Mental Detritus

St. Louis Good Friday Tornado Update

2011-05-24T20:24:00.003-06:00

As we watch tornadoes flatten Joplin Missouri, Oklahoma City, and now the Joplin area again, St. Louis county is still recovering from its own EF4 tornado a month later. That tornado tore through several municipalities, destroying thousands of homes, hundreds of businesses and doing severe damage to Lambert International Airport.

Tuesday, May 24, Congressman Clay hosted a telephonic town hall along with Libby Turner from FEMA, Mark Randall from the SBA and the mayors from three of the cities hardest hit Maryland Heights, Berkeley and Bridgeton: Mike Moeller, Kyra Watson, and Conrad Bowers. They gave updates on the recovery efforts and took select questions from the thousand or so callers.

The FEMA and SBA representatives started out by giving information about how to request assistance. The most important points, for those seeking assistance, is to contact FEMA to begin your application for assistance, details of which can be found on their website at http://www.fema.gov/assistance/index.shtm, by phone 800-621-FEMA, or their mobile site http://m.fema.gov. From there, they will send you paperwork to apply for grants from FEMA for everything from housing and personal loss to medical and funeral assistance. Also, they will send you applications for very low rate SBA loans to assist you in ways FEMA is not allowed to such as deductible coverage. In response to a question from the Post Dispatch's media representative, Lisa Brown, Ms. Turner and Mr. Randall explained that $610,000 in grants have been approved and over 600 SBA loan applications have been processed for homeowners and many area businesses.

The mayors then discussed the current status of the recovery. In the three municipalities represented, more than 1100 residences have been damaged, about ten percent of those flattened or in other ways left unlivable. Bridgeton alone has spent about $2.5 million on the recovery effort. All the mayor praised the volunteers and aid, both from other municipalities in the area and numerous private aid organizations. "FEMA cooperation has been outstanding," Moeller said. More volunteers are still needed, as clean up is expected to continue throughout the summer according to Mayor Watson.

During the question in answer session that came next, many of these details were expanded upon and a number of other issues were brought out. A Ms. Booker and another caller, Arlene, asked why the government is giving those in need loans when they really don't need to take on more debt. Ms. Turner explained that FEMA only offers grants, potentially totaling up to $30,200 while the SBA offers loans and works very hard with the home owner to make the terms as generous as possible, including rates as low as 2.68% and repayment plans as long as 30 years.

In response to one caller's thank you, Rep. Clay responded saying such actions are what government is supposed to do in such times of disaster. But when I asked what the government is doing to prepare for more and more frequent disasters like this, FEMA's first response was that they rely on a prepared citizenry, highlighting http://www.ready.gov/. Turner also highlighted national exercises that FEMA, state, and local emergency responders do to practice their response.

I find it telling that Ms. Turner's first response to "how is the government preparing?" is to say that people need to just prepare themselves. How is a family of four supposed to prepare for their home being hit by an EF5 tornado? How is a city supposed to prepare for a magnitude 9.0 earthquake like Japan faced. As Rep. Clay said, this is what government is for. Yet Republicans in the legislature feel they need to cut programs in order to pay for recovery efforts in Joplin. We are not a nation who says, "We can't help you unless we take money away from these people over here." We aren't a nation that says, "You'd better take care of yourself." We used to be a nation that cared for our neighbors, next door or across the country.

@daveweigel Wins the Journalism #FAIL of the Day

2011-03-09T22:05:00.004-06:00

Dave Weigel is a journalist I generally respect. I don't always agree with him politically, but he is generally honest and often witty. However, today, in what I'm not sure whether it was a failed attempt at wittiness or just a #fail, he attempted to compare two things that couldn't be more different. Whether or not it was an attempt at humor, many others at all levels on the right are saying this.

In a tweet today he said "Well, passing an unpopular bill over waves of protests worked for Democrats in 2010. Right? Right?" and defended the comparison in a couple further tweets. In so doing he compared a law where more than 30% of people didn't support it because it should have done more (myself included), 40% supported it and about 25% were totally against it to one where a plurality of Wisconsinites are flat out against the bill; saying it should not exist in any form.

If this were the only problem with his false equivalence, I would just hit him with a tweet or two on Twitter, but that's only the start. President Obama, Senator McCain, Secretary of State Clinton, and John Edwards (among many others) debated the health care law for almost two years before it there was ever presented to a Congressional committee. Governor Walker, on the other hand, made one mention of changing collective bargaining rights during his entire campaign.

Then there was the legislative fight itself. For health care reform, the entire debate took nearly a year between the myriad committees, several floor debates, hundreds of amendments from both sides and incessant public input. Gov. Walker would hear of no amendments, even from his own party. By his own (tricked) admission, he wouldn't negotiate or even meet with the opposition until after his bill was passed. And just today passed a completely modified bill that few, if any, legislators have had the chance to read in the TWO HOURS from when it was put forward to when it was passed (and it still hasn't been released to the public to my knowledge).

While I believe Mr. Weigel is against Gov. Walker's union busting, it is outrageous false equivalencies like this that seriously damage the ability of reasonable people to have real discussions about what's going on in our country. Some times there are no comparably wrong (or right) things done by the other side. There is no comparison to people going armed to presidential events wearing a shirt saying "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots." There is no honest "other side" to saying we shouldn't threaten or encourage the threatening of political opponents' lives. And there is no act that any modern Democratic has done that compares in any way to what Governor Walker and those 18 Republican state senators did today.

Words Have Power

2011-01-09T10:20:00.006-06:00

Yesterday, a United States Congresswoman, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was shot along with about nineteen other people, six of whom have died. The shooter, who's name I will not mention in order to not bring him any more publicity than he deserves, walked through a crowd of Rep. Giffords's constituents to shoot her point blank in the face and then fired randomly into the crowd. There is no other word for such a brazen act than attempted political assassination.

Such acts of politically inspired terrorism have been growing in recent years: people have flown planes into government buildings, others have shot police officers in fear of an oncoming "Obama gun ban", not to mention the dozens of people who have been arrested on their way to attempt to kill President Obama. Then there's the increase in anti-government militia activity and other politically driven violence and intimidation that hasn't risen to the level of killing throughout the country: brandishing weapons or saying "I didn't come armed... this time" at political rallies, campaign offices vandalized, shot up (including Rep. Giffords's), or firebombed.

These things aren't happening in a vacuum. Throughout the country, especially on the Right, violence and violent rhetoric is not just accepted, but becoming rewarded by increased air time and multi-million dollar contracts. Senate candidates can say that if voters don't get their way they should employ "Second Amendment remedies" and come within 40,000 votes of winning. Other Congressional representatives can say they want their constituents "armed and dangerous" against the government, and yet be accepted saying we need to root out those in government who are "anti-American". Using cross-hairs, shooting and other similar rhetoric to talk about defeating your political opponents is becoming commonplace.

It is this violent rhetoric, and the main stream media's happy acceptance and encouragement of it, that creates people like the one that attempted to kill Rep. Giffords and did kill a 9 year old girl. When people are told "So-and-so wants to kill your grandma," or "My opponent is a Nazi," or "These people want you to die quickly," how do you expect people to react. You can't say "Barack Obama is a terrorist," and minutes later "We need to go out and kill all terrorists," and not expect people to put the two together. Saying we have to defend our country to the death, and then turning around and saying one party or the other is trying to destroy our country is only going to lead to more of this.

And this can backfire both ways. Those on the right don't, I hope, want people to use guns to get their way, but their supporters see the acceptance such rhetoric gets and may think it's acceptable. Meanwhile, those others who are being targeted, or feel targeted may feel they need to defend themselves from the perceived threat and act violently preemptively. I fear that especially after this heinous act that there will be both copy-cat attacks and retaliations that would make the blood fued in Romeo and Juliet look tame.

We all, on both sides, need to turn down the rhetoric. Republicans don't want you to die quickly if you don't have insurance, they want you to deal with it yourself and leave them out of it. Democrats don't want to destroy our country by ensuring everyone has access to health care, they want to make even the weakest among us stronger. We may have different visions of where our country should go, but neither wants to harm the country. We can disagree, even fight vocally about these differences without being violent or hateful toward each other.

We have to stop the hate, or soon we won't have a country to defend.

Why a Payroll Tax "Holiday" Is Such a Bad Idea

2010-09-09T09:32:00.004-06:00

Lately you may be hearing lots of people from the Right and even some advisors to former President Clinton such as Robert Reich and Laura Tyson proposing a payroll tax holiday in order to boost hiring. I do not believe, based on the evidence I've seen, that this will have the effect they claim yet it will have severe repercussions damaging institutions that millions of Americans rely on. It is also somewhat telling that the Clinton era economists that came up with the idea of killing Glass-Steagall are the ones proposing this.

Some Quick Background

On every paycheck you receive, you will see some tax deductions: federal income tax, state income tax, maybe a municipality or county tax, Social Security and Medicare. It's those last two that make up your portion of payroll taxes also known as FICA taxes. Your employer (if you're not self employed) also pays an equal amount of Social Security and Medicare taxes for you. This adds up to 7.65% of your income below $90,000.

This money is then used to fund current beneficiaries of these systems with the promise that future workers will pay for you to collect benefits. Most years, the money being paid in is more than what is paid out to beneficiaries so the money is saved (in treasury bonds for the most part) in order to pay out in worse years. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you've heard, more workers are due to retire in the next several years than new workers entering the workforce. Also, during the current recession, more people are taking early retirement and fewer people are working, which has caused the Social Security Administration to pay out more this past year than it took in. Overall though, it is projected that the trust fund will be able to afford full benefits for at least the next 25-30 years.

Medicare on the other hand is not in quite as good a shape. Health care costs have been rising quickly and again the ratio of workforce to beneficiaries has been steadily shrinking. This has left the Medicare trust fund (PDF) at about 1/7th the size of Social Security.

What a Payroll Tax Holiday Will Mean for Business

Currently, the average worker earns about $32,000 a year which means each business pays less than $2,500 per worker per year in payroll taxes. Just to equal the salary of a minimum wage worker (a little more than $15,000 per year), it would take more than six other employees' payroll taxes. It would take 13-14 employees' payroll taxes to equal a new average worker. That new employee would also require training and time to get up to speed in the new job, not to mention any other benefits the company offers. Then in a year or so, when the "holiday" expires, that average employee will suddenly cost almost $35,000 and all the other employees start to cost $2,500 more as well.

