Thursday, November 06, 2008

Event: Election Post-Mortem.

I couldn't post yesterday; I was just too exhausted. I won't post tomorrow either; I need at least a brief break. On election night we hosted a breakfast-at-dinnertime party while the results came in, drank orange juice and ate sausage and potatoes. A loud sound went up at Pennsylvania, then Ohio, and then, when Obama passed 270, everyone freaked out. It was like crowds at the Super Bowl or Lollapalooza, only bigger and better. The champagne flowed and we all went out into the streets, and the news was all about people running into the streets.

* * * * *

Yesterday I was nursing a hangover all day long, but by evening I felt better. I met up with some friends at Metropolis, and we all took a walk. Just to take a walk. To enjoy the unexpected late fine weather and to muse on just how big and momentous this week has been.

So this, then, is my election post-mortem.

It is good that Obama won the election so decisively. Already, this one move has served to bolster our status in the world. The breadth of Obama's support has opened up states that have not been in play to Democrats in decades. The Great Lakes region was united behind a presidential candidate for the first time since 1972. The press has been quick to point out the significance of this election as a civil rights victory; they are right to do so. We should not forget that it is also a victory for Democrats, who have been resurgent since 2006, for the Left, which will (presumably) be better represented by Obama than by it would have been by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly, as an emphatic refutation of Bush-era policies of division and marginalization.
And yet... concessions are already being made and it would seem that there is little time to rest on our laurels.

It is also good that the Democrats picked up seats in congress; it would have been better if they had picked up a supermajority. I've commented to a few people in the last several days that whenever one party achieves dominance, things start to go south for them pretty quickly, and I suspect it's because interal rigor and discipline become a liability in a rush to fast action. I believe this argument, and yet it is meant to be a qualification of, not a dissent from, victory as a unilateral Democratic majority.
In the first place, the U.S. is too sheltered from the effects we have on our neighbors and the world at large. There is a pendulum in U.S. politics, but it's motion is strictly determined by a relative understanding of what is "liberal" and what is "conservative." It is fine to consider these differences meaningful, but we needn't consider them objective. While I don't believe the U.S. is definitionally a center-right nation, it functionally is at this time. Our policy needs to move to the left in general to accomodate crises that can only be addressed through action that is both democratically and collectively determined.
In the second place, the horrific damage rendered under the Bush administration, propogated by Republicans and sometime abetted by Democrats in congress over the last 14 years, and often upheld by an inconsistent judiciary, are huge in magnitude and can must be addressed by broad and sweeping executive and legislative action. Given the abysmal performance of our congressional Democratic leaders (we're all thinking of Reid and Pelosi), we need a sufficient "vote cusion" to make action possible. In our current crises, action is necessary, and therefore, Democrats and Independents should hope to see more Democrats in office.
In the third place: The Republican Party of the 2000s is much like the Democratic Party of the 1850s: it is broken. While it still stands upright, it only wreaks damage on itself and those it represents. Today's Republican Party represents not a free market but a fanged market; it represents not American patriotism but American nationalism. The riven Democratic party of the 1800s recovered, and I believe that the Republicans will as well. But first they have to be broken. They have to reconstitute themselves along their original premise of individual liberties upheld at the expense of collective prerogative, of a correspondent expectation of individual sacrifice, and of a government that tries to excise unnecessary intervention. That Republican party, a party recognizeable to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater, can contribute to our political landscape. But this Republican party, hateful, angry, alienating, divisive, invasive, unscrupulous, and increasingly regional: it is walking around broken. It is wounded and wounding, and as such, this broken party needs to be further broken. It needs to be crushed. Only then can it recover.
Now the Democrats didn't get a supermajority, but they picked up enough support to pursue an agressive progressive agenda with executive support. I do hope they use that strength with rigor and discipline. But make no mistakes: I hope that they sustain and increase it, and above all else, use it.

Finally, it is good that some good ballot amendments passed: I'm thinking most fondly on Michigan's Proposal 2, which allows research on embryonic stem cells, and California approved a bullet train, which is pretty cool, and which may in the long run offset the two other environmental proposals the state rejected. Sadly, the success of Proposition 8 in Califoria would seem to trump many progresses made around the country, as it revoked marriage rights in one of only two states where gays and lesbians can truly enjoy marriage equality. Beneath the hubbub over California, similar amendments passed in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. And yet... amid all this... the challenges have begun, and they are built upon firm constitutional ground.

* * * * *

It is deceptive of the graveness of our times to pretend that this election was an unmitigated vitory; in fact there is more to worry about now than ever. It is equally deceptive to underestimate the genuine power, the profound importance of what was declared last Tuesday; as Tom Brokaw said on election night, "just over 150 years ago, Mr. Obama could have been owned, as a black man." The emphasis is mine, but the emphasis is what gives this often unspoken statement its force. I think that Clay Bennett said it even better.

To fall back on a common declaration these days, yes, we can. Yes, we did. Yes, we will.

Be delirious.

Be deliriously happy.

Take a day, a week, a month to feel this happiness, and as you do, use that energy to infect and infest your labor and your conversation.

We just lived through a big thing and it was good ...

and ...

... it has foreshadowed some of the hardest work our nation will ever have to do.

END OF POST.

Labels: ballot proposals, Barack Obama, elections, EVENT, politics, u.s. executive, u.s. legislative

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Event: Election Pre-Post Mortem.

I won't have enough time for a thoughtful post until later today.

In the meantime, read this:

CNN Politics.com: Obama win sparks celebrations outside White House.

It'll make you smile.

Labels: elections, EVENT

Monday, November 03, 2008

Event: Blue Skies Falling endorsements, 2008.

MY ARGUMENTS:
Information. Where to Get It and How to Use It.
What is Socialism? Is Obama a Socialist?
MICHIGAN : PROPOSAL 2008-02 : Embryonic Stem-Cell Research.
California Proposition #8.
MICHIGAN : PROPOSAL 2008-01 : Medical Marijuana.
Why I'm Voting Against Jan Schakowsky in the Illinois 9th District Race.
Understanding the Subprime Mortgage Crisis.
"Here's how Gov. Sarah Palin's Clearwater visit unfolded"
The Executive Branch is a Committee, with an Economic Example of Why it Matters.
Palin is a Footnote; Clinton is a Chapter.
A Few Thoughts on Abortion for Voting Catholics Like Me.

