about a symptom wealth distribution and, yup, taxes.  In 2007 the top 1% had 43% of the financial wealth in the US compared to the lowest 80% at 7% of the wealth.  Take into consideration that conditions have severely worsened since then.  There are structural reasons for this and there are policy and tax reasons for this.  I believe you can make the case that the structural reasons have much more to do with policy and tax policy than world conditions and even if they do not they are huge contributors.

It is frequently asserted that economics is not a zero sum game, as though this somehow mitigates conditions and quite basically ignores that at any given moment economics is exactly a zero sum game.  At any given moment there is exactly so much wealth within the system and how that wealth is distributed has everything to do with whether or not people earn money and spend that money and get taxed on those earnings.  If 80% of the population is competing for 7% of the wealth the system produces  they are going to take small portions and have small portions of a system that supports us all.

I really don't care what economic model one hews to from communism to unfettered libertarian capitalism the simple fact is that wealth is produced and protected by the infrastructure and various agencies.  These systems must be paid for, somehow, money has got to be put into creating and maintaining them.  If not enough people can afford or are willing to pay the piper the thing falls apart.  If you cut the share in wealth of the general population they cannot afford to support those essentials and if you allow the small percentage of the population to refuse the thing is broken.  The reason you have inability and the ability to refuse is all about the share of wealth.  If you concentrate sufficient wealth at the top you give them the ability to keep it that way and refuse responsibility through application of minor amounts of that wealth to the political system.

It has taken decades to get to this point and trying to do something real about it in a sudden manner, even if possible, would have undesirable consequences to the economy.  Forcing wealth back down into the general population will take time even if it is seriously addressed.  The problem is the the will to do it will take an awful lot work and time - the thinking that has led to this mess has been inculcated over decades and become some perverted common sense.  Waiting for politicians is simply foolish, they will react to common sentiment not common sense and worse yet - that sentiment has to overcome the political advantages of wealth.  Yeah, I think most Americans should pay taxes and that involves being able to pay them and that means that the real Takers in the economy have to give up quite a lot.  A hell of a lot which is just chump change in their world.  So don't hold your breath or any stupid like that...

By the way, if you're not in the top 1% or even better 0.1% you're getting hammered by percentage of income paid in taxes compared to them.  Absolutely hammered.

The Purpose Of A Convention

I've been to State Party Conventions and I've watched on TV and read about National Party Conventions.  As best I can tell there are two competing agendas:
Make the base happy to work at the electioneering
Use the Media time to make an introduction to voters you want to win

Platform fooferaw is about the base that is at the Convention or the few at home at the Party meetings.  It is the a game of pleasing the Party activists and giving them hope for the future direction of the Party.  The wrangling and word corrections are the fodder of the purists and not to be mistaken for serious political strategy.  Sure - it does tell you who that group is and where they want to take America and even who they think counts, but it is just a grown-ups game of tiddly-winks.

The selection of speakers and what they have to say starts getting to the heart of the politics.  This selection portion involves what the general reputation of the speaker says about their political machinery and also works to bring forward the 'Next New Best Thing' - bestowing a mantle of Party respect and approval - and also puts the Party imprimatur on surrogates and their messaging.  Any one speaker can hold a variety of those roles and sometimes without knowing the policy positions of one it would be easy to think they'd been anointed "Next" when what they really are about is tone.  Chris Christie fits this slot I believe after listening to commentators proclaim his as "Next" when what I believe his role to been is to play the bully - the hard-assed hard-nose that represents how "tough" the GOP is.  Christie would have to perform Mittenesque retroactive redefinitions to fit the role of "Next."  The Base won't have that without a r-Money win and that puts Christie pretty far off.

I tried to listen to the speakers, but it was too much and I kept switching to the satellite Blues channel.  The gist of what I heard was a play for the Base and even Wife Surrogate didn't seem to be reaching for Undecideds but rather to be trying to reassure the Base.  Her "shout out" to women seemed painfully jarring considering the GOP's stance and her Hubby's stance on women's matters like contraception and choice and work rights - not to mention with an entire disconnect from the daily issues facing most women beyond somebody's platitudes.  (disclosure: every time this rich bitch opens her mouth my eyes go red) ((don't start up with me, I like strong women and weak ones make me tired)) (((strong women deal with hard things and persevere - not buy their way through)))*  Look, the Undecideds are going to choose on something other than race or European socialism or God-bothering and that something other will most likely be who they FEEL will care the most and do the best job of straightening up their economic pain.  Damn it, they will not analyze policy points - they'll go with a general sense of that piece.  Women who are flat done with the misogyny of the GOP won't change their minds because Anne says they're great and women who haven't decided because they've somehow missed having their heads kicked by it won't care Anne says they have it tough.  The undecided audience is primarily white working class of the "don't bother me with this shit until later" variety.  These folks are marginally convinced their vote matters and they couldn't be less interested in the high-falutin ideological fights - they just want things fixed for them and they're not real sure who is responsible for them not being fixed.  Racist dog-whistling won't do much with them, not because they're committed to equality but because it requires energy to hate and it makes them uncomfortable.  These folks need a reason to be reassured that r-Money gives enough of a damn about them to actually do something.  I didn't hear that - at all.  It is still early but these first out of the gate folks tend to set tone...

I can only hope this GOP thing is a massive failure.

*I realize that was a lot of parenthetical speaking and no I don't give a rat's patoot about MS, I've had women friends with it and they didn't have dancing horses and the money for the best medical treatment in the world and I don't give a damn about her five or eight or whatever kids and gazillion grandkids the hired help takes care of - the women I knew had a real hard go of it and did a pretty good job of living until it killed them.  Yeah, it killed them and not a single one of them would have taken it as a badge for respect.

Motorcycle Musings On Myths

The thing about riding solo for a long distance on a motorcycle is that your mind has time for thinking about, well, stuff. There certainly is the little matter of keeping the scooter where it belongs and watching out for things that could interfere with your continued breathing but with experience that becomes somewhat automatic and doesn’t occupy your entire intellect. So the, in my case, questionable occupation becomes mulling over somewhat larger concepts than food and drink.

Since I was spending a whole lot of time riding across the plains of Montana and North Dakota I needed something to occupy my mind – there is a really large amount of not much out there. “Oh look, there’s a tree,” quickly loses its novelty. So I reflected on the folks I was meeting along the way, friendly open folks - that was amongst us white folks. There is a real strong current of that "descendants of the rugged individualist Old West" theme.

I certainly won't deny that it was hard dangerous work ranching and homesteading the Plains, but it also has generated a myth of stand on your own and keep the government out of the way in that spirit. This ignores some rather inconvenient facts in service to the charges of socialistic Obama-ism. No cowboys or homesteads would have happened without a way to get the products to market and that way was railroads. Rails got laid out here because the government handed out right of way parcels to the railroads on each side of the rails - serious parcels worth serious money because close to rails is valuable to own. Lots of land to sell for lots of money. Importing cheap labor also wasn't a problem.

There is the little matter of the land the ranches and homesteads were put on, very nearly free or free from the government in pursuit of settling the land. The largest purchaser of the products from the lands was the government - in great part to supply the Army. That Army was very busy subduing, moving, or slaughtering the indigenous people, different religion terrorists called American Indians. The descendants of the beneficiaries of serious socialism are real busy crying about socialism now in the name of their history (er myth).

I take nothing away from their ancestors, but the government had an end in mind and didn't care a bit about seriously subsidizing the people who were accomplishing that end. It continues today as ethanol is subsidized to add to gasoline so that 15% power and mileage can be lost in search of ... well I'm not sure what. The math is very troublesome.