What a Payroll Tax Holiday Will Mean for Workers

In general, most workers won't immediately notice anything. Depending on how it's done, workers may see those FICA deductions no longer in their paycheck, giving them an extra $2,500 per year, but most plans that I've heard about only discuss the holiday in terms of removing it on businesses, since the intent is to get them hiring. However, long term, workers will see significant harm. A retiree's benefits are based on how much they paid into the system and how long they paid. Remove a couple years' payments in and most workers will see a significant drop in projected benefits, ask any woman who has taken an extended maternity leave. Add this on top of the 30-50% drop most people have seen in their invested retirement funds and the drop in home values and you have a significant portion of the population unable to afford retirement, even at 70 or 75.

What a Payroll Tax Holiday Will Mean for Social Security and Medicare

Put simply, these already strained systems may collapse. Unless the funding is replaced by government spending, Medicare could lose $250-500 billion, nearly or completely bankrupting it (their current trust fund is $381 billion). Social Security has a bit more of a cushion, but it too would lose $400-800 billion. This could shave five or more years off of it's trust fund easily. If someone wanted to kill these programs, I can not think of an easier way.

What Would Most Likely Happen

I want to preface this by saying I am not an economist and have nothing on Reich or Krugman when it comes to big economic questions (I'm happy when I can keep my own budget in order). But I can look at what people have done and have been doing and put two and two together. Right now, people aren't buying: many don't have jobs, many more are afraid of losing their job and other have lost sometimes considerable wealth when their home value plummeted and credit dried up. This means companies aren't selling as many products and so don't need as many people on their factory floors or behind their cash registers. If a payroll tax comes through, companies will have more money, but they still won't be selling products and so still won't need workers. Thus, as they have already been doing, most corporations will instead pay their CEOs bonuses for "earning" the company more money and wealthy investors will get a dividend. Meanwhile, unemployment will hardly be affected and workers retirement funds will get that much smaller.

What Should Be Done

As I said above, the problem companies are facing is a demand problem. Same store sales have fallen or are flat for most retailers. Home prices are still falling. 50% more businesses rate sales as the most important problem than any other issue, including taxes. What we have is a catch-22: businesses won't hire because they aren't getting sales, consumers aren't buying because the job market is in the toilet. The thing that will get the most companies hiring again is increasing demand and the only organization willing or capable of doing so is the federal government. This has already been started and had great effect, but what was done was too small for the pit we were put in. When $2-4 trillion worth of wealth has been destroyed, spending $300 billion a year isn't going to replace the demand lost.

Obama has proposed some things that will lead to increasing demand: tax credits for business investments will get companies buying equipment (unlike employees, equipment doesn't cost more each year) increasing demand and creating jobs for equipment manufacturers. A $50 billion infrastructure investment fund, while small, will put people back to work directly and as proposed will pull in private investment, getting money moving again. Tax credits directly related to new hires are already working.

There are ways, both with targeted tax policy and direct government spending to increase hiring. The stimulus act was able to create at least three million jobs (or at least prevent people from getting fired, like police and teachers). But it can't be done with half measures by people who are afraid of a bunch of self absorbed know-nothings.

Congress, get out there and do your job. Go big or go home.

The Myth of the Placebo "Effect"

2010-05-14T09:40:00.004-06:00

Thursday, May 12, NPR carried a story on their Talk of the Nation program about the placebo effect, and more specifically, using placebos as medical treatments. While they mentioned the ethical concerns in passing, I was really disappointed that they presented a largely unskeptical view of such practice. It also showed a completely lack of understanding about what the placebo effect really is, further perpetuating a lie that has been used to support some quite dangerous practices.

A little quick background, placebo treatments are treatments that have no active ingredients. Often in drug trials this is the classic sugar pill: a pill made to look exactly like the actual drug, but with the active ingredients replaced with sugar or other inactive ingredients. In a trial, participants are split into two (or more) groups, with one given the active drug, and the other the sugar pill. After a period of time, participants symptoms are measured and they are given a brief survey asking them to detail how they feel about the symptoms being studied and whether they thought they were on the placebo or the real thing. Then, in a perfect world, the results of the study group is compared to the results of the placebo group and, if the drug is statistically equal, or worse, than the placebo it doesn't go to market.

The name "placebo effect", and the reason for the placebo based control at all, stems from the fact that the mere act of treating someone can appear to cause an improvement in the treated condition, whether or not the drug itself is having the effect. The important thing to realize is that appearance is largely all it is; the drug or other studied treatment itself is not having the effect, the effect, if there is one, is happening due to some other cause. By introducing a placebo (and proper blinding) to the study, you are able to remove the act of treating as a possible cause for the effect. The "placebo effect" is just the name applied to these other, untracked causes.

This brings me to my problem with the Talk of the Nation story itself. They treated the placebo itself, this empty sugar pill, as a cause itself, as opposed to a control stand-in for the untracked (or untrackable) variables in these clinical trials. This is an easy mistake to make, and one that human brains are evolutionarily developed to encourage. Back in the day, it was safer to think a pattern of shadows was a tiger and be wrong than to see a tiger and think it was a pattern of shadows. These days, it's a fun thing to be able to see fish and dragons in clouds or to see the face of Jesus on a potato chip, but it can cause issues when we see patterns in data that aren't real.

Specifically, the doctors interviewed by Jennifer Ludden made two critical mistakes in describing what is happening in placebo controlled studies. The first is confusing correlation and causation, or making the assumption that because effect x happened after doing action y, y must have made x happen. A simplistic example of this (stolen from Fraggle Rock) is to imagine a person who saw a group open umbrellas, and then felt it start raining. That person could believe that opening those umbrellas caused the rain. The same thing happens with medicine: People see a doctor, receive a treatment, or take a pill (or goes to their local faith healer); their illness goes away; thus whatever they did fixed their illness, ignoring anything else that may have also happened.

Well controlled trials limit or eliminate many of these variables so that only one thing, the drug or treatment, is being studied. The placebo is just one of those controlling mechanisms, removing such variables as doctor attention, the comfort and stress relief of being treated and many other environmental factors. It also helps to control for the body's natural ability to heal, even (rarely) from the most serious illnesses. This is true because in theory, the same number of people receiving both the real treatment and the placebo will have these externally caused effects. Thus if you give a fake treatment to 100 people, and a real treatment to 100 people, and 25 people from the fake treatment group get better, but 50 from the real treatment group get better, you have good reason to believe that the extra 25 people got better because of the treatment itself, not from shared causes.

The other common, related mistake, which Dr. Arthur Barsky touched on very briefly in the interview, is what is known as selection bias. This effect is manifested by people expecting things to happen, so when it does happen, they notice it more. An example of this is the "full moon myth" in hospitals. The myth goes that on nights with full moons, there are more injuries admitted to hospitals. This gets reinforced to hospital workers because on some nights, the number of admittances either is, or feels, higher, and when they look outside they see the full moon. Other nights when the volume is high, but there is no full moon, they don't think about, but they remember the nights that confirm the myth because they're told to expect that. If you remove this expectation, and look at the statistics, no such pattern is shown.

The same thing happens with medical treatments. People expect a treatment to have an effect. Thus, when someone is on a drug and feel the illness subside, they attribute it to the medicine. If a their symptoms get worse, a they just say "oh, it's a bad day" or the like; conversely if the symptoms get better while off the medication, they just feel lucky or attribute it to lingering effects of the medication. The change in symptom severity could be completely random, but it's attributed to the treatment because it's expected that the treatment would help with the symptoms.

In the same way, you notice such variation more because you're asked to pay more attention to it. Using chronic pain as an example, day to day, the severity of such pain varies. While a victim of the pain may notice strong differences, mild changes in pain go largely unnoticed. When they go on a treatment however, they are often asked to rate their pain level on a daily, if not more frequent, basis. This forces them to pay attention to even small changes that they would not have noticed before. This aspect is highlighted by the fact noted by Dr. Barsky that 25% of study subjects on placebo report side effects. Taking a sugar pill doesn't make you feel more tired or nauseous, but when you feel tired or nauseous while taking a sugar pill, you notice it more because you're expecting a side effect. This is another variable that properly blinded placebos are supposed to control for because with or without active treatment, this effect will still happen.

Another pair of issues that cloud medical studies, especially of subjective ailments, and is controlled by placebos is both the natural desire to help others and the desire to get something for your actions. The first is a problem because people might over-report the benefits of a treatment because they believe the doctor worked hard to help them. You may rate your pain somewhere between a 5 and a 7, but if you think the doctor tried hard to help you, you'd rate it at a 5, but if you got no aid or your doctor acted distant or uninterested, you'd rate a 7. This isn't a conscious choice (in most cases), but it will affect overall scoring. Similarly, if you are very involved in something (for example a long term diet/exercise regimen) or you pay a lot for something you feel you deserve more out of it whereas if you did not have to invest much time, effort or money (for example, sitting and watching a video), you wouldn't feel as invested in the treatment.

None of the above is to say that the variables a placebo controls for have no actual effect. I do not know any scientist or physician who would not say spending more time with a patient is a good thing (insurance companies on the other hand...). However, it does say that just the act of prescribing a placebo is not a substitution for real treatment. The placebo itself, sugar pill, acupuncture, faith healing, etc. has no effect in and of itself. It is only a stand in for many variables that are not tested. It is one, or many, of those unnamed, untracked variables that is having the effect, not the placebo itself. Don't replace that active cause with the inactive placebo; you short-change your patient and yourself.

NPR, I strongly recommend you get an alternate view on this. A set of doctors I know would be willing to speak with you are the ones that run Science Based Medicine, specifically Dr. Stephen Novella. For further reading see Science Based Medicine's coverage of the placebo effect. Also a great listing of common logical fallacies to watch for.

Tax Day Myths Debunked

2010-04-15T08:41:00.003-06:00

It's that day again. The day when people who actually care about a functioning government pay their taxes and self proclaimed "patriots" walk around in silly costumes protesting that their taxes are too high, even after receiving tax cuts over the past year. They do this, in part, because they believe the lies and misdirection given to them by those who would manipulate them and echoed by the uncaring news media outlets.

1) "47% of Americans pay no federal income tax."

While this statement, word for word, is factually true, it is incredibly misleading. The key word in this phrase is "federal income tax." Federal income tax is only one of many taxes people pay: there are also payroll taxes, state and local income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. Payroll and sales taxes are much more regressive than income taxes and are designed so that lower income earners pay more, as a percent of income, than higher income earners. If you include all taxes paid, the United States already has a largely flat, non-progressive tax system: the lowest earners pay about 14-15% of income, and the highest earners pay about 15-16% of their income.

2) "The top 10% of earners pay 71% of federal income tax revenue."