OTHER ARGUMENTS:
Chicago Tribune: Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president. The Chicago Tribune has a respected conservative-leaning editorial staff. Barack Obama is the first Democrat they have nominated for President since the newspaper was founded in 1841.
The Economist: An Endorsement of Barack Obama. The Economist is an editorial magazine based out of the United Kingdom. It has a well-respected global perspective, and is considered to be politically moderate by the standards of most American political discussions.
The Economist: Global Electoral College: What if the Whole World Could Vote?
EGAD or, (de)mythologizing the fetish of place: Flames.
New York Times: Barack Obama for President. The New York Times has a respected left-leaning editorial staff.
Purple Scarf: Harold and the Purple States.
Purple Scarf: In the Real America...
Third Rail Themes: Get Me a Beer, Bitch!
Third Rail THemes: Palin(g) in Comparison, Part the Second


A brief comment on "protest votes": Protest votes were one of many things that earned us the first Bush Administration, and unfortunately this entire class of political opportunity (theoretically equivalent to what is possible in Unions through striking) seems interminably linked to Ralph Nader.
Yet 2008 should be a great year for protest votes in low-risk national races. Many congressional Democrats will win by a large margin; yet since 2006, when the Democrats retook Congress with a mandate, their leadership has failed time and time again to use to tools at their disposal to stand up to the Bush Administration.
We don't want to unseat Democrats; a protest vote is a bad tactic in a closely contested race. However, votes are the ultimate currency in politics, and we can use it to demonstrate that our loyalty comes with a price. Democrats ought to behave as Democrats. Our Democratic led congress has lower approval ratings than President Bush; this is due to disillusionment by a base that feels that they have been represented by an unassertive and unmotivated congressional party leadership.



A brief comment on third parties: There is no time or space here to wade into the myriad and complex arguments about why we should or should not encourage the growth of third party movements in the U.S. My operational premise is that, while third parties in general expand our options and encourage a more mature and nuanced political perspective (both among the electorate and office holders), in the U.S. they are often manipulated by the major parties against each others. Voting Green, for example, is often promoted by the Republicans as a way of whittling away support for Democrats (and Republicans often lead in financial support for Green candidates). With this in mind, I generally discourage voting for a third party candidate unless, 1) you think they could actually govern well and 2) they have an active chance of winning. When these criteria are met, vote-away! For cases where the criteria are not met, but you still want to register a protest vote, consider a write-in instead.

---

MY ENDORSEMENTS

PRESIDENTIAL

Barack Obama - Democrat

MICHIGAN

U.S. SENATE
Carl Levin - Democrat
Please follow up your vote with a letter to Senator Levin that he is on notice until he justifies through legislation that the Wall Street bailout is administered with both robust oversight and strict penalties for mismanagement among recipients.

U.S. CONGRESS - DISTRICT 5
Dale Kildee - Democrat
Please follow up your vote with a letter to Senator Levin that he is on notice until he justifies through legislation that the Wall Street bailout is administered with both robust oversight and strict penalties for mismanagement among recipients.

PROPOSAL 1 - Yes.

PROPOSAL 2 - Yes.

ILLINOIS

U.S. SENATE
Dick Durbin - Democrat
Please follow up your vote with a letter to Senator Durbin that he is on notice until he justifies through legislation that the Wall Street bailout is administered with both robust oversight and strict penalties for mismanagement among recipients.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - 9th DISTRICT
Morris Shanfield - Green

STATE SENATE - 7th DISTRICT
Heather Stearns - Democrat

STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - 13th DISTRICT
Greg Harris - Democrat

BALLOT MEASURE
Illinois Constitutional Convention - YES

JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENTS

COOK COUNTY - 4th SUBCIRCUIT
Pat Rogers - Democrat

COOK COUNTY - 12th SUBCIRCUIT
Pamela Elizabeth Loza - Democrat

North Side Judicial Ratings can be found at:
http://democracyforamerica.com/groups/247.

Labels: Chicago, elections, EVENT, Flint, Illinois, Michigan, politics, U.S.A.

Event: Illinois Constitutional Convention

In 2006 the Democratic Party was propelled by a slim but decisive mandate into control of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. And yet, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, both bodies failed to substantally challenge President Bush and the Republican minority in a substantive way on any major issue, from the unending and futile Iraq war to the recent punitive measures attached to the recent Wall Street bailout.

Many Democrats feel that we should secure a more substantial majority before "holding their feet to the fire." I don't see why we can't do both at the same time. As a result this year I am registering a protest vote against Jan Schakowsky of the Illinois 9th district who voted for both the Wall Street bailout and promised to vote down legislation to fund the Iraq war without a withdrawal timetable before repenting at the last minute.

But Schakowsky is partly a product of her political situation; the Illinois Democratic machine is the home of many stereotypes, and they are more justified here than in many other parts of the country. The moneyed and connected Democrats have a lock on primary nomination and guarantee of success in a general election (except Harold Washington). This system is in nobody's benefit. I write this from a progressive perspective: Illinois is not prosperous when Chicago is not prosperous, and the Democrats have the sane policies this generation. However, Democrats here still lack the spine or drive or temperament to act on their constituencies impulses, and the Schakowsky votes illustrate this.

A constitutional convention is one more opportunity (whether a successful opportunity remains to be seen) to disrupt the all-too entrenched and stubborn local political dynasties. I'm not optimistic about its hopes for success, but a chance is better than none.

Vote for the constitutional amendment. With Democrats perpetually in control of the state senate and house, there is little to fear. With ruling dynasties having benefited from the current constitution for as long as anyone can remember there is very, very little to lose.

Labels: ballot proposals, Chicago, elections, EVENT, Illiniois

Friday, October 31, 2008

Event: What Is Socialism? Is Obama a Socialist?

If this issue is going to be brought up in debate and discussion, we owe it to each other to confront the issue up front. College profs have a tendency to make it complicated, but as for the disputes dominating the news today, the discussion needn't be particularly complicated.

I write this as a socialist, who votes center Democrat 90% of the time, and makes occasional "fringe" comments that diminish my popularity. I consider myself a socialist because I believe that the socialist premise is correct and will ultimately lead the most stable, sane, humane, and productive society. I vote Democrat because of the two major parties their goals are closer to compatible with mine. The socialist premise demands popular support, and that this is a long-term game; one that requires generations on generations of social and cultural evolution, and I believe that compromise and consensus are the only valid means of achieving this goal, even if it comes after many tiny steps and innumerable setbacks. (I wonder if that would make me a Toynbee Socialist).

I strongly support Obama.

However, I will say this emphatically: he does not buy the socialist premise. He is not a socialist, nor a marxist, nor a communist, nor a social democrat. It is only reasonable to call someone an "-ist" or associate them with an "-ism" if 1) those terms mean something and 2) the person in question behaves accordingly.

Fortunately, these terms all mean something, and that something can be succinctly distilled.

