Fooze's Blog

YES WE CAN! Final Thoughts On The Election And The Days Ahead

2008-11-05T15:20:33Z

Most elections are about immediate issues. Sometimes you get a confluence of factors that presents us with immediate issues and generational issues that can transform the nation. This is one of those elections. We have serious immediate issues (e.g., energy independence, a faltering economy, and the Iraq war). We also have some serious generational issues (basic philosophy of what the government's role should be, and dealing with serious religious and racial/political divides). Those issues require a different kind of leader. In essence, they require a transcendent and transformation figure who can reach across those divides to accomplish change. That's what I saw in Obama; in a lot of ways, he was the culmination of a lot of the great battles for which our father's generation fought so bitterly - including most prominently civil rights. Moreover, he - by his basic philosophy and his biography - was able to bridge and transcend those divides; and most importantly, he preached that message and walked the walk.

I believe one of the most amazing things about this country is its ability to continuously strive for a more perfect union and fix mistakes and heal divides. We owe our fathers and forefathers a great debt of gratitude for what they accomplished and fought for and we have a huge obligation to protect it, better it, and pass it forward. I think the generational churn (for lack of a better word) is amazing to witness. Thanks to them, we now live in a world where the next generation was no longer consumed by the 60's or the civil rights fights and was able to elect a man simply as the better choice; And that's what happened in this election; with this generational churn, we validated what our parents and grandparents fought for. Now our kids will grow up in a world where that is hopefully no longer a relevant question.

I can only imagine what will be ours to fight for and protect. I personally think it may be in our great struggle between defeating terrorism and religious extremism on all sides - whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian or other - and avoiding World War III and preaching tolerance for all those who are moderate practitioners of the same. In that regard, I am hopeful because although I know Americans may disagree on policies, I think the country elected a man who will be able to approach this issue with the depth and nuance and intelligence it requires.

And more than that, I'm hopeful because I know that most Americans - while on opposite ends of the political spectrum - will both be united in the fight to strike out against evil and extremism while instilling in our kids tolerance of all peace-loving good-hearted people, regardless of basic creed or ideology.

Vote for Change; Vote for Hope; Vote for a more Perfect Union; Vote Barack Obama for President

2008-11-04T14:17:53Z

The Future is in Our Hands.

This election is truly is one of the most critical elections of our lifetime. It will decisively answer a lot of questions that are the core of our lives, our worldview, our morality and our well-being.

We will be able to point the country in the right direction on providing and guaranteeing healthcare(medicare/medicaid) and social security, revising tax policy to help those in need, exercising real fiscal responsibility, implementing foreign diplomacy as opposed to unilateral military action so as to restore our standing in the world and make us safer at home, end torture and secrecy in government, combat global warming and disease with aid of science, implement a real economic philosophy with oversight, regulation and accountability, appoint supreme court justices that will respect and promote our constitutional rights including the rights to privacy and habeas corpus, and the list goes on. More importantly, it's time to put the nail in the coffin in the Karl Rove playbook and denounce the kind of dishonorable political campaign that assumes preying on people's fears and prejudices will suffice and substitute for real dialogue regarding substantive issues that impact our everyday lives.

This is not one to sit out. Every once in a while (many of our parents speak of the 60's and 70's with issues relating to civil rights, Vietnam, etc.) there is a time when we must remember that there is import to who we choose to lead our country, and that are huge ramifications to our votes and action/inaction. We must speak out and unite and get engaged. This is one of those defining moments.

The Obama campaign has proven that grassroots movements and calls for change from ordinary Americans can swell and resonate and overtake politics as usual. The Obama campaign and his calm and presence in the face of fearmongering and smears has proven that he is committed to changing the tone in Washington, ending politics as usual, and bringing civility and intellect back to our highest civil position.

So rest assured, your voice has mattered and will matter; your actions matter; your money matters; and your vote matters (esp. in critical battleground states). If you can't find the time to write letters, e-mails, canvass, etc. - click the button and donate some money. If you think your vote doesn't matter because you're in a state that's not in play (TX, CA, NY), vote anyway so you can set an example for your kids, become part of the movement, help set a numerical mandate.

Vote Barack Obama for President.

With that - I wanted to share my favorite story of a long 2 year cycle - it brings tears of joy and sadness to the eye.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Madelyn_Dunhams_vote_will_count.html?showall

Exposing the Ridiculousness of the Socialist Charge

2008-10-29T15:36:16Z

Excellent Article and Clip exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the McCain campaign with regard to the ridiculous accusation that Obama is a socialist by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire and essentially endorsing a return to Bill Clinton's tax policy:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3AvZqYC4mw

Read and Pass on.