Again, while roughly accurate, this is even more misleading than the first myth. The problem with this myth is that it assumes income is even distributed across earners. Instead, the reality is that the top one tenth of one percent of Americans earned as much as the entire bottom 50% of Americans. Let me repeat that: 300,000 Americans earns as much as 150,000,000 Americans. And those numbers are based on only what the IRS can actually capture, which it admits is about 70% of income from investments. So when you hear the top 10% pay a large chunk of income returns, remember that that is actually a low compared to the actual income disparities.

3) "Democrats are raising taxes."

This is abjectly false. In 2009, the average tax refund was 10% higher than 2008. Between the "Making Work Pay" tax credit ($300-500/person), the first time home buyer tax credit (about $8000), the various greening tax credits (insulation, windows, etc.) and many others, taxes have been cut significantly. This was done for the express purpose of increasing money on hand as part of the federal stimulus program.

If you have any more myths you'd like me to tackle, add them in the comments.

Political Spectrum

2010-03-26T09:28:00.004-06:00

Since last week, political violence reacting against the now law health care reform has been escalating to dangerous levels. This past weekend, bricks were thrown through office windows for Congresswomen Slaughter(NY) and Giffords (AZ) and DNC offices in New York and Kansas. In DC, racial and homophobic slurs were hurled at Congressmen as they attempted to enter the Capitol. This week, death threats have become endemic. Gas soaked torn up flags, unknown, possibly hazardous white powders and other things have been mailed to numerous Congresspeople.

Sadly, it didn't start last week; it didn't even start with health care reform. In 2008, Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin ran on a campaign that boiled down to "hate Obama." They called him a terrorist, or friend of terrorists. They call him or anyone who supported him un-American and evil. This rhetoric lead some people to cry out "Kill him" at a Palin rally. But it didn't even start there: Rove and Bush, Reagan, Nixon, McCarthy all have attempted to turn their political opponents into something other than American, other than human. This dehumanization creates an excuse for the more violent among us to act on their tendencies. It is much easier to harm someone that you believe is "other" than it is to harm your fellow citizens.

Now, Republican Congressmen are trying to play both sides. John McCain has said "The language we should be using is the language we are using." House Minority Leader Boehner said "But, as I've said, violence and threats are unacceptable" but "Washington Democrats just aren't listening." Minority Whip Cantor, in a fit of total hypocrisy, claimed "Democrats are fanning the flames [of violence]."

Many on the right also attempt to create false equivalencies. They claim the rhetoric used against Bush was just as bad, or that violence from extremists on the far left is the same. The thing they don't mention is that no ranking Democrat ever endorsed such statements or acts. The anarchists Glenn Beck pointed to yesterday don't have conventions led by Rep. Pelosi or Rep. Weiner. Code Pink was as, if not more likely to shout down a Democratic event than a Republican one.

The mainstream news media itself is complicit. They treat a report on a bullet hitting Rep. Cantor's Richmond office as violence from the left, even hours after police report it was a random bullet fired into the air, possibly from miles away. They'll report on phone calls calling a Republican representative racist as comparable to phone calls threatening the life of Democratic representatives and their children. They compare fringe rhetoric from organizations like Code Pink to direct threats from Tea Party organizations that have been embraced by Republican leadership. These are not equivalent.

Political sentiment doesn't really fall on a strait continuum; if you go far enough left, the rhetoric is no different from the far right. To demonstrate this, I've used a circle instead of the usual line:

In a normal climate, even to a point during the Bush administration the political spectrum looked like this. The majority of people are moderates (bottom) who flow back and forth between the parties. On the left and the right are the major parties bases. And at the extreme are Anarchists (top). The colors demonstrate party affiliation, left, mostly Democratic being blue and right, mostly Republican, being red with the moderate independents purple and anarchic independents in black. You'll usually find some overlap at the edge, on the left being represented by people like Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich and on the right by Ron Paul and Ayn Rand. These people aren't generally embraced by the mainstream of the parties and so stay on the fringe.

This balance has shifted significantly in the past decade, especially since Obama's election. Now the spectrum looks more like this:

Republicans have abandoned the center moderates (i.e. Sens. Specter, Snowe and Collins) and embraced their far fringes (i.e. Rep. Bachmann, Glenn Beck). Even those typically seen as far right are being challenged as not "pure" enough (such as Ron Paul being primaried by those further right). Some normally considered solid conservatives are being dropped from conservative organizations (David Frum ousted from American Enterprise Institute).

This can not continue. If this nation is going to hold together, the violence has to stop, the threats need to end, and the Republican party has to stop embracing the fear and hatred they have created. Their decades of creating an "us" vs. "them" environment and demonizing their opponents have created this monster and they must kill it before it consumes them.

Visualizing climate change

2010-02-24T15:45:00.006-06:00

In the heart of winter with all the snow around, it can be hard to accept that the globe is getting warmer. It is easy to confuse short term localized weather with the much longer term global changes that a climate change researcher must monitor. I've put together a couple charts that show global temperatures over the longer term to see how stark a difference the change over the past fifty years has been. All of the data is available at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

This chart shows the average global temperature per decade since 1860. The more red a bar is, the hotter it is compared to the year before. To highlight these decade changes further see below:

What I find most disturbing is that there has been only one decade in the past century cooler than the preceding one.

This is something that has to be stopped. An strong snow storm in Washington DC during winter doesn't change that fact.

Post election analysis

2009-11-04T09:30:00.002-06:00

I'm sure everyone is quickly becoming tired of Republican gloating and the MSM echoing the Faux "News" meme that this election was a referendum on Obama. If any of them were to actually look at any exit polls, they'd see a clear majority said Obama had no effect, with another 20% saying they voted to show support for Obama. But don't let reality distract the right. As long as they remain distracted by this, they'll ignore the true lessons of this election and remain a minority party for longer.

There are three real lessons that I saw in these elections: extremism is a sure way to lose, names on the ticket are more important than names in Washington, and elections are more often lost than won. Please share yours in the comments.

Extremism is a sure way to lose

New York's 23th district is the strongest reflection of this. For those who missed it, in the Republican primary, DeDe Scozzafava won a strong majority. In response to her moderate views on gay marriage and taxes, the extremist wing of the Republican party backed a third party Conservative candidate, David Hoffman. This caused a schism in the vote which gave the Democrat, Bill Owens, a slight advantage. The conservative rancor was so strong, it drove Scozzafava from the race, not to endorse Hoffman, but to endorse the moderate Democrat, Owens. In the end, Owens won a seat that has been held by Republicans for about 130 years (only ten times longer than the 8 and 12 years since a Republican held the VA and NJ governorship). America is a moderate country; nearly 30% of citizens identify themselves as Democrats, about 20% as Republicans, leaving more than 50% identifying themselves as independent. Similar numbers are reflected along the conservative/liberal spectrum as well. Espousing extremist views is a sure way to drive the majority moderate/independent away from either side.

Names on the ticket are more important than names in Washington

As the exit polls I mentioned above show, Obama had no effect on 60% of New Jersians and 55% of Virginians. The remaining 40ish percent were split somewhat evenly for and against Obama and I have the feeling they would have voted this way with or without Obama. Meanwhile, New Jersy's Jon Corzine had a state-wide approval comparable to Bush/Cheney in 2008. In Virginia, only 47% of voters said they felt Creigh Deeds shared their views (61% said Bob McDonnell did).

Elections are more often lost than won

As I mentioned above, Governor Corzine's job approval rating was in the mid 20s throughout most of the campaign. Yet the primary message put out in his campaign ads were along the lines of "Chris Christie is corrupt too." Messages like this are don't fix your weakness and at times can highlight your own issues. If he had instead focused on his own successes as governor, he could have turned around his job approval numbers (possibly) and possibly won the vote. Similarly, Creigh Deeds largely didn't campaign for himself but against his opponent. Halfway through the campaign, a golden opportunity was dropped in his lap with the discovery of McDonnell's college thesis advocating against women's equality. This is great to highlight progressive, equal rights/equal pay agenda and is useful as one piece of a campaign. Instead, Deeds made this his entire campaign. As such, by the time the election rolled around, nearly two thirds of voters said the paper had no effect on their vote. Neither of these candidates brought strong ideas or principles to the table (although their opponents only brought the "taxes are too high" canard) which are what bring people to the polls to vote for candidates. This principle was also reflected in the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns. John Kerry failed to strongly advocate his own views and instead was largely a anti-Bush candidate in 2004 and John McCain threw away any opportunity he had by campaigning erratically without any clear personal message.

Other email from Obama

2009-08-07T07:32:00.000-06:00

Sent 8-5-2009

John --

This is the moment our movement was built for.

For one month, the fight for health insurance reform leaves the backrooms of Washington, D.C., and returns to communities across America. Throughout August, members of Congress are back home, where the hands they shake and the voices they hear will not belong to lobbyists, but to people like you.

Home is where we're strongest. We didn't win last year's election together at a committee hearing in D.C. We won it on the doorsteps and the phone lines, at the softball games and the town meetings, and in every part of this great country where people gather to talk about what matters most. And if you're willing to step up once again, that's exactly where we're going to win this historic campaign for the guaranteed, affordable health insurance that every American deserves.

There are those who profit from the status quo, or see this debate as a political game, and they will stop at nothing to block reform. They are filling the airwaves and the internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change. And some people, not surprisingly, are getting pretty nervous. So we've got to get out there, fight lies with truth, and set the record straight.

That's why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act. But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support. So here's what I need from you:

Can you commit to join at least one event in your community this month?

In politics, there's a rule that says when you ask people to get involved, always tell them it'll be easy. Well, let's be honest here: Passing comprehensive health insurance reform will not be easy. Every President since Harry Truman has talked about it, and the most powerful and experienced lobbyists in Washington stand in the way.

But every day we don't act, Americans watch their premiums rise three times faster than wages, small businesses and families are pushed towards bankruptcy, and 14,000 people lose their coverage entirely. The cost of inaction is simply too much for the people of this nation to bear.

So yes, fixing this crisis will not be easy. Our opponents will attack us every day for daring to try. It will require time, and hard work, and there will be days when we don't know if we have anything more to give. But there comes a moment when we all have to choose between doing what's easy, and doing what's right.

This is one of those times. And moments like this are what this movement was built for. So, are you ready?

Please commit now to taking at least one action in your community this month to build support for health insurance reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/CommitAugust

Let's seize this moment and win this historic victory for our economy, our health and our families.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Email from Obama

2009-08-07T06:39:00.001-06:00

John --

Members of Congress have been home for just a few days, and they're already facing increased pressure from insurance companies, special interests, and partisan attack organizations that are spending millions to block health insurance reform.