Karl Marx was a German scholar (historian, economist, and philosopher) whose career spanned the second half of the 19th century. His argument, expounded in collaboration with Friedrich Engels, argued that history is a series of class struggles over control of the means of production. Capitalism, he argues, that is, our system of selling and trading, is based on fundamental inequality of resources that can only compound over time. Eventually the extremity of inequality will become so aggrivated that the disadvantaged masses will rise up and assume control, bringing about a classless state in which material resources are collectively owned. This is, in a nutshell, what Marx and Engels argue, and "marxism" is a term connoting a basic agreement with this premise.

"Communism" is a more-or-less direct offshoot of Marxism. It generally involves an revolutionary interpretation of Marxism developed by Vladimir Lenin prior to the Russian Revolution. Communism goes beyond predicting a revolution and outlines a specifically military answer to bring about the end of class warfare. Ironically, because communism empowers a military elite, the Soviet-style communist states of the later 20th century all involved a ruling elite with repressive controls over the press, education, the military, and so forth. This can also be said of non-Soviet style communist states such as Cuba or the People's Republic of China. They all have dismal economies and even dismaller human rights records, which is part of the reason why the Right likes to associate Democrats with Communists. Communism is not the same as Socialism, and as I said before, Obama is neither a Communist nor a Socialist.

"Socialism" predates Marxism as a social philosophy, but was heavily influenced by his writing (Marx drew on earlier examples of Socialist states, and his influence promoted the ideal of socialism internationally). In its simplest form, Socialism is a philosophy advocating collective ownership. It need not predicate itself on a fundamental premise of class warfare, and it certainly not resort to violent revolution. A number of modern nations have attempted socialism to varying degrees and with mixed-success. Socialist states in Latin America have a spotty record, although there appears to be a trend toward stability over time. Scandinavian states approach socialism with more unambiguous success, which is reflected in high taxes, low income inequality, and extraordinarily high standards-of-living.

"Social Democracy" is hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism, although in its theory it cleaves somewhat closer to Capitalism. Private enterprise is sanctioned and legally protected, but institutions deemed too important to the national well-being (such as health-care) or too powerful and influential to operate on their own (in many nations, banking systems) are either managed or heavily regulated by the government. When we think of Social Democracies the most emblematic examples are wealthy and progressive Western European states like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. They have assertive economies dominated by some big players, but they also allow a much higher level of government intervention than we do in the U.S. But...

... here's the rub ...

... from a certain, and very fair, perspective all governments are, definitionally socialist to some extent. To socialize something is to compel collective ownership via a vis the government. The United States has a socialized postal service (though this is rarely controversial), socialized public education, and a socialized military. At times, prominent politicians (typically Republicans) argue to socialize military service: that's right, folks, the draft is socialism! This is why so many progressives roll their eyes at McCain's charge that Obama is a socialist: the recent take over of financial institutions by the White House is one of the most strident socialist acts in American history, and it was initiated and executed by Republicans!

* * * * *

In sum, capitalists argue that the latent potential in and initiative encouraged by markets trump the potential benefits of socialization. Socialists argue in response that the inequities of market systems will always poliferate, creating a society that is inherently unbalanced, unstable, and injust.

This is my attempt to overview the differences between the two philosophies in a neutral and unbiased manner.

I hope you can tell, at a glance, and in consideration of these observations, that Obama is not a socialist of any stripe. He does favor a few limited socializations. I say a "few" because only one of his initiatives -- health care -- will involve this on a large scale. I say "limited" because his health care plan does not dissolve insurance agencies or health care coverage (which would be a feature of any authentic socialist system) but instead provides a government alternative, much as the USPS is an alternative to FedEx or the UPS.

In the past, the Republican Party could honestly claim to be "less socialist" than the Democratic Party, given that they generally believed in less regulation by government. It was Reagan who put an end to this, with his massive expansion of the military and his embrace/invocation of a Religious Right that has been attempting to socialize religion in a very real way. Look at attempts to legislate marriage on the national level as the most conspicuous example; contrary to many on the Right there is little precedent for this in American history, with the possible exception of Prohibition. We all remember how that went.
The only remnants of the "small government" policies of the Republican Party are their continual provisions for repealing progressive taxation (ie. taxation that draws more heavily from the rich than the poor) and some areas of (typically economic) deregulation. Their governments are nevertheless at least as cumbersome, expansive, and socialized as those of the Democrats.

For those who assume socialism is an insult, a derogation, I'm posting this in part to show that it isn't. It is, like all systems of economics and government (including capitalism) neutral. It can only be evaluated by what it enables people to do and what it prevents them from doing. As such, it ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Cuba makes socialism look pretty bad; Sweden makes it look pretty good.

But Independents and Republicans and Democrats who stiffen at the notion of Socialism in general should take comfort: Barack Obama is no socialist. His support for the Wall Street bailout (like McCain's) is predicated on the assumption that markets are a workable premise, and this assumption fuel his plans to give a tax break to the middle class, to expand education as an incentive to global competition, to promotion of clean energy as an economic motivator.

Socialism isn't bad.

More: There's no reason to consider Obama a socialist.

Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, elections, EVENT, government, politics, Republican Party, u.s. executive

Monday, October 27, 2008

Event: Tom's Post of the Morning.

Tom is my godfather, and one of the most astute bloggers I read. Today's post is not only inspiring, but rigorous as it ties together many threads that have been dominating political conversation these days: the nature of change, the meaning of patriotism, an ideology of "others" in America. Read it. It is very well written.

Purple Scarf: In the real America ...

Labels: elections, EVENT, politics, Republican Party

Event: Information. Where to Get It and How to Use It.

EVENT

Information on National and Local Races.

ILLINOIS - COOK COUNTY
MICHIGAN - GENESEE COUNTY
NEW YORK - KINGS COUNTY

Congress.org: My races.

This website is a great, nonpartisan tool; it contains each candidates' statements of their own positions. Input your address and zip code and it will tell you which races are contested in the executive and legislative branches. Illinois residents can learn about their judicial candidates here.

Michigan voters should also consult the well-edited and comprehensive League of Women Voters guide.

Newspaper endorsements can be great as well. They have the benefit of knowing both the candidates and their immediate public thoroughly. Still, take a few minutes to scrutinize how they back up their assessments. Many editorial boards have at least a subtle partisan bent; it is telling this cycle that so many Republican-leaning rags have voiced support for Obama.

---

I personally, believe that it is very telling when a candidate won't provide a direct statement to surveys such as these; this is as close as we can get to direct, concise policy statements. It speaks volumes for a candidate to remain silent.

