The latest Faux News wire report shows a rising tide of support for Islamist Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama. It seems that his largest bloc of voting support, Al Howeveryouspellit sleeper agents, have been offended by Former Champion POW, Senator McVain's recent actions.

Al Howeveryouspellit spokesman, Mohammed al Abu Mohammed al Abu al et al, had this to say from his White House guest room: McVain's recent actions have only energized those working for the return of the Caliphate here in America. Everyone knows that the pig is the filthiest of animals. His recent promise to put lipstick on every pig and every right wing, pseudo-feminist, highly corrupt Alaskan Governor running for Vice President may be the last straw.

Islamist Presidential Hopeful Barack Obama and his campaign had no comment largely because we never asked. Comment or no comment, this story finally explains why the public shows such consistent support for the traitor.

We here at Faux News are committed to bringing you only the highest quality faux news, debunked rumor and Republican press release as fact.

A bald faced lie released today on the Faux News Wire Service revives debate over the status of Islamist politician Barack Obama. A completely unconfirmed report from McVain campaign spokesman, R.U. Gullible, demonstrates once and for all that Obama was born in an Indonesian madrassa. Gullible further states that Obama once told his teacher that he regrets only being able to burn each American flag once. After that, the flags became ash like most pieces of fabric.

Back in November, I attended my state party's main celebration for campaigns and volunteers. We sat at tables in a large room trying to watch a projection from a bad angle while we listened to rumors. For most of the campaign, those of us who really cared were cautious when we talked about what a Democratic Majority could do. In the back of my mind, I remembered the last six years of the Clinton Administration.

After predictions of doom and gloom as the new Republican Majority took power in 1994, fewer bad things happened than expected. This was due to the power of the Presidency. During the 1996 election cycle, a lot of Democrats I knew were considering defecting to a third party candidate. I was bored with politics and considered not voting at all. This changed when a friend of mine let me borrow a book written by James Carville. The title was We Win, They Lose with some sort of subtitle.

I was feeling cynical when I started reading it. After all, I was well to the left of President Clinton on all sorts of issues. Why the hell should I support someone who was in favor of school uniforms?!?! I started reading and saw that some of these positions to my right had some merit. Others were tolerable because they were used to promote goals a center left person like me backed wholeheartedly. In the case of school uniforms, they cost less for the average parent because they stop the "bidding wars" to see who was most fashionable.

I read on and reached the most important section of all. It was a list of laws that would have been on the books with President Clinton there to veto them. This is where I'm going to make my point. The Republican Majority could not force its agenda wholesale because the Presidency is so powerful. We need to give the New Majority a break because even a lame duck like Bush can stop an agenda.

There are polls indicating that people are disappointed with the New Majority and there are some ways in which they have disappointed me. On the other hand, they have the power to stop things from getting worse and they have used that power. This negative power is difficult to see because it is used in committees. Democratic majorities on committees can prevent Bush's nasty ideas from ever making it out in the open.

I am disappointed that the Iraq supplemental bill was passed without a withdrawal deadline. The other side of the coin is that we Democrats are not yet united on what withdrawal will mean. Some believe it should mean withdrawing most of the troops while leaving a small number to train Iraqi police and army units. Others believe that all the troops should be withdrawn because we're accomplishing nothing with a large number of troops so a small number would be even less effective. While my opinion counts for nothing, I believe we should withdraw all the troops to a friendly country. From a forward base in a friendly country, we could make raids against any real Al-Q bases as opposed to those who just use the name for its anti-American ties.

Let's get united behind one approach and then we'll pass a series of bills in an election year. With the Republican candidates begging Bush to take the issue away, some sort of withdrawal bill might even pass. If not, we can have a Democratic Congress pass a bill that can be signed by a Democratic President. That bill will specify that we are withdrawing forces so that we can attack our real enemy. That's something I believe the vast majority of Americans will support and take the edge off any "knife in the back" stories.

In the New York Times, it was revealed that the new chairman of a Federal Consumer Protection Agency has been chosen. No one should be surprised that it is a top executive from an industry lobbying firm.

With the Bush Administration's usual sewer level ethics, no one should be surprised that the new nominee will be getting a bonus from his trade association. This bonus forces him to recuse himself from matters concerning his old employer by law. The article makes it clear that he will have no problem circumventing this ethics law.

What seems strange is that this misadministration that is politicized to unprecedented levels could be so tone deaf. The nominee is named Baroody and I was certain that I had read "Parody" at first. This nominee seems nothing more than an attempt by some Bushie to get a laugh.

You can imagine it if I can. One Bushie says to another, "We're running out of evil things we can do to this country."

The second Bushie says, "No way! Even if we're all going to be indicted next week, we can still have some fun with the Democrats."

The first replies, "Of course! What was I thinking? We've never been concerned with governing so why bother starting now. I think it's time for a parody."

The second laughs and says, "I've found the perfect nominee. He has all the usual ethical issues including conflict of interest. He's nothing more than another attempt to ruin a government agency. Even better, his name even looks a little like parody!"

The first Bushie almost falls off his chair in evil laughter. "Oh, that's too rich!"

The second Bushie jumps to his feet and screams, "Blasphemer! No one can ever be too rich."

"It was a figure of speech!"

The first Bushie relaxes a little. The sweat beading on his forehead is dried by a well monogrammed towel. "I'll let it go this time but you have to remember. We Bushies are here in Washington so that no rich person has to pay taxes and there is no limit to how much money we can make when we leave government."

The second Bushie notes a flaw in that. "Why wait until we leave? I'm already raking in the dough from my stock options."

The first smiles and pats his friend on the head. "We have to at least try to pretend like we're here for public service."

Or something like that.