Idiotology And Problem Solving

Ok, so I'll just stop laughing and pointing at Ayn Paul, er Rand. Politics and governing are always going to be messy when you have at least three people involved. Look, when there's just the two of you; you can beat the hell out of the other one - that third person is a wild card. Take that little difficulty and add a few hundred million more people and, yes, it is going to be a mess.

Politics and governing are the art of accomplishing the possible and hopefully doing some good. This is what kills something like Libertarianism - it is not about problem solving, it is some sort of philosophy. I'll not spend any time trying to explain that mess to anyone beyond that the magic hand of greed will solve everything. It makes all kinds of assumptions and sets all kinds of conditions up with absolutes all over it. It is a kind of political religion in that sense. Some actual Libertarian said on the media that it takes a professor to explain it not a few minutes in an interview. Not that it would do you any good...

The harsh reality of problem solving tripped Rand up badly. The Jim Crow south was about a whole lot more than a couple nasty brutish laws - it was an entire social structure that denied a race any place in society's commerce. He had to admit it finally and that is going to cause him problems with his kin - they deal in absolutes not the messy greys of life.

Part of what ails DC right now is that problem solving is not the agenda of one of the players. There is the same kind of purity test being applied by the GOPers that the Libertarians apply. (yes I know there is also the plutocratic base to please) Legislation that does not have a (R) after it is going to be fought tooth and nail for political gain in the first instance and secondly the mantra of government over-reach is going to be applied to any effective policy.

With quite a bit of justice people feel that there is too much government, the problem gets real sticky when it comes to ox goring. Don't touch my Medicare is a pretty reasonable response to threats to it, same with ... ok, now you're in trouble. Most of this country won't stand for starving people on the streets (starving people are also dangerous) but they also don't like supporting them. We have managed through a lot of years of behavior to create a system that will have those starving people without government. So, where do you go with your harsh absolutes from there? You put them down and solve as best you can what you're faced with.

At no point in this nation's history has there been that "perfect" starting point to make things all work out nicely. At every point there have been an existing set of circumstances to be dealt with as best possible in the face of too many individual opinions to just act. Ideologues or "philosophers" don't get this and their solutions demand absolutes - conditions that don't exist responding in ways that don't happen or have wayyyyyy too high costs. Yes, starving people will die and thin the herd and some will be saved by charities and ... well ooops some will start killing the "haves" because they "have not." Not good.

You certainly can strangle business by trying to regulate every aspect of it and burying it under a blizzard of paperwork and other assorted messes, but counting on it to self-correct means consequences you may not be able to bear. To be sure, coal miners can quit working a place that's real dangerous - the problem is they find that out after they've been blown up or buried. Now if you think you can do that to people in your business freely the chances are that someone is justifiably going to come kill you. There is every chance that they will figure life trumps your property rights and make you pay for it.

Practice and history have given us some fairly harsh lessons in what doesn't work, this is scarcely the first finance driven economic crap out or the first year workers were getting killed because profits trumped working reasonably safely. A hell of a lot of people have died or suffered to get this message across - some entity has to look out for them. That entity can't be magic, it has to exist and it has to have an interest beyond self profit. We call it government and argue endlessly about how to - but in the end we will accept that there are problems too big to be solved elsewhere and do it. The pretty words and constructions of a philosophy won't do; some messy solution will have to be worked out. It will either be that way or things are going to get very,very messy. We have this messy contract called government in the end analysis to keep us from having to slaughter each other. Get used to the idea, for pete's sake. Solve problems.

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.

US World Leadership Role

I doubt that one could successfully argue that the world's most powerful military and economy don't bear some regard in the world. In both spheres second place is so far behind as to be pretty meaningless as a position. What happens to the US and what we do matters a great deal to the world. I recently heard a highly regarded commentator remark on the US world leadership role and was suddenly stopped in my tracks. I've heard this type of statement repeatedly for many many years and it honestly took until that moment for its stupidity to sink in. There is a vast gulf between being consequential and leading.

What our military is capable of makes us an extremely dangerous and lethal opponent, something to consider in international policy framing by such folks. The extraordinary scale of our economy is something to bear in mind if one is considering economic policies. Both things matter a great deal but do not qualify as leadership beyond a certain level of coercion. Leadership is something else, it requires a willingness to be led and an authority to lead from.

If one were to simply take our established concepts of the relationship between the governed and the government it would seem that we have has something to show much of the world for quite some time, like since the Declaration of Independence. Most of our founding documents and much of our law since has hewed to an astonishingly high standard, but...

For nearly half our history we engaged in slavery, we have engaged in wars of extermination against Native Americans, we have abrogated Treaties at drop of the hat convenience, we have overthrown representative governments and supported abhorrently repressive ones. We have used our economic heft to strip countries of resources and we have engaged in reckless wars. Our government has lied to its own people and to the world and engaged in legal behavior that is abhorrent in many modern societies. To be sure there is a balance in the actions we have taken that have benefited the world at large and it is not the point of this article to diminish them.

It is the point of this article to scoff at the notion that we are international leaders on the basis of anything concrete at this point beyond our physical clout. Whatever repair President Obama is doing to our international reputation it will require a lot more than some months of pretty rhetoric to undo generations worth of misbehavior. The presentation of the US as arbiters of ethical behavior to the rest of the world ignores and in fact denies our actual international and domestic behavior for generations. It is simple jingoism to present to our own citizens such a concept. It also asks the rest of the world to engage in the same blatant eye covering and ear plugging. They aren't going to do it, they don't have blind patriotism to the US as a background.

We certainly could earn such respect, it isn't all that far fetched to insist that our government live up to its own founding law, the Constitution and Bill of Rights in its treatment of its own citizens and extend that to our international behavior. It is also quite apparent that it isn't the case currently and shows no sign of being the case for some time to come. It is the case that the Constitution lays out how we engage in Treaties and that they become the law of the land. It is also the case that if our form of governance is superior we should extend it to our dealings with anyone, government or individual. That we do not is a serious and apparent problem with asserting our ethical leadership. One can lead or one can coerce, they are not the same and they do not involve the same actions or ethics, we need to learn that lesson.

Taking Public Action

In the last couple weeks two things have figured large in the news media, one was the linking of Rush Limbaugh to Republicans and the other is the theme that the Administration is trying to do too much during this crisis. Both issues have been noisy and a matter of bringing forward very public figures and both have longer term outcomes.

One of the features of the Limbaugh dustup should be obvious, a fairly small number of very noisy people are having a large impact. Elected Republicans are not very happy to have that a publicly viewed fact. A generally unpopular figure is being linked to their political careers and actions, their problem is that attempting to create distance between themselves and this figure causes immediate backlash but staying linked creates electoral backlash. This is an obvious outcome of this public debate in political terms. The Republicans are squalling about this because it doesn't work in their favor, but it is a demonstration of the power of an active group versus a silent one. Republicans cannot fight the fact of Limbaugh so they push against the public nature of the debate by accusing Democrats of a conspiracy.

The 'doing too much' reporting bubbling up all over the place plays on fears about the economy. The theme states that the economic mess can't be solved with any attention on other matters. It should be clear to anyone paying attention that the 'other matters' are of a liberal thrust. The attention to health care reform is framed as a distraction to fixing the economy, along with too expensive and socialistic. Heath insurance costs are going up nearly 20% this year, if you have insurance and will get any of the taxpayer relief of the stimulus plan that is gone and you're still searching your pocket to come up with the rest. The net effect is that the tax reduction portion of the stimulus becomes a subsidization of the health insurance industry. People will choose groceries and rent or house payments over insurance payments, minus that change in income policy holder numbers will decrease in large numbers. The issue has immediate consequences along with long term consequences - financially. Employment numbers have two large factors, the most obvious is having something for an employee to do, the other is what it costs to have an employee - or more employees. It is a drastically important issue in economic terms and yet it is being put forward as a distraction.