A Plea to the Persuadable - Be on the Right Side of History

2008-10-24T18:17:44Z

We often have this discussion about whether to attend a sports event (like a WS game 7) or sell the ticket - and often times, those of us who really care about that stuff say we'd rather be there in person, witness the history, than get some short term satisfaction out of selling the ticket. The idea is we want to be there, we want to feel the atmosphere, and ultimately - we want to have taken a part in that history. I want to use this notion and relate it to the election, because I think there is a profoundly more significant historical play here. There's no doubt that the election is really not in the hands of partisans on either side of the debate - but really in the hands of the center: the swing voters, the independents, the undecideds and the persuadables. It's amazing to most that someone could still be undecided, but there are of course many plausible reasons ranging from those related to conflicting convictions, fears or downright apathy. And campaigns spend a great deal of time trying to craft messages that will appeal and convert those voters. Yet, they still remain. I recently saw an interesting post on Ben Smith's Politico Blog that caught my eye as another potential argument to make to this group as part of the effort to convert them. If the issues, the VP Pick, the Campaign tone, the current state of affairs, or other points won't do it - maybe this will. Here is the idea - if you're still undecided, then you probably are unlikely to be swayed by some last minute issue. And you probably haven't bought into the ridiculously offensive and false GOP propaganda that sells Obama as an evil socialist pariah who pals around with terrorists. So you probably will chose someone as "lesser of two evils", or decide to follow your party line, or your friends/parents, or some variation, or choose to sit it out altogether.

This is the argument to this group (and the argument posited in the e-mail to Ben Smith):As most of the polls show, in all likelihood Obama is going to win this election. Though you may not agree that he's going to be the great transformational president I do, you've already conceded that he'll in all likelihood be a fine president (or in the most negative light - no worse than McCain; otherwise you'd be decided). So let's focus on the election itself. Regardless of anything else, it is indisputable that an Obama presidency would be a watershed historic moment in US election history and a culmination and validation of the civil rights movement. Obama's election is of huge symbolic importance, for us and for the rest of the world. Don't take my word for it - every foreign country poll tell us that. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/obamas-promise.html).So if you vote for no other reason, vote to be on the "Right Side of History". Vote for Obama because you want to prove to the world, yourself and your kids that this is a country that believes in civil rights, a land of equal opportunity that will elect a black man with a funny name president. Vote for Obama, because 40 years from now, when you're sitting with your grandkids and reflecting back to this historic time, you don't want to tell them that you voted for the other guy (even though you didn't care about the other guy's stance). Vote for Obama to be a part of, and on the right side of, history.I just had this discussion with some friends, and a dear friend of mine said:

To put an even finer point on it (in particular for voters who are also parents), putting politics and policy and frankly substance aside, I want my children to grow up in the America that was promised and mythologized all our lives, an America that can elect a black man with a middle name of Hussein. Stipulating for the sake of argument that this election's most important legacy will be largely symbolic, it seems like this is our last best chance to present to the rest of the world and to our progeny an America that is worthy of its ideals. Obama is going to be a fine president, maybe not a great president, but the fact of his presidency is going to be unequivocally great for this country. I agree with Farzin - in 40 years we are going to have to answer for the path this country chooses - this can be our generation's contribution to American history.

The Ben Smith post was here:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_history_argument.html

If you like the argument - make it to your persuadable friends.

The Right's Perversion of the American Dream

2008-10-22T17:11:19Z

Variations of this point have been made in books and articles, including a recent WSJ piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463199532056477.html) and in Bill Maher's Real Time show last weekend, but it's both fascinating and downright frustrating to see the GOP exploit the blue collar worker via a distortion of a perceived life v. their real existence.

In short - everyone can't be rich. The American Dream isn't that our ship will come in one day and we'll all strike it rich. The American Dream, in it simplest and purest form, is actually a middle class dream. It's the promise of opportunity - the promise that anyone can, through hard work and persistence, achieve a comfortable life with a roof over their head and food on the table. It's the promise that government will do all it can to provide services, promote policies and remove artificial or discriminatory barriers that would otherwise inhibit the pursuer of this dream. That's why people were coming to our shores - not because everyone wanted to strike it rich - but because the American Dream was that they could come here, free of discrimination, and make a life for themselves through hard work. It was the ability to get the house with the picket fence, the 2.5 kids and the dog.

Now, no one can dispute that Democratic Policies actually promote this dream. Whether it's tax cuts for the middle class, affordable healthcare, affordable housing, raising in the minimum wage, social security/Medicare or any of the other myriad of policies - it's all designed to help the lower and middle classes.

What's amazing about this whole thing is that the Republicans have somehow managed to pervert the American Dream, repackage it and convince everyone that it's about striking it rich. Then, they tell everyone that any "attacks" on the rich, such as progressive taxation or disagreements with trickle down economics, is an attack on the pursuit of the American Dream - and by extension anti-American or Socialist! Moreover, they have successfully deluded the blue collar or middle-class worker to thinking that he's going to strike it rich one day - and boy won't it be a shame that when that day comes - the Dems are gonna tax him and penalize him for it. They have successfully removed that worker from thinking about his actual reality and what policies may better serve him today, and instead focused him on a perception about where he'd like his future to be - regardless of the sad fact that he'll probably never get there in actuality. In effect, they're preying on aspiration, and banking on the fact that no one wants to burst that bubble and bring them down to reality (shoot the messenger!).

