Maude de Valerie

2009-05-04T22:09:00.003-04:00

Primary Countdown...

So, the latest poll in the Democratic primary race for governor shows McAuliffe leading among the three Dems... while Deeds is the strongest against Repub McDonnell (which at the moment ain't sayin' much).

McAuliffe's money/shameless self-promotion has paid off in very strong name recognition (25,000 signs at the shad planking??!), which, I expect, is the main reason for his 38% share of the likely primary voters. Why do I think that? Well, aside from my own instincts (which may or may not mean anything), the poll indicates that although McAuliffe's numbers may be nearly twice those of Deeds and Moran, his likely voters are also the most likely to change their minds. Which, I believe, is at least a good indicator that it is his name recognition, not his appeal as a candidate, that's giving him those numbers.

It doesn't bother me at this point that none of the Dems are showing particularly well against McDonnell. That's always the case when you've got a split field going against an unopposed nominee. The question is, who can win come November? Is Deeds' comparatively stronger showing against McDonnell an indication that he can beat him, or only that he's drawing from a different demographic than Moran and McAuliffe?

Sunday's WaPo front-page McAuliffe analysis delineates (and amplifies) the concerns I've had about what will happen if we do in fact end up (as it appears) with McAuliffe going against McDonnell in the fall. These concerns include his huckster-ish persona, his over-statements of facts (such as his supposed five Virginia businesses), his opportunism, and the way in which he gained his wealth--it might be going a bit far to call him a corporate raider, but...

These issues are exactly what the Repubs will try to exploit in the fall. And neither Deeds nor Moran seems to be strong enough in this primary fight to fully test his electibility. The WaPo article will help, both by giving them more ammunition, and by bringing the issues to the voters (or at least to those who read it--meaning, I suppose, mostly bloggers and NoVA voters). I hope this last month before the primary brings more attention to these issues, and more attacks from Deeds and Moran--whether or not that succeeds for them as a primary-winning strategy--because if McAuliffe's weaknesses are not fully exposed and tested before the primary, you can bet they will be after, when it's too late.

I mostly tend to stay agnostic in primary battles, unless I have particularly strong feelings one way or another for/against a particular candidate. I can't say I have any particularly strong feelings in this race so far, other than loyalty for my own state senator (Deeds) and the general off-puttingness of McAuliffe. I have been disappointed in Moran's poor showing, and I really wish Creigh would up his game enough to be a true contender. Perhaps his problem is that he's not really hungry enough for it, while McAuliffe most certainly is. Perhaps the biggest ego in the room is the one that wins?

2009-02-09T22:31:00.006-05:00

Jefferson-Jackson Day and the blue-and-yellow snowstorm: thoughts on the annual Virginia Democratic event...

First of all: I got to shake Bill Clinton's hand!!!(!) Okay, now I've got that out of the way...

Before Saturday, I was supporting Creigh Deeds in the governor race. After all, he's my state senator, and he does a great job. I don't always agree with him on everything (he's more conservative than I am), but he's got a huge, and except for Charlottesville/Albemarle, conservative district. An elected official needs to represent their own district, while remaining true to their own personal views and opinions. A "born and bred" Virginian, Creigh does what he believes is right, while trying to remain responsive to both extremes: the eastern (liberal Cville/Albemarle) and western (conservative Allegheny highlands) politics of his district. My second choice was Brian Moran, who is generally viewed as more liberal than Creigh, and likewise has loyally served Virginia and his district.

However, while I initially viewed former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe as opportunistic, slick and personally ambitious (a carpetbagger, not to put too fine a point on it), and was not impressed with him at our annual county Democratic BBQ, I became more open to the possibility of supporting a McAuliffe candidacy after meeting him this past December. He seemed knowledgeable about the issues and he listened to people attentively. I was still skeptical, though, and still loyal to Creigh, and was putting McAuliffe a tentative second. Then I attended the Jefferson-Jackson event.

I was there to coordinate volunteers for my friend Mike Signer's LG campaign (about which more later), and initially I did not wear any stickers for any of the governor candidates. Friends working in both McAuliffe's and Deed's campaigns came by, and offered me stickers, but I insisted I wasn't choosing yet.

Then came the Parade. I had taken a break at one point to move my car closer to the convention center and to get some more juice and take some advil (I had the flu!) and I noticed that the streets were lousy with McAuliffe signs--the entire median of Broad street was filled. It looked like a blue-and-yellow snow storm. I thought that seemed a little much. I went outside again later and saw that a huge "Terry" sign had been hoisted on some kind of lifts in front of the convention center, and learned that the street had been closed off. Then I heard there was to be a rally. Curious, I went out to watch, and this is what I saw: about 100+ people (his bussed-in and paid-with-a-ticket volunteers) standing around with blue-and-yellow clapping noisemakers, and a brass band (I think they were even wearing blue-and-yellow uniforms, though I can't swear to that). The group was being herded into an ever-more densely-packed crowd by volunteers holding large 4x8 signs. When the crowd of supporters was sufficiently dense, Terry hollered, the band played, and off they went down the street in their little parade.

Well, I'm sorry. This spectacle was so over-the-top it just completely soured me on McAuliffe. I walked back inside and went to Creigh's table and asked for a sticker. My distaste was only increased by Terry's speech, which should rightly be called a screech, since he yelled at top decibel the entire time, and he also (I kid you not!) foamed at the mouth. His paid volunteers cheered and chanted loudly at everything he said (and booed Brian Moran when he said Virginia needs a fighter, not a fundraiser).

McAuliffe may yet win the nomination, because he's got the money and the connections. But, these advantages could either help or hurt him in the general election. The repubs can throw a lot of mud at him as former DNC chair, carpetbagger, Clintonite, etc. All the blue-and-yellow brass bands in the world won't be able to help him then. Creigh Deeds may be "unpolished" (WaPo columnist Tim Craig's favorite adjective when it comes to Creigh) but he's genuine, and he doesn't make a spectacle of himself.

I'm stickin' with the hometown boy.

2009-01-17T16:57:00.006-05:00

Pastor Strangelove
Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Fact that Rick Warren is Giving the Inaugural Prayer.

I was talking with a friend today who lives in San Francisco--exchanging New Year's greetings and getting caught up. I mentioned I had just seen Milk; she had seen it in the Castro district. Then we talked about the inauguration--she was thinking about flying back across the country to attend, I'm thinking about whether I want to deal with the crowds and gridlock, or just stay home (I mean, come on, I'm only two hours away! but...) in the course of this conversation, we talked about Obama's decision to have megachurch pastor Rick Warren give the inaugural prayer.

Now, leaving aside the whole question of why we even have a prayer at the swearing-in of the president of a country whose Constitution specifies that religion and government are to be separate, the choice of this particular religious leader in particular to deliver the prayer has become the first major disappointment of Obama's supporters (don't worry, there'll be many more to come--he's only human, after all!)

My friend, living in California (and formerly married to another woman in Denmark), felt the selection of Warren as a sort of one-two punch after the passage of proposition 8. Many of my friends and others whom I respect also are disappointed, hurt and angry (or at least disapproving and disparaging) about this choice. I, too, was incredulous when I first heard the news. But since then, I've given it a lot of thought, and my thinking about it has evolved. I now feel that while I wouldn't have made this particular choice, I understand why Obama has; and while I don't in any way approve of Warren or his views, I think the choice actually makes sense.

First, one thing we forget to consider is that evangelical christians are not a monolithic group. Right-wing fundamentalists and evangelicals are not one and the same. Those of us who are not part of these religious traditions may not realize it, but these are separate groups of religious, who don't necessarily share the same views. There are plenty of conservative and right-wing (note: this is not a redundancy: I don't use conservative and right-wing interchangeably, as I see right-wing as being radical, not conservative) evangelicals, but there is also a growing group of liberal evangelicals,

Another thing to keep in mind is that not all of Warren's followers are so thrilled with the choice either--plenty of conservative and right-wing christians feel that by giving the prayer Warren is endorsing Obama's views on gays and abortion. In fact, the controversy among conservative christians regarding the Warren/Obama relationship goes back a few years.

In our conversation, my friend said that she thought that Obama chose Warren for political reasons, and of course, he did. But this is not as cynical as it sounds. First, Obama is not a left-wing politician: while he ran to the left of Hillary, and a lot of people were caught off-guard when he corrected course after Hillary conceded, no one who has paid attention to his actions in office could think that he was left-wing. Second, Obama was so successful in the primaries because of the way he drew people in. This is partly his cypher-like personality--people see in Obama what they wish to see. But partly it's because of his human and political instincts, which are very finely honed. And those instincts helped enable him to build a Democratic majority in this election--something that we have seemed unable to do since Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove and their ilk pandered to Americans' lowest impulses. Obama's instincts in this instance are true (though I think he's somewhat disingenuous when he explains his reasoning). Finally, Obama surged to the forefront in the election even in traditionally red states because people (including evangelicals) are changing their attitudes on those social wedge issues like gays and abortion. The power of the right-wing to use those issues as boogie men to scare people to the right is waning.

My friend understood my reasoning, when I explained why I was no longer opposed to the Warren choice, but felt that the same thing could have been accomplished by appointing Warren to serve on some council or something. But, that would not have accomplished the same purpose, because it would not be such a public statement.

This election saw a significant gain in evangelicals voting Democratic. That seems surprising to us because we have become used to assuming that they would all vote Republican, and all for the same reasons. But in making such assumptions, we both gave up on evangelicals, and (mis)underestimated their power--and ended up ceding a huge voting bloc to the Republicans. This was really stupid of us, because within the past 30 years, we've had three evangelical christians in the white house--and two of these were Democrats! (and let's not forget Al Gore, who SHOULD have been the third...). So how did we get to the point where we let the Republicans rake in this vote?

First, we lumped all fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative christians into one group. Then, we bought the bill of goods GWB was selling--that he was "conservative" (when in fact, he's not conservative by any measure: not on spending, obviously, and not on politics--he's far right). Then, we bought into the media's characterization of "values voters," when in fact, ALL voters are values voters. Many Democratic values, which include responsibility to all members of society, social justice, the environment, compassion, fairness, adherence to the Constitution, democracy, education, political solutions before military... etc. are shared by evangelicals. But by not defining OURSELVES as values voters, we let Republicans own this term--and evangelicals' votes.

Barack Obama's instincts and understanding of this is what helped him pull in enough people of every political stripe, including evangelicals, who were tired of sleaze, cynicism and expediency. Lincoln's famous quote about fooling all of the people some of the time is true--the people got tired of being fooled (and we won't be fooled again!) and were ready for some REAL values, not cynical pandering to values not shared by those doing the pandering. I think Obama is trying to a) cement this relationship between Democrats and evangelicals and b) show that we're not just pandering to get their vote and then dropping them like a hot potato. Democrats have done this before with African-American voters, and this has been another reason for our failures since 2000--we counted on a constuency that we'd not done enough for to deserve to keep.

Yes, by giving this honor to Warren, Obama is spending political capital. And I suppose it does seem hubristic to do so. But, unlike Bush, who spent all his capital, Obama is investing it. (Which is what one ought to do with capital, no?). Whether he's investing wisely, only time will tell.

UPDATE: Obama will now have Gene Robinson, gay episcopalian bishop, also give a prayer at the inauguration. Perhaps he should have announced both choices at the same time, so it would not appear that he's now pandering to gays and the left? Well, nobody asked for my advice.

2008-12-13T12:01:00.012-05:00

The Auto Bailout:
PART I: What does it all mean? And how much does it all cost?

Years ago, I dated a guy who was a republican with an MBA from Darden. At that time, venerable department stores in downtown Richmond were shutting their doors, and there was a lot of outcry--the stores evoked memories of people's childhoods: the excitement of big department stores, with their escalators, elevator operators, salespersons and atmosphere of luxury. It's a very specific nostalgic feeling that you just can't get at Kmart or Walmart (or even most department stores in malls today)--a sort of multi-sensual experience. But at some point, people began to prefer the bargain experience to the luxury experience--and the big downtown department stores began to fail, to be replaced by malls. To an MBA and free-market radical who believed in Reaganomics, this was a natural evolution of the market; and so, he couldn't understand why the people who abandoned department stores for Walmart were complaining. He didn't understand the nostalgia: people could buy what they wanted at a discount store, for less. Who cares about the shopping experience? Move on.