Call me crazy but I find myself caught up in election fever. It never really went away despite the fact that I just about keeled over from the effort. In one sense, it will get better when the new Congress gets sworn in. I'm more interested in legislating than I am in elections where the wrong people seem to get elected more often than the right ones.

Even so, I'm thinking a lot about the 2008 elections. During the victory celebration, one of my connected friends and I groused about the fact that Democrats were willing to vote a straight ticket with the exception of supporting two particular Republican incumbents. Since then, I've been thinking more and more about how one goes about defeating popular fake moderates.

When I want to defeat anyone else, I look at their strengths and wonder how they can be countered. These Republican false moderates have the twin organizational advantages of name recognition and superior fundraising. They also have advantages based on Delaware's peculiarities. In the northern part of the state, we get Philadelphia media almost exclusively. In the southern part, we get Baltimore media. Therefore, a Delaware statewide candidate has to waste most of the money he or she spends on TV by reaching more voters unable to vote in the state than those who can.

Obviously, superior fundraising doesn't always lead to victory. After watching dozens of anti-Biden attack ads on Philadelphia TV, I was there to shake Attorney General-elect Beau Biden's hand at the victory celebration. Unfortunately, most candidates trying to gain name recognition don't have a name like Biden. Senators Biden and Carper are legends in this state so they start off with the name recognition in the bag.

It's a lot tougher when you have a name like Dennis Spivack and you're taking on the third legend, Mike Castle. I can't even remember how to pronounce his last name and I voted for him then listened to his concession speech in person. He is brave enough to want to have another go at it and I'm willing to back him. In order for him to have a chance, he needs a couple million people to know how to pronounce his name. In order for him to win, people will have to learn the substantive differences between a Democrat like him and a false moderate Republican like Castle. This is going to take two things. We'd need to generate consensus support behind him or another candidate and then get a lot of early money.

It frustrates me to lack numbers to back my numbers. Obviously, a two term governor like Minner should have a strong constituency if she would choose to take on a superstar like Castle. That's the elephant in the room. For some reason, the superstars I've already mentioned have avoided challenging each other. When Castle left the governor's mansion after his two terms, he traded seats with Carper. Carper moved on to serve his two terms in the mansion and then he made a rare bold move by taking on popular Republican Senator Roth.

Even that struck me as strange. Nearly everyone I spoke with about the 2000 race expected Roth to retire due to declining health. I was worried and waited for a "Clash of the Titans" to develop with Carper and Castle running for the open Senate seat. Instead, Roth tried to hold on and Carper beat him. In 2006, the Republicans ran someone with no name recognition against Carper and he or she got trounced.

Fortunately, I see some hope in this. We Delaware Democrats have been dominating statewide races for a few cycles now. We have a growing cadre of candidates getting ready for the big leagues with a growing cadre of activists backing them. If Castle were to run against Biden or Carper, one thing would be almost certain. We Democrats would pick up the US House seat and Castle would have to run against a popular incumbent. In Delaware politics, it seems that incumbents only lose when they die or look ready to do so.

That brings us back to beating Mike Castle. We need a definite candidate, early money and some luck. Even then, it would be a longshot. Dennis Spivack only has another shot or two at most before he'd be tagged with the William Jennings Bryant/Adlai Stevenson loser label. I'm not willing to put up with four or six more years of Castle just so our growing cadre can take over after gaining seasoning.

This may require a little background in order to make sense. I live very close to a minor airport and relatively close to a major Air Force base. As you might expect, I'm accustomed to having aircraft overhead. For some reason, there have been a number of relatively low level passes by aircraft that pass too quickly for me to see. Even if they weren't fighter or attack aircraft, the experience is startling to say the least.

In addition, I've been playing a combat flight simulator that features the F-22 fighter recently. The combination of these two situations has me thinking about airpower. I'm not an airpower freak who believes that the US Air Force can destroy any enemy if only they have sufficiently expensive jets to fly. On the other hand, these low flying aircraft reminded me of what airpower can do.

The United States needs to retain its qualitative and quantitative advantages over every other nation in airpower. The simple fact of the matter is that the average infantry soldier has a tough enough job to perform without having low flying jets trying to kill him. I was startled enough by jets that I knew were no threat to me. Even if the military's primary mission in the 21st century is counter-insurgency, we need air superiority.

Right now, if the F-22 works, it is the best jet we have. The Joint Strike Fighter will be better but it isn't ready. While no one can take on the aircraft we have right now, those aircraft are getting old. Jet aircraft undergo stresses to their frames that are greater than any other atmospheric vehicle. Eventually, the frames become unsafe to fly much less fly into combat.

The current aircraft in the USAF and Navy arsenals were built with 70s and 80s technology with the possible exception of the B-2. So, we need to replace old airframes and it would be foolish to replace old airframes with old technology. The reasons for this involve things like encouraging engineers to build the next generation of technology after this one. They need the money to do it.

This liberal is aware of the current budget crunch. Therefore, this liberal is in favor of putting all of the current military expenditures on the books instead of hiding them in supplementals. Then, we must find revenue enhancements to fund current expenses plus new technology for each service. Perhaps we only need half the Air Force's requested F-22s but we do need some.

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts will help. After all, that money isn't employing anyone in this nation as it is. This liberal knows that there are other urgent priorities and that there is not enough money to go around. Perhaps the rolling back the Bush tax cuts will not be enough. The money for all of it absolutely must be spent to keep this nation strong.

That means employed with a living wage, access to good health care, well educated, generous with a foreign aid budget to prevent other nations' problems from becoming international problems and that means keeping the nation physically safe. There will have to be priorities set. For instance, body armor should come before F-22s. Health care should come before helping the rich get richer.