Delay is the enemy of change when there is an actual opposition to change. In this particular case, along with other liberal changes Obama proposes, the public is currently concentrating ire on the very figures who oppose these changes due to the economic bust. Weekly or more often another example of greed and plutocratic enabling is paraded before the public and the general public grows more dissatisfied with their actions. This situation did not exist two years ago, at that time there was little to no focus on something that has been ongoing for nearly 30 years. If you take the behavior of the past 30 years by the public as indicative of its future behavior those with something to gain from opposition to change will hope for a recurrence as the economy stabilizes. If the economy continues into the toilet they will have that weapon to use against the liberal politics currently winning. Delay is, in their eyes a win-win situation and the fact that it is getting media attention shows that it has some public interest. The media's presence in this is as indicative of a political agenda as the Rush flap.

Silence is the ordinary American condition, the Nixonian 'The Silent Majority' is best described by reversing the words, the majority is silent and they will continue to be so. Somewhat more than half of Americans actually vote and most of those voters believe they have attended to their public duties by doing so every two years. This is the friend of the status quo, when the only voices are news and politicians, the system is controlled and damped. It is also the friend of the small voices when their energies are concentrated. Rush's ditto-heads aren't powerful because they are numerically significant over all, they are powerful because they are noisy. Republican elected officials aren't swayed by the rhetoric of Rush, they're swayed by the flooded switchboards an insignificant number marshal.

A single Letter To Editor is not influential, it might cause a person or two to think about the subject but carries the weight of a single opinion without backing. A week's worth of one or several per day begins to carry the weight of shared opinion with readers and the volume begins to attract the notice of politicians. A single phone call to an elected official carries just about the weight of that individual's regard from the official, hundreds begin to express a sense of will and organization. Politicians discriminate between expressed will and organization. Politicians know the attention paid to the squeaky wheel when there are lots of them even if they are not a determining number for election because politicians are quite used to the majority being silent.

To be sure there are formal organizations that a person can join, and as a concerned partisan I always tout the County Democratic Parties, but it goes well beyond that. Some folks read this blog and others that express agendas, you may read something that kicks at your sensitivity buttons and that is a sign that you should express yourself. It does take a few minutes to write a letter or make a phone call but you extend the reach of your ideas. This is important, if the discourse is left to those paid to do it or those who benefit financially or politically from it, the interests of the ordinary American get lost. I'm not suggesting that most people should take up the role of activist or blogger or both - that is a lot of work with no remuneration. Not many have the time or energy or interest to spend that kind of time, but reacting to what is laid before you on occasion doesn't have those kinds of requirements. If I miss a day or two of posting the readership plunges because people come here to see something new, that isn't the case with an LTE or contacting an official these remain in the consciousness if they are polite and reasonable.

You don't come around for pictures of naked people or song downloads, you come around for politics. Something you've read here struck you enough to come back, take that one bitty step forward and tell people that you were struck. I don't mean plug this blog, I mean plug your own reaction. That is a multiplier effect, that puts some real meaning into me spending this time. The thirty years of political history leading to here and now happened to a great extent because the push back was so limited and failed so spectacularly in the face of the Republican theocratic plutocrat's game at taking charge of the discussion. Push back.

Center Right America

The Republican line about America being a center right country has an irritating element of truth. If you poll Americans about specific behavior, you find that they are, in fact, pretty liberal; it is when politics are brought into the questions that the center right theme emerges. Few Americans propose that anyone other than god punish queers, but the politics of gay marriage result in that punishment. If you ask about fighting in Iraq Americans don't like it, but throw in the politics of national security and suddenly Republicans are credible. Reagan let terrorist get away unpunished for blowing up Marines, founding the current extremist Islamic movements and yet the politics make him credible. Americans know they are getting the short end of the economic stick and yet the politics of it let Republicans get away with supply side economics. Republicans claim to be the party of small government and yet the imposition of government power on the citizens has occurred on their watch and what they've proven about government is that they are incapable of governing.

The modern Republican Party has its roots in Reaganism, a limited but charasmatic spokesperson built a propaganda machine. The media, rather than attempting to understand the policies, parroted them. This parrot behavior lasted 30 years and only increased with the George I dispensation to Murdoch, which for his US empire he owes. Americans get their news from corporations with their corporate interests at heart, not America's. An entire political policy founded on not a single verifiable fact is held to be common wisdom.

There is not a single piece of evidence that supply side economics results in its stated ends and a wealth of factual information that says it only enriches the rich. There is not a single bit of evidence that socialized medicine would be worse for America than the current situation and yet it is accepted wisdom that it would be the death of medical quality in this country. The evidence to go to war in Iraq was ginned up in the face of actual evidence and the media fell all over itself to sell it and did so. The neo-con agenda falls to pieces in the face of historical precedence and yet for years it was accepted wisdom and its proponents still get extensive space to deny their abject failure. Every booster of the policies that led to the current situation in this country has their job or even promotions and the ones who criticized and called BS are hard to find. Kristol got a job with the NYT on the Op-Ed page as though he'd ever been right about something. It isn't a case of partisanship, I don't care much about that, it is about the complete and utter bullshit printed as though its writer has credence beyond its reality. On the othe hand, try to find Scott Ritter who accurately called all the outcomes of the BS intelligence.

There are some realities that just don't get any play while their opposites are considered the norm. Those dirty hippies were a chaotic bunch and downright disrespectful of authority and disruptive and the end harm of their era is what? In reality the harm was in the push backs, the War on Drugs, the drive to conformity, the disparagment of protest, the vilification of a political orientation. This is not a country impaired by drug use, it is not an anti-materialistic society, it is not a nation of communes and pacifists, and long hair amongst males is still rare. And yet, left politics is disparaged - in politics, in the media, and society at large. It is something to be defended from or denied by those seeking office. It is an attack word and owned by the public. When has the right's agenda been exposed to simple fact checking much less the derision of hippies and yet the harm caused by them is evident throughout the legal and economic system.

The very best favor granted the right is the demonization of George II. It personalizes a policy failure, it creates the illusion that it is not the fault of the agenda but rather that of the implementor. It supposes that America is so fragile that 7 years of the unbound Bush could wreck it and that is not the case. The world's largest economy does not crash and burn as the result of an ignorant inarticulate fake cowboy Presidency. The damage can certainly be accelerated by his Presidency coupled with a similar Legislative branch, but it can't be simply done by them. The rise of the Reaganist agenda to prominence as so unquestioned that even Bill Clinton got along with it can do the damage. An ignorant ass Ohio wannbe plumber can say socialism about targeted tax rates and it becomes a rallying cry for a party and taken seriously enough by a campign that it must be defended against. A tax rate that is 8 years old and one half that of the 1960s is taken seriously as socialism. A tax rate that was accepted as the result of being the prime beneficiaries of an entire system laid on people who were paupers by today's standards is exteme leftism. Most of the media correctly reported the tax plan but placed it in no historical context in the process of reporting the controversy and for its trouble was labeled as left enabling. Understand that the smear is reported - big news - and the plan accurately reported, but the smear itself, the big news, is placed in no context - it is allowed to stand as though it has some basis and is simply a political issue to be decided. It is Reaganism accepted.

The architects of our current debacles first got access to real power under Reagan, though many began their careers under RM Nixon. When their party was out they either cycled through private industries at inflated positions or went to employment assurance units like The Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute where they could spend their time coming up with disasters like the Iraq War or investment banking being rolled out from under regulation. Despite an almost universal failure to come up with successful policies these outfits are treated as respected think tanks rather than the right wing shill factories they are. The American public is treated to the spectacle of complete failures opining as though they'd done something other than sell a bill of goods.

