In a move that would make Tea Partiers proud, the loony right Canadian minority government is trying to eliminate Canada's Long-Form census, source of basic demographic, social, and economic information about Canada and its people.  Even George Bush didn't do that!  They think it's tyrannical state coercion and intrusion, and possibly don't want people to know the results of their policies.  Some of us up here (I'm an expat) are trying to fight back:

http://capdu.wordpress.com/

Hi all,

Some basic ideas about society that I wanted to get off my chest.  I hope to clarify, add to, and expand upon these, but I have such a tough time getting anything in writing that I can't make any promises :-).

What I believe:

1)      Utilitarianism, but not absolutely.  The key thing is the only thing that matters is what's good for sentient beings, humans first.  I don't see a sensible right or wrong outside that.  No God, no Tsar, no hero, no proletariat.

2)      People need freedom and security/compassion, and one is far more necessary for the other than they are opposed.  A person who can't reliably count on the necessities of life cannot be free, nor can one who must constantly fear punishment be secure.  We all must have our gardens, and be free to cultivate them.

3)      Our first concern as humans, through the state or otherwise, must be to make sure that everyone has the necessities of life, which should include a little bit of fun if at all possible.  How to sort this out across countries/levels of development is unclear.  There are exceptions, but this should usually come first, ahead of anyone who already has this' needs.  Necessity even before equality.

4)      The state should set things up so that 3 and more is fulfilled as much as possible through the market, but must intervene where necessary when the market doesn't do it.  This means it serves as the employer of last resort, and provides a negative income tax to go somewhat beyond 3 as work incentives.  Those who can't work should be given 3.  Any who apparently "won't" work should be given 3-, just the necessities, no fun.  This should be relaxed when kids are involved.

5)   People should be allowed to do anything in their personal lives that doesn't harm others, and should as much as possible be protected from discrimination based on what they do.

I responded as follows to the latest email from the Obama organization asking me to make calls to pass "health care reform."  I would ask those who feel as I do to respond similarly.  We need to let them know how we feel.

Mitch --

I was waiting for this email.  Up until the awful events of the last few days (Lieberman dictate), I'd supported the President and given him the benefit of the doubt on health care.

How dare you!  When President Obama supports real health care reform, not this sickening, cowardly Liebermancare, when he stands up to slime like Lieberman instead of ordering the Senate majority leader to prostrate himself before him, then maybe I'd lift a finger to help him.  I didn't spend three days walking the streets of Toledo and give $100 of my hard-earned money to Obama so he could let himself be spit on, and let the spit drip onto the American people.

Write back when I see some "change."

Best,
Dan

I don't have any independent knowledge about whether Schumer's been trying to forge a compromise. But it sure wouldn't surprise me. I'd be more surprised, given what we now know about the lack of votes (or, more precisely, what we've pretty much known but have had confirmed today), if Schumer were not trying to find a compromise. Somebody's got to. This isn't one where you get to just pick up the ball and take it home with you. You still have to play, even if the outcome is guaranteed to disappoint.

David Kurtz just blogged this.  I'm sorry to have to disagree.  I've been taking the need to compromise position on health care all year with people insisting on a more left-wing bill.  And I might even still support whatever Schumer comes up with.  But there has to be a stopping point.  It's ludicrous to say we have to accept whatever garbage is dictated to us to by the four most corrupt, frightened, reactionary, whatever Senators in our supermajority caucus.  Nor is it ok to meekly accept that Democrats get to filibuster what may be their party's most crucial legislation of this generation.  At some point we have to pull out of the "game," take our ball and live to play another day.  Or change the idiotic, undemocratic rules, i.e., kill the filibuster.  If we can't get the votes for a decent bill, we've lost and need to acknowledge our defeat and try an entirely new approach.  Of course we need to exhaust every alternative first.  But pretending a defeat is really a victory is hardly the mature approach.

Not everyday that a City Council race in my old stomping ground in eastern Queens, NYC gets this interesting.  My brother, a childhood friend and supporter of the Democratic candidate made me aware of what's going on.  It actually seems like an interesting race, with potentially broader implications, but it's also just bizarre.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/31/a-pagan-republican-trick-or-treat/

One thing I've never quite gotten about the U.S. is that policymakers and lots of ordinary folk don't consider it a moral responsibility of government to guarantee the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, and yes, medical care to everyone.  It's stunning to me.  I totally get, and to a large extent, share the desire not to support freeloaders.  If I have to work to have a decent life, so should you.  That's why I'm only talking about necessities.  But for everyone, even able-bodied, childless adults.

I personally have no problem with a guaranteed national income set at the subsistence level, plus free health care, no strings attached.  But I understand people who would insist on looking for work, education or training, "workfare", or the like as a condition for cash aid (essentially what I believe the UK and Canada do).  Public shelters/soup kitchens would be made available for people who don't meet the conditions.  The basic payment would be gradually phased out for those who work, providing both work incentives and income support for the working poor.  The parameters would be set so that anyone who works full-time at the minimum wage would be out of poverty.