These groups are using scare tactics and spreading smears about the President's plan for reform, trying to incite constituents into lashing out at their representatives and disrupting their events.

The goal of these disruptions is for a few people to get a lot of media attention and hijack the entire public discourse. If they succeed, all Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents -- will continue to struggle under the broken status quo.

It's up to us to show Congress that those loudly opposing reform are a tiny minority being stirred up by special interests, and that a huge majority strongly supports enacting real health insurance reform in 2009.

Your representative, Wm. Lacy Clay, has been fighting hard for real health insurance reform. Can you call the local office in Saint Louis? Let the person who answers know that you're a constituent. Then tell them: "Thanks for working to enact real health insurance reform this year. Voters like me support your efforts."

According to our records, you live in Missouri's 1st congressional district. Please call:

Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay at 314-367-1970.

Once you've made your call, click here to report it.

(Not your representative? Click here to look yours up.)

Calling should only take a few minutes, but it's a huge help. These local offices serve as the main connection between a member of Congress and voters in the district. And with representatives home on recess, the staff there are in daily contact with your member, keeping them updated on how many calls they receive that are for or against reform.

Once you've called, please tell us. Knowing how many calls are coming in from all around the country will help us better plan our campaign -- and help us show that the American people overwhelmingly want health insurance reform this year. Let us know you called:

http://my.barackobama.com/districtcall1?district=MO1&postal_code=63108

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

Who's really trying to ration health care

2009-07-15T22:19:00.003-06:00

In the debate over the health care reform bills coming before the House of Representatives (pdf) and the Senate, the go to objection for conservatives and Republicans has been, "Do you want the government to be able to tell you what care you can receive?" Setting aside the logical inconsistency that care right now is rationed (either directly by insurance companies or indirectly through overpriced care and employment risks) this argument is hypocritical and self serving.

First, the bill linked above from the House expressly prohibits restricting coverage A (I)(C)(121)(c) pg. 26:

A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any restriction (other than cost sharing) unrelated to clinical appropriateness on the coverage of the health care items and services.

In fact, throughout all of Division A (the section that establishes both the public option and defines what meets the mandate specifications as an eligible private plan) the only restrictions this bill sets are on minimum quality of coverage. Most of these minimums go above and beyond what I see in private plans (mental health parity, elimination of pre-existing conditions, etc.) This isn't rationing of care, this is the opposite just as then candidate Obama promised on the campaign trail (although with the addition of a mandate as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards had proposed).

Throughout this entire debate I have heard only one group call for any government imposed restrictions on the type of care you can receive. This hasn't been Democrats trying to tell doctors to give this drug instead of that one. This hasn't been progressives trying to say which doctor you get to see.

The only people asking that the government not provide coverage has been Republicans. It is the Republican leadership and Congressmen that are trying to get an amendment passed that would restrict the care a woman can receive from her doctor. They want to impose a restriction on coverage that would prevent a woman from accessing legal safe abortions.

They're not trying to impose this restriction on medical grounds. They're not even trying to impose it based on cost savings. The one and only reason they have for proposing this is because their religious base says so. Because their religious base believes abortion is wrong, they want to deny this essential and sometimes life saving procedure to those who need it.

There is a reason our founders created a firm wall between church and state. They knew that forcing one's religious beliefs on another took away the freedoms of everyone. In fact, many of the first European immigrants came to these shores because others were attempting to force their religious beliefs on them.

Could you imagine the outcry if representatives with large Amish constituencies passed a provision banning the coverage for MRIs because they view that as wrong? Or Scientologists banning treatment of depression? The outcry from the "libertarian" right would be deafening. We can not let this hypocrisy stand or go unchallenged.

Remember this the next time you hear the "rationing" health care argument these reforms. Those who preach it the loudest already are the first to attempt to do so.

Please contact your Senators and Representatives and ask them to keep government out of decisions that should be between patients and doctors. Sign this petition from Democrats.com or contact them directly (Senator contact information, Congressperson contact information)

Conservative Keynesian Myth

2009-02-09T10:51:00.004-06:00

There is a myth going around. Largely it is repeated in Conservative circles, but many political pundits (George Will and Newt Gingrich chief among them) like repeating it. They repeat over and over that "Keynesian economics has never worked." Yet immediately they turn right around and thoroughly disprove themselves.

The most openly Keynesian action by our government was the New Deal of FDR in the 1930s. Conservatives claim that Keynesian policy was an absolute failure because we didn't fully exit the Depression until World War II. They ignore two major flaws in this thinking.

The first problem is that Keynesian policy wasn't used throughout the Depression. From 1933 into 1937 FDR took the "kitchen sink" approach. He would try something, see how it worked and either continue it or move on to something else. The WPA and many other programs were started and got people back to work. For these four years, GDP grew an average of 10% per year, unemployment fell from 25% to a minimum of 12% in June of 1937 (using the same calculation for unemployment today that they used then, we are currently between 14 and 16%), and created an average 9% annual increase in average incomes.

Throughout this whole period FDR and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau Jr., were constantly worried about the expanding deficit. By 1937, things seemed to be looking relatively better. GDP had grown from $56.4 billion to $91.9 (current dollars adjusted for inflation). Unemployment, as I said above, had fallen by nearly 50%. FDR let his inner deficit hawk take control and cut spending by over about two billion dollars (adjusted for inflation). When this happened, GDP stumbled and fell more than 3% and unemployment jumped to 19%.

Then we get to the second half of the Conservative myth wherein they contradict themselves. Every Conservative economist claims that the Great Depression disproves Keynesian economics because we didn't pull out of the Depression fully until the war effort ramped up. But if you look at that, it only proves Keynes correct. The war effort didn't have tax cuts, it didn't have a balanced budget (just the opposite, spending 140%+ of GDP). No monetary policy brought us out of the Depression during WWII. It was direct government spending unlike anything we had seen before or have seen since.

Other policies can help with recessions. Monetary policy has worked in the past, as recently as 2001. Tax cuts sometimes help, but rarely in isolation (see 2008 for an example of a tax cut failing in isolation). But these options aren't available to us and don't work in a demand death spiral like we are in now. Monetary policy is used up, we are at 0% interest. Tax rebates have already failed once and the smaller one being proposed now won't work any better. Tax incentives for purchases can't work if people can't purchase. The only thing left is for the US government to directly stimulate demand by direct spending. Other things like the middle class tax cut may help on the short term while government spending ramps up, but without the larger government projects, that short term stimulus will be wasted just as quickly as last year's stimulus checks.

UPDATE: Rachel Maddow discussed this as well. Here is an article with other good charts that reflect my points.

An Ending?

2009-01-20T20:24:00.003-06:00

This glorious day has seen the end of a number of things. An end to the Bush administration. An end to the national shame of endorsement of torture. And as some have said, "An end of an error." We have also seen a brilliant first; the first black man elected to the highest office of the land. And it is this first that has brought an end to something else that many pundits are trying to put a finger on.

Many have said it is an end to segregation, to discrimination, or to racism. These pundits are lofty, but they ignore the reality that many African-Americans face every day throughout the country. Racism isn't going to be defeated by one election. Hatred and bigotry were an undercurrent (and sometimes not so under) throughout the election, and while it has suffered a defeat, it is not gone. The next time an African-American runs for president, the bar will not be as high, but it will still be higher than for a white man.

No, what I believe we saw an end to when Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office is much more subtle. I believe we saw an end to an idea, to an undercurrent of modern culture, that African-Americans can't succeed. Children have been told that in America you can be anything you want to be: astronaut, fireman, or even president. But for African American children, this has always seemed a pipe dream. Only 45 years ago, dogs were sicced on them for attempting to attend school. 30 years ago a president ran on a platform of attacking welfare as handouts for the lazy and unworthy (with an implied "black"). Even this year, we saw a presidential candidate attacked for being black with opponents attempting to diminish him as just another black candidate or as uppity.

But this has come to an end. These children now can look at their chart of presidents and see a black man's face among the 44. They can look on their TVs and see 2 or 3 million people of all races cheering this man on as he takes the reins of power. They know that the words "all men are created equal" are finally being lived up to. And while discrimination and bigotry and hatred haven't ended, when they face these obstacles they will have the strength of knowing that over 60 million of their fellow citizens voted for a man born to an African imigrant, a man who grew up at times on food stamps, and who has the name Barack Hussein Obama.

Stimulate This

2009-01-12T22:55:00.003-06:00

Congress and the President (elect) are now debating how best to work out a stimulus package to pull us out of of the recession we have been in for more than 12 months. And while we only have 535 Senators and Representatives (give or take) we have thousands of ideas how best to do this. Obama has promised for more than a year tax breaks for families making under $250k and for employers who hire American workers instead of shipping jobs overseas. Every member of Congress wants a tax break or direct hand out for their own local pet project (that they want their name attached to in stone after it's completed). And there are even some who think we should lock up the money and hope it's still worth something after our economy has collapsed.

In times like we are now facing, though, only the government has the capability of spending unfortunately. Even with trillions of dollars in bail outs, buy outs, and other promises, the lending institutions that could empower the private sector to drive the recovery are still hording their money, ensuring no improvements can come from there. Private citizens are (for the first time in decades) saving more than they are spending and, while wise for a population who's personal savings rate has been in the low $1,000s, this adds more to the stranglehold on our financial system. The Federal Reserve, even as lender of last resort, simply can't put as much on its balance sheet as would be necessary. This leaves only the federal government itself as the spender of last resort and the best chance of breaking through the deadlock.

But while the government does need to increase spending, it must do so carefully. Spending a couple million on a Woodstock Museum or $400 million on a bridge to nowhere will only serve to tie up that money and keep it from its full potential. We need to make sure the money we the people spend will work not just once for a handful of local jobs, but work repeatedly. We must invest in things that will serve us long term, as the interstate system has since it was started in the 1950s. We need to expand broadband access, improve our electrical grid to handle the new requirements that will be put on it, and create a true green economy that will last us for centuries longer than fossil fuels could possibly hope to.

To this end, governors and mayors from across the country have sent proposals to Obama's transition team. Many of these "shovel ready" projects will strengthen communities and create jobs as is needed, but many others are aptly titled pork. The President and VP (elect) have made it very clear there should be none of the later in the bill, but they have a 535 member body that is very accustomed to bacon and will put up a fight. Obama and Biden must hold the line because otherwise it will be even harder next time.