This cycle of taking Reaganism as the revealed truth is not done, not nearly. The Republicans in Congress and media are already harking back to St Ronnie as the line not followed by the dastardly GWB. The media desperate for villians now craps on their former fair haired boy and allows people who behaved exactly as they accuse the villian of behaving to do so without question. Be under no illusions, the nonsense of the Republican Reaganites suits the agenda of big business and the media and will not be obviously contradicted. It will not be fact checked or if it is it will be buried far from the noisy news story related to it. When someone whose interests are served tells you something it is a good idea to actually think about who is served.

You might wonder what interest I'm serving. I'm running for no office, I have no friends who are who could benefit me, this blog makes exactly no money, and nobody is going to ask me to work in government. I run a construction business of sorts and I will benefit if my fellows do well. I am a Democratic Party functionary and that pays nothing and costs me both time and money. I think you're pretty safe not worrying about how I'll profit by my advocacy. Fairy tales can be pushed back against, you have the ammunition and lately a couple friends in national media.

Political Religion And Secular Pragmatism

I'll open with a disclaimer, I belong to no organized religion and advocate no position on religious beliefs or unbeliefs whatever - publicly or privately.

The Bill of Rights First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Amendment's position on religion is more clear than some people care to recognize. The Establishment clause is pretty broad in that it refers to "no law" and the generic "religion". While there is no statement specifically calling for a "wall of separation" the language is clear that such a wall exists concerning laws. The verb "establish" per Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: es·tab·lish
Pronunciation: \i-ˈsta-blish\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English establissen, from Anglo-French establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire, from stabilis stable
Date: 14th century
1: to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
2obsolete : settle 7
3 a: to make firm or stable b: to introduce and cause to grow and multiply
4 a: to bring into existence : found b: bring about , effect
5 a: to put on a firm basis : set up b: to put into a favorable position c: to gain full recognition or acceptance of
6: to make (a church) a national or state institution
7: to put beyond doubt : prove

The definition is pretty clear, what isn't quite as clear is what is religious and what isn't when referring to law.

The sticking point is what law is about. One would take this on the surface as being pretty easy, defining what you cannot or can do under the force of the state. There is a huge "but" included in that. Is law about morality or is it about order? This dispute has been going on since, it seems, time immemorial. The stance of the religionists is that morality is the question. This view has a lot of precedence and has been practiced in the US - generally as complete failures. The huge rub is the idea that you can institute morality under threat of force. This is what law means, the state's view of a behavior is enforced, that is backed up by its full resources, including guns and bars. Once you get to the core of it you find that morality and law plainly are not congruent. In reality what law is about is social order.

Social order is a recognition that the disparity in human motivations result in behaviors that must be regulated in order for us to live in close proximity to each other. It is a fact that humans kill each other and the state has separated that behavior into categories from acceptable and approved to levels of disapproval. Soldiers are encouraged and trained to do so, people in general are discouraged. They are discouraged from doing so because unrestrained killing in a society leads to chaos because it leads to more killing. The state's interest in the morality of the act is disposed of by its sanction of it in its own interest, soldiers, and the levels of constraint including allowance for the citizenry. Killing ranks at the top of the morality scale concerns and yet the state does not disapprove in certain conditions. Morality is absolute, it certainly recognizes trade offs and conditions, but it is degrees of wrongness. Stealing to feed your family is still stealing and is still wrong, but a difference is seen in the motivation. For an example: a Catholic would still be required to confess this as a sin but the penalty the priest would apply would recognize the motivation. The law has no such quibble, the judge might consider it but is not legally induced to do so.

Here is where the crunch occurs, there are a lot of behaviors that religions or moral structures many people hold simply don't allow for. Two of the current big ones are homosexuality and abortion. These actions are disapproved of strenuously and vocally by a large number of voters. Homosexuality, where it regards consenting partners, is not much of a moral issue, it is primarily a religious and psychological question. If you take homosexuality as simply a behavior and remove all questions of religion and feelings from it, as a matter of social order it is immaterial. The question of love, sex, and gender is meaningless to social order, there are no economic or social impacts, beyond the issue of stability regarding homosexual marriage which is positive. The fact of homosexuality may bother people on an emotional level but it has existed as a matter of fact for all of recorded history. Being bothered on an emotional level may be annoying, but it scarcely rises to the level of law. It is a fact that many religions proscribe the practice and push to have their view enforced. It is the legal enforcement of a socially harmless activity that creates harm. It creates harm not only to government by putting it in a position counter to its mandate but also to the religion itself.

Backlash against the Mormon church for organizing millions of dollars and thousands of man hours of volunteerism to back California's Prop 8 is occurring within the Church. Outside the Mormon church people who have held no particular regard for it are finding themselves offended by their aggressive campaign. Being offended by Mormonism is no different than being offended by Lutheranism, silly behavior about a personal issue. It is entirely another issue to be offended by the actions of a religious organization, in this case Church of Latter Day Saints, and I am offended. I am offended enough that I will not purchase from a Mormon controlled corporation, such as Safeway. I don't care in the least about their views of homosexuality, I find that entirely their business, but I am outraged by their behavior within the legal sphere. It is an unacceptable legalization of their religious views and since legal punishment seems out of the question, economics becomes the tool. They need to be punished severely enough to dissuade them from going there again. Let me be very clear, this is about the Church not individual Mormons.

The issue of abortion is much more complex since it is not only a matter of religion and psychology, it is matter of a lives. Here there is a collision of religion, morality, ethics and social good that has explosive arguments scattered all through all of these. It is a simple matter to argue that it is a matter of reproductive freedom, but that argument taken fully would hold that at anytime previous to delivery an abortion is acceptable. This stance does not have any real support so the argument descends into arguments about the start of life, another logical dead end. Once a sperm has penetrated and egg and cell division has started life has begun, whether the body can take it forward or not. This is the crux of the explosiveness of the arguments, taken to their logical ends the results are counter to social order and sensibility and create huge uproars over procedures misnamed partial birth abortions or morning after pills. The Catholic Church disapproves and this leads to matters regarding Barack Obama like this:

"If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the gravity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously," the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's, wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21.

Political activity is punished within a religious organization and while this example concerns Catholicism it certainly is not limited to that. It is certainly acceptable religious behavior to proscribe an activity itself to its practitioners, it is another to proscribe a vote to allow others to engage in it. This stance is that the views of the Catholic Church must be applied to all and any dissent is punishable, an assumption of governmental powers by a church.

One cannot nor should expect that the religious views or moral construct of a person do not carry into the body of government with them. While it probably has little to do with their capacity to participate in governmental activities, it should do no more than inform their personal choices. The measure of political success for society involves the order of that society. It is important to note that certain aspects of societal order are removed from the government's hands, freedom of speech is a glaring example. This is also the case with the Establishment clause, the government is proscribed from such religion based behavior and that would include gay marriage or abortion. In each the measure should be its effect on social order and how best to deal with it - secular pragmatism.

The Establishment Clause makes it clear the the institution of religion through law is prohibited and religion is composed of its beliefs and tenets. The fact that a religion's tenets may comply with a law, theft for example, is not evidence that the law is based on that consideration. The fact of religious or moral proscription of theft does not affect the social order considerations, it may reflect religious dogma that it is a social order consideration. Secular pragmatism would ignore the religious and moral considerations of a law and attempt to order society in the least intrusive manner congruent with the success of that society.

It is very tricky business where something like abortion is concerned. The balancing act is extreme, abortions are going to happen with social costs incurred whether they are legal in some degree or not. The job of government in this case is to try to minimize the negative outcomes of the inevitable. No government is capable or qualified to legislate morality, there is entirely too much of its function that is not moral for it to do so. The government can certainly instruct in what is congruent with social order and take legal action to help encourage orderly behavior. Reliable and available birth control, applicable sex education and adoption support do more to lower abortion rates without governmental interference than all the confessions for a vote ever will.