Additionally, each candidate deserves scrutiny on the basis of not only the particular office and policy positions they will hold, but on the political baggage they will bring to the position. Don't get me wrong; personality is important in any elected office. But in positions of national prominence, such as countrywide, congressional, or statewide posts, we should consider very carefully what a candidate's affiliations are, where their campaign money comes from, and who they are likely to appoint. These are at least as important as how likeable or reliable or even responsible the candidate is.

More locally, a small number of votes are more likely to make a big difference, and the cost of campaigning is low enough that it doesn't require candidates to take as many favors with strings attached. Often at this level personality is more important and party affiliation is less. Judicial races, city/township/town/village and county positions, school board governorships and so forth are all ideal for independent votes. They can give third parties and independent candidates a chance to assert and argue for their platforms without undermining a progressive coalition nationally, and liberation of such votes from compromise reduces the level of unnecessary baggage politicians tend to pick up early in their careers.

If you want to cast a protest vote in a national level race (I will be doing so, voting Green for Illinois' 9th congressional district), that can be effective, but please do so in an uncompetitive race. We need to acquire a large Democratic majority in this cycle.

If you consider yourself Independent, but want to vote Republican in a national level race, I urge you to consider very carefully why you are doing so. Parties change with time, and the last twenty years has made the Republican Party into a much uglier and more unfriendly entity than it has been in decades. These are not the Republicans who will cut your taxes or help small businesses, and they are certainly not the Republicans who will keep government out of your dining room and bedroom. Policy-wise, Eisenhower has more in common with Clinton and Obama than with Bush or McCain, and Gerald Ford spent the last several years of his life appalled at the behavior of his own party's leadership. An Independent who believes that extremes in government are destructive, and that policy-decision dictated by ideology and not a sober assessment of human nature and the world is an independent that should vote for Democrats this cycle.

Finally, it is a truism that when one party dominates government, it leads to a mess. However, the Republican party has pushed the U.S. so far to the right, and has drawn so much of the left towards center, that we need a Democratic supermajority in the senate and a large majority in the House to pass the needed changes. We will have to hold these Democrats accountable and make sure that they behave responsibly and answer to their constituencies, but there is a lack of both credibility and policy soundness in the Republican Party that cannot enjoy rational and reasoned discourse.

This doesn't mean that we should call off discourse; conversation with friends and enemies is essential, to paraphrase one of our presidential candidates in a different context.

But we shold be honest in confronting politicians and their organizations for what they are and how they have behaved.

The Republican Party does not deserved to be called sound or responsible this decade.

It deserves to be treated for the radical, reactionary, xenophobic position it has staked out in the world.

In this election, in national races, we need to look to the Democratic Party for leadership.

Labels: Chicago, elections, EVENT, Flint, Genesee County, Illinois, Michigan, New York City, politics, u.s. executive, u.s. legislative, U.S.A.

Friday, October 24, 2008

EVENT: Indulgent Gushing About the New York Times.

We all knew that the New York Times was going to endorse Obama.

They've endorsed Democrats since 1960, including such uphill candidates as Walter Mondale and George McGovern. And good on them for doing so. We might even say that the Chicago Trib's Obama endorsement is more significant in the grand scheme of things. They haven't endorsed a Democrat in their 160 years history, predating the Civil War.

But while the Trib endorsement is both a worthy tribute to a hometown hero and a sober assessment of the world we live in, it was really the Times' endorsement that made me a little teary-eyed today. Because here it was, the most recognized newpaper in the world, a home to Nobel Prize winning economists and the most effective political cartoonists alive, endorsing the candidate we have hoped and striven for during the dark days of the last decade.

And no, Obama isn't perfect. Some of my more conservative friends say, "well, we have reservations." I can honestly say, "what would you hope for?" "Who more could you ask for?" Was FDR perfect? Was JFK perfect? My favorite Democrat is LBJ, and he certainly wasn't perfect. Perfection isn't the issue. Having someone who hears you and recognizes you, who hears and recognizes the complexity of the world, and wrings the best of the world... having this person is the issue. And the New York Times stood up tonight and spoke emphatically where too many in the media have been inclined to hedge and qualify.

"Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries."

"Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing."

"After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States."

Thank you, New York Times. We didn't require your endorsement to understand the cost of the last decade or the promise of the next; the fact that our worst presidents shred the promise of an ambitious nation while the best define such ambition from the stuff of human flesh and soul.

But your words are correct, and simple, and direct, and eloquent.

They remind me that we were right about this stuff, this mess, this ache, the past, the hope and promise of the future.

This is our time, and it is a time I look forward to telling my children about.

More political caffeine to get us through the rough and tumble of the next two weeks...

Labels: elections, EVENT, politics, u.s. executive

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Event: Just Good Stuff.

I don't have the time today to write out something really thoughtful myself, so I'm going to link to some of the smart people I read, who regularly blog about politics. Here's some of their recent goodies.

EGAD, or demythologizing the fetish of place: Flames.
Purple Scarf: Entitlement.
Get Me a Beer, Bitch!

And because I'm still concerned about Michigan's Proposal 2, the most-likely dissapointment among this cycle's races: Cure Michigan.

In less than two weeks, the election will be over and this blog will start to return to normal. Thanks for bearing with me!

Labels: elections, EVENT, politics

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

EVENT: Why I'm Voting Against Jan Schakowsky in the Illinois 9th District Race.

U.S. House of Representative: Illinois 9th District
Incumbent Jan Schakowsky (Democrat) vs. Moe Shanfield (Green) vs. Michael Younan (Republican)

Blue Skies Falling endorses: MOE SHANFIELD (GREEN)

This is, actually, probably the hardest decision for me to make this cycle.

There is little question of the race's outcome, but I need to outline my reasoning, because I vocally supported Schakowsky in 2004. She has really let me down. Her Republican opponent is justly withering in his condemnation of her support for the recent Wall Street Bailout, which was passed without punitive measures for seeking instituions or sufficient regulation or oversight. I am still waiting for a response to the letter I wrote her last month, although I don't expect an answer until after the cycle is over. From the other side, Green candidate Moe Shanfield explains his choice to run thus:

In July, 2007, the 76 members of the House Democratic Progressive Caucus signed a letter to the President: They would vote against any war appropriation bill which failed to include a time table for troop withdrawal.

Then, on August 5, 2007, something changed. A total of 62 of those "progressives", including the 9th District incumbent, cast "Aye!" votes for the Department of Defense annual appropriation bill--providing more than $100 billion to keep the war going. There was no troop-withdrawal time table.

This is absolutely a legitimate point; maybe one could make a case for selective accomodation of conservatives on key issues in swing districts, but Schakowsky has won the last three elections by over 40 points. If any Democrats have the opportunity to forcefully challenge the status quo, it is these, and if Democrats such as Schakowsky challenged the status quo more often, we might be in less of a mess now.