Some proposals though may just need tweaking to turn from pork to a true improvement. Seattle is proposing projects worth as much as $7 million (for one solar installation). This may seem ludicrous when you consider that some years there are more rainy days in Seattle than sunny days. But, while areas like Nevada may be able to make thousands of times more solar megawatt hours than Washington, it is unable, with the current electrical grid, to efficiently send that electricity up north. Meanwhile, countries like Germany, which gets a comprable amount of sunlight annually, is the leader of solar power in all Europe. Now, the plan as proposed would only power the (publicly owned) Qwest exhibition center and as planned would only reduce energy costs 14-16%. I don't know what the current energy costs of this building are, but that doesn't sound like much bang for the buck. It is possible, though, if Seattle uses lessons learned in Germany, to apply such funds to a solar network that may generate much better results and make that $7 million really work.

We are very lucky to have a President (can I drop the "elect" yet? PLEASE!!!) who values a high level of skill and expertise over dogmatic loyalty. This quality will hopefully guide policy and spend our money much more wisely than the failure of Bush and Paulson have.

Rumors of my death only show you weren't listening

2009-01-12T22:45:00.003-06:00

It's been a while since I've been back over here. Sorry if it's gotten a bit dusty. It isn't for lack of things to talk about though; the last two months have been anything but quiet. Between failed bailouts, bailouts that failed to pass (but were implemented anyway), power hungry governors and egocentric wanna-be senators and war this has been a hectic transition period.

And while I have been silent here on my blog, my Twitter followers have suffered from an abundance of opinion. I will still come here and post periodically, most of my attention will be focused by the more concise 140 character limit imposed over there. Those who haven't already, feel free to come over and tell me there what I am getting wrong - http://twitter.com/trianglman

Open Hands

2008-11-13T13:32:00.003-06:00

Now that Bush has started handing out money to any corporation that says they are about to fail, lots more companies are looking to spread the wealth from the American tax payer to their personal shareholders. Now it's the car manufacturers putting their hands out. Some questions that should be answered before we do anything are: how did they get there, how will (or just "will") a bail out help them and how should a bailout be structured?

GM has been on the path to this point for years now. At least since 2004 (I don't have data that goes back further) GM has steadily been posting decreasing net profits (2006 being an exception). The sudden spike in oil prices over the past couple years has exasperated the problem, which is reflected in 2007's $42,000,000,000 net loss. Over the same time period, Toyota has moved more strongly into the American market (exceeding GM for net sales this year). Toyota has done this through a reputation of quality (which GM and Ford have both lost over the past couple decades), a wide selection of low priced cars, and especially the past couple years a record of fuel efficiency. Only in the past year have the American automakers refocused their message on fuel efficiency, often still falling short (due to their focus on SUVs, all of the hybrids from GM, et al have been SUVs, which still barely break the 20 mpg mark vs. 40-50 mpg Prius, etc.). Just this month we learned that the automakers are still bleeding millions of dollars a month, even as they attempt to retool their factories and cut their workforce.

This brings us to what the companies are asking for the money for. One of the biggest costs facing automakers is changing their plants from building SUVs and Hummers to more fuel efficient hybrids and Volts. This is key to these companies being viable in the near and long term future, but it is a huge cost. Due to the credit crisis of the past few months, lending that could have financed such changes has dried up. What the automakers believe is that if they can get the money to make the cars people want, people will start buying again and they will return to solvency.

Sadly, I'm not completely sure this will be the case. The credit slow down has affected more than just banks and corporations. Buyers also are unable to get credit. Also, much of the purchasing power of American consumers in the past few years has been due to increasing home values and decreasing costs of borrowing on those houses. Now, with both of those reversing, the consumer just can't afford to buy a new car. This is reflected in the fact that even Toyota's sales are negative this past quarter. Also, because GM, Ford and Chrysler have been so slow to get into the hybrid market, it will take time to convince consumers that they are comparable to the Priuses and Civic hybrids of foreign automakers.

Because of this, I don't think we should or even can do a bail out similar to the one proposed for the bad mortgages. NPR's All Things Considered last night did a segment on the Chrysler bail out from 1979. Then, instead of directly giving Chrysler the nearly $2 billion, the government only insured the loans banks gave to the companies. In return, the government got preferred stock, required detailed plans on Chrysler's restructuring, and ensured that if Chrysler went bankrupt that it would get repaid first. Because of this action, Chrysler returned to profitability quickly and wound up paying off the loans seven years early and the government made money on the deal.

I believe a similar set up would be even easier to achieve now. The government, through the TARP law, has much more leverage over banks that could finance such loans. After the buyout of AIG, the government controls roughly 70% of the country's largest insurer. Through these two entities, we could potentially help both the auto industry and, depending on the success of the automakers, ensure long term solvency to the banking industry. This will also keep the government from being on the line for yet another $50 billion that we just simply can't afford right now.

The biggest problem right now is that the banks still aren't lending though. In the past couple weeks since the TARP package was passed, the rate banks lend to each other has dropped more than 4%, yet the rate banks lend to borrowers and to corporations has still remained high. Loosening that up, with targeted goals in mind, is going to be one of the best ways to get the economy moving again. There are two ways to loosen that up, and I think both should be taken: 1) Get money flowing to the middle class, which is where most of the consumer debt is held. You can do this through tools such as the stimulus checks of earlier this year, increased unemployment benefits during this slow down, and tax incentives for job creation. 2) Get loans moving to corporations again. The best ways of doing this are through insuring loans to targeted industries (green energy, infrastructure, automotive to name a few) and tax incentives for targeted initiatives (hiring and green energy again). The problem all along has been a trust issue, so if we can increase the trust, we may be able to pull out of this tailspin and not leave our children with $20 trillion in bad debts to collect.

Yes We Did

2008-11-05T18:18:00.004-06:00

What a day yesterday was.

For my wife and I, it started at 4 AM. My wife was the canvas captain for the Airport Township for the Obama campaign. Meanwhile I was in charge of watching our four year old son until my mother finished voting and running errands so that she could watch him. I took Isaac to vote with me at 8 AM. The line was an hour long, but everyone near me was so excited to be there ready to vote. The couple in front of me were voting for the first time; they had just recently become citizens.

When I cast my vote, I couldn't be prouder. My son helped me by pushing confirm on every screen. Thirty years from now he will be able to tell his children he helped elect our first black president.

Afterward I helped a friend get to the staging location and took Isaac to my mother's. I heard word of a couple voter intimidation incidents and attempts by poll workers to keep people from voting by violating the law and attempting to require multiple forms of ID. These were quickly stopped by the volunteer lawyers and other Obama volunteers. That afternoon I canvased with several other Obama volunteers. Every house I went to the people had already voted. People seeing us on the street honked in encouragement or cheered the Obama tees we had on. There were even victory parties being started at 4PM.

Then came the hardest time. After 6PM it was too late to go out canvasing any more. We all met back up at the staging location and prepared to go out to help with long lines. While there were some long lines closer to St. Louis City (300 people still in line two hours after polls closed), every voting location in our township had almost no lines and we began to worry that not enough people voted.

When Pennsylvania was called for Obama at 6, we began to be hopeful; one of the four legs of McCain's victory path had been knocked out from under him. After polls closed at 7PM we broke up and many of the volunteers went to the watch party downtown while my wife and I, having been sick for the past couple weeks, went to get our son and headed home.

On the way, Ohio was finally called and I knew Obama would be our next president. Barack's message of hope and inclusion won out over McCain's calls for hate and division.

Now, as I said in my last post, the real work begins. After eight years of divisive politics, of trying to call one group more or less patriotic than another, we must unify. "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too." We are one country, INDIVISIBLE; we will, we MUST work together to bring our country out of the troubles that face us now.

As I said on Twitter last night: To all the staunch conservatives: Throw away the straw men and wait to see what really happens before judging Obama's presidency. To all the staunch progressives: Obama was always center left. You will not get all you want, but our country will be better than ever. This country has always been a country of moderates. When Bush attempted to take the country too far right the people spoke up in 2006 and again this year. Should Obama attempt to do the opposite they will speak up again. This must be a time of cooperation and compromise or it will always be three steps back for every step forward.

No Rest for the Weary

2008-11-03T09:16:00.003-06:00

Hopefully 36 hours from now we will know who our next president will be. These next few hours are what it all comes down to. Obama and McCain supporters across the country are working night and day to get their candidate across the 270 electoral vote finish line.

Posting here has been very light the past few months because both my wife and I have been a part of that. Now, more than any time in the past 22 months we need your help. Get out and vote! If you have time (or even if you don't) volunteer. Call your neighbors and remind them to vote; go door to door doing the same; go polling place to polling place encouraging people to brave the hours long lines that are sure to confront us. This country is a representative republic and it ONLY works for those who participate.

Remember also, this fight doesn't end on November 4th. If we elect these people and then stop paying attention, our causes will fall by the wayside. The real work begins November 5th. We must make sure our officials never forget why we put them in office. I have seen many people on the blogs and on Twitter saying they don't know what they will do once this election is over. But we cannot create the change we need if we just leave our elected officials to do it alone.

The (in)Famous Pie Speech

2008-10-20T23:13:00.004-06:00

Some of you may be watching the new Rachel Maddow show (and if you aren't, start). If you were last week, you may have seen a story about Barack Obama repeating the word "pie" twenty times in about two minutes. I'm happy to say, when he came to St. Louis Saturday, he shared that same story with all 100,000 of us. It actually is a really good story for all it's randomness at the beginning. Below is a transcript and the video (story is about 7 minutes in). See Momocrats for the other videos and more photos and impressions.

I was in Ohio last week and I was traveling with the governor there, Ted Strickland. We were on a bus tour talking about jobs. And we were working hard so, we got a little hungry. Decided we needed an afternoon snack. So I decided I needed some pie. Some of you may like cake, I like pie. Turns out Strickland likes pie too.

So we went into this little town, Georgetown Ohio, and found out where the best pie place was. It was this local diner. We went into the diner.

Now, I like sweet potato pie, but they did not have sweet potato pie. I like pecan pie, but there was no pecan pie. But they did have coconut cream pie, and I'll take some cream pie. Strickland, he wanted lemon merangue pie, they had that also.

So we order our pie and the people who are serving us, they want to take a picture with me because they say, "Our boss, he is a die hard Republican. So we just want to poke him a bit by taking this picture."

So while we're standing there cheezing and grinning, the owner walks in, with our pie. And I said, "How do you do sir? I understand you are a die hard Republican."

He said, "That's right."

I said, "How's business?"

He said "Not so good." He said "My customers can't afford to eat out right now."

I said, "Sir, who's been running the economy for the last eight years?"