I understood the people who mourned the loss of Thalhimers and Miller & Rhoads. Markets are not just numbers on paper and the resulting profit/loss. They are comprised of human behaviors, and are woven into and from people's lives. We tend to forget that, when we talk about the economy--we think of the loss of a company in terms of the loss of jobs, but not in terms of the loss to those who have made the decision to buy a company's products and services. But, buying behaviors are very complex. They are simultaneously personal to an individual, and indicative of a society at a given point in time. Our buying/consuming decisions may seem to us to be intelligently and intentionally made, and yet may really be more emotionally-based and unconscious than rational. And when that is the case, people may feel an attachment to a product that goes beyond any rational reason. Remember the old coke/new coke kerfluffle? Know anyone who will argue passionately about Macs versus PCs? [after all, aside from the fact that Macs are clearly superior, it's just a question of what your individual needs are in a computer, right?]

Car-purchasing decisions, almost more than any other consumer behavior, are emotionally driven. People in this country, especially, spend so much time in their cars that they view them as an extension of their selves--an aspect of their identity. They personify their cars, giving them names, ascribing emotions to them. American-made cars have long been a part of Americans' identity. People identify not only with individual models of cars, but with whole automobile companies, declaring themselves to be "chevy men" or "ford men." Songs, movies and books have been written in which an American car is the main protagonist. Cars are also closely identified with American adolescence, because they allowed teens a degree of independence and differentiation from parents that was never possible before the introduction of the automobile. This was due in part because of America's mid-twentieth century affluence, which afforded teens the ability to purchase their own cars (and later, for parents to buy cars just for their children). In the wake of the gas shortages of the 1970's, some consumers began purchasing smaller, more fuel-efficient foreign cars. Others became even more loyal to American cars, viewing their purchase as an indication of national identity. Many persist in viewing an American-car purchase as an act of patriotism, despite the fact that many "foreign" cars are made here, while American cars may be made wholly of parts manufactured in other countries--or even assembled in another country.

This is the context in which the current automobile crisis is playing out. Our identification and our nostalgia are part of what makes it difficult to decide what to do about the American auto-making industry--not just the effects on the economy. Can we really just let such a large part of the American psyche pass into oblivion? Relegate the mustang, the T-bird, the little red corvette, the pink cadillac, to the history museum? Well, really, like the downtown department stores, we already have. Those cars belong to a halcyon past that we celebrate in story and song, but we don't drive them anymore. We drive SUVs, hybrids, minivans. We still choose cars based on emotion and identity, but now our identity may be "green consumer" or "macho man with big [truck]." Do we really need the American auto industry when we can buy a Toyota prius or a Nissan armada?

I'm not any more of a free-market radical now than I was then. But the auto industry is a mess. It's a weird patchwork of protectionism, greed, union demands and compromises, and obsolete assumptions. It's an industry in which a CEO who makes millions of dollars to steer a company that depends on the market can't understand why it might not be a great marketing decision to fly a private jet to Washington when asking for billions in public funds to shore up a failing industry. Can a bloated industry of redundancies and irrelevancies be saved, or does it need the cleansing fire of bankruptcy? Would reorganization under bankruptcy be the end of the industry, or would it force it to become a healthy, relevant, competitive industry? Or, would the foreign automakers who are making cars in the US pick up the slack--both in terms of car sales and jobs--with the population of Detroit moving to Alabama and Mississippi? Might be a good thing for those impoverished states.

WaPo car columnist Warren Brown suggests that the motivation of those who think the American auto industry should not be bailed out is class bias. While our society is chock-full of unconscious/unspoken/covert class bias, and that it plays into the thinking of many people, I think this premise is flawed. For one thing, the whole article is focused on people who are critical of the UAW, not on the criticism of the auto industry, and the executives that got us here.

In fact, the UAW probably has very little to do with the current problems in the industry. Most are the automakers' doing. For instance, consider the "jobs bank." Even UAW workers have a problem with that program, which (depending on who you listen to) was either started as a way to get workers to accept automation, or so that there would always be skilled workers on call when needed. And, what does the job bank really cost? Regardless of cost, though, as an example of how stupid the industry is, the jobs bank can't be beat: paying people to sit on their asses? Why not pay these idle workers to actually do something? For instance, they could, but apparently don't, call them in during peak production (instead paying overtime to regular workers). Or, banked workers could have been volunteering in local schools, coaching youth sports, beautifying detroit, feeding the homeless, getting education/training for new jobs... anything. It's demoralizing to do nothing all day, so it's hardly something people would want, given the choice. Detroit could have dealt with redundancy in a more productive way that would have lead to fewer paid nonworkers.

It is true that non-union Japanese car makers don't pay their workers as much as Detroit does, and they don't have to carry so many retirees. But is this the main reason why Detroit is suffering? First of all, workers don't make all that much: Brown cites $71,000 in combined wages and benefits. The automakers cry that their huge pool of retirees (and the health benefits they pay for them) acts as a drag on Detroit. But lets look a little more closely: Detroit's CEOs function as at least as much of a drag on the industry as the union employees. Consider that Detroit CEOs rake in, not just somewhat more than Japanese auto CEOs, but many multiples more in salaries and bonuses. We're talkin' US CEOs making an average salary of $12 million to Japanese CEOs' $1.3 mil average. But salaries are the least of it. Ford's CEO, Alan Mulally, makes over $20m in salary and compensation. Other executives makes less than the CEO, but there are lots of 'em: I haven't been able to find out how much salary these guys make, but in 2008, Chrysler paid "retention bonuses" to its 50 executives totalling $30m, with the top six execs getting between $1 and $2m each. That doesn't include what they get in salary. Ford's next four top execs' compensation ranged in 2007 from $2 to $8m each. The workers make an average of $71,000 in wages and benefits (or about $34/hour) according to Brown (which comes out to considerably less than the $70/hour being bandied about)--more like $34 per hour. The retirees cost US automakers $12 billion a year total. It takes approximately 30 hours to build a car (if you're Toyota--if you're Detroit, add a couple of hours). Thirty hours to make a car times $34/hour is about $1,000 in labor costs per car.

What does this add up to? Well, each of the big three expects to sell between 11 and 12 million cars next year. That's about 34 million cars. $12 billion in retiree costs divided by 34 million cars is about $250 per car.

NEXT: PART II: Whether and Whither?

2008-11-16T22:37:00.002-05:00

Bush's Fire Sale: selling out America, piece by piece.

I know that every outgoing president rushes to utilize the last remaining shreds of power to achieve some agenda, such as ramming through regulatory policy changes. Clinton, for instance, pardoned 140 people on his last day in office, most notoriously Marc Rich, a disgraced commodities trader whose wife had made generous donations.

But Bush has (once again) gone beyond the pale: the New York Times has termed Bush's last-minute policy changes a "wrecking ball." Now, you might think that a president who has squandered all the "political capital" he thought he'd garnered through his reelection four years ago (and leaving aside whether he knew what the term actually means), would not be so bold as to further besmirch his reputation by selling off national resources to the highest bidder. But, of course, you'd have to think again--because as low as George W. Bush goes, he can always go lower.

In his final weeks, Bush is making it easier for mining companies to dump toxic waste into streams; for the FBI to spy on citizens without any evidence of wrongdoing; and for big banks (you know, the ones we just bailed out to the tune of $700 billion) to get tax breaks on bad loan losses. At the same time, he's making it harder for women to get abortions and emergency contraception.

Bush is also putting up for sale oil leases on public lands in Utah that are located near national parks. The proposed sales were not even announced to the National Park Service, which in the past has always had the opportunity to review and comment on such sales--the NPS had to learn about it through an environmental group. The BLM at first rejected the NPS's request to first study the impact on air, water, and wildlife before selling leases near the parks. Finally they agreed to allow them to do a review of those tracts--but that has to be done by Nov. 24. Lots of time!

And, as if that weren't enough, Bush is also moving forward to allow oil companies to begin drilling off the Virginia coast--and disingenuously claiming it was Gov. Kaine's idea. But Kaine didn't call for resource exploitation, he wanted the rules loosened so the potential for natural gas drilling could be studied. Bush's actions go far beyond that.

We all know that Bush wants to help out his oil industry buddies--isn't that what he went to Washington to do in the first place? --but the total lack of shame is somehow still shocking. I guess when you've already sold your soul there's nothing you won't do. Oh well. Just one of those presidencies, I reckon.

2008-11-05T22:39:00.004-05:00

Post-Election Day Thoughts...

well, I haven't finished processing this yet, and am too tired to really even think about it. Still a little punchy, and stressing about the close Perriello/Goode race that is stuck awaiting canvass/provisional ballot results. Aargh! But, impressions: people standing in the rain, sometimes for hours... the gentleman in Lunenburg who gave me his Obama lyrics to 'people get ready'... the concern for my safety of the sheriff's deputy when he learned I was going to monitor the election in Appomattox... the little boy who asked if I was going to vote for "Arak Obama" and told me that he was too... the really hopeful and excited way in which everyone I met with in southside Virginia, from Appomattox to Mecklenburg, spoke about the election. The tears streaming down people's faces, including my own. Sappy, I know--and it started early in the day, just seeing big-D Democracy in action, feeling a restoration of my faith in the process, and in the people of this country. I called my mom from somewhere in Mecklenburg or Charlotte and told her I thought it was really going to happen in Virginia. And it did. We did it.

2008-11-03T00:53:00.009-05:00

Pre-election day random thoughts:

1) The Virginia State Board of Elections. So, suddenly, for the first time, the SBE is interpreting the rule that prohibits electioneering inside the 40' perimeter to mean that voters can't wear buttons or Tshirts with their candidates' names on them? Election officials are being told to have jackets and trashbags on hand for those who come to the polls wearing tshirts that need to be covered up in order to comply with the rule. Well, that's a wonderful thing to task election officials with on a day when the polls are going to be jammed! And, what about that little thing called the First Amendment? Uh, doesn't it kinda trump state election laws? I've been told that election officials, if they choose, can eject voters refusing to remove their flair without allowing them to vote, and even arrest them (tho at least several jurisdictions are saying they will allow them to vote but take down their names). Several organizations say they will take this ruling to court, after the election. But you know, all it really would take, it seems to me, is a few courageous folk who insist on being able to vote without covering up, and are willing to be charged (uh, please, vote first, then open your jacket to reveal...). Will the law be enforced? Martinsville and Henry county prosecutors say they won't enforce this law by charging anyone; our local prosecutors say they will. But that's great--maybe they're doing it intentionally so someone will be charged and challenge the Constitutionality?

2) Democrats=Democracy. Hey, we're Democrats, people. Although, yes, that means some disorganization that can be frustrating, it doesn't mean hierarchical, top-down bullshit. Though I've heard a few people, frustrated with the Dems' lack of electoral success in the past few elections, express that what we need is our own Karl Rove, we really don't. (I must confess that even I voiced this thought a few years ago, but no--we must learn to win on our own terms, not by borrowing from our enemies' Machiavellian playbooks--after all, Machiavelli was a republican (well, but, to be fair, with a small r).

3) The poll numbers, or, will we win? Everyone keeps asking me this. Do I think we'll really win? Is it really possible? Could the polls be right? It's kind of heart-rending, the desperation behind the questions. I understand the fear, and the desperation, the pain of previously dashed hopes. Hey, I cried my eyes out for hours in 2004. It shows how damaging to our psyches the 2000 election debacle was, as well the subsequent 2004 loss (in the movies, the underdog always wins after the first defeat... what happened?). Well, we'll know for sure on Tuesday (I hope! please no Floridas or Ohios!). But, here are some thoughts about the accuracy of the polls--first, the massive numbers of newly-registered voters. Here in Virginia, at least, these are not just 18-yr-olds, or people newly moved in. These are people who have never bothered to register before. Polls don't count these people, because they have no voting history, thus they are not "likely voters" based on statistical probability. But, who are they? Many are those who have felt disenfranchised by the political process, so much so that they've never bothered to vote before, like this Albemarle county voter.