This is a wealthy country -- we could easily afford such a guarantee.  While we all are substantially responsible for our fate, with enough bad luck anyone who isn't independently wealthy could end up on the street.  Most who do are no lazier than the average person, bigger "screwups" maybe.  But even if they are, laziness should not be punished with death.  I think a lot of thinking on this subject hearkens back to an earlier time when there was less to go around, possibly not enough for everyone.  Perhaps this is still the case in some Third World countries today, I don't know enough to say, though I suspect at least the richer ones could also afford such a guarantee, given the cost of necessities is cheaper in poorer countries.  (Helping the Third World poor is another important moral imperative, but deserves another post.)

Thinking about the Politico story linked on the TPM front page about the Washington Post selling lobbyists access to their reporters, but also administration officials, members of Congress, and other movers and shakers.  This is obviously twisted and evil, but I think the participation of the government officials is of greater import than the sale of the reporters.  Why would Obama officials participate?  They can obviously talk to lobbyists anytime they want.  What, if anything, does this tell those of us pushing for progressive health care reform?

This story really disturbed me.  The following is an email I sent to the president.  I sent similar ones to my members of Congress.

Dear Mr. President,

I read with horror of the case in Pennsylvania where two judges sentenced juveniles to imprisonment for trivial offenses, in return for kickbacks from private prison companies.  Here is a link to the New York Times article.

While obviously the individual evil involved in this case is immense, it made me think of the truly twisted incentives involved in running private prisons and youth detention centers.  Putting prisoners in the hands of profit-maximizing companies is an invitation to the worst kinds of abuse.  The entire system of private prisons practically begs for corruption.

I'm a strong supporter of yours, and contributed money and days of my time working for your election.  I had hardly considered this issue before, but I have been shocked into action.  I'm not sure what the federal role is, but I urge you to do what you can to eliminate private prisons in the United States.  At the very least, private federal prisons should be eliminated as quickly as possible.  I would also suggest that federal criminal justice funds be denied to states and localities that use private prisons.  Something has to be done.

The private imprisonment of juveniles is particularly disgusting.  The cases described in the article sent chills up and down my spine.  If not for luck, it could be your kids or mine.

Thank your for your time and effort.

Sincerely,
Dan Edelstein

While I disagree radically with Limbaugh on just about everything, I actually have no problem with his wanting Obama to fail (that doesn't mean I don't think we should use it against the Republicans).  I wanted Bush to fail, and I think in very much the same way.  I'm not proud of it, but there were even times I found myself hoping for people to get hurt so the public would turn against him and his allies.  Does this make you want to run from me screaming, or can you relate?

I've heard different versions of this story, but it goes something like this.  A group of progressive activists once met with FDR, pushing him to support their cause.  FDR listened patiently, then closed the meeting by telling them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

Since the election, this and other liberal boards have been filled with endless speculation, worry, and argument about the state of Barack Obama's mind and soul.  Is he a "true progressive" or a "corporate Democrat"?  An idealist or a power-hungry politician?  This afternoon, with the Daschle and Gregg stories, this sort of discussion has reached a fever pitch, including some downright hysterical commentary.

I'm a "true progressive," at least according to my own definition.  I voted for Obama in the primary and general.  I have a favorable impression of him.  But I don't know the answers to these questions, and likely no one else does either, possibly except the man himself.  I hope for the best, but fear the worst.

I've engaged in plenty of this sort of speculation myself, and will again.  It relieves the nerves and can be entertaining.  But it doesn't accomplish a damn thing.  If he's truly fixed on certain policies, there's not much anyone can do about it, for good or ill.  The same is true for other powerful people in D.C.  If his mind is not made up, though, anything that can convince him that activists, donors, and the public want him to be progressive can only help.  No matter who he really is, he wants and needs to be popular and re-elected.

So let's spend less time arguing about what Obama really is after, and more making him be after the right things.  That's how successful movements work.

First, I am neither thrilled nor horrified by the Obama campaign's strategy and tactics to this point.  Anyone can have an opinion on such things, and I doubt much can be proved about what works.  The "ground game," get out the vote, etc., is much easier to quantify (and control), and so is worth devoting lots of resources to, as I'm glad to see Obama is doing.

I have no problem with people posting suggestions as to improved strategy.  But we need to be clear-headed about a major factor in this election that neither Obama nor we can do anything about, that's in poll results, and will be there on election day, before we demoralize ourselves and each other.

The simple fact is that a large but unknown number of Americans, White, but also Hispanic and Asian, simply will not vote for a black person for president.  An even larger number might, but blackness is a negative for them, greater or smaller.  This second group is open to persuasion, and in fact how many are persuaded will decide the election.  That's what the campaign, and all of us where we can, have to do.  But best case, many will not be persuaded.