He scratched his head and said, "I guess the Republicans have."

I said, "Sir, if you keep on hitting your head against a wall and it starts to hurt, do you decide at some point to stop?"

He said "You make a good point."

I said, "Why don't you go ahead and try voting Democratic this year. We can't do any worse than these other folks have been doing now."

Lets all stop hitting our head on the wall.

Some Pre-Halloween Fun

2008-10-17T09:09:00.002-06:00

The Blame Game - Consumers

2008-10-15T11:56:00.007-06:00

In this recent economic downturn, people from all sides are pointing fingers and trying to place the blame on one another. This is the first of a series of posts in which I will try to dispel some of the myths being spread.

The most common theme you hear when it comes to the housing market is "people bought more house than they could afford." While this is true in some cases, more often it only became true three to five years after the home was purchased.

Back around 2003-2004 we were just beginning a recovery from the twin market downturn caused by 9-11 and the tech bubble burst. Jobs were slowly being created, interest rates were at all time lows and many were expecting the economy to really grow. Because of this, more people saw that they were finally able to get into the housing market. This caused house prices to grow which allowed people already in a house to upgrade to a new house. This was the start of the housing market boom.

What people didn't realize was that the economic growth they were seeing in the markets was a shallow gain. While average wages were going up, they weren't matching inflation. What's more is that the average number was skewed by a large increase in income for the top 1% with little to no gains for the other 99% of us (see charts below). At the same time, mortgage brokers and other lenders (who we will discuss more thoroughly later) saw the potential for large profits via new mortgaging schemes now dubbed "sub-prime." This led them to encourage clients that could qualify for standard mortgages to instead apply for adjustable rate or other balloon mortgages.

Courtesy
Courtesy
Courtesy

This is why I say most people trapped in this mess could afford the house they bought at the time. However, when inflation went up (not only food prices, health insurance costs have increased 20-30% annually in many cases; an average of 6%) but their wages didn't, they were put in tighter and tighter circumstances. In the very early days of the current crisis (circa 2005-6) some people were still able to refinance or sell their way out. But some people hit a more severe hardship. Many people got to the point where they were living paycheck to paycheck. If they lost their employment for even a month, they wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage. If they had any sort of medical emergency, they wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage. These people began going into default.

By late 2006 and throughout 2007, the housing boom started really slowing. Job growth had slowed or at times gone negative. Federal interest rates had been raised from their 2003 lows of 1% back up to a more reasonable 3%+. At the same time, personal property taxes were being reset to the new home values. In many cases this caused a doubling of those taxes. People could no longer refinance their homes. Fewer people could buy so housing prices began to slump and selling the house was no longer a way out. Wages that had been stagnant (or negative) for three or four years were no longer able to afford the mortgage and the rapidly increasing cost of getting to work. The people who in 2003 could afford their house were rapidly getting buried under increasing piles of debt. This trap many home owners fell into is what began the popping of the sub-prime bubble.

So I ask you, is it your fault that corporations have enjoyed their multi-million dollar golden parachutes while the employees working 60 hours a week to make ends meet get nothing? Is it their fault that insurance costs grow by double digit percentages while coverage steadily drops?

There were some people who bought beyond their means, don't get me wrong. If you make $30,000 a year, you probably can't afford a $300,000 house. If you are told you can live in a house for three years without paying anything (what some of the balloon mortgage plans promised), it is probably too good to be true and you shouldn't sign up for it. But I can't put the blame on a working family who couldn't see that their earnings would be the same four years down the line but their expenses would have grown by double digits. I don't blame the public school graduate who can't understand the ins and outs of mortgages that even the Harvard educated accountants who invented them barely understand.

Review of the bailout

2008-09-29T08:59:00.004-06:00

Yet another letter to my representatives

This is in regard to the Wall Street Bail out program titled "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (pdf).

I must first congratulate Congress on the openness of the process in making the full text of the proposed legislation available and open for public comment before being proposed on the floor. Such a process clearly opens up government to be truly of the people and allows us to make sure government is working for the people. Thank you.

About the legislation itself, there are many good things in it. I do have hesitation about some aspects and am strongly opposed to one main clause. As I was reading the bill, I kept a running Twitter stream going of my thoughts.

Beginning with the aspects of this bill that I like, the general outline of the plan is a good idea. While I don't believe that an insurance program will be effective, allowing Sec. Paulson to either apply such a system or buy the securities themselves directly gives him the flexibility necessary to handle such a large and complicated issue. I am also really happy with the openness of this program. The regular reports detailing what securities are being purchased or insured will significantly improve the trust of the American people that their money is being used appropriately.

Requiring this program to work on renegotiating mortgages is probably the single thing that will do the most good in this bill. I also appreciate that executive pay will be restricted if they take part in this program; such a protection will ensure the executives aren't taking advantage of the tax payers for their own personal gain.

There are a couple parts of this bill that I do find issues with. One is the incredible power Sec. Paulson will wield under this bill. Not only is he being put in charge of guiding this program through the Department of Treasury, but he is also one of the five members of the oversight board, with the other four members also being significantly involved in the troubles facing us now. The only other actual oversight is provided by the Office of the Comptroller. Congress will set up another oversight board, but that board will only be set up in a review role, unable to require changes to the program. This concentrates an enormous amount of power over as much as $700 billion in the executive with minimal checks from other branches. I believe that at the least, Congress should be allowed active oversight of the program as well, to ensure tax payer money is being appropriately used.

That however, is not the main issue for me in this bill. Also contained in this bill is the suspension of mark-to-market accounting (section 132). It is my understanding that this accounting procedure requires banks (and other entities) to list the value of their assets at current market value, not at their expected future value of those assets. Such a write-down has played a factor in this crisis because banks' asset sheets have dropped in value significantly. However, suspending such a rule allows the banks to effectively lie to investors and officials that would loan to them. Were such a rule to be passed for someone such as myself, I could apply for a loan saying that I have $1 million in assets based on a 401k with $10,000 and a $100,000 house -- if I hold on to them long enough, it is estimated that they will be worth $1 million. I would be laughed out of any bank office were I to ask for a loan using that logic.

I do believe that mark-to-market should be reviewed as required in section 133, but the mark-to-market rule should not be suspended until after such a review. There are types of trades that shouldn't be able to affect market value of some of these assets and as such, the rule does need refining. Suspending it wholesale removes the transparency so desperately needed on Wall Street now to improve investor and credit trust. PLEASE, fight against this section of the bill.

h/t to BAC for linking to the proposal text

UPDATE: The bill as it was written failed to pass (Yes, ignore the title, this appears to be the correct roll call). My congressman, William "Lacy" Clay did vote against the bailout.

Open letter to my congressional representatives

2008-09-19T06:26:00.003-06:00

I have been listening to lots of coverage of the Tresury Secretary's financial bail-out program proposed 09-18-2008. From my understanding, our government would be responsible for over 1 trillion dollars of bad mortgages. This increases our deficit by 25%. Right now, with just AIG, Bear Stearns and Fannie and Freddie loans under our control, treasury bill yields are nearly 0%. If we take this extra $500 billion in bad debt, the yields will be negative - people will be paying the government to borrow money from us. Our dollar will tank and inflation will go through the roof.

I know that not taking action will cause many more financial institutions to fail. I know that stock markets will continue to fall. This is a risk that the investors knew they were taking on. These financial institutions knew that they didn't really understand the securities they were creating. They willingly took on the risk and gambled with our future. We cannot have the federal government take away all that risk and tell these companies that they were right to take on this risk. It will tell these institutions that they are too important to fail, so if they make further mistakes or take on more bad risks, they will be protected from this risk by the tax payers. This can not happen, and I ask, as a strong supporter of you and an Obama volunteer, that you vote against any such bail out that leaves banks and executives involved in this without penalties.

Thank you for your time

My life as a Momocrats chauffeur

2008-09-15T09:15:00.003-06:00

With all the depressing news going on right now, let's focus on a more hopeful time. It was a time when, even though Americans were facing many challenges on many fronts, we knew that, with the right tools, we could make a better country. It was a time when our leaders looked to the future confident in our ability to rise above our personal divisions; when politics wasn't just about the people who were running but about the issues they were fighting for. Let's go back to three weeks ago.

The week of the DNC, my wife was a credentialed blogger through Momocrats. Though ouur son and I wouldn't be able to get credentials and wouldn't be able to get in to see any of the major speeches or anything, we thought it was important that we all go and be a part of this. So we packed up the car and drove the 850 miles to Denver.

The atmosphere there was electric. Signs everywhere were welcoming the Democrats to town. The residents were cheerful and open, many of them thanking us for being a part of the convention. Maybe it was just that there were so many people with the same hopeful world view that brought everybody's mood up.

The plan for us would be that I would run backup: drive Jaelithe and the other Momocrats to whatever events were needed; pick up and drop off supplies; and acquire food when time allowed. The rest of the time, I would take our son to see the city. Denver is a really nice city - for St. Louis residents, imagine Grand Center, the Loop, and the Central West End rolled together into one area. We went to the Denver Art Museum (free thanks to Target), local parks, the main pubic library and many other local sights.

The convention itself was interesting. By going there ourselves, we were able to cut through the curtain the media would hang in front of our eyes. Instead of watching the infighting MSNBC tried to show, we saw an assistant of Chris Matthews run out to grab the seven "PUMA" members in the area to keep them from leaving the shot. Instead of seeing protesters only allowed in the "Free Speech Zone," we saw protesters allowed and encouraged to say their peace when they interrupted Nancy Pelosi at an event.

I also saw the speeches, not through the talking heads and pundits on MSNBC and Faux News, but directly (or as my wife described, "unfiltered") on CSPAN. Rather than listen to Matthews or Hannity bloviate about themselves, I watched regular citizens describe the problems they face as they work themselves to the bone but still see 2%+ real pay cuts as inflation outgrows pay for those making less than $1 million a year. I watched veterans who can't get health care because the party in power would rather spend the money in Iraq. And through this all I have watched these hard working citizens be called whiners over Twitter when they describing how their government has forsaken them in favor of the top 1% of earners.

The DNC was hopeful and uplifting. It gave us real solutions to real problems facing everyone. Yes, they attacked their Republican rivals, but they attacked John McCain's tax policy which mirror's Bush's, and we all see how well that worked. They attacked McCain's foreign policy, which take's Bush's unilateralism to the next level, and showed how isolating ourselves from the world is the wrong way to go.