We do not yet know how deep a hole that the Bush Misadministration will dig for us. What we do know is that it will be difficult. Don't listen to those who complain that we lack detailed plans to solve these problems. The first steps involve recognizing the problems and not continuing to make them worse. That will require a Democratic Congress now and a Democratic President in two years. Once we have some power, we can use it to start making things better.

We liberals will not forget the difficulties of living in the Bush economy. Let's make sure we don't forget that infantrymen need friendly skies either.

The Spinach Trap

As I read the headline, I thought it had to be a prank. As Children Suffer, Parents Agonize Over Spinach read like something that would get a copy editor fired. I had heard about the nationwide spinach recall but assumed it was just one of those things where you'd throw up for a day and then feel better in the morning. The idea that children would suffer through such agony and die because their parents fed them that supervegetable, spinach, was beyond my immediate comprehension. Now, I realize that this is yet another deadly example of what happens when government is run by those who wish to destroy it.

When I first read the headline, I thought about poor Popeye and how Bluto was going to kick his ass all around town. Once again, I had failed to realize just how broken our system of government is. FEMA failed to do its job despite explicit law stating that it was to take charge in an event like Hurricane Katrina. We depend on government to keep us safe in modern society and the Bush Administration is doing its best to break that sacred trust forever.

We expect police to keep enough order in the streets to prevent the sort of disorder depicted in "A Clockwork Orange." We expect our government to have disaster plans in place in case a hurricane struck a vulnerable area. We expect our government to inspect our food and drugs to make sure that they are safe. We expect the entire process of growing through packaging our food to be inspected to prevent contamination. We expect our mines to be as safe as they can be for workers who already toil under some of the worst conditions in the nation. The government is supposed to enforce compliance through a system of inspection and penalties.

This administration has failed to carry out any of its most solemn duties. People are dying from eating what's supposed to be one of the healthiest vegetables. Miners in West Virginia have been dying. New Orleans is still in ruins more than a year after the hurricane. Our government has placed the proverbial foxes in charge of the henhouse. When inspectors are allowed to do their jobs, the fines they levy are reduced to affordable levels. Often, the companies do not pay them at all. People die when government fails to do its job and the Republicans are out to make government fail.

What about that reference to "A Clockwork Orange" that you probably thought was silly hyperbole. The Iraqis are going through a whole lot of the "ole ultraviolence." We took away the tyrannic glue that held a concoction of warring factions together. The result was predictable and predicted by many outside the administration. That could very well be where we are headed unless we change the party in charge as soon as Constitutionally possible.

Message of Hope Not Pessimism

This post is a response to the essay posted for roundtable discussion at the Democratic Strategist.

My first reaction to reading this essay was disgust. If Democrats don't counter the Republican generated and mass media spread message of good cheer, who will? I don't mean to sound like a grouch but who will talk about the disenfranchised, the disabled and the down and out if not the Democrats? Who will speak for those who lack the voices and checkbooks to make sure they are heard?

The answer, not surprisingly, is the same Democrats. The same policies that will benefit the poor, the sick and the down and out will benefit the middle class. The main thing that needs to change is what the candidates say about these policies. The same policies that will help the disadvantaged make it will also help the middle class get ahead.

One of the reasons why I consider myself to be a centrist Democrat is that I have no problem with a lot of people being richer than I am. I have a problem with people who use their wealth to hurt and hold down other people but there's nothing inherently wrong with having money. In fact, I would like to become a member of the middle class someday.

When I get there, something strange will happen. I'll dream of getting further ahead. At that point, I'll want a better idea of how to get there. What do we Democrats say to those people who want more? It seems that we don't say a whole lot other than "welcome to your new tax bracket."

I'm not attacking the idea of progressive taxation here. In all honesty, I believe that the needs of the desperate outweigh the needs of the mere dreamers. If I get to the point where I only want more instead of needing it, I hope I'll still believe the same things. After all, I believed them when all my needs were met by my middle class parents.

People who don't believe in putting the needs of the less fortunate first need to be told what most of us already know. Many benefits to the poor and sick will trickle up to the better off. For example, Social Security is designed to assure a minimum standard of living for those who are too old and/or sick to work. The Bush Administration has been attacking Social Security for some time as a bad deal for the middle class and above and we Democrats defend it as a good deal for the elderly, infirm and poor.

We should defend it as a great deal for the middle class aspiring for more. Why? Since the middle class is guaranteed a minimum standard of living later, they can accept more risk now. Instead of putting their savings into an account with a low guaranteed return, they can include stocks with no guarantee in their portfolio. Some will win and make more money but others will lose and the safety net called Social Security will catch them.

There are other benefits from Social Security for the middle class even before they get older. They know that their parents will have a guaranteed minimum standard of living. Before Social Security, it was common to have three or four generations of family living in one home. It still happens but it is more likely to be a choice now.

We centrist Democrats believe in you. We want you to reach for the stars and make it but we want government to be there to catch those that fall. Right now, too many people fall through the safety net and so it needs mending. There are pitfalls left uncovered because FDR's generation didn't know they would ever exist. It is our obligation to extend our nets to make those safer as well. We cannot guarantee that everyone will achieve their dreams but we can guarantee that everyone gets the chance to try.

What of those who claim not to believe in a safety net? What of those people who claim that they don't want any help even if they do fall. Not all of those people are hypocrites. In some sense, the impulse to make it on your own or fail is admirable but there are other things to consider. The safety net is part of the fabric of society. Without it, society may crumble.

Those who claim that they do not need government should consider the full implications of that idea. Government programs do not just benefit the poor. Without the stability of our government, your wealth and health would be in danger from all sides. Our government is responsible for law and order that goes far beyond law enforcement and the military.