At this point, I'm afraid to be too excited about Virginia's chances... but I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm excited to be casting a vote in a presidential election in which, for the first time in my life, that vote will actually count. I think my faith in the American people is about to be vindicated... and that I'll be crying tears of joy this time.

2008-10-12T17:14:00.003-04:00

Laurence Eagleburger Cross-Posting

I updated my post about Laurence Eagleburger to reflect recent developments in the McCain campaign in my new blog at Open Salon here. You can view the original post from back in July here.

2008-10-11T15:24:00.010-04:00

Historic Election Countdown!

Twenty-four days to go! I can hardly express how excited I am about this election year. This is for several reasons: first, for the very first time in my life, my vote in a presidential election will actually count! Virginia has not gone for a Democrat in a pres election since 1964 (Johnson). As of this week, Virginia has moved in the polls from "toss up" to "leaning Obama." That's such an amazing shift in Virginia's politics that just thinking about it makes it hard for me to breathe! Obama's lead is still tight, and I don't want to be complacent, but... it will be interesting to see what the actual statistical results are. Right now I fear that the poll samples may be too small and too focused on NoVA to be accurate. I also fear a "Wilder [or Bradley] effect" in this election. Lately, people have been talking about a possible "reverse Bradley [or Wilder] effect," but the jury's still out on whether that's a real phenomenon or just a theory that sounds good. Most likely, the "there is no Bradley/Wilder effect" position will turn to be the closest to the truth, but the WaPo's analysis today is interesting.

Second, this is an historic election. I guess you could say the campaign was extra-historic with the primary race between Hillary and Obama--because of the two people most likely to become president in this election, one was either a woman or an African-American. This has already been a world- and game-changing election--regardless of the outcome.

Third, we will have two Democratic senators! Warner is way (28%!) ahead of Gilmore, who never had a chance (I'd add a "poor guy" here, but really, with Gilmore's bad record as governor, and some of the tricks he got up to during this campaign, I don't feel any sympathy at all. Just glad that Virginians have enough sense to not make the same mistake with him twice).

And, in our Fifth District congressional race, Tom Perriello is closing the gap between himself and Goode. The latest poll shows him only 8 percentage points away from Goode. Tom's name recognition is now at 73% (it was 29% in July). Also, Tom's favorability is going up, while Goode's is dropping. Might not be enough movement to make a difference by Nov., 4, but... closer than any challenger thus far!

Finally, elections of any kind are exciting to me. The democratic process, as frustrating and disappointing as it sometimes can be (was it Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"? [yeah, it was]). Just the act of voting feels simultaneously solemn and sacred, communal, and powerful. I usually vote absentee prior to the election, because I volunteer in one way or another at the polls all day, so I don't experience quite the same the feeling of going into one's local polling place, along with one's neighbors, and the millions of Americans all across the country, who are all participating in this important act on this special day. But, then I get the extra thrill (I suppose) of knowing that I've already voted--already done my part as others are just waking up on election day...

2008-10-04T17:37:00.002-04:00

New Blog Experiment
As of today, I am experimenting with moving my blog from Blogger to Salon. You can read a combined post from this blog on Salon here.

I don't know if I will actually move--I will see how it goes...

2008-10-01T20:10:00.003-04:00

Please Don't Squeeze the Palin

Remember that old Charmin tissue commercial? Charmin was so soft, apparently (i wouldn't know--I hate that kind of stuff), that no one could resist giving it a squeeze. It seems to be nearly as hard to resist mocking Sarah Palin. She's such an easy target.

Well, but here's the thing. I'm not defending Palin; quite the contrary. McCain's choice of Palin was, as noted below, cynical in the extreme, and any residual respect that I had for his common sense and "plain talk" has evaporated. And, I'm glad that she's being required by the media to account for herself. She is not in any way qualified for the office she seeks. But is that her fault?

However, all the Palin-bashing may have an unfortunate side-effect. Americans love the underdog. People who might otherwise not vote for McCain may do so, because they feel sorry for Palin, and want to show support for the brave little lady who doesn't blink.

Attacking Palin is like stealing candy from a baby, or shooting fish in a barrel. It may seem to be fun, but it's too easy, and it's the wrong target. The person who deserves the blame for Palin's candidacy is not herself, but McCain. And, paradoxically, attacking Palin could lead to a resurgence in votes for her (because, again, that's why McCain chose her--so that people who wouldn't vote for him would vote for her). So, save your ammo for McCain. He's the one who deserves to be mocked. He's an egotistical old man, out of touch, and not even caring that he doesn't understand this country, the economy, or foreign affairs. He just wants to win, and I'm sure he and his advisors are laughing at all the SNL spoofs as much as everyone else--they just think they're laughing all the way to the White House. Let's not let him get away with it.

2008-09-20T13:26:00.006-04:00

Cheney Fiddles as We Burn, Insensible

As a measure of how totally screwed up this country is, consider the response to the lead article in last sunday's Washington Post. What article? What response? Right. My point exactly.

The article, the first in a series, outlines the attempt of Cheney and his minions to run the domestic surveillance program despite the fact that it was totally illegal, by controlling access to the papers that would have revealed to the Justice Department the extent of the legal flaws in the argument for the program. (The series is based upon a Pulitzer-winning series that ran in the Post last year, and was expanded to book length and published this week --Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency).

Cheney's legal counsel, David Addington, attempted to intimidate lawyers from both the NSA and Justice when they asked for access to the legal opinions that would have allowed them to determine if the spying program was legal or not. Fortunately for the country and the Constitution (oh that pesky little document), there were lawyers at both Justice and NSA who rebelled against Cheney's heavy-handed intimidation tactics and expansion of his office's powers. The lawyers who rebelled included both career civil servants and conservative Bush appointees--no starry-eyed liberals. They learned that even Rice's deputy National Security Advisor for counterterrorism was kept out of the loop. Really, only Cheney, his attorney Addison, John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales (this is during Ashcroft's tenure) were privy to the legal justification for the domestic espionage--and the fact that the justification arguments were legally flawed.

My favorite line from the article is when the Deputy Attorney General, James Comey, finally prevails and sees the documents. He says their legal analysis "is flawed, in fact facially flawed. No lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it." And when Cheney's attack dog Addison retorts "well, I'm a lawyer and I did," Comey puts him in his place: "no good lawyer." [Yes!]

But, but--how IS it that our country is not responding to this news with outrage? This article is every bit as important as Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate exposé. But does anyone care?

What's happened to us? Why are we so apathetic? Here's what I think. It's due to a number of factors, the first two of which can be laid at the doors of the media: first, Bill O'Reilly, Rush LImbaugh, et al, have so ramped up the rhetoric in this country about stupid stuff that there is no range--it's all over the top for everything that the right wants to push. So when a real scandal comes along, how can we respond with any greater outrage? We have no sense of moral relativity. For the right-wing mouth-foamers, one undocumented immigrant crossing the border illegally is more morally reprehensible than a vice president abusing the power of his office and attempting to hide his machinations from those who are responsible for deciding the legality of the executive's programs. We can't know how to respond with a proper level of emotion about something when everything's at top volume and there's no modulation. Also, the proliferation of the fake in our media ("reality" shows, celebrity-focused "news,") causes us to be unable to distinguish between what's real and important, and what is just the electronic equivalent of crack. The fourth estate has abandoned its all-important post as a check on untrammelled power, and decided that instead, entertainment is their main function--forget all that boring investigation, and analysis of the actions of the powers that be, and informing the populace. No money in that!

But, we are responsible as well. Because there IS real news out there--on the front page of one of the most important newspapers in the country, for gosh sakes! -- and we don't pay attention, because we're happy snortin' that crack. Americans are too busy titillating themselves with Brangelina and playing with their wii-wiis to care about what's happening in the real world. And isn't that what happened to the Roman empire?

2008-09-10T23:05:00.005-04:00

"The Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing"...
This evening as we left the office one of my friends from work remarked that he used to like John McCain, but no longer. I personally never liked McCain--I used to respect him, but between his pandering to fundamentalists (after originally blasting them as "agents of intolerance") and his choice of running mate... I can't even do that.

Why? It is rare for me to have respect for a republican politician. Retiring Sen. John Warner, who stood up against his party when they were trying to get Ollie North into office, is the only remaining one I can think of at the moment. There are some politicians who seem principled and honorable, even if their world views and politics differ vastly from one's own--even if one doesn't like them or their views (or their votes on crucial issues). McCain once fit in this small (miniscule, really) category. But his cynical choice of uber-stepford wife Sarah Palin calls his previous appearance of honor and decency into question.

I've written before about cynicism in politicians--it's really the most despicable (well, after corruption) characteristic of far too many. I would not have thought it of the John McCain who was a respected senator. But clearly that senator is MIA. The new John McCain will do anything to win--even place within a heartbeat of the presidency a person who is clearly unfit for the office she would hold, were that eventuality to come about. This shows that he has no regard for the country which he professes to wish to serve--rather, he is serving only himself, and does not care how he wins as long as he does, by whatever means necessary. Wilde said that the cynic knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. That's a great way of describing McCain's choice for veep--she may well be the price of winning the white house, but she brings no value whatsoever. And McCain MUST know this, but chooses to ignore it.

Sarah Palin has the charisma that McCain lacks. He chose her for this reason. He also (again, cynically) apparently thought that the disaffected women voters who were angry about Hillary's defeat would flock to vote for her (and so he'd gain office on the votes for Palin). This, however, is clearly not true--which anyone could have told him had he asked. HIllary supporters were never going to be Palin supporters. Palin stands for everything they're against, and against everything they're for. But McCain neither knows nor cares, really, because that's not what's important to him. And as it turns out, it's not women, but men, who are flocking to Caribou Barbie.

This is really the depths of cynicism--to attempt to garner the votes necessary to win office by calculating that your running mate will attract more votes than you will. And for all the wrong reasons.

2008-08-09T11:35:00.005-04:00

Domestic Spying--ya get the government ya pay for
The recent revelation regarding state police surveillance of a local peace activist group in Maryland is reminiscent of the Nixon years. Back then, everyone assumed that if someone was involved in any political activity left of the mainstream, one's phone was tapped. I grew up believing one shouldn't say certain things on the telephone--just in case. But I also always believed that the fear was overblown--why would the government bother with such small fry when there were real threats to focus on?

The news about the Takoma Park group is only the latest--the FBI spied on the faith-based group School of the Americas Watch in Georgia and anti-war protesters in Denver -- as well as throughout the country--as opposition to the Iraq war began.

September 11th changed the socio-political climate in so many ways that probably won't become clear for decades--but one obvious change is that the rules are being re-written, because we're allowing them to be. The abhorrence of domestic surveillance of citizens that was engendered by the Nixon/Hoover spying is a thing of the past. But I suppose we can't just blame Sept 11--it's probably also caused by the gradual eroding of the expectation of privacy during the electronic age: we happily post our private lives on Facebook and Myspace, give total strangers our credit card and bank account numbers, talk about our sex lives on national television. I think this erosion of our sense of privacy is one reason that this domestic spying doesn't seem to have shocked the nation--no one but watch-dog groups really seems to be upset. Of course, those who remember the Nixon admin's spying probably feel cynical--what did we expect? and plenty of folks who have been paranoid all along probably feel happily vindicated--we told you so! Although the Who was wrong when they declared we won't be fooled again, I guess a nation feels less foolish when it has no faith in its government to begin with.

If we don't value our privacy, we can't expect that our government will--if we are not outraged by the actions of the Maryland state police and the FBI, who will be? And if we allow the Republicans to convince us that government is necessarily bad--as apparently they have (that's one of their goals when in office--to screw up government so badly that taxpayers will stop wanting to pay for it)--can we blame government for doing what we apparently expect it to do--or don't give a damn if it does?

UPDATE, 12/7/08: the revelations about spying on innocent American just keep on comin'...