Secular pragmatism would look at the social outcomes of gay marriage and measure the costs and benefits to society. Stable relationships and legal structures for inheritance and responsibilities are net gains whatever the sexual orientation of couples; the social order negatives involve the discomfort for some of Mr. & Mr. or Mrs. & Mrs. as titles. Confusion about the role of government in marriage does not exist when secular pragmatism is used, the state's view of marriage and the religious aspect are not congruent nor interfered with. The First Amendment bars the government from interfering in the "free expression" of religion, which obviously bars it from forcing religions to acknowledge gay marriage, or especially forcing them to perform one. Marriage is one of those issues where there is a similarity between government's interests and religion, but that similarity should not be confused with congruence. Government's interest is purely social order, divorced (if you will) from the religious aspects of marriage and the outcomes are not the same. The government allows divorces for rather simple reasons for social considerations, regardless of any religion's views of divorce.

Because government's aims are of an entire secular nature, it is dangerous for both institutions to become intimately involved with each other. It is impossible for the government to hand out money without attached strings - it is taxpayer money and responsibility is demanded. When religious tenets are legally instituted on the basis of that fact, religion is granted a place in government that it should not have and society is allowed to object, in very strong terms. This places the onus for law on religions, see Mormonism above. When the citizenry rightfully revolts from the institution of religious law the religious will be made to suffer. When religion usurps the function of government is will be made to pay the costs and success at that endeavor of instituting religious laws encourages further attempts which will elevate the level of resistance. Theocracy is incredibly dangerous for the members of religion, at some point they will be made to pay. JFK's Presidential endeavor was hampered by the assertions of Papal interference. Mitt Romney's chances for elective office votes with some segments of society that might have supported him before became nil with this activity. His religion has rightfully become a measure of his electability, simply because it is demonstrably officially an advocate of theocracy. Their business activities become targets for the same reason, if you object to theocracy then its advocates must pay.

The sad part of this is that it has become a measure of a religion's success to interfere in the secular behavior of the government. This very success undercuts its appeal where it needs to have it, within the community of the religious and others who are informed by religious thinking. It is indubitable that religions have had success within social thinking, churches were a large part of the Civil Rights campaign, but that success is undermined by the enforcement of their dogma. Enthusiastic atheists frequently point to the disasters of the influence of religion, particularly in governments. The problem for religions is that the arguments are good and compelling and speak to those who might become members otherwise. Those whose own behavior and sensibilities are congruent with a religion's find themselves confronted with that religion imposing those views and are offended, rather than joining.

The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights understood that a line between government and religion was to the benefit of all concerned. Government functions better by staying in its actual role, religion is not interfered with, and the citizenry is free to choose as it will and finds it easier to obey laws with sense behind them.

So, We Won...And Now?

I've been watching the media and reading blogs and thinking about this earth shattering win we had Tuesday. I'm under-impressed with what I'm hearing. I'm not for one second implying that the Republicans aren't in disarray, they certainly are. I wonder how powerful these folks gloating would have called the Democratic Party a few days after Kerry's loss. Not very is my guess.

This is one election and it is one with a lot of unique features and while it says a lot, it says it mostly about itself - not the future or even the status of electoral politics presently. There are factor after factor in this election that returned to a more normal status would seriously affect the looks of all this analysis that is making so much of this election. The unity of the black vote and the turn out levels are not something to take as repeatable. On the other hand the "other" factor this candidate fought is not necessarily present in another contest. Economic meltdown just prior to an election is not something to look for or forward to. There are things that evidently don't work, being a cranky mean old man didn't, running an obnoxiously unqualified VP choice didn't work, jumping from tactic to tactic without an overarching strategy didn't work. Frankly, most of that could have been easily enough predicted. Is that something to count on?

The idea going around is that this is an electoral tsunami of huge effect. I disagree. I do not discount the vote or even the electoral split, but I'm unwilling to take them as meaningful beyond this particular election. I believe the Democratic Party has had a door cracked open for them. This is an epic opportunity, not some sort of mandate or validation. If one pre-supposes successful policies from the Obama administration and Democratic Congress a tool is presented to us. Thirty years of Republican propaganda can be countered with a dedicated campaign of pointing up the successes and contrasting them to the current failure of the right. People will not move from an established point of view because they're just told "we're better," that's been said by us for quite awhile. They will move when we demonstrate we've got the goods.

Baker County, Oregon went to McCain by 64/32 and that isn't all about racism. This county was a Democratic stronghold up until about 30 years ago and it wasn't the Dixi-crat version. The people are philosophically conservative, they don't take new or change as being good in itself. The "New and Improved" on the box doesn't mean much to them, what means something is that the clothes are clean. We have got to show them, and a whole lot of others like them, that the clothes do get clean with our New and Improved.

I'm not raining on the parade, I'm as pleased as any other Democrat. I'm calling for action, for a plan to move on this cracked open door. I'm not satisfied, not even close to it. I don't care if Bill Clinton is a hero to you or not, what did not happen during his administration was a roll back of the Republican frame of politics and we're damn fools if we don't do it this time. You want to keep winning and to move this country left of where it is today, then be ready to work for it. We have as a gift from the Republicans two wars and a broken economy and a new Congress and new Executive Branch and whatever success we have has to be drilled into the voter's head and the dirty sock of right wing failure rubbed under their noses.

If you've got some idea that we did real good in this election, I'll tell you what real damn good would have looked like. Obama would have won by a 20 point margin, the electoral count would have been over 400, and he'd have won Baker County; Jeff Merkley would have kicked Gordon Smith not only through the goal posts but out of the stadium. I wouldn't be worried about minimizing the damage on this side of the State, I'd be working on turning out the vote. Go ahead and celebrate, we've got a couple months until Inauguration and a bit past that before we've got things to point to. But once that's done you better have a plan in place on how to press the message and how to reach out with success. Self congratulatory exercises feel good, but they aren't productive - planning and setting up mechanisms is productive. You win because you do the work and you work smart, not because you got lucky once. You capitalize on luck, not count on it, not congratulate yourself for being lucky.

By the way, YAHOO, YIPPIE KIYAY WE WON. There, I said it, now plan on how to keep winning.

Just Americans

As a populace we hang identifiers on ourselves. We call ourselves Democrats, Republicans, Independents in politics. We are a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or an atheist, or agnostic. Then we're class identified as blue collar, middle class, wealthy, or poor. There is the matter of geography, rural or urban, then east, west, north, south, middle. All these labels end in what? Americans?

Evidently not, as Colin Powell said the other day and Maureen Dowd reminded me today. There are some real as opposed to constructed difficulties to Chuck the construction guy becoming President, but Barak Obama has shown a path of sorts. But let's move from practical to constructed obstacles, does some one believe an atheist, agnostic, or Muslim is going to have a reasonable shot?

Which part of the First Amendment that all Americans utilize is it that is reflected in this status? If your religion doesn't involve something that is otherwise illegal you're free to practice it. In certain narrow circumstances even otherwise illegal behavior is permitted. What isn't permitted, in practical terms, is a religion other than Christianity - though Judaism isn't quite disqualified. Now I'm not a Religious Partisan, not now not ever. I'm as close to an agnostic as one can get without quite being there, that means that I hold no brief for your religion. If religion drives your vote I have no idea what it is you think America is.

The picture of the mother leaning on the headstone with a star and crescent and military rank tore my heart. It tore my heart that she lost her son and it tore it that somehow in America of 2008 that symbol disqualifies her family from anything. As Powell noted, the converse of the lie that Obama is Muslim is how can that possibly matter? If every other part of Obama was exactly the same why would Islam disqualify him in American's minds?