For a few seconds I thought about voting for Younan; he's as progressive as any Republican candidates come these days. His discussion of diplomatic options in the Middle-East and his condemnation of the bailout were thought-provoking and refreshing. But he's still status-quo Republican on way too many issues for comfort: he's against Universal Health-Care and doesn't offer much as far as education funding. And, like most Republicans, he fetishizes taxes far beyond their actual role in the sum of things. An interesting guy, but not somebody who would vote for me on many of the issues I care about.

That just leaves Moe Shanfield.



Well, there he is.

He doesn't really go into his policy position on any other issue, although as a Green his views are probably pretty similar my own. Of course, I feel like all too often the Greens are out of touch with the voters they believe they represent, and their election strategies have been spoilers than Democrats more than I would like.

But there is a time and a place for a protest vote.

In 2006 when Debbie Stabenow enjoyed a comfortable, but not overwhelming, lead over challenger Michael Bouchard, I wrote her that I would not vote for her because of her support for the Military Commisions Act, which was not sufficiently strong against torture. I wrote in my vote for former Flint City Administrator Darnell Earley. Stabenow has since repudiated her own vote and has gone on to have a commendably progressive record. Now Stabenow is a exceptional senator, and I don't think my one vote or letter made that difference. One hopes, however, that the right number of votes and letters, sent at the right time and to the right people, do make a difference.

That is why I will be voting for Moe Shanfield on November 4th.

The Democrats are going to take the Presidency in this election, hopefully a supermajority in the Senate, and will cut even deeper into the House Republican minority.

Once they hold these seats, however, we need them to fight for us.

Labels: Chicago, economics, elections, EVENT, Illinois, Iraq War, politics, u.s. legislative

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Event: ELECTION 2008 : MICHIGAN : PROPOSAL 2008-02 : Embryonic Stem-Cell Research.

Proposed Legislative Amendment:

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to address human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research in Michigan. (Proposal provided under an initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on July 7, 2008.)

The proposal would add a new Section 27 to Article 1 of the State Constitution to read as follows:

To ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures, and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the most promising forms of medical research in this state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(a) No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which an embryo is frozen does not count against this fourteen day limit.
(b) The human embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment and, with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing, the person seeking fertility treatment chose to donate the embryos for research; and

(i) the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the person seeking the fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research; or

(ii) the embryos were not unsuitable for implantation and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research.

(c) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(d) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not:

(i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section; or
(ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies or cures.

(3) Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

Blue Skies Falling: YES

The Detroit Free Press carried a balanced discussion of the charges the pro- and con- camps brought against each other.

It's good to have a balanced, reasonable discussion, and it's also reasonable to answer emphatically when one argument is objectively stronger than another. I support both of the ballot initiatives this year, but my support for Proposal 2 is both stronger and, to my way of thinking, more important. There are medical, moral, and economic reasons to support this initiative.



The MEDICAL reason to support this initiative.

Opponents of stem cell research like to make observations such as this: "adult and umbilical stem cells have proven to be way more helpful than ESCs, which have given us NOTHING so far."

The point is disingenuous, so we have to address it up-front. First, it evaluates the progress of research strictly on the basis of what has already borne fruit (and even so doing, neglects the fact that adult stem cells have been researched and utilized for much longer). The main advantage that embryonic stem cells have over adult and umbilical cells is that they have not yet developed a specific functionality; they are the most adaptable. This implies that, in the long run, they probably have more applications, and can do things that non-embryonic stem calls can not. Scientifically speaking, this is why there is such a thirst in the medical community to step up research to a level where more meaningful results will manifest. To mix metaphors a little, the Soviets got into space first, but we landed on the moon. It wasn't cheap to get there. Or to make the same argument a bit differently, Jonas Salk wasn't able to cure polio all at once.

The more distressing problem here is the anti- arguments' circular logic: anyone with a scientific or medical background will tell you that it is nearly impossible to make progress on new techniques and technologies without adequate funding, and government-backed funding has a decisive role here because private corporations lack the incentive to conduct research where the potential payoff is intangible or (in the present case) might lie years in the future. So of course embryonic stem cells haven't yielded results yet, because they are burdened by an overrestrictive research environment nationally. In states like Michigan, which outright prohibits research, the effect is absolutely stifling.


The MORAL reason to support this initiative.

Many conservative religious groups oppose embryonic stem cell research on a similar premise to their objection to abortion; life begins at conception, they argue, and it is an audacity against God and human dignity to exploit embryonic stem cells for medical profit, especially when it is fatal to the embryo. Hence the same blog I cited above argues:

This is where I need to bring up a key flaw in the whole debate over embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). You have the camp who opposes ESCR because they believe that life begins at conception, and I fall into this camp. Then you have the camp who argues, “But they’re going to be discarded anyway.” And this is where the ESCR opposition has somewhat failed. Many don’t address this issue and simply say, “Well, we shouldn’t be doing research on them.” That’s not the point. The point needs to be that instead of making EXTRA embryos for in vitro fertilization, we should be making embryos AS NEEDED. Sure, it’s costlier, but it doesn’t create embryos that will be destroyed.

Again, this argument is misinformed, both medically and economically. First, it is impossible to fertilize any egg without destroying thousands, if not millions of sperm. Second, the range of methods for extracting eggs, whether through induced ovulation or other methods are extremely expensive and often compromise the health of the donor. Quite simply, the presence, activity, and effectiveness of any fertility industry presumes that there will be more embryos than can ever be brought to term. It is a nod to sentiment here that the proposal limits the period during which stem cells can be harvested to 14-days of division, a time at which cells are still largely undifferentiated. But if one is making the argument that no more embryos may be conceived than can be brought to term, that must ultimately be a response to fertility treatment in general.

This is, however, the only argument that isn't mired in contradiction.
As long as there are extra embryos, they will be disposed of by some means because they cannot be brought to term. This is a reality that cannot be negated by any state constitution. And yet I rarely hear about concientious opposition to fertility treatment per se.

It is ironic, then, that religious arguments predicated upon the sacredness of life, impede the sustainment of life without a tangible benefit to anyone. The diseases that embryonic stem cells might one day treat are uniquely debilitating and fatal. Christians, including Catholics like myself, need to remember that prudence is a cardinal virtue. We are often forced to live as best we can in an imperfect world. I would argue that it is imprudent to renounce the opportunity to save actual human lives in exchange for an abstract "moral" victory that is hollow because it saves nobody in turn.


The ECONOMIC reason to support this initiative.