What is a dollar worth on its own? I'd imagine it wouldn't be much. Dollars don't do anything. You can't eat them and they don't make very good fuel or mattress stuffing. Obviously, I'm getting at the point that our currency is worth what it is because it is backed by the stability of our government. This is why some conservatives want to go back to a currency backed by gold. Even then, the value of each gold backed dollar would be set by government.

That has nothing to do with the social safety net. It may or may not depending on how you look at it but the safety net limits desperation. In the days before modern government, desperate men banded together to rob travelers. It was unsafe to travel anywhere because these men were willing to risk death if caught because they were poor. Disease used to run rampant through cities because the poor lived in such squalor. Such conditions still exist in other countries and even a few places in the United States but our social safety net has eliminated most of it.

Suppose you are wealthy enough to stay at home having people travel to you. Suppose you are wealthy enough to pay a doctor by the hour to keep you healthy. Where did this doctor learn medicine? Who certified that he or she actually learned anything? Who paid for the technology that he or she used to treat you? Were you bled by the use of a leech so that your humours went into balance?

The fact of the matter is that we have it good here in the United States. The other fact is that we can get better. Any true patriot must understand both of these facts. You want to get rich and I want to get rich so I'll wish us both good luck. Let's get together and improve on what we have. Let's find a tax credit or some other subsidy for those struggling to care for parents or children. Let's extend the benefit of our health care system to every citizen in case that a citizen wants to venture out and start a business or falls ill and cannot work. It's time for us to realize that we are all in this together.

No, I'm just kidding. The problem is that I had an experience today that I usually just hear about. I came upon a couple of liberals eating their young and trying to burn down the establishment all in a few comments on a post. The post was about Democrats failing to be sufficiently cynical in attacking Bush.

When I tried to intervene and remind these raging lefties that we want to take Congress from the insane right wingers, I got scorched. It turns out that any attempt to govern may well involve some form of compromise. Compromise is strictly verboten by order of the mob forming outside the window.

Regardless of whatever substantive issues may have been at hand, the overwhelming impression was that Democrats are bad. We haven't managed to find the secret key to open the path that will take us to a liberal majority without any compromise to reality or anything else. That makes us bad, bad, bad.

These bad Democrats are all taking their marching orders from Skull and Bones along with *shudder*...the DLC. If we follow them back to their secret headquarters, we might find Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.

Anyone who didn't know better might have gone past this comment thread and thought there was no difference between those two bickering parties. What we really need is for someone to rise above it all and lead. No, wait! That's what Bush is claiming to do.

I probably would agree or sympathize with the criticism being made but the heat was turned up way too high. One must draw a distinction between those Republicans in power and those Democrats in the minority. Blaming Democrats for failing to stop Bush is blaming the victims.

Bush is what we got the last time militant liberals decided an election. Yes, the heat was turned up pretty high in this post but only out of love. We need you to take all this pent up emotion and use it constructively. Write your Democratic delegation and ask them to implement/talk about your idea. Do the same for your local Democratic candidates.

Just remember that a less than perfect Democrat beats Bush on the merits every time.

Liberal Majority in 2026 - Part 2

Civil (Human) Rights

The struggle for civil rights, or human rights when applied to other nations, is not over by any means. It will not end until we have removed every last bit of discrimination from our laws. Conservatives have managed to set the terms of discussion here but claiming we liberals are in search of group rights. We can either be a bunch of groups easily divided while searching for women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, workers' rights, disabled rights and so on. It is too easy to divide us against each other that way.

What do we want? We want the same human rights that those who have money and/or power demand for themselves. We want society to lower the barriers meant to keep "different" people out. Women want to be able to co-exist with men in the workplace without being seen as sex objects. Women want control over their reproductive systems. Women and not men carry fetuses within their bodies so they want the final say about whether or not to carry one. Some women are completely opposed to abortion and will carry any fetus to term as best they can regardless of the circumstances. Others believe that abortion is a viable alternative. Therefore, it remains available as a choice.

People of all ethnicities want to be judged for who they are and not for the color of their skin. No one wants to live in fear and few people want to inspire it in others. When police pull over individuals of certain ethnicities because of stereotypes involving crime, they are violating an individual's right to be treated like a fellow human being. The actual genetic differences among the various ethnicities are less than the differences that make us male or female. Therefore, this liberal only recognizes one race and that is the human race.

The things that make ethnicities truly different from one another are things to celebrate. We have different traditions passed down from our ancestors including music styles, clothing and food. The great thing about having so many ethnicities in one nation is that we should never lack a reason to celebrate. The other aspects of ethnicity tend to be invented because we humans tend to be scared of anyone who is different.

Any time a liberal talks about human rights for homosexual people, we hear a lot of hemming and hawing. The conservative will start rambling about not caring what goes on behind closed doors but he doesn't want to see it. You can tell the conservative is trying to suppress lurid sexual images that he fears. Unfortunately, the conservative does have a point but not the one he or she is trying to make. There are very few heterosexual couples who wouldn't gross me out with drunken make out sessions out in front of everyone. Someone I knew used to call that "I'm going off to war and may die tomorrow" kissing. Maybe that's the only circumstance under which I could put up with that.

Human rights for homosexual people need not include such public behavior especially while they are forbidden to go off to war and serve their country. No, the inalienable rights that homosexuals have had taken away are rights that heterosexuals take for granted. As someone who has had more than his share of hospital time and frightening surgeries, I can hardly begin to tell you how important it was to have my wife with me as much as possible. Our marital status gives her a free pass through a lot of hospital doors. Why should a human being have to go through such experiences alone just because he or she has fallen in love with someone of the same sex?