"We were attacked by Muslims," seems to be an excuse. Well, now the simple fact is that we were subjugated by Christian British in 1776, attacked by Christian British in 1812, went to war with Christian Spain, warred twice with Christian Germany, and the little Civil War issue certainly involved a lot of Christians killing each other. Five minutes in one Civil War battle killed more Americans than 9/11 and given about a half hour more than all our fights with Muslims. Christian Americans have killed the hell out of Americans over the years, the terrorist attacks in this country are by far the acts of Christians. If Americans need to be afraid of a religion I'm afraid it is Christianity.

All that is utter nonsense, of course. You could go the line of any religion other than yours is evil and therefore its practitioners are evil. If this is your line of thought, there is an awful lot of evil in the world and some of your respected friends, family, and even icons are evil. I certainly become evil under that metric since I don't practice anybody's religion. I'm pretty sure I'm not evil, but I guess you just have to take my word for it. You have my written record to peruse, but that's still taking my word for it.

I've made it pretty clear that I'm going to vote for Barack Obama. It may surprise you that I don't hold his religion against him, or for him. I don't care about it one way or the other beyond being tired of hearing about it. I'm tired of hearing about it as a qualifier or disqualification. I'm tired of hearing Americans labeled with prejudice as being of any religious persuasion.

I don't like living in cities so I'm happy being rural, I don't think I'm special because of that. I live in the mountainous West and I don't think I'm special for that - I like it better and for me it is a better lifestyle but that means nothing more than that. I'm a construction worker, I'm in better physical condition than most my age, but that's about the extent of the advantages I get. I certainly have a better insight into being a construction worker in the rural mountainous west than a NY, NY banker. That in itself doesn't make me a qualified observer of the entire US. I am not special, more patriotic, more anything because of those labels - I am simply an American.

I'm going to take that one step farther, when this country gets it wrong, I am a human being with his own judgement, I don't ask the American government to think for me. I will make my own judgements and suffer whatever consequences. That may make me quintessentially American. Next time somebody presents it as reasonable to make judgements about people based on their "labels" you might ask them if we're not just talking about Americans, after all.

Bitter Partisanship

There's a mantra going around the elections and media that bitter partisanship has caused us endless difficulties. Candidates or erstwhile candidates accuse all concerned of putting partisanship before public good. I would be one of the first to admit that partisanship started getting real bitter in the 90s, Gingritch followed by Tommy DeLay elevated nastiness to ordinary business where Democrats were concerned. Following George II's election we had the elevation of Rovian politics, everywhere all the time, especially in previously off limits sections of government.

The Clinton tax bill that began progress on balancing the Federal budget went, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has been turned into a sub-section of the RNC, civil liberties including Habeas Corpus have been abridged, there has been a near constant effort to marginalize gays, overthrow choice in abortion, and religion openly government funded. Draconian economic measures have been instituted, Unions hamstrung, and wages crushed by out and in sourcing. Political opponents of the war branded traitors and weak on terror. A constant drumbeat of fear has been maintained, voters summarily disenfranchised, elections cast into doubt. This is on one side of the equation, the Republican side. The Democratic congressional caucus is universally derided as spineless, by friend and foe.

And so, we're treated to the spectacle of a billionaire authoritarian mayor and bunch of whiners getting together to play at a third party on the basis of bitter partisanship. A Democratic Presidential candidate talks about bitter partisanship. The, for god's sake, media parrots this nonsense, the people who rolled over for BushCo on the run up to the war in Iraq, who became that Administration's propaganda mouthpiece in fear of the traitor label, who as victims of the bitter nasty rhetoric of the Republican Party now repeat this garbage.

Yes, there has been Democratic opposition to racist theocratic nut case Federal appointments, some. Yes, a Gay Marriage Amendment to the Constitution was blocked. We're nearing the end of the list of "bitter partisanship" accomplishments of the Democrats. Take a look at the voting record of the proponents of a "cure" for this bitter partisanship. In many cases they've enabled the strangulation of the Bill of Rights and other basic law and voted for the economic destruction of the worker. They propose that they have a solution?

You will excuse the heck out of me if I don't buy in. If you voted for the Military Commissions Act or the Patriot Act or the FISA Repair Act as a Democrat or even moderate Republican you deserve the scorn of every American citizen. If you voted for the Bankruptcy Bill or the Credit Reform Act you deserve the scorn of every worker. If you voted for the Bush Tax Bill you deserve the scorn of everyone not a multi-millionaire. In fact if you weren't strongly in opposition over the last twenty years you have no right to the (D) after your name, if you did not fight tooth and nail for the ordinary American and helped crush his rights and his economic standing you deserve scorn and rude treatment. Perhaps you do not understand that a foot on the neck is an act of war. The class war the Republicans deride and engage in at every opportunity.

Sure, it was nice when Congressmen could have floor debates and then have dinner and drinks and friendly relations, that gets pretty tough to do when your opponent is calling you a traitor, an enemy enabler, and other nasty names - in public, with the complete encouragement of their Party, their Administration, and their media lackeys. When the hand reached across the aisle contains a poison pin you get reluctant to take it. Does anybody remember the Nuclear Option when that Party was trying to ram through the most offensive possible candidates for appointments? Opposition to this is bitter partisanship?

Bitter partisanship would involve trying to jail or hang these people - or just shoot them down like foaming curs - but that isn't what's happened. They've not been censored or impeached or otherwise really interfered with. A publication that prints an ad with "Betrayus" in it is censored in Congress, the Vice-President is free to swear at and denigrate as traitors his opposition. Every Congressional investigation that touches on blatantly illegal or unethical behavior is blocked by Executive Principle and doesn't go to Federal Court or the Sargent At Arms marshals, nope, it just languishes - politely.

You proponents of the phrase bitter partisanship must mean something by bipartisanship more along the lines of just give the Republicans whatever they want. You do not mean find a middle way, the middle way is what is repeatedly attacked by the other side. They will not accept middle, they will accept only what they want; despite the overwhelming majority of Americans not wanting it. The Ben-gay bunch out in Oklahoma can shove their idea of bipartisan sideways some place. The rightwing neocon-theo-nut agenda is not the middle, it doesn't even look at the middle and the left not going along isn't bitter partisanship, it is only sense in operation. If the Democratic Party was holding out for my lefty vision you could call it serious partisanship of a Democratic nature, but even I'm not doing that.

I am astonished and disappointed that the Voter seems to be falling for this garbage, that their memory is so short that they give this even passing thought, much less a vote. There are a handful of Democratic legislators in Washington DC that are worth spit, it would be worth the time of the Voter to take a look and see who stands for exactly what. If you vote for or against someone based on gender or race or religion or ancestry rather than where they stand in this mess, you've engaged in truly stupid behavior and you deserve the results the rest of us have to live with.

Money, Politics, Voters

I've said this stuff before, the courts and voters keep agreeing with me, as much as I don't like it, so I'll say it once again - emphatically. "Money as free speech" is not going to go away, the courts aren't going to rule against it, the voters have shown little enthusiasm for it, and it really isn't all that bad an idea. The part that stinks is who seems to own the playing field - Big Money, usually corporations.

It has always cost money to campaign, no there was no television in 1790, but there also was a completely primitive transportation system and widely spread population. They reached their audience through surrogates, just like today, and it cost significant amounts of money. The politicians made do, they collected money and spent it. And yes, big money existed at the time and it was in play. Money is the currency of availability to the voter. You fly in the face of that at the risk of making very poor decisions and forcing more end-runs by office seekers.