This is what politics and political conventions should be about. It should be about praising your party's accomplishments and highlighting its policies. It should be about issues that matter to all of us. It shouldn't be about criticizing the hundreds of thousands of community organizers working for $10,000 a year to make the millions of people in their community safer. It shouldn't be about patenting the word "lipstick."

We need a politics focused not on the personality of the one or two people in charge. We need a politics focused on helping the 300 million people living in this country. We need a politics about that recognizes the place of those 300 million people among the 6 billion people globally. Not long ago, those 6 billion people looked to America as the city on the hill, as leaders. Over the past 40 years, and especially in the last 8, we have abdicated that position. That doesn't have to continue. The Democrats recognize this and want to make our nation a shining example of democracy and equality again.

Country First

2008-09-04T10:26:00.005-06:00

Yeah, I know I said I would re-cap the DNC. Don't worry; it's coming, but the vitriol and slime coming from the north is requiring my response.

John McCain is very fond in his campaign against Obama to say he "puts his country first." Obama did a good job of directly addressing that last week in his speech, but I wanted to draw some more attention. When John McCain says he puts his country first, one must ask, "What part of the country?" Clearly both candidates are very proud Americans -- you wouldn't run to be the symbol of a country you weren't.

When John and Sarah Palin say they put country first, the most glaring question is "Which citizens?" John McCain's tax plan is very top heavy. The people in the top 5% of incomes stand to save a significantly larger amount than anyone in the bottom 80% of earners. In fact, those in the top 1% will save almost 10% (on average), those in the bottom 40% will save (on average) about 2%. Clearly, he puts the very wealthy first. Barack Obama's plan is to cut taxes for the bottom 80% by about 5% (on average). He intends to pay for it though by raising taxes on the top 1% of earners by about 1 to 2%. Clearly he puts the regular citizens first.

Source (PDF)

How about the environment, this is a large part of what our country's future relies upon. Three out of the four candidates are willing to say that humans are having an effect on global warming. Sen. McCain is even will to call for a "cap" and trade program. However, he doesn't actually know what the word cap means. In fact, he wants to give corporations whatever carbon credits they request, and then let them trade them back and forth. However he doesn't want to charge for the credits, nor does he want to fine companies for polluting more than their credits allow. Again, John McCain puts corporations and the rich first. Obama understands that corporations are paid to only care about one thing, money. If there is no fiscal benefit for taking an action, or fiscal penalty for not, they won't take that action. Everything is about ROI. Because of this, he intends to auction off all credits and institute penalties for exceeding those credits. This will create a fiscal incentive to move to less polluting technologies. The money the government will raise through these auctions will also be reinvested in the environment with proceeds being turned into grants to green technology R&D. Clearly, again, Obama puts the environment and our nation's future before corporations and lobbyists.

What about the 51% of our country that is female. John McCain campaigned against (although he failed to cast his vote) the Lily Ledbetter act that would have given women more rights when it comes to fighting for equal pay for equal work. He and the Republican party were able to filibuster this bill this year. He was afraid that by opening up when a lawsuit could be filed, corporations would have to actually pay people fairly, reducing their profits. Barack Obama has campaigned vociferously for this; in fact, most of one day of the DNC convention focused on this, with Ms. Ledbetter herself making an appearance. Once again McCain puts corporations first, Obama people.

How about the military? John McCain wants to fight any where, any time. He wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He would love to attack Iran. He probably would have tried to send American forces in to fight against Russia in the recent Georgian incident (forget bringing back the Cold War, lets heat up things a bit). There is no doubt that given the proper resources (including troop levels and recuperation time) our military can meet any objective we set before them. McCain doesn't want to do that though; in fact, he has voted against giving veterans improved benefits and sufficient time back home with their families. Here McCain is putting the wrong part of our military first, as Pres. Clinton so accurately said, "[The] people the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power," but McCain has it backwards, caring more about showing off our power. Senator Obama though wants to use our military smartly as a targeted weapon to use only when absolutely necessary. He also wants to reward our veterans, many of whom sacrifice everything for their country. He fought for Sen. Webb's GI bill and for Walter-Reed reforms; he is still fighting for mental health parity for the troops. Again Sen. Obama puts our troops first.

I could go on (and probably will again) but remember, when a candidate says "I put my country first," ask "How?"

Busy month!

2008-09-01T09:13:00.002-06:00

We have had a very busy month this past August. The Obama campaign has drafted my wife and I as neighborhood team leaders for our area. My son will be starting pre-school through Hazelwood's reverse mainstream program on Sept. 2. And the thing that has been taking most of our time lately -- my wife got a press pass through Momocrats to cover the DNC Convention in Denver this past week.

While Isaac and I weren't allowed into most events, we all drove out there (all 850 miles). It was so nice to actually cut through the curtain the MSM wants to lay in between what is really going on and the story they want to tell. I'll try to share some of the stories over the next week or so. For now, check out Momocrats to see some real behind the scenes stories.

FISA: Cliffnotes Edition

2008-08-01T09:37:00.003-06:00

After digging through pages and pages of the FISA legislation, I've come away with a much better appreciation of the law itself, instead of all the misinformation swirling around it.

The biggest thing that everyone (including Bush & Co.) said this authorized was warrantless wiretapping of anyone. Just skimming through the bill clearly puts lie to that. Even spying on a foreigner in a foreign country must get a certification from the FISA courts. If you are trying to spy on an American, the rules are even stricter. This bill also makes one of Bush's biggest defenses of his previous program moot. Originally, Bush argued that the Patriot Act and related bills gave him implicit authorization to spy freely; this bill instead says explicitly that all wiretapping (overseas) must go through FISA.

This bill also added significant protections for Americans overseas. To my knowledge, the CIA had pretty much free reign to spy on anyone, as long as they were outside of the country. This is no longer the case. It also gave clearance for telecoms interested in their clients' privacy like Qwest to challenge these orders.

Probably the most important addition in this bill is the review process. The main reason Bush was able to get away with what he did for so long was because these organizations' actions were not monitored. Now there are very clear reporting procedures. The American people get to see how this is happening every six months. Openness is the most important defense we can have against an overreaching government. As the saying goes, "Who is watching the watchers?"

They did, however, use this bill to add a couple things I disagree with. First is the fact that they extended the grace period between when the spying starts and when the AG needs to get approval from the original 3 days to a full 7. I don't personally see any reason the AG should not be able to turn in the information required to FISA if he believes there is a serious reason to start wiretapping. If he has enough information to believe there is a serious national security risk then he should have enough information to convince a FISA judge. If he doesn't then he should get that information before starting the spying. However, this is one of those points that I believe is a viable negotiation point to get the rest of the legislation passed.

My next issue, and this may just be something I missed or didn't understand, is that there are no rules on how to treat information gained from the wiretapping should a FISA judge reject an application. For example, the AG starts eavesdropping on Joe American in Germany and three days later turns paperwork over to FISA. Two days later, the DOJ records him talking about something illegal, but the next day FISA rejects the warrant request. Can that information be used in an arraignment or for future warrants against Joe, or does it have to be discarded as tainted like similar evidence in unauthorized investigations? If anyone reading this is a lawyer and understand it better than me, please help fill me in.

Finally there is the issue of the telecom immunity. This is everything it was advertised as. Telecoms can have any law suit against them thrown out if the AG says to the district court what he already testified to Congress. The one interesting thing I did find in this was that the cut off for immunity only goes back to 9-11. According to many sources though, this program started immediately after Bush took office, February of 2001. If that is the case, I would expect that any suits related to those actions should be able to go forward. This is the deal killer on the bill to me though. In effect, it authorizes the Nuremberg Defense, "I was only following orders." According to the Nuremberg Principals: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." As Qwest's resistance, to its financial detriment, demonstrates, these companies did have a moral and legal choice to refuse.

With the cadre of lawyers corporations like AT&T have, there is no question in my mind that they knew there was no legal grounds to follow these orders, but they complied anyway hoping for such a future defense. When a corporation or other entity knows that they can use such a defense, there is nothing to keep them from violating the law the next time someone asks. In fact, it discourages companies like Qwest from resisting next time -- they have a lot to lose if they resist, and nothing to lose if they comply. This is very dangerous moral ground, and the precedent should never have been set.

Long Overdue

2008-07-28T20:38:00.003-06:00

I have finally gotten through the FISA reform bill. I am not a lawyer, so any of my readings of this legislation may not be completely accurate. There is also the problem that many of the clauses refer back to the original FISA or other laws, which I don't have a copy of. What follows is my best attempt to translate it to somewhat human readable form.

Non-US citizens outside of the US

General:

Any surveillance authorized under this section may not target a person in the US -- citizen or not.
This legislation also cannot be used to indirectly target someone in the US or a US citizen (can't wiretap person b in France because you want to hear what person A in Houston is saying).
The AG and DNI must put into place policies that would prevent the violation of the above conditions, and have those policies approved by Congress and the FISA court

Certifications (similar to warrants, but with lighter requirements):

Must be filed for before the surveillance begins.
The AG and DNI can determine that "intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit" filing for the warrant in advance. Certifications run under this must be submitted to the FISA court within seven days of the surveillance beginning.
FISA court must review certifications within 30 days
Certifications must include:
- A statement that protections described above are in place to prevent improper surveillance.
- A statement that Fourth Amendment protections are in place
- A statement that the surveillance is for foreign intelligence purposes using a communication service provider
- The start date of the surveillance
- An affidavit from the head of the relevant intelligence agency
- If the surveillance was started before the FISA court can review the certification, an explanation by the AG/DNI must be included as well.
- It does NOT need to include a description of how the surveillance will be conducted
Valid for one year and can be reauthorized.
The certification will be used to force telecoms to provide full assistance to the government, including implementing procedures to ensure the secrecy of the surveillance.
Telecoms cannot be sued for following these orders
Telecoms can challenge these orders through the FISA court and both the government and telecom can appeal any decision on this challenge up to the Court of Review.
Government can also appeal denied certifications. Any surveillance already in process may continue during the appeal process.
Accepted certifications must be accompanied by an explanation by the judge for acceptance.

Review procedures:

Every six months the AG and DNI must submit an assessment of how well the policies are complied with.
The IG will review compliance with the procedures in place and compile a report on each violation.
The head of each intelligence agency with access to FISA will report annually to Congress and the court about the IG's findings and describe any new procedures they intend to put in place to reduce future violations.