Michigan perennial zeitgeist (and where else would such a term even work?) is that its economy is in an unending freefall.

Many opponents of this bill say that it will result in new taxes; in fact the bill does prepare this debate, but it is itself silent on the subject of funding. Now: non-embryonic stem-cell research receives funding in the state; would it be unreasonable to offer financial support to some of the most promising medical research of a generation? It needn't inflate the state budget; again conservatives like to point out the many achievements of adult stem-cell technology... some of that funding could be shifted to embryonic stem-cell research. There are numerous options that will be on the table, but this proposal does not commit any taxpayer money to support the research itself.

In this and many economic arguments, fiscal conservatives tend to overemphasize the importance of taxes overall. As reasonable Hoosiers might tell you, for example, low taxes are a cold comfort when the economy is so bad that you've little income to be taxed, and this is where Michigan really has to think straight about this bill. Members of both parties seek to promote Michigan's economy by bringing in the kind high-tech jobs that are worthy successors of an ailing automotive industry. But if we look at the parts of the country where these industries have thrived -- California and the Pacific Northwest for example -- they are generally found in an environment where openness to technology and technological innovation has thrived. In fact this seems to be at least or more important than the rate of taxation. Sometimes (gasp!) investment opportunity trumps taxation.

The problem is so multivalent that it is difficult to summarize.

For example, some casualties are conspicuous. As the Detroit Free Press states in its endorsement of the proposal, "one clear loss is the departure of some prominent researchers from the University of Michigan -- where stem cell research is the most vigorous -- because of the ban." Thus Michigan loses the opportunity for such a faculty to draw private and pharmaceutical investment to Michigan through the establishment of amicable research.

Not all liabilities are so conspicuous, however. For example, endowments and funding tend to flow to colleges and universities where the most exciting research is happening. Michigan's top research institutions are uniquely positioned in terms of faculty, facilities, and location to be leaders in the country. Increased endowments often mean, among other things, greater resources for tuition assistance. The consequences of the present, unilateral ban are precipitous.



In short, it is always reasonable to consider another point-of-view, but there simply is not rigorous traction to be held against this proposal. The initiative is carefully worded, maintains protections on human dignity and the status and use of embryonic stem cells, while also being robust enough to make a meaningful change. I've outlined some of the scientific, moral, and economic arguments to support the proposal above, but there are many more. The proposal has been endorsed by both major Detroit newspapers and many others, President Bill Clinton, Senator Carl Levin, Governor Jennifer Granholm. Notably both Presidential candidates support the promotion embryonic stem-cell research.

You can contribute to the effort to pass Michigan's Proposal 2 here.

You can help promote the proposal here.

You can find out where you can get a yard sign here.

This proposal marks Michigan's best opportunity this election to set encourage an emerging precedent in the region, and most importantly, to improve the standard of living for its own citizens.

Vote YES on Proposal 2.

Labels: ballot proposals, elections, EVENT, health care

Monday, October 20, 2008

Event: ELECTION 2008 : MICHIGAN : PROPOSAL 2008-01 : Medical Marijuana

Proposed Legislative Amendment:

A legislative initiative to permit the use and cultivation of marijuana for specified medical conditions. (Proposal provided under a legislative initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on November 20, 2007.)

The following is the language of the legislative amendment as it appeared on the legislative initiative petition.

INITIATION OF LEGISLATION

An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act.

Full Text here.

---

Blue Skies Falling: YES

It is true that the legalization of medical marijuana specifically or drugs more generally is not the most pressing issue we face this year. That is, we could stick with the status quo, and things would not get drastically better or worse in the world. It's hard to get away from the "legalize, dude," image of some guy in high school going on and on about how it would be great if we could just get stoned all the time. And on a more personal note, I've always felt that time, money, and energy is in short supply, and all three could be put to better use than providing for legal pot.

These concerns are, however, a major mischaracterization of the real issue.

FIRST, as the language above states, this is a bill to approve marijuana for medical, not recreational use. Similar proposals have been approved and implemented in twelve other states without a noticeable increase in illicit drug use. We need not conjure up images of two-dimensional stoners, nor do we need require that regulatory agency must be written in stone in order to pass meaningful legislation; the proposal is rigorous enough. The drug will be closely regulated by this proposal and will be going to very sick people with their doctors' prescription. Decriminalization is, alas, an entirely different conversation.

SECOND, a consensus has been emerging over the last several decades that marijuana prescription can be appropriate in a medical context. Medical approval has been voiced by such a range of diverse and reputable organizations as the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Nurses Association, as well as the American Bar Association and the National Association of Attorneys General, and individuals ranging from Barack Obama and Carl Sagan to Milton Friedman and Ron Paul. The Michigan Democratic Party supports this proposal, as have the Lansing State Journal, the Detroit News, and other news outlets.

Quite simply, the medical community is more reasonably able to assess the merits and drawbacks of medical marijuana. The alternative is to decide this issue in a political setting fraught with emotion and incentive, and few equivalents to the rigor of medical research and peer review. Individual doctors are best able to make decisions in their patients' interests.

Vote YES on Proposal 1.

Labels: ballot proposals, elections, EVENT, health care

Friday, October 17, 2008

Event: The Chicago Tribune has Endorsed a Democrat for President for the First Time Since it was Founded.

Daily Kos: Chicago Tribune endorses Obama.

By "first time since it was founded," we're going back to the year 1847.

Chicago Tribune: Tribune Endorsement: Barack Obama for president.

Labels: elections, EVENT, journalism, politics, u.s. executive

Event: The Personal Email Conversation I've Just Had With David Plouffe.

I think I might have annoyed him, because after I responded to the personal email I received from Plouffe, he evidently forwarded my complaint to some campaign clerk who sent off some soulless form response.

---

From David Plouffe, BarackObama.com to Connor Coyne:

Connor --

Now that Barack won the final debate, there's only one milestone remaining in this campaign -- Election Day.

But it's going to take a lot of work to make sure all of our supporters get to the polls. You can help support our get out the vote efforts right now.

Make a donation of $30 or more and you'll receive a limited edition Obama-Biden T-shirt:



You can also receive an Obama-Biden car magnet with a donation of $10 or more.

Our get out the vote effort will determine the outcome of this election.

Every day, our team carefully reviews the resources we have available and makes crucial decisions about where we can be most competitive.

We're maintaining hundreds of offices across the country, employing thousands of organizers, and printing literature with local voting information for every community we canvass.