Money is not a polluter of the system, the pollution comes from the one-sidedness of sourcing. Large corporations have an incentive to cough up some money to help assure a larger return, and they would be crazy not to. But there is no reason that the tilt has to be so strongly in their favor, they have to answer to shareholders for their expenses and returns, the shareholders in the election process need to step up and invest in their own futures. Those people would be us, you know us, U.S., the voters that get ignored. The second you stop to think about the sheer numbers of voters and then multiply that number by $25 you have some actual cash. There is one problem.

Voters are disillusioned, it is tough enough just to get them to turn out to vote (my vote doesn't count, anyhow) much less get them to cough up some cash (the big boys just buy them). The very biggest problem in this scenario is the opponents of Big Money trying to pass laws, the route to passing those laws is to tell people that they cannot compete. Listen to the contradiction in that argument, you sell the idea of failure on the basis of that failure and pretend that you are educating the voters when what you actually are doing is propagandizing them into the belief that there is no point in doing what you bemoan. I don't doubt the good intentions of most proponents, but having the government finance elections strikes me as a recipe for a whole lot of BushCo behavior. Do you really want the minions of George II making financing decisions about campaigns?

No, I surely do not and I also do not see it as a solution to sell the voter on the idea that he is helpless and needs saving. The voter can afford to spend the price of a 12 pack on a campaign. The voter is not helpless in the face of corporate largess, all the voter has to do is make it prohibitively expensive for them to buy elections. Sure, you read this blog and feel pretty politically active, and you are at the very least more interested than the average citizen, then contribute to your favorite. Write letters, write blogs, spend a couple nickles, and talk to your disinterested friends. You actually have a good argument for that mindset of failure, and it can be meaningful, it can make a difference. It's time to stop whining and take it back, just that, TAKE it back, don't ask, don't whine, just goddam do it.

There are some contribution links on the side bar, every campaign has them on their site, do something.

Political Allies * A Re-Post

In the process of moving a politically contentious project through the Democratic Party Of Oregon I learned some things about political alignments, I had further lessons as a candidate in the Democratic Primary for 2nd CD. What I learned is that there are essentially 4 categories of alignment: Friends, Allies, Opponents, Enemies.

We all should know what Friends are, they're close to you and hold to you and support you. You take good care of your friends.

Allies are a little different, they're with you for their reasons. Allies need to be respected, but it also is important to remember that their reasons may not have a lot to do with your reasons. It may require a certain amount of distance or it may require some stroking. An ally may be strong or they may be weak, their motivations may be yours or they may be entirely different. You need to keep an ally close, but you may also have to keep a very sharp eye on him. It is quite possible, for example, for a very left Democrat to have a very Conservative Republican ally on civil liberties - The Bill of Rights, but that certainly doesn't mean the political agendas are suddenly the same, you are allies on an issue. This is not a problem, it simply means there is an intersection of interests in one area and a complete divergence in others.

Opponents are probably one of the more poorly managed alignments, it is important to know what is going on with an opponent, what their motivation is as well as its outcomes. Opponents should be approached with the respect that (Machiavellian speaking) their possible future use is to you. There is a difference between candidates and colleagues, you are trying to completely defeat an opposing candidate, a colleague is someone you will have to deal with in the future. There is every possibility that a current opponent is a possible ally in the future and on that basis should be debated with respect and consideration. A scorched earth policy towards opponents guarantees that they will become an Enemy.

An enemy is probably the safest alignment outside friends, you know where you stand, you know it will be a fight and you know they will be seeking allies, including your weak ones. The best policy is to avoid making enemies, this is the "take no prisoners" aspect of politics. We've seen this aspect of politics from Republicans in the recent past, it should be obvious what the drawbacks are of such management.

This may sound as though principles are optional, that's not the case. The principles of everyone involved in this management scheme are important, but not necessarily an issue. That decision on that issue is determined by applicability to the situation and whether you can be associated with them. The thing to remember is that politics ain't Sunday school, alliances shift, issue overlaps vary, motivations and principles are individual while outcomes are broad. You need to be very aware, but also sometimes need to keep your trap shut.

OR HR2 Garbage; Merkley and Novick

Here is HR2, passed in 2003

72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session


Enrolled

House Resolution 2

Sponsored by Representative KROPF; Representatives KNOPP,
RICHARDSON


Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop
weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1441; and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against
neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq; and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global
economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now,
therefore,

Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of
Oregon:

That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the
Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the
President's cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of
the United States, and express our support for the victorious
removal of Saddam Hussein from power; and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and
sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United
States and their families in the defense of freedom.

Now, you can cut what this says any way you want and it will come out a Catch 22 Republican inspired piece of propagandist crap. Vote against it and you're voting against (2), vote for it and you're voting for the preamble and (1). Democratic legislators made choices about this, and so did I. I was pissed off beyond measure that any Democrat voted for this junk, that was then, now is now. I recognize now as then what the choices were and I will not move off my point of the time, you do not vote FOR something that stinks. My point of view. Period.

That alone does not disqualify Jeff Merkley in my mind, nor does it automatically make Steve Novick the superior candidate. I have come pretty close to being angry with the partisan bloggers for both candidates. Discussion of a vote is not a personal attack, calling names about either the vote or the critique of it is personal attack, and stupid and pointless partisanship. There are very real issues at play in this country and in Oregon that will demand a Senator's attention and I'd like to know what that attention will amount to, and also that that our Senator can stand up to power without making unnecessary enemies.

At this point in time the candidates have acted responsibly on this issue, I congratulate them for not descending into childishness, some of their supporters don't seem to know when to shut up. The ones with their minds made up are not going to change them despite your presentations and the ones with their minds open are going to hold some of this against your candidate. If you don't STFU you are going to cost your candidate votes. So far my anger over this is pretty much "equal opportunity" applied. Some people have said/written things that should not have been said and those things are going to last and be remembered.

The OBJECT of this exercise is to defeat Sen Gordon Smith (OR-R) in 2009 and to do so with the best representative of Oregon. I want to know who that person is, I don't really care what he thinks about the other guy, I want to know what he thinks about ME. So let's go there.

Don't bring that fight over here. I'm not in the least interested and I'll just ashcan it. I do not have to provide space for stupidity that already has its space.

Humboldt Co, CA Said No To Corporate Personhood

In 2006 Humboldt Co passed Measure T, which bans non-local corporations from participating in local elections and further denies that the artificial entity "corporation" has a claim to First Amendment Free Speech. Well, I'd like to know how I missed it until now. My tip off came from AlterNet and Loaded Orygun and I won't mess about with their work.

I have long wondered how exactly it came about that the fictional entity status of corporations designed to allow them to enter into contracts and participate in the legal arena morphed into the concept of personhood. I suppose if I had time (and a real driving curiosity) I could dig into the SCOTUS and find what they claimed, but philosophically I'm a bit conflicted.

Now I run an S Corp, which has about as much relationship to MicroSoft as the stone in your yard does to the moon, but I have to understand what it is that I own. Mostly that's to stay out of Court and to know what my accountant needs for what. What I own is a paper thing that can make contracts, pay bills, own stuff, and sue or be sued - which leaves me (mostly) personally out of that fray and I enjoy certain tax benefits. Now I certainly don't view that S Corp as more than a business convenience. The S Corp exists because the State allows it to through a registration and a fulfillment of certain requirements, it is a creature of the State. It was born of paper and ink and exists only in that realm. It has certain assets and individual/s involved in ownership but it certainly has no blood or thinking processes of its own. How it qualifies for the natural right to freedom of speech is beyond me, it is a wholly artificial construct.