It's not just hospital visitation rights that we might overlook. At every job where I've had a desk, a picture of my wife has occupied the most prominent position. In the military, such a picture of someone the same sex could lead to discharge. Nobody asked but a simple comforting item with no sexual connotation could lead to a dishonorable discharge.

We liberals cannot be satisfied until we've taught our fellow citizens to accept homosexuality as something normal. Every time I see advertisements for Las Vegas, I think of hypocrisy. Homosexual couples are not allowed to marry and the instability of their relationships is cited as a reason. In those Las Vegas ads, married heterosexuals are told that it's ok to cheat because no one will find out. This sort of thing is considered on the fringes of normal. Heterosexual couples have sexual relationships and break up all the time. Why are homosexual couples penalized for being normal?

Worst of all, heterosexual couples can marry and the entire community will help support their union. Homosexual couples usually only have each other yet they can be amazing examples of faithfulness. Could it be that conservatives fear that gay marriages will prove less prone to divorce than straight marriages? There must be some way to educate our fellow citizens so that they understand that some of their fellow human beings just happen to be homosexual.

Once upon a time, there was this great social contract. According to it, a good worker could depend on his employer for a lifetime of work. Wages and working conditions were negotiated between the workers' union and the employer. Yes, there were bad times but the contracts accounted for this. During the cyclical layoffs, unemployment insurance and union benefits help the worker and his family get by. After a working lifetime, the employee could retire in relative comfort with a guaranteed pension and Social Security.

The social contract broke down not when the jobs could be done overseas but when the replacement jobs lacked union protection. Suddenly, the workers had to worry that their bosses would fire them. In many states, no reason has to be given. Instead of a union offering them continued benefits, the workers are lucky to pay twice as much or more for limited time COBRA health insurance.

Wages have stagnated at best keeping up with inflation. Working conditions have deteriorated and benefits have disappeared in many cases. Unions have disappeared as well and new ones failed to emerge. Since the National Labor Relations Board has failed to protect workers, union organizers have lost their jobs. It didn't take long for workers to get the message. They had become modern serfs except that serfs could not be bought and sold. When a company sells part of its business, the workers go right along with it. The great social contract must be restored.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I was born with a birth defect and have been handicapped all my life. The handicap was pretty serious but a lifetime of adjustments and small concessions by others rendered it invisible. This left me in the awkward position of being just "normal" enough to hear all the tasteless jokes about the good parking spots. From the moment I first heard about the stereotypical person who milks a tiny handicap for all it is worth, I vowed to never ask for a single concession that wasn't desperately needed.

Unfortunately, there was another disability first discovered early in 2000 and this was much more serious. I cannot pass myself off as "normal" for more than very short lengths of time. My pride deflated as symptom after symptom added itself to the already complicated life we all lead. It was only then that I saw all the barriers that keep disabled people from leading lives as normal as their ilnesses allowed.

For example, stress aggravates all of my symptoms. If I get worked up enough about anything, I lose my ability to speak coherently. Having various organizations trying to collect on my student loans is something that stresses me too much nearly every day. I like to think of myself as an honorable person who pays his debts even if they aren't paid on time and I hope to pay off my student loans eventually.

How can they expect to get money from me now? We barely get by on my wife's wages and my disability checks. (One disability check was from private insurance offered by my former employer and the other is Social Security Disability. The private disability check was greatly reduced once I qualified for Social Security.) Without the generosity of my parents, we would have no place to live. When the student loans people call, I tell them that I'm still sick. In fact, I'm going to have more neurosurgery done and then I might start to get better. They just tell me that I've used up all my sick time.

A truly compassionate government would freeze student loans for people under Social Security Disability. After all, it's not easy to get and it is the government's seal demonstrating that my illness is serious. The government knows that I cannot work yet the very best I can hope for is that the loans will continue to gather interest and compound. The worst case is something that no one is willing to discuss with me.

This is just one of the barriers keeping me from living as a human being. Another is the extremely tight laws regulating pain medication. I'm in a lot of pain a lot of the time but my pain specialist has helped me control it most of the time. Unfortunately, they would not give me the freedom I need to control my pain during a recent hospital trip so I suffered. I was in a place where people go for severe pain relief and I hurt more than I do at home without dozens of doctors and nurses about.

We need to convince the voters that the pain suffered by so many is more important that the so-called "War on Drugs." All the hoops I need to jump through to get my medication didn't stop a certain conservative from feeding his addiction to painkillers. Our drug policy's ideals should be similar to the ideal criminal justice system that would prefer to let ten guilty people go before taking the risk of punishing one innocent person.

It will take time to convince the voting majority that they should vote for human rights but I believe it can be done. I'm a patient person so I won't throw a fit if even a Democratic Congress fails to reach these goals after the 2006 elections. What I want is for the American public to be educated well enough to elect a working liberal majority by 2026. If it happens sooner, all the better but 20 years is a nice number to remember. We went from Goldwater's defeat to Reagan in less than 20 years so we should be able to reverse the damage.

Liberal Majority in 2026

First of all, please note that I hold out hope of a Democratic majority in 2006. However, that's just a first step for those of us on the progressive side. Over the course of a few decades, Republicans and conservatives have come to dominate the realm of ideas. Over the course of this essay, I hope to explain at least some of the radical and harmful ideas that they have made seem mainstream.

In order to make a liberal working majority possible, we need to counter these ideas and it is going to take time. That's why I'm setting out the goal of a liberal majority by 2026. What little remains of 2006 should be spent trying to get a Democratic majority in the House so we can stop the bleeding. This will require accepting some conservative Democrats barely to the left of Zell Miller but this problem can be overcome in the House. It will be slightly more of a problem in the Senate but it will be better than what we have now.