2008-07-19T17:55:00.004-04:00

The Arthur Legend as Metaphor for Democratic Politics
I recently saw the 2004 movie King Arthur. I had wanted to see it when I first saw the trailer (I grew up reading the Howard Pyle books, with his illustrations that I spent my youth attempting to emulate) but after the reviews came out, decided not to. However, I had enough hope to add it to my netflix queue (primarily because it featured Clive Owen as King Arthur [sad to say, the later role of Sir Walter Raleigh allowed him to more fully realize a character than did that of a king--or anyway, this king]).

Unfortunately the presence of Owen is really the only reason to watch the whole movie. While I disagree with the New Yorker that the transposition to an earlier, more barbarous age was necessarily wrong, the movie is nonetheless a total mistake, choosing as it does to completely avoid depicting what makes the Arthur legend so compelling. It is also just a bad movie (aside from its subversion of the myth), with zero character development and a meaningless storyline.

Why has the Arthur legend persisted through the centuries? In some ways, I think Arthur is on a par with Jesus as far as personifying and catalyzing a profound cultural change. I suppose this seems somewhat backwards since Arthur was presumably a christian and, no doubt, helped make christianity palatable to the inhabitants of the British isles--if only by demonstrating that it held something of value, aside from the brutal subjection by the Romans. But, I think what Arthur (or the promulgators of the myth), did with christianity was to westernize it--to meld certain British concepts into those of christianity, and to, thereby, create the anglo-saxon ethos--the best of it, anyway (disclaimer--I am not a WASP, nor a christian, and am not promoting their dominion of the world).

How did Arthur do this? And how does the movie betray the myth? The thing that draws us into the legend is not just the battles, the bravery, the loyalty and the honor. It is the principles of egalitarianism, of selflessness, of duty, of sacrifice in service of a cause, of warriors reluctant to go into war, of free will, of romantic love, --and of the sacrifices one makes for a cause, for a nation, for the people, for a friend, for love. And (here's the tie-in) this legend, by informing our values, and by embodying these principles of a free society, becomes a metaphor (if not consciously), for me, and I think for many other Democrats, for the reason we're involved in politics--a metaphor for the principles of progressives, and the attributes we want in our leaders (not for nothing was the Kennedy White House called Camelot, you know).

Arthur embodied, as well, the imperfection of being human--the striving for, the never quite attaining---he is on a human scale. The Arthur legend shows us knights who align with an exalted yet still human leader, not for personal or tribal gain, but for the advancement of shared principles. In the elements of the Arthur legend--the search for a symbol of exaltation, the personal/idealogical conflicts subjugated to a common cause, the soul-searching, the willingness to accept worthy former enemies into the fold--are the elements of politics that makes so many idealistic progressives so passionate, and drives us to volunteer endless hours pounding the pavements, working the polls, raising funds, making GOTV calls.

The movie betrays these elements, these principles, first, by making it about winning--about a fearless leader who prevails over two enemy groups by making common cause with a third enemy with which he shares a common interest. In this, the movie becomes an allegory for the Republicans. Second, it downplays the role and characters of the knights (that is, us) by making them merely loyal buddies who are fierce warriors. In the Arthur legend, the knights are not just followers of Arthur, bound by a pact not of their making, but are individuals of free will who must share the ideology and principles of Arthur in order to make the sacrifices asked of them--and to exemplify the Arthurian values.

(And besides, though this doesn't enter into my neat metaphor, the movie completely denatures the Lancelot/Guinevere aspect of the story, by turning it into a harmless flirtation, rather than an epic drama of desire, love, friendship, sacrifice and self-denial).

2008-07-08T22:28:00.002-04:00

Virginia Republicans try to have it both ways:

Virginia Republicans would make me laugh more if they didn't make me cry... but sometimes what they try to get away with is just so effin ridiculous!

So, the latest is this--after years of complaining that Democrats are elitist "limousine liberals," now they're claiming that Democrats are welfare queens and felons.

First we have Del. Todd Gilbert's ridiculous statement regarding the restoration of voting rights for felons: "I don' t know a lot of young Republicans who end up being felons. Clearly the groups that are soliciting these felons to get their rights restored are predisposed to be in support of Obama, and I am sure this registration effort is designed to help their candidate." Gilbert is conveniently ignoring two important facts here: one, that activists have been trying to modernize Virginia's draconian rules regarding voting right restoration for some time (Warner streamlined the process considerably before anyone ever even heard of Obama); and two, that there are plenty of Republicans who are felons! Hey Del. Gilbert, ever hear of Ollie North? (oh, of course, excuse me, his convictions were overturned). Well, how 'bout good ol' Scooter LIbby? Sushi-eatin' Jack Abramoff? Rep. Bob Ney? Rep. Duke Cunningham? VA repub party leader Ed Matricardi? Child-porn possessor/Republican presidential elector Parker J. Bena? Va Republican fundraiser (and Bob McDonnell campaign manager) Robin Vanderwall? (Now, there's a young republican for you, soliciting sex with minors over the internet!) And finally, Felon-in-Chief GW Bush (oh pardon me, he was never convicted of cocaine possession, though he's all but admitted it... but he was arrested at least twice, and once convicted of DUI).

Then again, even if we're not felons, we must be on the dole, according to one of our favorite right-wing wacks, Del. Dave Albo: "My bet is that it's those who are on food stamps and government services who tend to be more Democratic."

So what happened to all the "limousine-liberal," "elitist" rhetoric? It didn't work, so they're trying a new wack--er, tack, I reckon. But guess what--this one won't work either... so back to the drawing board, guys!

2008-07-06T11:50:00.002-04:00

What's Wrong with Democrats...
I'll tell ya, it's sometimes downright embarrassing to be a member of such a self-sabotaging group. I used to be gleeful when repugnicans ate their young (that is, attacked moderates by running right-wing idealogues against their own incumbents). At least we're not usually that dumb [except for Cindy Sheehan and her supporters--and don't get me wrong, Cindy's a hero, but run against the most powerful Dem in the House? Come on, put your energy and $ to good use and run against a republican, dammit!].

But, now the left is turning on Obama because of his "move to the right." Well, I'm sorry. The run for the nomination is over, and now it's time to run for the general election. If you can't figure out the difference between defining yourself against a fellow democrat when running for your party's nomination, and running against a republican, you shouldn't be commenting on politics. You can't bloody win a general election by being left-wing. And, Obama was never left-wing to begin with. (There's a reason why it's called a wing, you know). He's always made a point of being able to work across the aisle in the Senate. Were you paying attention before you started dissin' all us Hillary supporters? (And yes, I preferred Hillary, and I'm sorry that the left is still as vitriolically misogynistic as it was at the beginning of the second wave--how little far we've come!) Despite my preference for Hillary, I've always felt Barack was presidential material, and now that he has been chosen through the democratic process, I will support him all the way to the White House.

It's not that I"m not disappointed about Obama's statement about the SCOTUS decision about the Louisiana DP case--I am. It's not that I'm not disappointed in his vote on FISA--I am. But, NO one is ever going to be the perfect candidate. Instead of publicly tearing down our chosen candidate--we need to build him up and show the voters how and why it's best that he be our next President, not John McCain. Because believe me, the repugs are going to be tearing him down like anything--we don't need to be doin' their job for them.

Get it now?

2008-07-05T13:44:00.007-04:00

Eagleburger: Secretary of Disinformation?

When Bush II started the war in Iraq, former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger (under Bush I) came out against it. I was very impressed--that a Republican establishment member was speaking out against the Republican establishment. I thought that Sec. Eagleburger must be a person of integrity. Well, fast forward five years. Eagleburger apparently is back in line, with a letter to the editor of the Daily P. in which he compares Barack Obama to Joseph McCarthy.

Apart from the fact that the sitting president more closely resembles McCarthy than anyone else currently in or running for office, this is clearly a disingenuous, misleading attack on Obama (and no, he wasn't talking about FISA--that's another post...). The basis for the comparison? Remarks Sen. Obama made to supporters in a speech in Florida: "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced, and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?' " Eagleburger says this is an accusation of racism against McCain. But Obama's remarks were not about McCain, but about republicans. for a far more nuanced and accurate take on the remarks, try Eugene Robinson's column in the WashPost.

Well, naturally, I couldn't let Eagleburger's disinformation stand, so I wrote a letter to the editor in response. It's not been printed yet, but they did call to verify authorship (good thing, after they published an e-chain letter recently...) and that's usually a precurser to publishing. But, time is passing, so maybe they decided against it.

Text of my letter as I sent it:

To the Editor:

I was disappointed to read former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger’s disingenuous letter to the editor regarding a statement Barack Obama made to supporters. Mr. Obama predicted that Republicans will try to sway voters by appealing to racial prejudices. But Mr. Obama was not referring to Mr. McCain. He said only that Republicans will use race in an attempt to defeat his candidacy. (Although it is true that after eight years of bungling by the Republican administration, there are not too many Republicans left, surely there are more than just Mr. McCain.) I don’t expect that Mr. McCain will make any racist remarks, but that doesn’t mean that some of his supporters won’t do so.

The GOP will certainly use any tactic they think will work to turn voters away from Mr. Obama. In fact, smear tactics referencing Mr. Obama’s race have already begun (he has not needed to “drag the issue in through the back door”). Fox News has referred to Michelle Obama as Mr. Obama’s “baby mama”; Right-wing activist Grover Norquist, a McCain supporter, referred to Obama as “John Kerry with a tan” (not a racist remark per se, but a reference to race nonetheless).

Sec. Eagleburger, a sophisticated man with much experience in the world of politics, also professes to believe that racism is a thing of the “old bad days,” seemingly unaware of recent news reports (in the Washington Post just last week) regarding the increase of white supremacist groups emboldened by Mr. Obama’s candidacy.

Sec. Eagleburger inappropriately equates Mr. Obama’s remarks to his supporters with a “vicious attack” made by Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Leaving aside the damage that Mr. McCarthy wreaked on our country and our Constitution (damage perhaps only equaled by Mr. Bush), Mr. Obama has made no vicious attacks. In fact, his entire campaign has been notable for taking the high road. Reminding his supporters of the reality of racism in this country—and it is a reality—is hardly a vicious attack.

One day, when race is truly no longer an issue, a presidential contender need neither remind supporters that racist attacks are likely to be forthcoming, nor be subjected to such attacks. Unfortunately, we are not there yet, as Sec. Eagleburger knows full well.

Update, 7/13/08: The Regress did not print my letter, but printed another response to Eagleburger's letter. That letter was much shorter than mine and didn't take Eagleburger to task (didn't even mention him), and while it was a good letter, I feel it was important to call Eagleburger out on his disinformation. Oh well.

2008-06-16T22:10:00.003-04:00

Christianist or Pharmacist?

The Washington Post reports today that a new pharmacy is opening in NoVA--one which will not sell contraceptives. These folks are calling themselves "pro-life" (who do they think they kidding?) but what they really are is anti-woman. Which brings us back to misogyny (no, I'm not going to get into the nomination again, but it's just another example of how endemic it is) that masquerades as something else. [btw, check out the photo of the pharmacist dude--scary-lookin' child-porn-viewin' creep, or what? and why do these fanatics always look like that? Oh.]

Can they get away with this? Pharmacies are businesses of public accommodation, and so federal anti-discrimination laws apply. But... is it discrimination to refuse to dispense some legal medications? And so, do anti-disc laws apply in this instance? maybe not, if they clearly label themselves as christianist anti-contraceptive drugstores--they might then not really be a pharmacy, but a more limited-purpose dispensary, akin to a Chinese medicine apothecary. And since they don't sell condoms, they can argue (though perhaps not effectively?) that they don't discriminate against women (tho they do, apparently, sell viagra. Hmm).

Pharmacists' "conscience clause" laws that have been pushed through state legislatures by christianist extremists haven't been tested in the courts. But looking through to the logical extremes: what would we do about christian scientist pharmacists who wouldn't dispense ANY drugs; veggie pharmacists who wouldn't dispense medications tested on animals (all, no?); a scientologist pharmacist who won't fill scrips for psych meds... where does it stop? Do we need a different pharmacy on each street corner to accommodate the differing religious views of the various dispensing pharmacists?