Make a donation right now to receive your T-shirt and help our campaign succeed:

https://donate.barackobama.com/milestone-shirt

Thank you for your support,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

---

The thing is, my wife and I have already made a donation, and by our standards, quite a substantial one. We were supposed to get the car magnet in exchange for this, but it never came. Hence my reply:

---

From Connor Coyne to David Plouffe, BarackObama.com:

Dude, we're still waiting for our magnet! :)

---

Alas, this is the reply I received, and quite likely, the final word.

---

Obama for America to Connor Coyne:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting Senator Barack Obama and Obama for America.

Barack is gratified by the overwhelming response to his candidacy, and we appreciate hearing from you. Please note, though, that we are now replying only to emails sent through our webform. You may resend your message through the webform here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/

We also encourage you to submit your policy ideas through the My Policy feature of our website, here:

www.BarackObama.com/issues

We have also created the Answer Center, an easy-to-search database of questions and answers that lets you find information on a wide range of subjects from volunteering to policy positions. Try it out here:

http://answercenter.barackobama.com

The webform and other technologies help improve our ability to communicate with you and efficiently read and respond to the thousands of messages we receive every week. Please note that you can use it to cut and paste large messages and links to other websites.

Thank you for using the webform, it helps us improve the process of communicating with you.

Sincerely,

Obama for America

---

Look, I didn't write Barack Obama. I replied to David Plouffe, and he wrote me first. All I want is my car magnet!

Labels: elections, EVENT, magnets, politics

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Event: California Proposition #8.

PROPOSITION 8

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

---

This election is not just about the next President.

I will spend the remainder of this week talking about California's Propositon 8; while Obama is currently predicted to beat McCain by 2:1 in the electoral college, polls of Proposition 8 have swung from predicting narrow defeat to narrow success.


Two important things must be said about this bill, and why its passage would be uniquely tragic in the history of gay rights.


First, so far we have observed roughly two tiers of legislation in "definition of marriage" referenda. One tier, including states such as Tennessee, have prohibited same-sex marriage but do not explicitly prohibit a status conferring marriage-like benefits. A second tier, including such as Michigan and Wisconsin, explicitly prohibits both same-sex marriage and the establishment of any status conferring marriage-like benefits.

We have also observed several tiers of legislation and judicial precedent favoring civil unions and marriage for gays. California, Massachusetts and, as of this week, Connecticut all permit same-sex marriage. New York does not permit same-sex marriage, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed out of state. New Jersey and Hawaii do not recognize same-sex marriage at all, but by court mandates the provision of a status with marriage-like benefits.

These pro- and con- tiers not only determine where marriages are performed but where they are recognized.

California is only the second state to recognize same-sex marriage, and with a population of well over 30 million, is the most populous state by a huge margin and in the last several months an estimated 11,000 same-sex marriages have been performed there. Considering the population sum of states in which same-sex marriage is 1) permitted and 2) recognized, roughly 25% of the U.S. population is represented. Passage of this bill would almost halve this number.


Second, the proposition would be almost impossible to overturn. This is evident by the history of this debate in California. Proposition 22 passed in 2000 strictly defined marriage as only existing between a man and a woman. Following San Francisco mayor Gavin Newson's decision to permit same sex marriages, almost 4,000 marriages were annulled by the California Supreme Court in accordance with Proposition 22. This is ostensibly why Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed legislative attempts to validate same sex marriage. He claimed to want the matter settled in the courts. This past May, the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22 as a violation of equal protection as defined by the state constitution. Ergo, same-sex marriage is currently legal in California.

Proposition 8 raises the stakes considerably because, unlike Proposition 22, or the legislative initiatives vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, it changes the constitution itself. With all branches of state government having set precedent on the issue and the voters having altered the constitution, Proposition 8 would be essentially written in stone. There would be no hope or appeal for gay rights activists or same-sex couples to change the situation until the issue is (finally) settled once-and-for-all by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a likely inevitability...

but it could take decades to get there.

---

IN SHORT, one of the most socially progressive states in the nation has extended same-sex marriage benefits and recognizes same-sex marriage among its 36 million citizens. Proposition 8, which is ahead in the most recent poll by 5%, would counteract all of these advances, and make further progress all but impossible for many years to come.

I KNOW that you want Obama to win. I do too. But if you are planning to donate, and really want to get some mileage out of your contribution, your help is probably needed even more HERE.

VOTE NO ON PROP 8
http://www.noonprop8.com

---

I will be writing about this issue for the rest of the week, and have invited several qualified friends to comment on this issue. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, feel free to share them.

Please consider a small donation.

Labels: elections, EVENT, gay rights, politics

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Event: "Here's how Gov. Sarah Palin's Clearwater visit unfolded"

"Palin goes on the attack in Clearwater"
"Palin Wows 'Em In Clearwater"
"Palin rally brings 20000 to Clearwater"

I'm starting to feel fearful.

"Palin goes on attack in visit to Clearwater"
"Clearwater crowd welcomes Sarah Palin to Florida"
"Palin folksy, feisty in Clearwater"

While I'm politically on the same page as most of my friends, I often think that they're alarmist. We're up against the banality of evil, which operates most effectively when it can hide under a superficial veneer of esteem and respectability. I've made it a point to disagree with those who've compared the Bush administration to the fascists of the 1930s; we shouldn't have, I argue, to attain the atrocity of those regimes for something to be unacceptably bad. We needn't prove that Republicans are all degenerate monsters; we need to demonstrate policy flaws. A policy flaw can be repudiated without name-calling. That ought to be a liberal strength.

But there is a time to start feeling fear.

"Palin Supporters File Into Clearwater's Coachman Park"
"Palin In The Park"
"Palin in Florida at critical time for McCain"

The above are top-of-the-list headlines for a Google News search on the word "clearwater" today. You may think that I post these to underline a fear that the McCain ticket will turn the tide and win in November. But that is not my fear. In fact, this is looking less and less like a close election, and each day I am more confident in the success of the Obama-Biden ticket.

My fear is what these articles and headlines do not report.

Just in case you don't follow that link:

Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Presumably in reference to Ayers, though possibly to Obama.

One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

And while I can't pull up an uncensored quote on this, I think we can probably guess what was shouted.

Here's the thing. Why does the news cover this as if it were an ordinary political rally, with crowds and cheering? With a little digging, the event sounds like the precursor to a lynch mob. Shouldn't we be seeing at least some prominent headlines like:

"Palin supporters turn on media"
"Palin rally attendees threaten violence"
"Cameraman harrassed at Palin speech"

Why is this acceptable?

Why is this buried?

Why isn't this news?

And this is where I take one, two, no, one-and-a-half steps back, in consideration of some of my more alarmist friends.

They have earned that ground.