Taxation

Conservatives have been fighting against taxation for years. It has gotten to the point where everyone believes they pay too much in taxes. The main thrusts of this assault on the price of freedom are against the income tax, capital gains taxes and the estate tax. The myth is that these three taxes exact a terrible toll on most families.

Every time a conservative talks about the effect of a tax cut, they talk about the "average taxpayer." "The 'average taxpayer' saves (insert impressively high number) under my plan." If you're a regular on this site and you're reading this essay, this probably won't be news to you but I have to note it anyway. The "average taxpayer" doesn't exist. He or she is just a statistical ploy. The average tax bill for all Americans includes what Bill Gates and other billionaires pay. All the millionaires and billionaires serve to push up all the averages.

It gets worse from there. We all look at our checks (or stubs for those of us with direct deposit) and see a lot deducted. How can I claim that you aren't paying too much in taxes when those deductions are so high? I'm not claiming that you're not paying too much in taxes. I'm talking about the very specific taxes that conservatives like to cut. For those of us who are just getting by, it is almost always payroll taxes that take the biggest bite.

Payroll taxes might very well be too high and they are regressive. Those of us with the smallest incomes fork over the highest percentages of our income to payroll taxes. This is because you only pay those taxes up to an income cap. I believe the cap is between 90 and 100 thousand dollars a year. Anything you make beyond that is payroll tax free. Therefore, someone making 400 thousand dollars is only paying payroll taxes on one quarter of his or her income. You can see why the extremely wealthy patrons of the conservative press don't care about these taxes.

The second of these taxes that Republicans like to talk about is the capital gains tax. It's a tax on gains made through investment and the right wing loves to complain about how their money is being taxed twice. Just the name of the tax should allow you to see through it. It's not a "capital loss" tax or a "capital still invested in the economy tax." It is a tax on money earned by buying and selling stocks, bonds and some other things. That sounds an awful lot like a sales tax to me.

Why don't the conservatives go on and on about the sales tax? Once again, a sales tax eats up a higher percentage of a middle or working class family's income. Everyone has a certain number of fixed expenses to which a sales tax would apply. The rich may spend more on fancier food and clothing. They probably spend more on recreation but there's a limit to it. When you get right down to it, the rich spend more money but they also save or invest a lot more. The poorest of the poor spend a greater portion of their income on necessities so the sales tax applies to far more of their income. It seems that Republicans like taxes when they are applied to the poor.

Finally, we have the estate tax that the Republicans tried to rename. When you listen to them talk about this tax, you get the idea that the government rifles through the pockets of whatever you are buried in. The fact of the matter is that this tax only applies to the richest estates. (Some state estate taxes are different and are the likely origin of the horror stories.) Before your estate pays one dollar of tax, it must be valued in the millions. Democrats are willing to increase the exemption or even index it to inflation but this is not enough for the right wing. They will not be happy until every one of their ancestors is wealthy enough to never work a day of their lives. It is about creating a permanent leisure class.

The Proud American Case for Taxation

We should be proud of our nationality. As Americans, we have a standard of living that is the envy of much of the world. Our government is responsible for much of this even though it works behind the scenes. Conservatives claim that the government should just provide money for national defense and then get out of the way. It's hard to believe that those who benefit the most from government should be so hostile to paying for it.

Conservatives like to pretend that we don't need government but liberals should insist on differing. Did you eat today? If so, the Food and Drug Administration enforced standards on the producers, packagers and transporters of your food. You don't have to worry about getting sick because insects made it into your food. Those inspectors had to be paid and transported to the various places where they needed to work. This costs money and we need to pay for it with taxes.

Do you have money in the bank? If so, the federal government is protecting it. It is probably insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The first $100,000 in everyone's accounts is guaranteed. If you invest your money in a non-insured account by buying stocks for example, the federal government is protecting you with the Securities and Exchange Commission. They set the rules that prevent companies from simply stealing your money and punish those who try. Did you spend any money today? United States currency is not backed by any metal that can run out. It is backed by the stability of the government. The Treasury Department, including the Secret Service, enforces the stability of the currency by protecting you from counterfeiters.

If something goes terribly wrong, the government is there to help. FEMA exists to help you in the event of severe weather and/or certain kinds of attacks. They will do everything they can to save lives, help the survivors get through the emergency and then help rebuild afterward. The Social Security Administration provides a guaranteed pension in a time when the private sector is abandoning the concept. They also provide disability insurance to all working Americans and Medicare for both the elderly and the disabled.

What happens when conservatives get to set the priorities? The rich pay a lot less in taxes while the rest of us absorb the risk. FEMA was run as a patronage provider so thousands died from Hurricane Katrina. Our armed forces were used without regard to the consequences and thousands died. Halliburton gained no-bid contracts and provided our soldiers with food that the FDA would have rejected. In every case, the private sector did what it was designed to do and generated profits but failed to replace the government's services. The rich benefited while the poor suffered.

We liberals believe that we need to pay for the services our government provides instead of simply borrowing the money for our ancestors to pay off. We believe that the rich benefit disproportionately from government services so a progressive income tax is only fair. We also believe that voters can be shown the truth and it will shine through the lies. What we need to do is figure out how to educate those voters so saturated with conservative misinformation.

Today's New York Times contained an editorial on Republican cynicism concerning immigration. It recognized the fact that the Republicans are trying to regain the political offensive by talking about one of their favorite "issues," illegal immigration. Their goal isn't to accomplish anything but only to talk about how a Democratic Congress would leave us swimming in illegal immigrants.