Truth be told, it's actually a remarkable accomplishment, and there is ample blame on all Democrats for not being able to point out the fallacy of this paradigm. The Republicans have managed to protect the wealthy through a reverse class-warfare in which the lower and middle classes are fighting against their own interests to protect their future potential interests despite the fact that this particular future of riches will almost undoubtedly never materialize.

That's why you have the crazy, incomprehensible situation where Joe the Plumber unwillingly concedes that Obama's tax plans would actually help him today (and in all likelihood for the rest of his life), but instead focuses on the fact that Obama's tax plan might penalize him if and when he makes more than $250,000 per year and can buy that business.

Barack's Grandmother

2008-10-21T17:31:27Z

The saddest day of my life to date has been the day my grandmother passed - I was at her bed-side until moments before. I had lived with my grandmother for the first 18 years of my life, and she helped raise me along with my parents. There's no need to get too sentimental here on this post, but suffice it say, I love my grandmother dearly. Ironically, I didn't realize the void left by her passing anytime as profoundly as during my greatest personal triumphs or moments of pure joy. The moments right after my wedding and the birth of my son are two distinct times where I remember taking a few minutes and thinking about my grandmother, thinking about those 18 years living with her (and all the years since with and without her), thinking about how much of her life had been devoted to bettering mine, thinking about how much joy she took and how much pride swelled in her whenever she saw me experience one of these joyous or triumphant moments, thinking about how many times she mentioned her desire to be there for my wedding and the birth of my children, and ultimately thinking about how devastating it was not to be able to share those moments with her. Even writing about it now is almost too much to bear.

When I heard the news about Barack leaving the trail to be with his ill grandmother, these thoughts immediately came pouring back to me. By now, most people know that Barack was raised by his grandparents and has a very special bond to his grandmother. Indeed, she is his last living "parent". As he stated, she has poured everything into raising him. And although he has fulfilled those dreams and validated those sacrifices (you don't need an election to see that), he is now on the precipice of a remarkable and historic accomplishment. I'm sure I can't imagine everything he's going through, but I think I can sympathize.

For all those reasons, I hope that his grandmother recovers from her illness, but if not I hope first and foremost for the following:

- I hope that Barack gets the time and distance necessary to spend with his grandmother.

- I hope that she makes it to election day so that she can witness the history, experience the joy, and share the moment with Barack.

- I hope that after his celebration in Chicago, Barack gets to travel the next day to Hawaii and have a private celebration with her.

- I hope that she is there to see him get sworn in to office.

- One other point - this one regarding the election itself. I did not relate this to politics yet, but I hope for the following as the unintended but logical consequences of this situation during the next couple of days: I hope that people will begin to see the human story of Barack Obama and finally see the Bill Ayers and other hateful attacks waged by Mccain/Palin and the GOP for the petty, desperate, and despicable attacks that they are. I hope that people will see that this man suspended his campaigning not as a stunt for cheap political theatre when the polls were down and he was out of ideas, but because he needed to go and be at his grandmother's bedside. These are the true values of this man for everyone to see -and the values that we all share and celebrate.

But mostly, I just hope that this is not his last visit with her. Otherwise, he'll feel the void as profoundly as I did.

Powell's Endorsement and Preserving My Family's Legacy

2008-10-20T18:32:47Z

Even though I abhorred his role in building the case for war in Iraq, I have admired and respected Mr. Powell and his unquestioned dedication and service to this country. I found his endorsement of Barack Obama persuasive, thoughtful and touching.

But I wanted to focus on a point that he made that resonated greatly with me. It starts at about the 4 minute mark in the video (below):

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way.

Friends of mine who know me as a liberal and a Democrat are often astounded by how much more active I've been in this election cycle than others (where I'd just watch debates, have a few conversations and vote). Now the biggest reason for my level of passion and activity is that I think the times demand it and I've seen two elections go by where my relative level of inactivity (aside from voting) yielded no results, so I thought I'd change and renew my own commitment. But another reason is something most of my friends don't really understand and wouldn't unless they walked in my shoes for a few days or took the time to digest the import of what Mr. Powell said above.

I'm a proud American, and one who happens to have come from the Middle East with Muslim parents. I love this country for all its ideals and greatness. I love this country for all that it espouses, protects and makes possible. I love this country for its constitutional principles of equality, opportunity, tolerance and secularism. I am not a religious man, and (leaving aside scientific inquiries) it's mostly because while I understand and appreciate the beauty of faith and religion as it plays out in everyday individual lives, I have come to understand religion in the greater organized context as a potential powerful tool of division and oppression.