While Obama's blackness obviously helps him with Blacks and a few others, the net effect is certainly negative and large.  The idea I've heard that racists are all hard-core Republicans anyway is ludicrous.  Anyone who's ever spent time with large numbers of non-liberal intellectual White Americans in the suburbs of typical blue states knows this as well as I.  I'm 42, and was raised in a mostly Jewish neighborhood in an outlying part of New York City (Queens).  The level of racism among kids I knew (down to a few years younger than me) would probably shock some people here.  The "N" word was a standard way to refer to black people (older folks said "schvartze").  The overwhelming majority simply believed that black people were genetically inferior, and particularly less intelligent and more violent.  They were disliked if not hated, and feared.  There might be some "good ones," and you might even vote for one, but in general they were threatening, both personally and politically.  My friends and I were no worse certainly, than our parents, but no better either.  Our grandparents were a bit worse.  I'm not so in touch with these people anymore, but I've no doubt most have not changed their views substantially.  The Catholic kids in nearby neighborhoods were at least as bad.  And everything I've learned since says that the same is true in Detroit, and St. Louis, and whoknowswhere, Pennsylania, and all across all the swing states.  The under 30 crowd seems better, but they certainly have their racists too, and they're a minority of voters.

My point in all this is that Obama can certainly win, but he's not going to win big, and he's not going to open a big lead in the polls, even if he runs the most brilliant campaign ever.  So we can't expect it, and shouldn't run around in circles screaming about how his campaign sucks when it doesn't happen.  His campaign needs to be better than Kerry's just to eke out a victory.  Under the circumstances, 52% would be a landslide.

So let's work hard and push the campaign to be better.  But keep our expectations grounded in reality.

I take an in-between position on this.  On the one hand, I don't think an orgy of speculative posts full of arguments about whether she or her daughter "look" pregnant is either useful or right.  On the other hand, some people on this and other boards seem to be taking what I consider a self-righteous and politically mistaken view against even thinking about this.  I think it's a legitimate story.  Personally, I'm not sure how much it should matter, beyond a vague sense that if true, it seems freaky and puts focus on the scary world of the religious right.  I definitely think that it would matter to many voters, and would be a net negative for the GOP ticket.  Mattering to voters is my criterion for whether legitimate news sources should investigate a story.  And that's what I think they should do, right now and thoroughly.  I certainly hope and expect that the Enquirer is on it.  So don't bloviate about it, but push for it to be looked into and confirmed or not.  Here's my vote for at least TPM to get started.

I take an in-between position on this.  On the one hand, I don't think an orgy of speculative posts full of arguments about whether she or her daughter "look" pregnant is either useful or right.  On the other hand, some people on this and other boards seem to be taking what I consider a self-righteous and politically mistaken view against even thinking about this.  I think it's a legitimate story.  Personally, I'm not sure how much it should matter, beyond a vague sense that if true, it seems freaky and puts focus on the scary world of the religious right.  I definitely think that it would matter to many voters, and would be a net negative for the GOP ticket.  Mattering to voters is my criterion for whether legitimate news sources should investigate a story.  And that's what I think they should do, right now and thoroughly.  I certainly hope and expect that the Enquirer is on it.  So don't bloviate about it, but push for it to be looked into and confirmed or not.  Here's my vote for at least TPM to get started.

I take an in-between position on this.  On the one hand, I don't think an orgy of speculative posts full of arguments about whether she or her daughter "look" pregnant is either useful or right.  On the other hand, some people on this and other boards seem to be taking what I consider a self-righteous and politically mistaken view against even thinking about this.  I think it's a legitimate story.  Personally, I'm not sure how much it should matter, beyond a vague sense that if true, it seems freaky and puts focus on the scary world of the religious right.  I definitely think that it would matter to many voters, and would be a net negative for the GOP ticket.  Mattering to voters is my criterion for whether legitimate news sources should investigate a story.  And that's what I think they should do, right now and thoroughly.  I certainly hope and expect that the Enquirer is on it.  So don't bloviate about it, but push for it to be looked into and confirmed or not.  Here's my vote for at least TPM to get started.

I have updated my estimates of the popular vote including caucuses to include Mississippi.  For background and an explanation of methods and data see my previous post at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/popular-vote-estimates-includi-1.php

The updated results are:

Total without Michigan and Florida
Clinton 12,803,453 (46.5%)
Obama 13,609,562 (49.5%)
Obama lead 806,109

Total with Florida but not Michigan
Clinton 13,674,439 (46.7%)
Obama 14,185,776 (48.5%)
Obama lead 511,337

Total including Florida and Michigan
Clinton 14,002,748 (46.9%)
Obama 14,345,636 (48.1%)
Obama lead 342,888

Here is the breakdown of primaries versus caucuses. I am only showing the results without Florida and Michigan, but you can easily calculate the primary results for the other versions by simply subtracting the caucus results from the totals above.

Without Michigan and Florida
Primaries
Clinton 12,349,804 (47.1%)
Obama 12,854,603 (49.1%)
Obama lead 504,799

Caucuses
Clinton 453,649 (34.7%)
Obama 754,959 (57.8%)
Obama lead 301,310
12,803,453
12,803,453