I can't think of a more reliable predictor to bigotry and catatrophe than this. Oversight is telling; it tells us what is assumed. What is unusual is worth reporting. What is accepted is left unsaid. What does it say, that the reportage of harrassment, of vigilante threats, of racism is taken off the table?

Labels: civil rights, elections, EVENT, politics, Republican Party

Friday, October 03, 2008

Event: The Bill Passed.

Now I go from stern to angry.

If the upcoming months show this to pan out the way the "restraint" argument has predicted they will (ie. poorly), then this will be an excellent point for primary race candidates to raise with me. In fact, I will seek out their position on this issue, and be sympathetic to them if they opposed the bill.

IN THE HOUSE:
Dale Kildee voted aye.
Jan Schakowsky voted aye.
Edolphus Towns voted aye.

IN THE SENATE:
Barack Obama voted aye.
Dick Durbin voted aye.
Hillary Clinton voted aye.
Charles Schumer voted aye.
Carl Levin voted aye.

Dabbie Stabenow voted nay.

Again, a thank you to Senator Stabenow. You get an A+.

All of the others have failed the Econ homework today.

Labels: economics, elections, EVENT, finances, politics

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Event: Get Out of My House!

New York Times: McCain Pulls Out of Michigan.

Labels: elections, EVENT, Michigan, politics

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Event: Understanding the Subprime Mortgage Crisis.

"I could sure use a $700 billion government bailout."
- My Wife

This is possibly going to go down as one of the most momentous and ground-shifting months of this century, with economic shifts taking on the gravity and Laws-of-Physics-momentum of wars, plagues, and unexpected turns of the weather. It is important to understand why this is happening, why the comparisons of our current situation to the Great Depression are, in fact, apt. And not least, in the light of the upcoming election, whose fault it is.

These are ordered based on what makes the crisis most clear, but if you want an evocative intro, check out the last article, the Times' analysis first. Also, any one of these articles will be worth reading on its own.

Paul Krugman: A Catastrophe Foretold.

The BBC: The US sub-prime crisis in graphics.

NERA Economic Consulting: The Subprime Meltdown: A Primer.

The Economist: And Then There Were None.

New York Times: Plan's Mystery - What's All This Stuff Worth?

Labels: economics, elections, EVENT

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Event: Illinois Voter Registration Ends October 7th.

Cook County Clerks Office | Election News: Two weeks until end of voter registration Oct. 7 registration deadline looming.

Don't think that this state doesn't matter. There are important races along the whole length of the ticket!

Labels: Chicago, elections, EVENT, Illinois

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Event: The League of Women Voters.

The League of Women Voters is one of the best sources of information about a candidate. It is a nonpartisan group that submits a series of issues questions to candidates along the length of the ticket and allows them to provide a concise response. The questions take pains for objectivity, and the conciseness often cages politicians into a more precise answer than they will give the press or on the stump. If the candidate (especially a local candidate) does not answer or cannot follow the rules to avoid their answer from being cut-off mid-sentence, well, that also speaks volumes.

Quite simply, these are the best answers you'll get to issue-oriented questions from a candidates own questions.

Some tickets are available for Pennsylvania and Florida, as well as the Presidential race here. More localized information is available through Local Leagues.

I usually cross-examine this information against newspaper endorsements and background information I have on candidates; this process enables me to deliberately vote at times for Republicans and third parties, whereas otherwise I would vote more strictly along Democratic party lines.

Labels: elections, EVENT, politics

Monday, September 22, 2008

Event: Friends in Powerful Places.

New York Times: Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million.

Daily Kos: McCain Campaign Throws Another Tantrum.

Take it for what you will.

Labels: economics, elections, EVENT, politics

Friday, September 19, 2008

Event: Kicking You When You're Down - Foreclosure is a Forfeited Vote, According to the Michigan GOP.

Start from the beginning and move down:

Michigan Messenger: Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote.

Michigan Messenger: GOP has a history of voter ‘caging,’ according to Democrats’ lawsuit.

Michigan Messenger: Messenger rejects GOP plea for retraction.

Gemma discussed this here, with several insightful comments by herself and tyromaven.

If you're a Michigan resident (I was for many years) this should make you livid. It isn't really aimed at preventing voter fraud, and here's how I described the strategy at Third Rail Themes:

- Macomb County includes many of the Detroit suburbs and with 800,000 people is one of the most populous counties in Michigan.
- It also has a very high African American population which has been disproportionately affected by house foreclosures.
- Here's the real kicker: almost all of those voting would be Michigan residents because 1) arrangements can be made given foreclosure to remain living at a residence and 2) most people who are being booted out of their homes at the dead end of autumn cannot afford to make a major move to another state... most will be relocating to elsewhere around Detroit.

This strategy is based on the flimsiest and nastiest of circumstances.

In fact, it isn't just a below-board attempt to swing the state red. It is only a breath and a couple syllables from Jim Crow.

So write some letters to the editors!

Labels: Detroit, elections, EVENT, Michigan, politics, Republican Party

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Event: Obama's Speech in Flint, and Other Good News.

The Washington Independent: Obama Laces into McCain's "No Change Express"

The Flint Journal: Presidential candidate Barack Obama promises at Flint appearance to help auto industry refashion itself.

I wish I could have been at this. I would've waited for hours and hours...

It's icing on the cake that the Journal actually avoided making one of the innumerable puns that presented themselves. "Obama Ramped Up Flint for Change," or "Candidate Obama Says Flint Auto Change Soon." The Journal can write good articles, and I'm glad when they don't derail them with lame headlines.

Actually, Flint has had several pieces of good news lately:

Flint Journal: We're rolling again: Flint spots get another movie close-up; This time it's 'All's Faire in Love' with Christina Ricci and Bill Engvall.

It seems that puns have been traded off for run-on sentences.

A worthy compromise.

Labels: Barack Obama, economics, elections, EVENT, film, Flint, journalism, labor, politics

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Event: The Executive Branch is a Committee, with an Economic Example of Why it Matters.

Thesis: Stop thinking about whether they are likeable or not... there will be time enough for that later.
As much as the presidency is a person, it is also an institution, and we would more accurately make responsible decisions in presidential elections by thinking of the office as a very powerful and ideally coordinated committee, with the ballot in the chairmanship. The vice-presidency, members of the cabinet, and appointees to other governmental position can have as much stake as the office-holder him or herself.

Which is why, unlike the claims of the McCain campaign, there is no responsible way to make a choice here based strictly on the personality and temparament of the choice. Candidates' views on the issues are of paramount importance, because this will determine the appointments they make.

Consider, for example, the following:

New York Times: In Candidates, 2 Approaches to Wall Street.

Labels: Barack Obama, economics, elections, EVENT, John McCain, politics, u.s. executive