But the reality is that my name is Farzin Firooznia. I grew up in the United States in the immediate aftermath of the Iran-Hostage Crisis. After 9/11, as I was rushing home to NY to attend a funeral for the father of a dear friend, I was attacked by someone who thought my complexion meant that I must be one of the "terrorists". And now I'm witnessing a presidential campaign in which the Republican Nominee is openly campaigning on politics of hate and condoning purposeful attempts to spread lies about Obama's heritage (calling him an Arab) and faith (calling him a Muslim) as a smear. I witnessed Mr. McCain correct someone calling Mr. Obama an Arab by saying, literally, "No, he's a decent family man" as if those two concepts are incongruent. Now, I'm not an Arab - but I find that offensive.

I have seen my fair share of prejudice, but I'm not one to whine about these kinds of things. I think I've done a fairly good job of overcoming them and in the end, the country that I love allowed me to overcome them. But here's the point:

I come from a family that values and celebrates religion and cultural identity. Some members of my family are practicing Muslim, others are Jewish and still others are Catholic. I have a son and a niece (hopefully more to come), whose last names will also end in Firooznia and who will know their loving grandparents and family members who happen to be Muslim - and who, when presented with the opportunity to determine their own faith - may want to identify as such.

My family, and many others like it have all worked too hard and love this country too much to be smeared liked this. How can we live with ourselves if our sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, or friends are allowed to think in such limiting or narrow ways? How can we permit them - as they grow ever more curious - to observe these events and then start questioning if it's wrong to be Muslim, or it's bad that their grandma and grandpa are from the Middle East, or if their name or faith may disqualify them (or hinder them) from achieving their highest aspirations? I care so much because we need to restore America and its ideals. We need to go back to the inclusive, secular idea of America that values everyone's contribution to this society, and promotes tolerance and equal opportunity. We need to live up to the best of our ideals and not pander to the worst of our fears.

More simply put, I care so much because I cannot stand by and let my family's legacy, my parents' hard work and sacrifices, be tarnished and smeared in this way. There's way too much dignity at stake here.

View the Powell interview here - it's worth the watch

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/colin-powells-endorsement-of-b.html

transcript here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266223/

Another Defense of Progressive Taxation

2008-10-18T04:35:55Z

The hang-ups to progressive taxation are based on few ideals: (1) folks have a vested property interest in their salaries and do not want to have it taken away or feel penalized for hard work; (2) folks believe that capitalism and the free market should decide this issue and view re-distribution as socialist. I think both of these are faulty premises, and I'll explain why.

A few days ago, I posted a blog entry trying to construct a relatable framework (via a Sports Analogy) to the average Joe that can help one at least understand the concept of progressive taxation (http://www.fooze-change-government.com/2008/10/obamas-civility-and-defense-of.html), but I think perhaps the best way to understand it's necessity and equity is ultimately through the prism of the recent economic crisis.

I don't think anyone rational would now doubt that the economic crisis proves that the free market does not always function properly, especially when it's ascribing value to intangible things. The economic crisis has shown that an unfettered "free market' can fall prey to excessive greed and result in assets being artificially over-valued, while other assets are under-valued. The economic crisis has shown that the free market can benefit from regulation and overt correction.

Now - how does this relate to progressive taxation?

What most people don't understand is that salary is just another manifestation of the free market. It's an ascribed value given by the market to our job/work product. Once you recognize that fact, then you can understand why progressive taxation is necessary. Unfortunately, rich people tend to have an inflated assessment of their own worth and want to believe that they are worth what the market is willing to pay them - and therefore they view the money as rightfully their property. But if you go back to the learnings of the economic crisis, you'll understand that this is not actually the case.

The underpinnings of this argument is based on one simple premise: the free market does not work in assigning salaries to individuals, and I think that's undisputable. The free market does not work for a variety of reasons: (1) it is subject to greed; (2) it is subject to arbitrary whims about what is important at a particular time; (3) it is subject to undue manipulation by external forces (war, power structures, etc.); and most fundamentally (3) it is subject to real and profound barriers to entry that are not characteristic of a true free market. People start out in inequitable positions and may never get the chance to get to their true value.

Just like we learned with bubble bursts and asset valuations in the economic crisis, the ultimate test of whether the free "salary market" works or not is in objectively viewing its results. If you take a moment to look at the results - it cannot be disputed that it's not working. It just takes folks being humble. Examples: Adam "Pacman" Jones is a felon and criminal without any translatable skills whose only talent is the ability to play cornerback and run with a football. Yet, he makes millions of dollars while a person who has labored their whole life and studies for 15 years to get a PhD cannot approach six figures as a professor teaching tomorrow's youth. Same is true in accounting for the gap between the CEO and the brilliant workers in his company who actually come up with the ideas that drive his company's success.