These "pro-life" pharmacists are conveniently ignoring the fact that BCPs are prescribed for different conditions in addition to their contraceptive purpose. Is it the pharmacist's role to decide which person's health situation merits treatment and which not? Of course not. It's clearly a misnomer for these pharmacists to refer to themselves as "pro-life"---denying someone medications that may improve their health or save their lives is hardly evincing a reverence for life---a woman whose health would be seriously threatened if she were to become pregnant could be harmed by a pharmacist's refusal to dispense EC.

Luckily, the National Women's Law Center is on it--providing advocacy materials for fighting these folks. As is "religion link," providing a wide range of resources, and suggesting ways for reporters to question (a good way to avoid adopting the christianists' frames) when reporting on this issue (remember, not all religious are fanatics. Some are really nice people!).

I suppose economic reality will prevent either a small full-service pharmacy or another conventional bigbox drugstore opening in the same shopping center or immediate vicinity--so the possibility that people will vote with their pocketbook by choosing not to shop at the drugstore for other drugs/ convenience items, and thus drying up their business is remote. But I hope those folks in Chantilly boycott the fuck out of that place.

2008-06-10T23:41:00.019-04:00

Vote for Pedro
a couple of years ago, a friend of mine and I got into an argument about whether or not Bush was an idiot. Before I identify which side of that argument I was on, let me say first, that if your response is "well, naturally he is!" then my burgeoning hopes for the future of the Democratic party are for naught [subject of future blog post]. And second, I am well aware that Bush is not an intellectual giant [just for the record].

Ok, so, I've already revealed which side of the argument I was on. Well, anyway. For now, I'm going to save for another day the discussion of why people thinkin' that Bush is an idiot is the reason why he's serving his second term. What is reminding me of this conversation now, though, are recent remarks by Sen. Grassley (R iowa).

The connection? It's what I think is most insidious in politicians: not stupidity (leaving aside whether any individual politician is or is not stupid) but cynicism.

Cynicism in politicians is, among other things, the belief (expressed through actions) that WE are stupid. Thus Virgil Goode's pandering and false math (see The Fifth District Race is on! below); Bush's fake Texas accent; and Sen. Grassley's disingenuous statements about how corn ethanol cannot possibly be the cause of the spike in food prices around the world, because, shucks, we just can't eat the kind of corn that ethanol is made from: "It’s not something you’d sit down at your kitchen table and eat.” Well golly day, then what's everyone crying about? ...Corn? Why don't they just eat cake?

Well, duh, Sen. Grassley, of course the corn used in animal feeds and ethanol production is not the same as the sweet corn people set on their table. But the corn that people eat around the world is not sweet corn. They eat field corn, maize, which is, in fact, basically the same kind as animal feed/ethanol corn--it's hard, non-sweet corn that is ground into cornmeal, mixed into animal feeds, and distilled into ethanol.

But, the main problem is not that we're snatching corn out of babies' mouths to make gasoline with. The fact is, the government's incentives for growing corn for ethanol production means that more farmers are growing biofuels and fewer are growing foods for human consumption--crops are being churned into ethanol, not ground into meal. And, the demand for biofuels is driving up prices for all grains across the board. This all would be true no matter what grain we used, or even if we were making ethanol out of thistles--when farmers turn away from food production, growing or diverting crops for a non-food purpose, we are diminishing our world-wide food security. We are taking land out of food production and turning it to fuel production.

Now, THIS is stupid. I've written before on how nonsensical ethanol is as a way to independence from foreign oil. But now were beyond nonsensical and looking at harmful. Children with kwashiorkor and beriberi--remember Ethiopia? It's back.

OK, so, do I think Sen. Grassley is dumb when he says ethanol is not driving up the price of food, because people don't eat field corn? Hell, no. He's cynical. He knows very well what he's doing, which is earning big bucks for his Iowa corn-farming constituents. But does he think we're dumb, to buy that argument? Apparently. And that's cynicism in politics--from Iowa corn farmer to New England WASP, it's the trademark of Republicans--to be so sure that we'll buy any bridge they've got to sell. Whether we're dumb enough to believe it and buy, or dumb enough to believe that THEY are dumb and actually believe they've got a bridge to sell, they win, and we lose. That's their whole strategy {hyperbole--I'm sure they have a few other tricks].

What can we do about it? Well, first, don't fall into the trap of thinking a politician is stupid, when you've just bought the brooklyn bridge: they're dumb like a fox. And second, always question--why does this politician say something that sounds, if not dumb, at least counterintuitive? Could it be that they know very well that it's total bullshit? Finally, enough with the ethanol already! It's a wild dream--not the solution.

2008-06-03T21:21:00.006-04:00

The Contest Ends...

So, it appears that after the decisions regarding Michigan and Florida, Obama has the nomination wrapped up, and Hillary is saying she'll be veep if asked. That outcome has appeared inevitable for some time now, and I reckon we'll hear some announcement from Hillary soon. Since I've always liked both candidates, and wished they were not running against each other (tho preferring Hillary--for THIS race) that's fine with me.

But, what's not so fine with me is how people have been acting in the process. As purely a social observer, not as someone with a stake in the outcome (right, as if that's really possible!), it's been interesting to note how much both misogyny and racism have been uncovered in this race. What's telling (and disconcerting) is that while the racism has been overt (voters in Kentucky say straight out "I won’t vote for a colored man. He’ll put too many coloreds in jobs") the misogyny is more subtle--and therefore, harder to confront without seeming to be sour grapes, or just general whingeing, or worse, playing the "woman" card.

One of the things that has intrigued me as I talk about the nomination with people is the different attitudes of Hillary supporters vs. Obama supporters. Even the kindest, gentlest Obama supporters seem to become rather viciously unhinged when they talk about Hillary; while Hillary supporters, though able to articulate their support for Hillary or their concerns about Obama, don't seem to make personal attacks on Obama.

I suppose the Obama fanatics will say that it's because he's so saintly there's nothing bad to be said about him, while Hillary is [insert your favorite invective here]. But, I think there's something more to it than that. First of all, that's too simplistic, and too dichotomous. And, it's too emotional--these people practically foam at the mouth. I think there's two (connected) factors at play here. I think it's partly that racism is a greater taboo among many in our society than sexism. And I think it's also because people are not confronting their misogyny, because they're in denial about it.

And, I'm not excusing the female Hillary haters, of whom there are many. But, I will explain it: internalized oppression causes women and people of color to subscribe to the prejudice of the larger culture and, often, be harsher on others of their group than are those of the dominant culture. It's sort of a useful phenomenon as far as the dominant culture is concerned--like self-policing! No need to be heavy-handed in enforcing the limits when those limited will limit themselves--no fuss, no muss!

I suppose it's useless to hold unconscious attitudes against people, as they're not acting with intent. But, is it real lack of awareness or wilful ignorance?

2008-05-26T12:18:00.007-04:00

Oh Gasoline, why cain't you be cheap?
I have mixed feelings about the price of gas. On the one hand, it's certainly hurting me personally, as I've chosen to live my life far enough out of town that I need to drive quite a bit. On the other hand, gasoline causes huge harms to the environment, and only high prices will change the way we use it.

As gas edges up to $4 a gallon, people have finally started making these changes. And of course, some leap into unwise purchases (you know how we americans are--any excuse to buy something new!)

We actually can, without making major purchases or selling our houses (yeah, I've even been thinking of that, much as it pains me) change the way we use energy--like our driving habits. I've been avoiding unnecessary trips (in addition, my teeth-jarringly-warped brake rotors mean I avoid using the brakes as much as possible, which causes me to drive a lot more gently--using less gas, thereby).

What's outrageous, though, is that big oil is sitting fatter than ever on its pile of profits, forcing out gas-station owners by greedily grasping for more. Why is it that so few people are paying attention to this? (Or maybe they are, and that's contributing to Bush's free-falling approval rating? Oh, I hope so!) And what's most outrageous about this situation is that the forces of supply and demand are not determining retail gasoline prices. Beyond the market fluctuations affecting crude prices, Big oil is completely in control of the price we pay at the pump. And, don't get me started on the proposed "gas tax holiday" which will accomplish exactly nothing other than increasing our national debt.

The manipulation of prices at the pump became obvious a couple of years ago--the morning news would announce the price of crude, and that afternoon the price of gas at the pump immediately increased. I made the incorrect assumption that gas-station owners were opportunistically cashing in. But as it turns out, Big Oil is fine-tuning its "wholesale" price (that is, what it charges station owners) and controlling the stations' retail prices in a truly Machiavellian way. NPR has done a good job of analyzing all the factors that go into gas prices.

I have a bunch of friends who are into the concept of "peak oil." This is all very well, but nevertheless (IMHO) irrelevant, because we need to make changes in our oil use now, for the sake of the environment, regardless of whether or not we're about to run dry. And despite the fact that I'm feeling the pinch, and am pissed at how Bush & Co. have set the oil companies up for megaprofits and control of our economy, I'm hopeful that perhaps at last we have the incentive to change our ways. Time will tell, I reckon.

2008-05-20T21:19:00.008-04:00

The Fifth District Race is On!

On Saturday Tom Perriello officially became the Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives from the Fifth Congressional District of Virginia.

People have been asserting for a long time that Virgil Goode, the incumbent republican, can't be beaten. But, to quote my favorite movie: "nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has!" [extra points if you get the reference].

Actually, while he certainly has a very "safe" gerrymandered district, and a sort of legacy seat (his dad, Virgil Goode, Sr. was a popular politician from the region) Virgil has made himself vulnerable on a number of fronts: voting against the GI Bill (I mean, how dumb can ya get?) and against mother's day . He also has been caught up in a campaign-finance scandal.

The received wisdom is that no one from outside Virgil's home territory (the southern part of the district) can win it. But not everyone in the southern part of the district is in love with Virgil, as was noted in this article from 1995. The fact is that the world is changing and Virgil's not changing with it. He's still trying to appeal to his base, and only to his base--which may be a good short-term strategy, but it's a loser in the long run. For instance, look at one of his hallmarks--his unabashed bigotry. This may still play well with a certain constituency in that part of the district. But George Allen found out the hard way that it's not a sure-fire strategy for winning in a modern, demographically-diverse state (which Virginia is rapidly becoming).

Goode's recent press release justifying the Iraq war by (falsely) asserting that more Americans die as a result of illegal immigrants than in Iraq show that he's still trying to play this losing hand. Aside from the clearly spurious math (which right-wing wack groups have been calculating on their skewed-statistics calculators for quite a while now), it completely misses the point, which common-sense voters can see for themselves (and which street preacher/singer/voice of conscience/Charlottesville character Uriah J Fields articulates in a recent letter to the editor): that our country should aspire to a higher standard than that of drunk drivers and murderers. The great thing about this response is that it removes the debate out of the realm of numbers (which most people pretty much ignore) and puts it on moral ground--where Tom Perriello clearly wins.

Tom has been raising an extraordinary amount of money, making him a highly viable candidate, and bringing national attention and dollars to the race. He has a long row to hoe (and he needs to learn a more dynamic speaking style), but I think he has a real chance. And, the previous challengers (Meredith Richards and Al Weed) did much to revitalize the moribund Democratic party in the southside. Tom can build on those gains, and win the District!

2008-05-20T20:10:00.013-04:00

Axes of Oppressions

George Will's column this past sunday brought some issues to the fore for me that have been percolating around for a while. As usual, Will gets some things right, but most things wrong.

Some of Obama's supporters (as well as non-supporters, like Will) are making a big deal about Clinton's supporters' (and Clinton's) supposed sense of "entitlement" to the presidency because of her gender. Although I think there's a stronger case to be made that misogyny is playing a large role in this race, there are some old-school feminists who feel that it's time for a woman to be president and that should be of overarching importance. I don't happen to share that view. Mostly because, as a yellow-dog Democrat, I want, first: the most electable candidate, and second: the best candidate (one hopes these are the same, but unfortunately, not always). But, what's most fascinating to me is how we as a society perceive/respond to oppressed groups, as manifested by this primary race.