At the same time, the op-ed piece disappointed me. It said very little about immigration in the context of globalization or in any other real world context. Why are people so desperate to come here while our jobs are supposedly disappearing overseas? What do they see that we are missing?

Maybe this mess isn't about jobs as much as it is about standards of living. We liberals are concerned about the growing inequality of wealth and how our standard of living fails to live up to what it could be. That's very important for us to remember or we'll be drowned out by conservatives talking about poor people who have color televisions as if they were state of the art technology.

While we have serious problems with starving and malnourished children, food is relatively cheap here. In Mexico, a rise in the cost of tortilla threatened to push families over the edge into starvation. It is better here than it is there.

We need to deal with conditions here and conditions in Mexico as separate issues. Our economies are in different stages of development. If we were to encourage certain American companies like Wal-Mart and/or major supermarket chains to invest in Mexico, we might be able to raise their standard of living. It might still be terrible south of the border but it would likely be less terrible. If we can make it liveable enough so that people are no longer willing to risk the likelihood of death and/or imprisonment to cross the border, far fewer will try it.

I am not an expert on the Mexican economy but I can make a few guesses. The cost of food needs to be brought down. This will not be painless just like it is not painless for American farmers but it will benefit more people than it hurts. How can this be done?

We can replace some of our money spent encouraging farmers to grow less with a system of selling the food to American companies operating in Mexico. During this period, the Mexican economy would benefit from jobs building and maintaining a distribution network. Construction would also be needed for either American style supermarkets or smaller food markets in areas without the population density needed to support big stores.

At the same time, investment would have to be made in Mexican farms. I'm not sure how this could be arranged so that American companies could be encouraged to do the job without replacing Mexicans. Perhaps different crops could be produced more efficiently in the different climates. Producing crops where they can be grown best might encourage a narrowing of whatever trade deficit exists.

Once people can get jobs at their local markets, the worst sort of poverty should be reduced. The improved standard of living for some should produce demand for additional products made either in the United States or Mexico. That will increase the standard of living further.

Of course, improvements could be made on the typical American business model. In return for some sort of concessions, these new companies could be employee owned eventually.

As far as I can discern, the key would be to produce businesses and products for local use. If the products are meant for export, they will flood markets elsewhere and not raise the local standard of living. The poverty of the masses in many oil producing nations is an example of how this can go wrong.

In any case, I wanted to put this idea out there for discussion. Feel free to tweak it at will. If you have your own approach, I'd like to hear it. Let's just stay civil, please.

It may be that I was the last to know but a state of war has broken out in the Middle East. Hezbollah, the long time client of Iran, captured Israeli soldiers patrolling Israel's northern border with Lebanon. For some reason, the soldiers were out there without additional support. This is not the usual state of things because the Israelis know their soldiers will be attacked.

Some people here at TPMCafe may believe this was a deliberate tactic. Israel wanted an excuse to attack so they put soldiers out there to be vulnerable. I disagree strenuously. If the Israelis wanted to launch an assault, they have had plenty of other provocations. If they were using the soldiers for bait, I would think they'd wait for Hezbollah to make a move and then move in with guns blazing. Honestly, I do not believe that Israel needed another provocation. The IDF has an obligation to defend its soldiers and Israeli citizens. Hezbollah attacks both regularly.

I wanted to make my opinion on Israel's rights and obligations clear before going on. This post is likely to draw flames and trolls anyway but I want to be in the right. Israel's response has been horrifying from thousands of miles away. Like the United States, Israel has military might that completely outclasses all its neighbors. When one has such an advantage, one has an obligation to use it carefully. I hoped for hours that the reports of attacks on civilian targets were propaganda.

Unfortunately, they seem to be legitimate. An ally of the United States has been killing women and children to get at the enemy. Sometimes, this is what you have to do but it seems Israel has crossed a line. It's difficult to express my revulsion at their tactics. I expected Israel to follow the same high standards that are expected of American soldiers. According to this New York Times article, Israel warned a village to evacuate and then attacked the evacuation convoy. How are we supposed to not label that a war crime?

In the civilized world, one has difficulty attacking a guerilla enemy. They hide among the people and civilized armies do not simply attack the civilians hoping that God will sort them out. (I am not quoting any modern person there. I cannot remember who said this but it was not in reference to the Middle East much less Israel.) That gives the guerilla army an advantage but civilized people live with that. The individuals who break this rule are not always morally culpable but the actions are still wrong.

That's the moral argument but there's also a practical issue. By attacking cities and villages, the Israelis are giving their enemies a propaganda victory. It is said that the American army creates two insurgents for every one it kills in Iraq. I believe that the ratio would be even worse for Israel. I went to pre-school at my local Jewish Community Center and so I have strong ingrained positive beliefs about Israel. Even I am angered at their tactics and have been for some time.

Recently, I've written some of my favorite political webloggers about the Middle East hoping they would do a post on my thoughts. We all know what a just peace would look like in the Middle East. Israel would retreat to its 1967 borders with the exception of a few tradeoffs here and there for established settlements. A fund would be established to compensate Palestinian refugees for the loss of ancestral homes.

The Palestinians would give up the literal right of return in favor of cash and help in making their own settlements. After all, two wrongs do not make a right and the Israelis living in these places are not the ones who committed the alleged crimes against the Palestinians. Instead of these refugee camps, international help would build real cities and towns with reliable access to water. Jerusalem would be split with a neutral party taking care of the various holy sites and ensuring nothing is done to restrict access or harm them.

Of course, this likely will not happen in our lifetimes. There is too much hate for rational minds to overcome. (I mean the rational minds within the haters too.) In 2000, it seemed that peace was inevitable. After all, commerce was established and people seemed more interested in trade than killing. I know I cannot truly understand what either side has gone through but it galls me. We know what the end will look like but no one will accept it.