A more centered example. I am an attorney who comfortably makes six figures; I have worked hard and gone to the best law schools. But I also now have a job that really has no real value to society - yet I make a great living.

A person just as smart as me may have never gotten the chance to enter this free market because of the place they grew up in, or the inability to pay for school.

My brothers, who are by all objective measures smarter than me - each attended the finest universities in America and received PhD's, but could not get any jobs in the sciences (professor or research) that paid half my salary.

My mother is a small business owner and licensed day care provider who has devoted her life to teaching and caring for toddlers and she can barely make the mortgage.

All of these examples, and especially the barrier to entry ones, show that the salary market is not working properly if left unfettered. If you can come to grips with that fact, then you may come to realize that in order to fix the situation you need a market correction or some form of market regulation. A true market correction would involve complete re-assignment of values, re-distribution of wealth, and would be too drastic and too subjective for anyone to accomplish in a practical manner. But tax policies and progressive taxation are at least a form of market regulation that help alleviate some of the burdens and inequities created by the malfunctioning salary market.

John McCain Argues That We Should Vote for Obama

2008-10-17T16:33:11Z

Fascinating exchange starting at 6:00 mark. Forget for a second the subject of the question (Palin) and listen carefully to John McCain explain his view of who would be a great president for these times - isn't this the perfect argument for Obama? Is John McCain too stupid to realize how easily this translates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV93U115RnM

Paul Krugman Agrees

2008-10-17T14:43:47Z

I posted a few days ago about the ridiculous and misplaced media obsession with budget cuts and deficit spending during this economic crisis. Looks like our Nobel Prize Winner agrees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ref=opinion