We seem to have developed a sort of "heirarchy of oppressions," with different groups claiming to be more oppressed than another. Put another way, if you could create a graph of marginal group status (race, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, social class, etc) you'd have to have multiple axes. In this instance, Barack is up fairly high on the "race" axis, while Hillary is all the way out on the "gender" axis. If this is really how we measure things, then Hillary is more "oppressed" than Barack, and therefore more "owed the prize" (to borrow from Will) than Barack. And if a candidate was a black woman, she'd score even higher on both axes--for critics like Will, and those he tries to denounce, this candidate would be "extra entitled."

(A funny aside: in the competition and clamor to score high up on the graph, that most oppressive group, white right-wing christians [so-called--I prefer to call these christianists, actually, a usage that's been gaining currency], are now claiming to be the most oppressed group.)

Within the context of our various [skewed] perceptions though, is another issue: how does a person's race, gender or other "differentness" affect our response to them when we are frequently unconscious of the effect these factors have on us? So, for instance, if the shoe was on the other foot, would people be demanding that Barack concede? What if Hillary was black and her opponent a white man? How would that play into the equation? Would we be saying different things? Expecting different things?

The truth is, we don't know, can't know, because our perceptions are so subtly shaded and so unconscious that we can't separate them out from all the other feelings, perceptions and opinions we hold. Which is why I think we should give both candidates the benefit of the doubt, and hold ourselves as accountable as we can for our own opinions, when we notice ourselves responding to a candidate in a negative way, or call for a candidate to take a particular action (ie, drop out of the race).

Of course, white males, though as a group at zero on the oppression scale, have their own problems. Members of the default class (white males, in our society--and really, that's a better term than oppressor, since few of them are consciously engaged in oppressing), for all their advantages, suffer in their own ways--and the rest of us suffer along with them. The harms of our system to members of any group are experienced both on an individual basis and in the aggregate--and generalized to society as a whole (eg: repressed pain leads to rage, lack of empathy and a need to control, causing harm to the individual and to those around him). We're seeing that play out in this primary race [Exhibit A: Rev. Wright, member of both oppressed (black) and oppressor (male) classes].

However, there are also benefits to being a member of a marginalized group, and these benefits may similarly generalize to the rest of society. Which means that if either of the Democratic candidates in this race wins the general election, we could end up with a whole new paradigm that could end oppression for everyone, no matter who or on which axis they locate on, oppressed or oppressor (this is not a high probability, but, you know, just a glimmer of possibility.)

Bringing this all back to Hillary and Barack: Hillary and some women may feel a sense of entitlement ("this is our time") and Barack may benefit from being a Black man who is non-threatening to whites (so they can assuage their guilt by supporting his candidacy without conflict) and these facts are both diminishing to them and to us, and empowering as well. In the process, regardless of the outcome, both candidates are normalizing the concept that a woman and a person of color can be president--while continuing to suffer from the weight of our collective burden of oppressions, stereotypes, and cross-communication. As do we all.

2008-03-29T00:33:00.010-04:00

The Campaign: Staying the Distance
(or: fakey niceness vs sincere criticism)
Well, I never thought I'd be referencing Larry Sabato (I mean, come on, he gets enough press as it is) but he got something really right, I think, as of yesterday on his "crystal ball."

Sabato points out that the calls for Hillary to step down are premature. For one thing, Pennsylvania is a huge state, with a lot of delegates, and a large blue-collar population, which has been her mainstay. For another, Obama's star was somewhat tarnished by the whole Rev. Wright thing (which was blown out of proportion, I think, as so many things are, but I was so impressed with Obama's response--see below). [Update 3/30/08: The Washington Post agrees in an editorial today.]

Also, though it has to be done carefully, the nomination process is a form of tempering for candidates--it tries and tests them, and helps us see if they're fit to win against their eventual opponent. Which is why it's good that most states' Democratic parties did not do the "winner take all" delegate apportionment that the repubs did. We haven't really see what McCain is made of (of course, the field of losers wouldn't have really tested him anyway--like Huckabee was a worthy opponent?).

In order to know if the presumptive candidate (obama, in this case) is going to have a chance in the general election, we need to see what s/he is made of. That happens through the democratic process of picking the candidate. If a candidate isn't worthy, we need to know that now--not in October.

So, while it must be done carefully so as not to undermine the eventual candidate in the general, and not burn bridges (yeah, we're still thinking of a shared ticket here!) the "negative campaigning" serves an important function. People complain about negative campaigning, but that's because, for the most part, we find it uncomfortable to talk about real things--we're happier with fakey niceness than sincere criticism.

By the way, I'm feeling at least as prescient as Sabato--here's what I wrote back in '06:

CAN Hilary win?
A lot of folks are worried about Hillary Rodham Clinton running for pres in '08, because they're afraid she can't win. James Carville says she can.

Some conservatives are afraid she will.

She's a very impressive speaker. She's very smart. She has a lot of charisma. She connects with people. But she freaks some people out. What's the problem? because she's a woman? because of the healthcare debacle? because she's moderate? because of Bill?

I'm not saying I like everything about her--her recent cozying up to big pharma seems problematic. But hey, she's paid her dues. Give her a chance! Democrats are notoriously bad at picking winning candidates. So why let the conventional wisdom be our guide?

(PS: John McCain is NOT a moderate! He may have been once, but in his strategy to gain the repub nomination, he's moving to the right. Don't be fooled!)

Hey, where's MY crystal ball?

2008-03-23T22:48:00.004-04:00

At Last!--Obama Addresses Race Relations
I was so impressed with Obama's "more perfect union" speech last week. It's what I was looking for back in January (see "Racism the Opiate of the People?" below). At last, he has really given an audacious message of hope (sorry--couldn't resist) that our country might be able to rise above the self-destructive race stasis we've been in, rather than just cycling through the same rhetoric and not getting anywhere.

There were some disappointments in the speech--he could have gone further than he did, I think (not in terms of denouncing Wright--I think he handled that just fine, unlike some other folks), and if he'd been more concise, he'd probably have reached (and touched) more people (though it seems that people are paying attention). And, some commentators have suggested he was somewhat disingenuous about Geraldine Ferraro's comment, especially the way he kept referencing it.

But, overall--inspiring and powerful. That was the Obama we saw at the last Democratic convention, and the one that has seemed (to me at least) to be MIA since the campaign started.

So, I'm starting to feel okay that he's pulling ahead of Hillary (though, this seems to be a big speed bump for him). It would really make me happy still if they were running mates. OK, so she won't be at the top of the ticket--all right, we'll have a woman president later. I can deal. But, they have to be careful not to knock each other too hard if that's going to work. We'll have to wait and see, I reckon!

2008-03-02T13:10:00.003-05:00

Ambivalence...

I've been ambivalent about the leading candidates since the beginning of the campaign--by which I mean, not that I didn't really like either of them, but that I liked both of them (which is why I called it agnosticism, not ambivalence). Ultimately, I came down on the side of Hillary--and for quite a while, it appeared that the electorate did as well. But, clearly the tide has turned. Obama seems poised to become the annointed one. And that's fine--as I said before, I wish he'd be her running partner, and they could win in a landslide, and end up guiding the country for the next 16 years [sigh...] But, since that's not happening, I will accept reality. Here's my problem, though, and why I am describing myself now as ambivalent, rather than agnostic: it's that rock-star thing. Many are calling it the cult of personality, which I suppose is accurate enough--except that I'm not sure that Obama's personality is clear enough for it to be that. He seems rather more like a screen upon which people project their desires and hopes. That may be enough to carry us through the general election. And I certainly believe that Obama is smart enough to surround himself with the advisors he needs (hint: former Clinton admin staffers/cabinet members) to do what he himself may not be experienced enough or tough enough to do himself.

It may well be that Obama's star power is what it will take to beat McCain in the fall. I suppose that in itself is a reason why he should be the candidate. But it's tough to see the person who *should* have been the Clinton president--yes, in 1992! --being shunted aside once again, by someone who makes women swoon. Oh well. As much as I wish that people were driven by logic, not emotion, in their political decision-making, I'm enough of a realist to know that it's the way things are. So be it (I guess!)

2008-02-16T13:27:00.002-05:00

Disingenuous Virgil
Virgil Goode issued a press release this week critical of "earmarks," or line item spending items inserted into bills that may or may not be related to the subject at hand. Goode's release states "I support efforts to press the issue of earmark reform. It is my hope that such efforts will lead to a reduction in federal spending." Virgil apparently is attempting to paint himself as some kind of watchdog of government pork.

But, let's look at the facts. First of all, it's incorrect to paint all earmarks as "pork" -- without earmarks, we'd not have the Washington Children's Hospital, the Human Genome Research Project, body armor for soldiers in the Iraq war, and the Predator drone. Whatever you may think of these projects, they're not "bridges to nowhere."

Earmarks traditionally fund projects in the district of the member of Congress who inserted the earmark. Given that the majority of Goode's district is suffering economically, and could use some sensible projects to kick-start economic growth, shouldn't Virgil be thinking about his district? Sen. Byrd of West Virginia brings home the bacon for his state. Shouldn't Virgil be similarly motivated to help his own district?

Also, earmark spending has gone down under the Democratically-controlled Congress--earmark spending is down by 51% in the 2008 budget as compared to 2006--so Goode's attempts to paint republicans as the fiscally-responsible, transparency-promoting party are disingenuous.

Finally, Goode's the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to earmarks--let's not forget the MZM scandal: MZM gave Goode $46,000 in illegal campaign donations; in return, Goode secured a $3.6 million earmark for MZM. And, just last year, he earmarked $100,000 to develop a walking tour of Boydton, VA.

2008-02-10T21:23:00.000-05:00

Vote in Tuesday's Primary!

If you haven't yet figured out who you're voting for on Tuesday (or even if you have), check out MPR's "Select a Candidate" quiz.

It appears that the candidate who most closely matches my views is Obama (Romney and Huckabee are last--phew!). But, of course, one doesn't necessarily support the candidate whose views most closely match one's own--there are other important factors, after all (or I'd probably be supporting Kucinich). So, while I'm still torn, I expect I'll be voting for Clinton on tuesday.

It's exciting that Virginia is even relevant during the primary season. It's even more exciting that we will be relevant in the general election in the fall. It would be awfully nice if we could get a referendum passed that would allow VA's electoral votes to be apportioned, so that my vote in a presidential election would *finally* matter--but it would also be awfully nice if Scotty could beam us up, and both the politics of Virginia and the laws of physics would have to change an extraordinary amount for either of those to ever happen! (but hey, it could happen--they've already started teleporting photons...)

2008-01-21T12:33:00.000-05:00

"Iron my Shirt"--how to become a race (and sex) traitor

The issues of race and sex in the presidential nomination contest, and a recent blog post suggesting we call Barack Obama white, caused me to consider how things might be different if we adopted the approach of the (now only online) magazine "Race Traitor" to both racism ( re Obama) and misogyny (re New Hampshire heckler who yelled "iron my shirt!" at Hillary Clinton.

"Race traitor" has historically meant someone who is black and has in some way betrayed the cause of blacks. The magazine uses it in a different way--to mean someone who rejects being identified as "white"--that is, renounces their white privilege. For example, the magazine has suggested that the best way a white person can respond to another's racist joke is NOT moral outrage or denunciation, but saying to the joke teller, "I guess you're assuming I'm white." For the racist joke is an in-joke, a reinforcement of "you and I are white and privileged and they're not." Responding with outrage says "yes, you and I are white, but I"m morally superior to you." Responding by refusing that racial identity, however, says something else. It denies the seeming safety of (white) racial solidarity. You are claiming not to be one of "us," but one of "them."

Refusing to claim one's status as white tells others that you don't care if other whites think you're black, and therefore "less." It's interesting how much harder this is than just expressing moral outrage. Try it when someone says something that you feel is racist, with the assumption that you will agree. It's much more difficult than just claiming moral superiority. It's easy enough to say "i'm not like you, and therefore superior"-- harder to say "i'm a member of that group you just insulted, which you see as inferior." Can you do it?