Perhaps it is another example of what can happen to someone who has been disabled for too long but I do a lot of things to stave off boredom. One of these things is to reread a lot of good books. Therefore, I have a habit of rereading William Shirer's classic, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, once a year or so. Don't worry about this becoming a comparison between Bush and Hitler. I haven't even reached the part of the book where Hitler takes office. I've been reading about the Weimar Republic and it looks awfully familiar to me.

People have been known to state that Hitler was inevitable. When the unpopular Weimar Republic was faced with a world wide depression, some dictator had to rise and take power. Serious historians never buy into inevitability arguments but I wonder if there isn't something to be found here.

Just as in Washington today, Berlin was run by a peculiar type of politician. These politicians hated the Republic that they served and sought to either twist it or overthrow it. Organized violence was used by former military officers to counter the liberal government that the people wanted. After the liberals were cowed by violence, that majority of politicians who wanted to make the government work never dared cross the conservatives again. Therefore, the conservatives ran the Weimar Republic no matter what the political breakdown in the Reichstag suggested.

Our government in Washington did not result from an army that fought in the streets to chase off a liberal Congress. On the other hand, conservative institutions including certain churches and the organized gun lobby threw money at Congress until it reflected their views. Those who claimed to hate government were chosen to participate in it by voters who were overwhelmed with disinformation.

Both today's Washington and the Weimar Republic ignored debt and its economic impact. In Germany, a massive amount of new currency was printed to pay on these debts. The common people saw their savings become worthless literally overnight. No business could take place when no one knew what the money they had would be worth tomorrow so all sorts of essentials were hoarded and those common people suffered. This avoided taxing the conservatives who would have overthrown the regime. At the same time, it made it almost certain that the regime would fail eventually as those common people lost faith in it. Therefore, the only people with a stake in the Republic's success were turned against it.

The United States has not turned to massive inflation to keep conservatives happy. Washington has what appears to be an unlimited power to borrow and spend. This keeps the conservative backers of this government happy with artificially low taxes and high subsidies. The common people suffer through poor health care and disappearing jobs. Just as seriously, government is not there to take care of the various crises that take place. Since government exists for the rich to get richer, incompetence becomes institutionalized. Thousands died and suffered when Hurricane Katrina hit because the government did not do its supposed job. Those suffering poor and middle class people lost a lot of faith in government.

Do I believe that Bush can be compared to Hitler effectively? No. Bush has caused hundreds of thousands to suffer but Hitler killed millions by direct action. On the other hand, Hitler told everyone what his plans were while Bush pretended to be compassionate. Bush and Hitler have too little in common for a fair comparison.

My fear is that there is a chance of an American Hitler rising eventually. Washington's ability to borrow is not infinite. If we do not restore sane taxation and find a peace dividend of a sort soon, that debt will be devastating. Our household debt is already a massive problem but those human costs could take place on a governmental scale.

If a hurricane that hit hundreds of miles away could shake this writer's faith in our system, imagine what an almost total lack of government could do. We could end up with a dictator who would make Bush's assault on liberty seem pleasant.

For now, it seems that a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President could still fix matters. President Clinton's policies left us with a surplus to be squandered. Unfortunately, Bush and his fellow thieves are inflicting even greater damage than Reagan or Bush's father. It won't be easy to fix and that pain could make people resent government even more.

We need to stop government kleptomania at our very next opportunity. We need a Democratic Congress to investigate the problem and see how it can be fixed. We need a Democratic President to lead the repair efforts. We need a Democratic people to enforce these efforts, to back them and to prevent this from ever happening again.

There have been some frightening experiences recently for the supposedly center left world. For me, it began when The New Republic suggested purging anti-Iraq War Democrats from the party. At that point, those of us who opposed the war were not quite in the majority but we had perceived the possibility of a tipping point. The nation was turning against the war and this call for a purge was the reaction.

Luckily, the tipping point was at hand and the call went nowhere. Pro-war Democrats from all over began to admit their mistakes or, at least, change their minds. There was another, much stronger call for a purge but it came from the left as personified by David Sirota at the moment.

This call for a purge is equally scary and equally unlikely to work. What bothers me about it is the lesser punishment inflicted upon pro-war Democrats returning to the fold as personified by the DLC. Those of us whose views are closely expressed by David Sirota want those DLC people to return crawling the last mile on their hands and knees through broken glass, etc.

For the moment, let's set aside the fact that the much maligned DLC is not the boogeyman its foes believe it to be. Yes, there were some Democrats who voted for the war resolution. Some of those did so out of a desire for coercive diplomacy and some did so out of cowardice. (Please stop hitting me, Mister Rove. I'll vote for anything!)

Purging those cowardly Reps and Senators or forcing them to abase themselves publicly will not help us. We need a unified party to win in November 2006 and/or November 2008. Think of the story of the prodigal son. I'm not familiar with the Biblical version of it so I'm talking about the one where the runaway son sends a letter asking his parents to tie a yellow ribbon 'round the old oak tree if he's welcome to come home. When the son makes his recon past the home, he finds a yellow ribbon around every tree.

We need to stop printing screeds about how different we are so we can print up all the yellow ribbons we can lay our hands on. Ed Kilgore found 80% agreement with a list published by Atrios and forwarded by Kevin Drum.

There are things we'll find much harder to work out. For instance, how do we pull out of Iraq and do the least damage to our foreign policy? How do we support the troops, get them out of the shooting gallery and save the all-volunteer military? We can work all of this out among ourselves before, during and after the next election so we are ready to govern.

Let's gather up all the (pick your favorite durable material) we can find and show everyone who the original big tent party is.