Why I Hate Today's Republican Party

2008-10-17T14:18:11Z

I am a white heterosexual male who falls into the highest tax bracket and am an unabashed liberal, and perhaps as important a reason as any for it is that I cannot ever agree with the discriminatory/oppressive platform of the GOP with regard to social and civil/human rights issues. But I have always admired and respected certain aspects of the conservative ideology, especially when it came to fiscal conservatism. I may not always agree with all of it, but I respected it.
With that, I wanted to share my thoughts as to what I think is most wrong with the Republican party, and why I have come to actively and profoundly dislike the GOP in recent years. From my standpoint, it comes down to the point that I believe the GOP has for the last decade or so, from a collective action and blueprint standpoint, solely been focused on acting in a fashion that expands its power. Domestically, it has focused all action on attempts to set up "a permanent political majority" and internationally, it has focused on becoming the sole permanent world power with military dominance over key and fleeting world resources as part of the "Project for a New American Century". This is the teaching/script of Karl Rove and the Neo-cons at American Enterprise Institute and is evident in the Republican's stated domestic and foreign agenda; and unfortunately, this has resulted in selfish action aimed at furthering that goal without regard to principle or consequence.
The GOP of today is not interested in carrying out its elected function as a government, or staying true to its stated conservative pricniples, or to tending to the needs of the electorate; More to the point, it is not interested in fixing the actual problems that plague or threaten the country; it is solely interested in figuring out how best to present and repackage a problem as a launching point to settle a score or undermine a potential threat to its desire to stay in power and build its permanent majority. There are many case studies to support this thesis, but nowhere is this more manifest than in looking at how the GOP has responded to three recent crises during the Bush presidency - the most elections (2000-08, including mid-terms) and real issues of voter disenfranchisement/suppression/fraud, 9/11 and the "War Against Terror", and the recent economic crisis. In each instance the response by the GOP was transparently hypocritical and not designed to solve the actual problem, but to further its own selfish interests.
With regard to voter issues - rather than try to fix issues of gerrymandering, suppression, fraud or disenfranchisement, the GOP chose to repackage this real issue and present it as a problem solely caused by ACORN. It's one thing to hear Mark Levin and the right wing nut jobs talk about this - but to hear John McCain call ACORN the greatest threat to the fabric of democracy is beyond the pale. The ridiculousness of this assertion has been debunked numerous times, including recently by Governor Crist of Fla, and Attorney Generals from various States. Voter registration fraud is not equivalent to voter fraud (Mickey Mouse ain't showing up to the polls). And any fraud perpetrated is a statistically insignificant issue (NY Times has an article on this today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17fri1.html?ref=opinion and Josh Marshall covers it all the time in TPM). The real problems that we need to deal with is redrawing electoral maps, voter suppression, and voter fraud b/c of faulty voting mechanisms - but none of those will help the GOP. So instead, we have this incessant railing on about ACORN. And no one mentions that the true reason the GOP wants ACORN out is because it's very successful at enabling a group of unattended and disenfranchised voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote - and they tend to be overwhelmingly democratic.
With regard to 9/11 - it's now well documented, but the problem and the issue to address with 9/11 was a way to defeat Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and handle Islamic Extremism. What the GOP instead decided to do was to distract us from Al Qeda, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and instead sell us a bill of goods on Iraq (and they're trying hard with Iran) because of their desire to defeat hostile governments and set up permanent bases or a presence in those places as the world continues its desperate fight for the limited natural resources still left. And the consequences of that have obviously been disastrous - whether it be in undermining our security, allowing Al Qaeda to rebuild, devastating our economy, inflaming tensions and helping recruitment for Islamic Radicals, etc.
With regard to the Economic Crisis - no one truly understands the entirety of what's going on, but we all get that the issues related to greed and unregulated/unfettered actions by banks/firms on Wall St., and the spread and multiplication of derivatives and mortgage-backed-securities and other instruments that were repackaged, bundled and resold time and again without any regard to their relationship to the actual tangible thing of value to which they were supposedly tied. The Stock Market had stopped trading on capital and actual goods, and was now solely speculating based on ascribed value. What the GOP did in response to the crisis was not to try to fix the underlying problems - but they affixed blame on Democrats and Fannie and Freddie; again, all a transparent ploy to try to keep their power. Everyone who has looked at the issue understands that Fannie and Freddie have really the most remote connection to the actual problem at hand, but the GOP needed to focus there because blaming the Dems and those institutions allowed them to argue for staying in power or getting rid of institutions that helped empower folks who had democratic leanings.
The most astounding aspect of this whole thing is that no one is pointing it out. Their playbook of hypocrisy is transparent - we're just not paying attention or calling them on it.
We have seen the ACORN thing tried before - that was the whole genesis of the Attorney Firings Scandal because Bush-appointed State Attorneys looked into this issue pushed by the GOP and decided rightly that there was nothing to the voter fraud allegations (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/237825.php). But because they told the truth - they were fired. So now the GOP is at it again.
With regard to Iraq - anyone who reads the writings and thesis of the AEI and Project for New American Century -
(Read it and see who the project members were: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf it will literally send chills down your spine") -
will see that Iraq and Iran has been what they've been after all along and the travesty of 9/11 is that the unforgettable tragedy dulled us to the neo-cons and allowed them to get their "pearl harbor" (see p. 63) and enact their agenda.
With regard to the housing crisis - it's no secret that Republicans have been after these institutions for years, and now they're trying to use it as the scapegoat to get rid of the institutions and blame the dems. A good analysis, here: http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/09/28/republican-talking-point-smackdown-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae-are-not-responsible-for-the-meltdown/.
So where does that leave us?
I'm disgusted with the Republican Party. I'm disgusted that politicians elected to serve our interests don't actually do anything to help us, but only focus on their power-grabbing agendas. Mostly, I'm disgusted that we have let all this happen even though the playbook is right before our eyes.
I have hope though. I hope the polls are right. I hope that I'm right. I hope that that the Conservatives who are starting to see the light and repudiating the Bush/Cheney/Rove tactis stick to their guns. I hope that we have a landslide victory -not only because I believe in Barack Obama and his policies - but because it may drive the GOP to self-examination and abandonment of Rovian politics - a return to the commendable conservative principles that I can disagree with on an ideological perspective. The country needs both parties - we will be better off for it.

Looks Like McCain Vetted Joe the Plumber as Closely as Sarah Palin

2008-10-16T17:52:18Z

So a funny thing happened on the way to the forum:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418

Turns out that Joe the Plumber is actually not a plumber (licensed one anway), has a lien against him for failing to pay his taxes (maybe explains his opposition to taxes), is not an undecided independent (registered as a republican), hates social security (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/237630.php) and may even have an indirect relationship to Charles Keating and Savings & Loan Scandal (I am not asserting this last one as fact - but here is the link: http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/10/15/joe-the-plumber-wurzelbacher-related-to-charles-keating-oops/)

**UPDATE (6:09) - Keating assertions proven to be false (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/16/133831/42/1001/632600)

Best of all is admittedly better off under Obama's tax plan than McCain's.

Looks like another wonderful job of vetting someone by McCain and his staff. You think he'd learn his lesson from Palin and dig a bit into backgrounds before he introduced another unknown figure on a grand stage.

Joe the Plumber, Obama's Civility and a Defense of Progressive Taxation via a Sports Analogy

2008-10-15T18:09:12Z

The following exchange between Barack Obama and a small business owner regarding his tax policy and the concept of progressive taxation should be watched by all because its fascinating and revealing in several respects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

First, I think Obama makes a compelling case for the sensibility and equity of his tax policy and progressive taxation principles in general.