Race is not a genetic reality, but a social construct. It's easy to see that with a person who has a white parent and a black parent: why are they then "black"? And why are they still black if they have two white parents, but a black grandparent? Genetically, we are the products of our ancestors' physical environments, but our "race" is the product of our own cultural environments. Our ancestors' physical environment is not meaningful to us today, but our cultural environment is. It shapes how we think of ourselves in relation to others. The racism and sexism that we all have internalized, without realizing it, harms all of us, whether we are black or white, male or female. Race and gender identity, and our attitudes about race and gender, form a large part of our self-concept. Our beliefs about race and gender inform all our interactions with others. Note how uncomfortable we feel in the presence of someone if we can't tell their race or sex (remember "Pat"?) because we don't know their status relative to our own. We don't know if they are "us" or "them."s But houldn't we all be "us"? And how do we get there?

How does this apply to Hillary's misogynist heckler? (I don't think we'll hear a man respond to another man's offensive remark with "I guess you're assuming I'm a man"). But imagine if Hillary, instead of confronting the heckler's sexism, had responded to the heckler in this manner:

"Thank you! This is exactly why I am running for president. Too many people in America, like this man here, cannot afford to buy an iron. When I am president, every American who wants an iron will be able to afford one. Every child in America will learn to use an iron. No American will ever again suffer the indignity of a wrinkled shirt, as this man has suffered. Thank you for bringing this important matter to our national attention."

Yes, it's silly and may seem to be trivializing the issue. But, imagine how the crowd's (and the nation's) perceptions of this man would have changed. Imagine the difference if, instead of confronting, we were to reframe by refusing to acknowledge that someone has attempted to put us "in our place." By refusing to even acknowledge that there is a difference in status for men and women, or for blacks and whites. To operate on the assumption not that the statement was an attack on a woman, but that it was simply a person expressing a need--a need for an unwrinkled shirt--and addressing the statement as such. This would be a refusal to grant that person the power gained through misogyny and racism. What if, instead of fighting racism and sexism, we just refused to allow people to use it to hurt us?

Imagine if men were to renounce their male privilege, and if whites were to renounce theirs, by no longer claiming their status. Imagine if we didn't allow them to claim it, even unknowingly, by refusing to acknowledge it. Imagine if we really were equal, not just pretending to be.

2008-01-17T15:07:00.000-05:00

Bob Marshall, Virginia's Peeping Tom, to go National?

The anti-sex (read, sex-obsessed) delegate from Prince William, Bob Marshall, has decided to run for the Republican nomination for the US Senate. I guess former repub Gov. Jim Gilmore is not right-wing enough? It would not be completely accurate to call Marshall a one-issue legislator, but his main concern is the control of sex. As far as he's concerned, no one should be able to decide whether or not to have sex except for married men (he thinks married women should submit to their husbands no matter their wishes--the Virginia general assembly debate on the bill to remove the marriage loophole from Virginia's sexual assault laws was pretty interesting, with Bob talking about wives in their nighties).

Keeping birth control out of the hands of college students has been a big priority for Bob. Now he's trying to backtrack on the GA's decision to add HPV vaccine to the list of required vaccines for girls. The reason is not because he's concerned about girls' health, but the right-wing take on the HPV vaccine is that it promotes promiscuity. (I suppose the vaccine for polio must also promote some kind of bad behavior (what? I'm trying to think...) but I'm sure my dad's parents would have wanted to save him the pain of the disease if they'd had the ability to do so, even if it *had* encouraged him to play in the dirt (ah, there we have it)).

The Bob Marshalls of the world cloak their attempts to control others in "caring." You can see through that by noting the logical inconsistencies--obviously, anyone who really cared about reducing the rate of abortions would favor birth control, because that's logical. Wanting to restrict access to BOTH birth control and abortion is ideological (not to mention idiotic).

It's been pointed out before that Bob Marshall and others like him in the Virginia legislature like to peer into the bedroom windows of Virginians. I don't think we have to worry about him taking his window-peeping crusade national, because he's too wacky even for the Virginia GOP to pick him (at least George Allen *looks* normal, even tho he's too stupid to act it for long). It would be kinda nice to see him trounced. But, Virginia politics can be a little wacky too, so he might make it farther than I think!

2008-01-03T21:31:00.000-05:00

Racism the Opiate of the People?
(and is Obama drinking that kool-aid?)

Many years ago, I subscribed to the idea that race hatred was promulgated by the powers-that-be in order to prevent poor whites and blacks from gaining political power--ie, so that they'd keep fighting with each other rather than turning around to see the common enemy--the military-industrial complex.

Now I have a more nuanced view, which is that, first of all, race hatred is not something that corporate America needs to promulgate--why should they exert themselves, when we play so readily into their hands?--but that it functions to the same effect. Second, that the chains of slavery still exist inside the minds of far too many African-Americans (something common to most oppressed persons, the internalization of oppression) and, with the victim culture of America (note, NOT unique to African-Americans--most whites view themselves as victims of some kind of "reverse racism"), this internalized oppression becomes part of one's identity, and thus, nearly impossible to escape.

Witness Justice Clarence Thomas' recent autobiography. A man who has reached the pinnacle of the legal profession, from the most humble of beginnings. Is he able to take pride or satisfaction in, or even feel vindicated by his success? No, he just feels bitter, angry and resentful. One can see the pain written on his face. And his anger and hurt play themselves out in his votes and opinions, which all too often perpetuate the racial imbalances our society is based upon.

This summer, an intern tried to tell me that rights for blacks had gone too far--why, they even had their own television channel! Why wasn't there any WET? She didn't get that every television channel is white entertainment television. Nor could she see that BET was catering to an entertainment interest market, like the golf channel or ESPN. No, it was just evidence of the special favors African-Americans get. She felt herself to be a victim of racial preferences--why should a white student not be able to go to the school of their choice because of admission policies that place a value on diversity? I tried to explain that many different values in our society are promoted in all kinds of situations that may be invisible until one looks for them. As examples, I pointed out that school admission policies also weight hardship, unique perspectives or experiences, and as always, legacy admissions. She didn't want to hear me, but as with some other discussions we had, I hope that something permeated into her subconscious somewhere.

Unfortunately, she is like far too many Americans, feeling victimized, and focusing her lens narrowly on one issue that allows her to continue to feel a victim, despite her many privileges of which she is unaware. She doesn't realize she's harming herself with her attitude. Nor do African-Americans, as a whole, seem to realize that victimhood is self-destructive. By buying into the oppression, one prevents oneself from escaping it.

Many political commentators have noted that Obama seems to not have fallen into this American culture of victimhood (ah, finally getting to the point). There is some disagreement about whether Obama, while not embodying it, still panders to it. For instance, the Washington Post presents evidence that refutes Obama's claim that there are more black men in prison than in college. Turns out, there are more than twice as many black men in college than in prison or jail.

Now, one could say this is just campaign-trail hyperbole, and of course, it is. But it's not harmless. It's buying into the victimhood. It's saying that Barack Obama is an anomaly, not an exemplary. It's saying to young black boys, you're more likely to end up in prison than college--it's what happens to you when you're a young black man. It's affirming, in a left-handed way, the truth, the rightness of this supposed state of affairs. Yes, there are too many black men in prison. Yes, there should be more black men in college. But does focusing on the victimhood inspire, or just instill hopelessness? Doesn't it just create its own reality?

How much more inspiring, if not as neat a soundbite, if Obama had said in Harlem: "I went to Harvard. You can, too. I want to see that every young black boy and girl aspires to get a great education and go to a great college or university. And I want to make it possible for every black child who wants to go to college to be able to go to college. In 2007, more black men than ever before went to college. In fact, there are twice as many young black men in college than in prison. But we can do better. We can inspire our children to achieve great things, to stretch their minds, and to soar..." well, you get the idea. (I'm afraid I get carried away sometimes).

Why is Obama pandering to our nation's victimhood culture? Maybe he's bought into it. Maybe he lacks the willpower to stay above it. Maybe he thinks it will make him our next president. I hope it's not the last, because I'd hate to think he was that cynical. I admire Obama greatly, and I want him to be our President after Hillary. But I want him to do what he says he wants to do, and change American politics, not fall into its traps. We'll see.

2007-11-17T17:35:00.000-05:00

Big Business as Warm Fuzzy Environmentalists?
Recently I was browsing the children's section at our local corporate megabookstore, and picked up a book that had an disturbingly intriguing title: "The Sky is Not Falling: Why it's OK to Chill About Global Warming."

The book appeared to be an apologia for pollution and greenhouse gases--telling kids it's better to drive than to ride a bike, and that those who say we need to be concerned about the environment or about global warming are just trying to scare you. It suggests that kids should become "enviropreneurs" and learn to rip off the environment for their economic gain.

When I looked up the book, I found it's published by a company that calls itself a "leading" conservative publishing company. Reading their titles for children is either amusing ("Help Mom, There are Liberals Under my Bed!") or darkly hypocritical--the blub for "The Sky's Not Falling" asks "tired of your kids being dictated to by has-been politicians and pop singers?" and suggests that the book is a balanced corrective to the fear-mongering of "An Inconvenient Truth" while it clearly pushes a pro-big business agenda, paid for by Exxon et al.

The author, Holly Fretwell, is presented as a scientist who is a "research associate" for an organization called "PERC" -- the "Property and Environmental Research Center" as well as an "adjunct professor" of economics in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics at Montana State University. A look at her cv suggests perhaps her research is funded by timber companies.

In any case, PERC is dedicated to the idea that private property ownership is the key to environmental stewardship (THERE's a thought--why haven't we tried that one yet?). They formerly called themselves The Political Economy Research Center. While their promos try to make them appear as if they are concerned about the environment, they cozy up to the petroleum industry, which gives them huge infusions of cash.

I'm afraid that Hillary was right--there IS a vast right-wing conspiracy. And their mind-fucking materials are available in a children's book department at a corporate bookstore near you.

2007-11-13T21:55:00.000-05:00

Sizing up the Candidates
I'm still agnostic as far as the candidates go, but I will admit I'm leaning Hillary. Actually, I hope for a Clinton/Obama ticket. This could be the dream ticket for Democrats--we'd get 16 years out of it!

I think Hillary at the top of the ticket would be unbeatable, with Obama to round up the rest of the vote. And, what I said earlier about working class women becoming ascendent in this election is important to keep in mind, as it becomes more manifest: the WashPost reports that black women are favoring Hillary over Obama.

I like Obama a lot. I just think he needs more seasoning and to develop more political heft. Being veep would accomplish both.

Edwards appeals to the policy wonk in me. But I don't think the voters are warming up to him. I like that he's talking tough, but threatening some kind of presidential fiat is tantamount to saying he's going to do just what Bush has done and ignore the legislative process. He also has received two "pinocchios" from the WashPost Fact Checker for inaccurately characterizing Hillary's position on troop drawdown in Iraq.

Of course, getting two pinocchios pales next to Giuliani's four pinocchios for inaccurate statements about outcomes of prostate cancer treatment in the US vs the UK.

2007-11-10T10:51:00.000-05:00

Virginia Turning Purple?
Yay, we have a Democratic Senate! Of course, even though we gained a few seats in the House of Delegates, the clash between the wacky right-wing House and the more measured and moderate Senate will lead to some gridlock. But oh, that's so much better than the rightwing wackos getting their legislation through without a hitch, while more sensible legislation dies in committee.

Too bad for Connie Brennan's loss. It was an impossible race to begin with--a district gerrymandered to favor an incumbent, a huge district with large rural areas, making it hard to campaign in. Abbitt has his safe legacy seat till he's dead or till after redistricting. However, Connie made an excellent showing. The last time someone ran against Abbitt (Alan Hale in 2003), he won only 32.82% of the vote, while Connie was able to win 39.66%. And, she won Nelson (her home county) while Hale, also from Nelson, did not. (frivolous fact: Alan is Connie's ex-husband).

I hope she will run again--she's a great candidate, ran an excellent campaign, and would be a wonderful legislator. Hang in there, Connie!

2007-10-14T12:32:00.000-04:00

Working Class Women for Hillary!
This presidential election may finally signal the ascendancy of women in politics--and not the ascendancy of educated, ambitious, upper-class women, but that of the women who live the real, on-the-ground, day-to-day life in America. This election, instead of being played out in the boardrooms of Texas oil companies, is playing out in the beauty salons of small-town America.