I suppose that the crunch comes when people band together to create a political activism construct and begin to put together an infrastructure. A speech organization with property has to have some mechanism to own it, pay bills, and possibly enter into legal activities, and that is what a corporation is about, allowing a multiply held construct to engage as a singular entity. Having 1o,000 members sign a check would be rather troublesome and a contract with all those signatures might be a bit unwieldy. Most of the "free press" are corporations.

Hmmm. I wonder what you have to say? I'm kind of stuck on this one.

The Impeachment Drumbeat

Over at Huffpo Robert Wexler D FL19 promises to introduce a motion to censure the President for his Scooter commutation. He makes a good argument and while such a move is practicably immaterial it does at least make a statement of some sort. Predictably this brought out the wingnut "no underlying crime and not covert" lines and the 'I' word. Impeachment sure sounds good.

That's about it folks, 'sounds good.' Be under no illusions, I'd be greatly assuaged by the sight of several of the top BushCos, including George II, making the perp walk in manacles and detention jumpsuits. Maybe that can happen, I have more than a hunch that there are several provable felonies laying around. What can't happen is a Sustained Impeachment.

Bill Clinton committed an act that was clearly Impeachable (he was) but it was not Sustained partly, at least, on partisan grounds. If anyone thinks a 1 vote Senate margin in Party caucus is sufficient to Sustain, they have a lot more blind faith in Republican principles than I do, and obviously than the House leadership does. You bet the Democrats could make GWB's life difficult and tie up the House and then maybe the Senate with Impeachment hearings. They could probably make some of the 70+% of America that already dislikes George II like him less, the 28%ers would rally round the "flag." But is that the point?

I propose to you that the point isn't to make Bush less popular with those who don't like him, the object is to give the Republicans an ass kicking to make all ass kickings look like pattycakes. The way to do that is to pass good progressive legislation that is meaningful and important to American voters, have it Vetoed, and Sustained by the Republican faithful. Repeatedly. Drive home the message that the Republicans have an agenda and it isn't the common man. Make it so clear, so media friendly and obvious that even Faux News can't hide it. Leave the OReilys and Limbaughs scrambling to demonize the politicians that people can see doing their business. Take the gloves off, drop the pretense of bipartisanship, and ram every progressive wish listed Bill through so they can kill it.

This Congress isn't going to get anything meaningful done, except possibly defund the war which could lead to an Executive shutdown, al la Clinton and Gingritch, so why not use their time wisely and to political effect. Keep the oversight hearings clicking along, give BushCo every opportunity to have bad memories, lie (perjure), and generally look bad and toss lots of stuff into the Courts; and give the Republicans every chance available to look really bad. There are elections in 08 and not just the Presidential one. Taking seats is what counts, the Republicans have earned some time in the woodshed, help them on their way and help them stay there until they learn how to practice politics for the benefit of Americans.

You never can tell, Congress nosing around might shake loose something an 09 DOJ could use to put some rather important people in jail, where they would actually stay without the kinglet George II around to commute.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislatio
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:

Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

You're Under Attack, and Have Been

The citizens of the United States of America are under attack and no, it is not by the maniacs of Al-Qaeda, it comes from within. The sleeper cells are our own citizens and their foreign partners. We stare out across oceans worrying and the attack is already here. You think GeorgeII is the problem, if you look in.

There are four pillars of actual government and three supporting ones, there are in the pillars the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial and then the free and independent press. The support system consists of and electorate, the free expression of religion, and the freedom to associate for the redress of grievances. These, the absolute foundation of American government, are now under sustained and determined attack. The attack is carried on without bombs and bullets, the blood and smoke are elsewhere.

The Executive branch has become a political tool, people forget that the vast majority of bureaucracy is within the Executive and its hiring policies are now politico/religious. The aims of the political heads of the Executive are now the rule enforcer's bible. The nuts and bolts of the running of government are now in political hands. Hatch act be damned. The mechanisms of government are now in the hands of the political faithful and the infrastructure is used as a Party extension. The enduring strength of the Executive was the brake applied by the rules and those in whose care the rules resided - no more.

The Legislative branch is held hostage by the high cost of election, placing the funding in the hands of wealth and elite businesses. Be under no illusion that the situation is of an accidental nature, the reinforcing elements are intimately entwined, both organizationally and economically. The cost of actual legislation is huge, the research and drafting costs are beyond the budget of most legislators, this cost is passed on to those with an interest and those most able to afford expressing that interest are wealth and business elites. The growth of the non-voting electorate and of the non-affiliated vote drive up the cost per vote and make more likely a rule The huge costs of reaching voters is borne increasing by corporate wealth which is the ownership of the method of reaching out, thus the owners of dissemination are the financiers of the politicians. Beyond the actual financing is the spread of the canard that a vote does not count and is somehow for sale, while in absolute terms the vote is still in the hands of the voter, a constant drumbeat of media propaganda leads to the devaluation of grassroots contributions and the depression of the vote.

The Judicial branch is under constant attack from religious zealots, partisan interference, and the Executive and Legislative. Nominations second competency to partisan issues and religious correctness, interpretation of law is seen as legislation from the bench by the right as they engage in exactly the same behavior. Judicial funding is threatened by Legislators, the body responsible for the writing of the law. The Executive, who nominates federal judge ships, refers to the Constitution as a mere "piece of paper."

A free and independent press is virtually non-existent today, the constriction of media ownership and its concentration in non-media corporate hands leads to a situation where the ownership has a vested interest in the corporate viewpoint. News and programing reflects the desires of ownership and the constriction means a narrower range of desires is reflected. Political careers depend upon that media, to express their policies and votes and then their qualities as candidates. Restricted news budgets push journalists into an unhealthy dependency upon government sources and their good will to get news, resulting in the parroting of official positions. Programing can easily become propagandist, violence and ethical disconnects are a steady fare, protagonists frequently violate both actual legal limits and ethical/moral constraints "for the general good." The moral depravity in media so frequently bemoaned by the religious right is sexual in nature rather than the violations of their creed in actual morality, which they approve. The media is attacked as left or right biased, canards, the bias is corporate supporting the pursuit of profit rather than an actual political ideology.

The attack on the electorate is multi-pronged, it comes from the four pillars and the corporate interests. The Executive operates as though it has some kind of "mandate," ignoring that it represents the interests of the entire citizenry, regardless of their vote or party, the Legislative panders for votes and then represents its financing constituency or a narrow base, the judicial refuses to enforce the very real franchise rights of citizens, bowing to political and media pressures. The press leaves the electorate uninformed and propagandized, increasing the advantages of incumbency. Legal fictions and corporate interests are allowed to drive down voter rolls through disenfranchisement, and to spread the propagandist notion that voting is a purchasable commodity of little value to the ordinary citizen. While the media will run public service announcements touting voting, the ordinary runs devalue it. The electorate is misinformed, mislead, and discouraged to the point where it is considered a success to achieve a 53% turnout, resulting in elections won by nearly a quarter of eligible voters.

Free expression of religion is being consistently undermined by Executive writs, legislation, judicial fiats, press slants, and religious pressure. Religion is co-opted by government monies and promises of government interference in public neutrality. Tax exempt religion is used in political activities prohibited to it, and religious activities permissible are harassed on tax basis. There is across the board encouragement of legislation of religious tenets and a lessening of the teaching of the actual core beliefs of the religions.

Free association is discouraged and prevented, dissent is framed as traitorous and union organization is complicated to the point of prevention. Free speech zones are established to keep expression away from officials and media. Low power radio is restricted and prohibited, political organizations are ignored if not in favor or unless they commit a gaffe. Grass roots organizations fight for public notice, corporate favored organizations need only reach out.

This is only a light overview, it should be frightening, if you'd really like to be frightened take any one of these core elements of the US government and research it. If you wonder why government is ineffective at representing the ordinary citizen, think about this, and who it is that benefits.