Second, I think this exchange provides great insight into what kind of leader Barack Obama is and how he walks the walk on his promise to elevate the civility and discourse in this nation and rise above politics. In short, he was confronted by a person obviously opposed to his policies and rather than shun him or ignore him or call him names/stupid, Barack engaged him, respected his views and tried to explain in very real concrete ways, ways that the person himself can relate to, as to why his policies were good ones and might in fact be beneficial to the questioner. In the end, even if the man was not converted (unsure), it was clear they both walked away from the exchange better informed and with more respect for each other. Related to the last point, it's a great contrast to how we see the right and McCain/Palin treat their opponents. If a person opposed GOP tax policies, he/she's either ignored altogether or just demonized as a socialist in favor of income redistribution - there is simply no acknowledgment by McCain/Palin that there may be merit to the position or respect warranted. This civility in discourse is something we've seen in all Barack's appearances, including the debates. I do not think we can underestimate how important a "Change" this is and how much further it'll bring us as a nation as we aspire to bridge divides and heal wounds of partisanship.

Third, I think this shows that Barack is not scared to tackle tough issues, where others may run away from these challenges. Dems have often run away from frank discussions of tax policy or arguments for "progressive taxation" because they were afraid of making the case for it. Barack made a good case for it in a realistic context.

I have always thought that Progressive Taxation is a no-brainer for any civilized society that wants to be successful in the long term. I think the struggle has always been over how to frame the issue and explain it in a way that makes sense. As I said, I think Barack did a good job above. But I also think beyond appeals to fairness and equity, another line of argument can be that Progressive Taxation is misbranded as socialism. In reality, it's actually a capitalistic enterprise that we see play out in all walks of life.

One way to think of this and explain it to every day folks is through an analogy to how a sports franchise runs its business - no doubt a capitalistic endeavor. Think of what we see in ticket pricing all over the map. A sports franchise sets its policy with a set budget (expected revenue) in mind. It realizes that some seats are better than others and offer more amenities (better views, more comfort, proximity, etc.). It recognizes that its constituents are not all equally positioned from a financial perspective. It recognizes that if its cost is too severe in either direction, it risks alienating the top or the bottom and losing revenue. It recognizes there is alternatives to doing business with it (cable, other franchises, minor leagues), albeit remote (just like a taxpayer can be potentially disincentivized and choose to do less/no business or take his/her business out of the country - things that are possible, though they require effort). And it's key to realize that this is just illustrative and not meant to be exact, but the counter-argument that one has the choice to say no to higher prices with regard to buying tickets is really not a valid distinction or inapposite here, because just like that - I'd argue that the ones who are complaining (i.e., the rich) do not have to benefit from the great US economy (or make millions of dollars so as to qualify for higher taxes) if they don't like the tax consequences.

The key here is that in every instance, what you see as the solution that emerges is a progressive (not proportional or flat) pricing policy that charges significantly higher prices for the better seats and lower prices for the worse seats so that it can keep these seats affordable for all. A flat rate simply wouldn't work because of the reality that the landscape is unequal. A proportional rate simply won't work for much of the same reason, because too many folks get priced out at the bottom end. So in effect, what you get is redistribution/subsidizing. The pricing is tweaked (by reacting to the market reactions - free market) to hit the spot that you achieve your revenue goal and sell-out the place.

At the end of the day, despite gripes (nothing is ever easy) most recognize the inherent necessity and fairness of this concept in this context - so hopefully they can see the translation. The tax policy can be likened to this in every respect. The progressive tax rates are tweaked to achieve rates that invite maximum participation and obtain the desired budgetary revenues. The benefit of the bargain is still worth it, and more people get to benefit/participate.

Media's Misplaced Obsession with Budget Cuts and Deficit Spending

2008-10-14T16:57:37Z

Last night on CNN, and on both debates, the media again pushed this notion that both candidates are being irresponsible and dishonest about their plans by refusing to acknowledge what programs or spending initiatives would be cut in light of the cost of the bailout and the economic crisis. It's really fascinating to have people with no economic expertise offer opinions that chastise the candidates as if there is no other option.

While I agree that our deficit is out of control and that the ideal is to balance budgets, most responsible economic theorists and our experience would tell you that one of the only times you can justify deficit spending is during times of economic recession/depression. These initiatives and temporary public works type projects that were symbolic of the New Deal help instill confidence, stimulate the economy, stem unemployment growth, and keep money in the pocketbooks of Americans. Essentially, they substitute for the private sector projects until such time as it can get back on its feet and then gov't steps back and focuses on re-balancing the budget.

The Republican approach to deficit spending (to finance unnecessary wars, give huge unnecessary tax breaks to the filthy rich, and feed our addiction to oil) is what hurts the economy and is wrong about our growing deficit. Barack's approach is right.

What these pundits need to do is to look back at history and the New Deal and assemble some actual experts on their panels (as opposed to political pundits) and ask them whether there is any value to this type of deficit spending for public works projects and economic stability during times of private sector shortcomings and I bet they'd be in for a surprise.