It's a funny phenomenon that women's harshest critics are often other women. (This is probably true for any oppressed group-- for instance, it's a sort of truism that Black cops are rougher on Blacks than white cops are.) And this is most true when the "elite" members of an oppressed group are fighting for turf with each other--challenging each other for who has the largest portion of the little bit of real estate they've wrested from the majority group.

This is why, while it seems counter-intuitive, it's not really surprising that working class women, including African-American working class women, are the most enthusiastic about Hillary, while educated professional women are more cool.

Since more women vote than men, and women are deemed to have been instrumental in the turning of the Senate in 2006, this may be the most significant factor in the 2008 race.

2007-10-10T23:01:00.000-04:00

Bush et al v. The Rest of Us: making the world safe for polluters
Anyone who thinks we still live in a Democracy, raise your hand! Oh... no one? The power grabbing of the executive branch knows no bounds. Today, a major environmental victory was hamstrung by the Bush admin, through the insertion of an amnesty clause in a settlement requiring American Electric Power to clean up pollution under the Clean Air Act's "New Source Review" requirement. The amnesty clause in this settlement shows that the Bushies can, essentially, change laws at will after Congress has passed them--in favor of polluting industries.

There have been many legal battles fought over what "new source" means. This settlement takes us back to the Reagan years and Chevron and undercuts more recent cases like NY v. EPA. Power cos have fought to be allowed to enlarge their plantswithout the new enlargements being called "new"--and thus subject to tighter pollution controls--so the new parts of a plant can continue to spew pollutants at the same rate as the older, grandfathered parts of the plants.

Oh, only one more year to go to stop the Bush juggernaut--unstoppable even when when his ratings are only 32%.

2007-10-10T09:03:00.000-04:00

Surprising News: More Mentally Ill in Jails than in Hospitals!
This week JLARC released a draft report documenting the extent of the problem of Virginia's chronic underfunding of mental health services: back in 1936, there was one person with mental illness in jail for every six in state mental hospitals; in 2005, there were five people in jail for every two in a hospital. That's progress for ya! If you don't want to read the whole report, read the R T-D article about it. The report shows a precipitous decline in the availability of beds in mental health facilities over the past 20 years.

Luckily for us, Charlottesville has created a Crisis Intervention Team that's supposed to help police identify people in a MH crisis and divert them from jail to a more appropriate setting. This is still in its early stages and I can't say that I've seen any folks benefiting from it yet--all my clients with MH problems seem to land over at the jail. But, maybe the police who have been trained are more sensitive now?

2007-09-29T19:57:00.000-04:00

Watkins Abbitt--Stickler for the Truth! (yeah, right)

So, yesterday I received a large postcard flyer from Watkins Abbitt ("independent" incumbent, 59th house district) that makes ridiculous accusations against Connie Brennan. He states that she raised taxes by "400 percent" and hurt businesses. Uh, yeah. The Board of Supervisors of Nelson increased a utlities tax from $2 to $10 to fund emergency services. (This rate is set by the state.) Ok... a 400% increase... but so? He makes it sound as if businesses in Nelson are groaning under the burden and laying off employees. Not true!

There are other misrepresentations on that postcard about Connie's record, "sourced" to make it look as if it's legit.

And, he has it plastered with greyed-out versions of her photo that makes her look awful, and includes a photo of a "business" in Nelson county that doesn't exist.

Let's show Watkins that these tactics no longer work in Virginia. WE'RE SMARTER THAN THAT!!

2006-08-18T13:09:00.000-04:00

Why we Should Never Trust the Rich...
When I was in Ireland earlier this year, I was struck by the class consciousness of the Irish--they know full well that if the rich want something, it must be to the disadvantage of the non-rich, and they vigorously oppose it--whatever it is--on principle.

How I wish Americans were not so $$-struck--here, we think if the rich want something (ie, capital gains tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts) it must be good. People still believe in the trickle-down fallacy!

But if people pay attention, evidence abounds that the rich only care about increasing their own wealth, at the expense of the rest of us... witness the shenanigans of HHS Sec Mike Leavitt's "charitable" foundation, now being investigated by the IRS.

It's been a great six years in which to be a robber baron. But we need to develop our own class consciousness, and put an end to this free ride...

2006-08-18T12:17:00.000-04:00

Are you better off than you were six years ago?
THIS is the question Democratic candidates need to be asking the voters this fall. It worked for Clinton, and it will work again, because, as in 1990, voters are NOT better off after a Bush presidency, and we are NOT better off after 12 years of a republican majority in Congress.

The WashPost reports that so-called "security moms," a key to the 2004 Bush victory, are turning away from republicans.

This shows that people are finally "getting it"--realizing that not only are we NOT better off when it comes to the economy, but also security, under the GOP.

So--we all need to get the word out to the voters, that we are NOT better off, and NOT safer, when Republicans are in control. After all, how could we be? Republican policies are designed to further the interests of the wealthy and big business, NOT to make the world a better place for the rest of us.

2006-08-16T12:02:00.000-04:00

Virginia's junior senator distinguishes himself once again by pandering to racism...
The Washington Post reports that George Allen referred to one of Jim Webb's campaign "trackers," who was recording an Allen campaign stop on video, as "Macaca" and said "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia," which caused his (lets us know who THEY are) supporters to laugh at the Webb volunteer.

Later, Allen said that "macaca" was not a racial slur (hmm... it is in french tunisia, where Allen's mother is from) but was a contraction of "mohawk" and "caca," therefore meaning "shithead." Allen has a history of seemingly racist actions, dating from his highschool days. And, defending a racist comment by claiming you meant to call someone "shithead" seems like scraping the bottom of the excuse barrell...

Ugly, ugly--and, unlike a very kind (or naive) researcher at UVA, Dr. Bankole Johnson, who excuses racist remarks by those under the influence by saying they "don't understand what they're saying, and they don't mean what they're saying" (in reference to Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks during his arrest), I believe that you can't say 'em if you're not thinking 'em. Alcohol just removes one's inhibitions--makes us forget the social training to NOT to say everything we're thinking.

AND, Allen can't even hide behind this excuse, if excuse it is, unless he wants us to also believe he does his campaigning drunk.

2006-07-13T10:45:00.000-04:00

It's Time for Federal Recognition of Virginia's Tribes--for all of us
Virginia's Native peopleswere the first to have contact and make treaties with Europeans, but, 400 years later, still haven't been recognized by the federal government (Virginia finally gave up its extirpation policy and officially recognized its tribes in 1983). Because of this, they do not have many of the rights (and sovereignty) of federally recognized tribes. As the Jamestown 400th anniversary approaches, Virginia's tribes are stepping up their efforts to get federal recognition.

What difference does federal recognition make? Well, it could have an effect on all of us: protection of the environment. The Mattaponi put up a brave fight to protect the Mattaponi river from being turned into the King William reservoir. Sovereignty, while no guarantee, would probably at least have got them into the US Supreme Court, which denied their petition, and certainly strengthened their bargaining position vis-a-vis the state--only the feds could take their land.

2006-07-12T11:10:00.000-04:00

Witch Trials and Politicians...
Women have been frequently persecuted for their success. Nowadays, it takes the form of harassment and aspersions. But in the not too distant past, it took the form of witch trials. In Salem, MA, women who were members of the growing, more-prosperous merchant class were more likely to be targets of witch accusations.

In Virginia, persecution of women following a similar pattern. Virginia recently officially pardoned a witch who was convicted 300 years ago. She, too, was persecuted by jealous neighbors.

(hmm... Maybe that's the problem folks have with Hillary?)

2006-07-12T10:53:00.000-04:00

Is it time to upgrade Choice to a Right?
Abortion rights activists are considering retiring the "choice" language. FINALLY!! It's hard to justify elevating a "choice" as equal with a "child" as the anti-abortion folks are so well aware. In South Dakota, activists are seeking to put the issue of abortion rights which the legislature has effectively taken away directly to the public. And they are finding that women view access to abortion as a fundamental right.

BUT, what should the new phrase be? It's hard to find one word that encompasses this issue. One of the things that reproductive rights activists need to keep in mind is that for people who find legallized abortion a hard moral pill to swallow, even while acknowledging that a woman should have dominion over her own body, is that women have always had, and will always have, abortions. The question is: will they have safe, medical, legal abortions, or self-induced or back-alley abortions? THIS is the issue that needs to be before the public again--as it was in the '70s--we can't go back to the coat hanger. Girls and women die.

2006-07-11T18:28:00.000-04:00

Are we becoming more ignorant? Or are we being kept in the dark?
(remember the mushroom joke?)
The Washington Post reports that Americans know less than ever about current events. But whose fault is this? They suggest that the media is becoming less informative. But, is this really true? (well, I mean, yes it is, but...)

I propose it's not the media but the administration who is at fault. The report uses as an example the fact that Americans don't know who the head of the EPA is. Well, we did when it was Christine Todd Whitman. And we all know what happened to her.

What about the Surgeon General? We knew who held the office when it was C. Everett Koop and Joycelyn Elders . But who's ever heard of Richard Carmona?? HE's not gonna be telling people to use condoms or (yeah, right!) masturbate to stay safe.

Federal officials under Bush are either toadies (oh, I mean cronies), or kept silent under pain of firing (or they know to keep a low profile). After all, look what's happening at agencies like the FDA and the CDC.

AND, if you really want to learn a lot about the Bush admin's repression of knowledge, check out this PDF report from the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform.

However, we still can't let the media and the public off the hook. This info IS out there. We can find it without trying too hard. If we're not outraged, we're NOT paying attention.

Look lively, everybody!

2006-07-08T15:25:00.000-04:00

CAN Hilary win?
A lot of folks are worried about Hillary Rodham Clinton running for pres in '08, because they're afraid she can't win. James Carville says she can.

Some conservatives are afraid she will.

She's a very impressive speaker. She's very smart. She has a lot of charisma. She connects with people. But she freaks some people out. What's the problem? because she's a woman? because of the healthcare debacle? because she's moderate? because of Bill?

I'm not saying I like everything about her--her recent cozying up to big pharma seems problematic. But hey, she's paid her dues. Give her a chance! Democrats are notoriously bad at picking winning candidates. So why let the conventional wisdom be our guide?

(PS: John McCain is NOT a moderate! He may have been once, but in his strategy to gain the repub nomination, he's moving to the right. Don't be fooled!)

2006-07-08T12:08:00.000-04:00

What's Virgil Goode doing under that flag?
Rep. Virgil Goode says "If you are here illegally and want to fly the Mexican flag, go to Mexico and wave the American flag."

This is the worst sort of political cynicism: an attempt to distract from the REAL issue--his own acceptance of illegal campaign contributions from defense contractor MZM.

That's right, Virgil--wrap yourself in the flag, and no one will notice what you're doing under there!

(7/12/06: ok, there's some revisionism going on here: Virgil now says he said fly the MEXICAN flag in Mexico, not the American flag. Yeah, uh-huh, whatever... Anyway, the point is, Virgil, that no one comes to this country to fly a flag. They come here because we're--right!-- the land of opportunity! And who among us, except Native Americans, didn't end up here for that reason?)

btw: apparently, all these republicans never took basic economics. Either that, or they weren't paying attention. Haven't they ever heard of the law of supply and demand? Right now oranges are rotting on the ground in Florida because there aren't enough folks to pick 'em! Makes sense to me!

2006-07-05T12:50:00.000-04:00

NPR: Watch your language!
Today on morning edition Juan Williams says that Bush didn't want to choose between "science and ethics" in the stem cell controversy. This is not the first time that Williams has allowed the Bush administration to frame the controversy.

In fact, Bush's issue is the conflict between science and his beliefs. Science and ethics are not mutually exclusive.

NPR needs to start editing a little more carefully. Also, although I'm not the world's biggest George Lakoff fan, they need to read a primer in allowing their interview subjects to frame the issue, and then using their frames, rather than a neutral frame.

NPR could use some lessons from the BBC--their interviewers never let anyone get away with anything!!!