BTW - an interesting look at economic impact of Dem v. Rep policies:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

True Patriotism (Obama) v. the False/Dangerous Rhetoric of Perfection and Infallibility

2008-10-13T17:17:49Z

I know this is a bit philosophical at a critical juncture of the election, but I had to get this off my chest, because I actually think this is relevant to the flames Sarah Palin is trying to fan when she speaks of "Barack Obama is someone who views America as imperfect ..." and tries to contrast it with her notion of a Perfect America serving as the shining city on a hill.

This notion of perfection and American infallibility is one of the most dangerous, misguided notions out there and it is to our serious detriment as Americans. In truth, it is a tool of oppression that has been used by radical dictatorial regimes in the past and is now being used by the right wing politicians in the present in America. It is an oppressive tool that equates and conflates this ridiculous and demonstrably false notion of perfection with Patriotism and then tries to bully, ostracize, and suppress anyone that dares question this thinking or the policies of America's leaders as unpatriotic. In this world, everything is simplified and painted in a "you're with us or against us" or "good guys v. bad guys" picture. If you question or assign fault to anything that the country has done or any policy that the country has implemented, you're being unpatriotic, emboldening enemies, and questioning America.

This is the kind of radical notion that oppresses critical thinking and progress, that enables, rationalizes and tacitly approves misguided or unjustified wars, hideous acts of torture, abandonment of communal or global principles and treaties. It's all done under the self-serving guise that it's ok because it's in our immediate national interests; that it's ok because we know what's right and wrong and when we can tell when we can't afford to abide by old norms in times of crisis; and that ultimately we shouldn't question it or worry because America is doing it - and that because we all know and agree that a America is a great country - we should know that it wouldn't anything wrong or do something "seemingly wrong" unless it was absolutely necessary.

We've seen this playbook followed to script in the Bush/Cheney years. Anyone that questioned the start or the conduct of the Iraq war, American policies of torture and rendition, American abandonment of global treaties, etc. was branded and demonized as unpatriotic, defeatist, and as emboldening the enemies/ terrorists. We're seeing this playbook again with McCain and Palin. McCain uses much of it in his discussion of foreign policy and Palin's entire worldview can be summed up by this theory (I wish I was kidding - listen to her speeches). She uses it in all her rhetoric.

Once you take a step back - the danger of this is and should be clear. Not only does it polarize and divide Americans, but it antagonizes, incites violence, and suppresses rational critical thinking that would lead to better discourse and informed judgments.

But most importantly - it is the exact opposite of patriotism and the foundations of America which we all love. To be patriotic is to love one's country - not to view it as perfect. To be patriotic is to always strive for ways to make America an even better country, even if that means voicing dissent. The key to patriotism is upward, forward and organic. It is to commit yourself to loving and supporting your country and working toward that cause if it's being derailed. Not to abandon it, criticize it (without action) or to blindly and uncritically adhere to what is currently happening.

Bush, Cheney, McCain and Palin have it exactly wrong. America is not perfect in practice, and history has boundless examples of things we've done wrong - whether it be slavery, torture, camps in WWII, female suppression, etc. But the beauty and the perfection in America lies in that its democratic structure and its ideals of free speech enable us to question our policies, denounce bad practices, and ultimately change direction toward a more perfect democratic union.

Don't you see - that's why the constitution has checks and balances, freedom of speech and the free press; that's why it allows for impeachment and an amendment process; that's why we have elections. It is to enable us to constantly strive for perfection and betterment. It is to allow us to have discourse, dissent and critical thinking.

This is one of the things I most love about Obama's speeches. He gets the beauty of America. he understands what our founders understood when they set out to create a governmental structure that would help us "form a more perfect union". As he said in the historic speech about race or in his acceptance speech (really worth the read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html-

it's not that we're perfect, it's that we love this country and its ideals so that we can realize and overcome our imperfections and continuously strive for a more perfect union. That's the kind of leader he wants to be. That's the kind of leader that allows for diverse viewpoints to inform his judgment. That's the kind of leader that won't make rash impulsive decisions. That's the kind of leader that transcends bitter political divides and brings people together. That's the kind of leader that has his eyes on the actual prize - the betterment of America as opposed to tending to self-serving immediate goals, seeing himself as an elected leader obligated only to reward those who voted for him, or his lobbyists, or the military industrial complex. That's the kind of leader that understands we can only serve as that shining city on a hill, not by blindly calling ourselves infallible and plowing ahead with policies determined to unilaterally expand our power, but by setting an example that understands and respects humanity for all its components - its fallible and delicate nature, its good intentions, and its desire for finding a way to prosper amidst a peaceful existence. In short, America recognized the desire and embodied the ability to organize civilized institutions that would and could be greater than the sum of our parts and would enable us to recognize, overcome and transcend our own faults and prejudices and our collective mistakes to better ourselves as a society.

Now - that is patriotism.