US Citizens outside the US

General:

FISA courts can only authorize wiretapping of US citizens outside of the US.
If a citizen returns to US soil, or is discovered to have been in the country, the wiretapping must stop immediately (it can be resumed if the person is reasonably believed to have left again).
Review methods are the same as per previous section

Certifications

Must describe the specific information sought
The target must be working for a foreign power
- Evidence backing this up must accompany the request
- Actions protected by the First Amendment (speech, religion, etc.) are not valid evidence
A full description of the method to be used to gain the information must be included (i.e. forced entry, wiretapping (including which telecom will be asked to comply)
Information about any previous surveillance of this target must be included.
Must specify a time span of the surveillance (not more than 90 days)
Requesting officer must swear under oath that the information contained is accurate (the officer's name is attached to the order)
Telecoms cannot be sued for actions taken while following these orders
AG can authorize an emergency surveillance but:
- Must inform a FISA judge when he is authorizing it
- Must file the request no later than seven days after authorizing it
If a person is already under warranted surveillance locally, the AG can authorized continued surveillance if the person goes overseas

Previous warrantless wiretapping program

Lawsuits against telecoms or other persons can be thrown out if the AG testifies to the district court that:
- The surveillance was in connection to an intelligence activity between 9/11/2001 and 1/17/2007
- It was related to preventing a terrorist attack
- The order was authorized by the president
- The order was said to be "determined to be lawful"
The administration can claim national security interests to prevent information from being released about the program
No state can launch an independent investigation into the telecoms' actions
The IG of the DOJ, DNI, NSA, and DOD (and any other agency involved) must give a complete review to Congress of this program including:
- All the determinations used as a basis for the program
- All legal reviews of the program
- All communications with the private sector
- Any interaction with the FISA courts
- Anything else the IG determines to be relevant
The report may include a classified annex, but the main part of the report must be declassified
The initial report is due 60 days after authorization of the act, a final report is due in one year

McCain's economic advisor to Americans:

2008-07-10T09:39:00.003-06:00

Quicherbitchin'

In an interview today with the Washington Times, one of McCain's top economic advisors, Phil Gramm (of Enron loophole and mortgage meltdown fame), said that Americans facing hardships due to the (near?) recession we are facing are "nation of whiners." The article goes on, "'We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today,' he said. 'We have benefited greatly' from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years."

For some sectors, that may be true. Unfortunately, a larger portion of our workers are in sectors that have not grown and more often shrunk. You have only to look at Michigan (although the car companies themselves are more to blame than globalization), Pennsylvania and Ohio. You have only to look at our now non-existent textile manufacturing industry, or most other manufacturing industries for that matter.

Gramm's pay as a UBS vice-chairman may have only gone up over the past six years as he got more and more borrower safeguards removed, but the average American's wages have barely kept up with inflation - in many cases they have lagged behind. For the first time in at least 35 years (google finance didn't go back any further) the S&P is on target to be lower at the end of a president's term than it was at the beginning (even during the recessions of the Carter and Reagan administrations it closed higher).

This is the type of person John "I still need to be educated [on economics]" McCain is choosing to do that educating. This is why McCain's solution to the mortgage crisis is "get over it." Advisors like Phil "Enron" Gramm are the reason McCain thinks an eighteen cent tax holiday for a couple months won't just go right into gas company pocketbooks.

When Americans say that the fact they aren't being paid enough to buy the gas necessary to get to work, they deserve more than "You're just whining," or "Get over it," or even "Go buy some more marshmallows." They need someone who will keep not only their needs in mind when negotiating foreign trade agreements, but also the rights of foreign workers and the safety of the environment. They need someone who will fight for FAIR trade agreements, not blind "free" trade agreements.

Get Out of Jail Free

2008-07-09T14:36:00.006-06:00

Well, it's happened. This afternoon around 3 CDT, the Senate voted to approve the FISA amendment bill with no amendments. Bush was last seen doing his happy dance in the Rose Garden with the AT&T exec that has been buggering him for the past 8 years. John McCain was seen far away from DC hoping no one pays attention to whether or not he supported it. And Sen. Obama voted in favor of the final bill...

Obama did, however, vote in favor of every amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity. Unfortunately, there were, on average, 15-17 Democratic senators willing to fight for the telecommunication companies -- among them my own Sen. McCaskill... According to Sen. Obama, the reason he voted in favor of the final bill is, in part, that it sets up Congressional oversight of any eavesdropping program via an inspector general -- something that should have been set in the original bill.

Oddly, contrary to what happened almost 5 months ago or two weeks ago, Sen. Clinton voted against the final bill. Kudos to her for finally taking a stand on this issue.

Final vote tallies:

Dodd-Feingold-Leahy: 32 - 66
Specter: 37 - 61
Bingaman: 42 - 56
Cloture: 72-26
The bill itself: 69-28

I will update those vote tallies with the links to the actual votes so you can see where your representative voted on each thing when the Senate posts it.

A fading sheen?

2008-07-01T09:01:00.004-06:00

Now that the Democratic nomination has wound down and Obama has emerged as the victor, the main stream media, driven by the hard right (especially the self avowed McCain "surrogate" Faux News) have started attacking Obama's positions. The most common attacks are the blatant lies - the "Obama is a secret Muslim" and "Obama says high gas prices are a good thing." What is more insidious, though, are the attempts to portray Obama's long held positions as "flip-flops."

Julie over at Momocrats has a great series of posts (starting here) addressing a few key issues. As she points out: on the death penalty he has consistently been against killing innocents, but not against capital punishment in general; on gun control - "I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of . . . gun ownership . . . We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment."; FISA I will address later in this post.

Other attacks like this include NAFTA - his position has been that we need to renegotiate NAFTA, not drop it completely. His problem with NAFTA has been that there are no environmental protections and no worker protections. This allows manufacturing jobs that paid well and were union jobs here in America to be sent to Mexico and Canada where the workers can be paid less and there are fewer environmental protections. He wants to fix these issues; he does not want to unilaterally drop out.

Then there is Iraq. Obama has, since 2003, been against Iraq. But now you are seeing people attack him saying he doesn't intend to leave and in the same breath attack him for being a "cut and run Democrat." They can't have it both ways. Obama's stance has been "We have to be more careful getting out than we were careless getting in." This means that while he intends to pull most of our troops out in 12-18 months, he is not going to do something stupid that leaves us in a worse position than we already are in.

Just this past weekend we had yet another instance of this. General Wesley Clark said "Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." On its surface, it's true. However, McCain did serve in the military, achieving the rank of captain. This is a record of service that, as Obama has said for months, deserves our recognition. He has also consistently, even through the primary campaign, been against personal, ad hominem attacks. Thus, when he rejected General Clark's attack, he was not flip-flopping or throwing Clark under the bus, he was staying consistent with his message of bringing politics out of the gutter.

The last of these I want to focus on is the FISA legislation. In general, I am against these reforms. However, I have not read the legislation myself and I don't know all of the reforms it will be implementing. The one that I am most strongly against is the telecom immunity clause that will ensure no one is held responsible for completely ignoring the Constitution during Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. When this came up for vote a few months ago, Obama voted against cloture and co-sponsored an amendment with Sen. Dodd to strip the immunity clause. It has come back up for vote in the Senate and this time Obama did not vote on the cloture vote (neither did McCain or Clinton). He has, however said he will continue to push to remove the immunity. Without having researched this bill better, I can't make a complete judgment on his general support of the bill. As far as whether he has changed his position, that is harder to say; he still is fighting against the immunity, but it appears he has weakened his position on the bill at large.

Now all of this does not mean he hasn't changed position on things. The most talked about change has been his stance on public financing in his campaign. Back in 2007, he did say that as long as his Republican counterpart chose to accept public financing, so would he. This clearly is not happening. To explain this, he has said that with 1.7 million donors nationwide, his campaign is being financed by the public, but that ignores some of the other catches tied in with federal public financing. Personally, I am mixed on this. As an idealist, I would like for the public financing system to work and allow good campaigns. However, the other side is best summed up in a cartoon BAC posted a week ago:

There is also the issue of Israel. Throughout his career he has remained fairly neutral on this. However, after securing the nomination he spoke before AIPAC and came down very strongly pro-Israel. This really disappointed me. It weakens his ability to be a fair arbiter of any peace deal between Israel and Palestine. As of yet, I have not heard him address the issues raised in this speech.

I think Julie's final assessment is very accurate. Obama's positions are much more nuanced than a 10 second sound bite. This is something that draws me to him because it breaks away from the "with us or against us" mentality of the past eight years. But it is much harder to convey to the wider public and can be has been used against him. What should be the MSM's job, conveying the facts of the issues, has now fallen to us, the bloggers and grass roots activists.

If only it weren't so true.

2008-06-27T09:19:00.003-06:00

Check out this ~~hilarious~~ sad post over at Macro Man.

Inconceivable.

FISA Failure

2008-06-20T13:22:00.004-06:00

This afternoon, at 12:48 PM EDT, the House of Representatives signed away our fourth amendment rights. After a year of wrangling, the Bush administration was able to convince 105 Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, to vote for this horribly flawed bill. And because the fourth amendment wasn't enough for them, they have established a precedent of allowing the Bush administration to ignore whatever other laws they please.

The biggest issue in this bill is how the telecoms are being treated. In the previous bill that the House rejected, telecommunication companies that allowed the justice department to set up wiretaps that they knew were not warranted and thus were unconstitutional and illegal were granted unconditional immunity. This time, Kit Bond, who I am ashamed to say is one of my state's Senators, was able to work out a "compromise." Instead of blanket immunity, the FISA court would be able to hear whether or not the companies were given letters in which the administration says that what they want to do is legal. The court is not, however, allowed to judge whether such a statement was legal. Because Alberto Gonzales has already testified to the Senate that such a letter was sent to these companies, the courts will only be allowed to determine whether a well accepted fact is a fact. In other words, the telecos were just voted immunity.

The precedent set is that if the Bush administration breaks a law, and asks others to aid and abet him with it, no one will face any prosecution. All Bush has to do to overturn a 220+ year old amendment is write a letter saying, "Trust me."

On a more positive note, both of the local Congressmen, my own William Lacy Clay and Russ Carnahan, both voted against it. I had the pleasure of meeting both of them at the Missouri Democratic Convention and both are upstanding men that deserve the positions they have earned.

I don't know if this updated bill still needs to go before the Senate (I'm 99% sure it does), but I don't hold high hopes that it will be killed there. This leaves us only one last option - the Supreme Court. Even though Congress is stripping the courts of their rights to hear cases on this issue, because it is a Constitutional issue, the Supreme Court can still choose to hear a case. With justices like Alito who believe that since we are at war with "radical islamists" we don't need to follow the Constitution, I fear even that might not be enough.

Open letter to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel

2008-06-17T21:07:00.003-06:00

What follows is a response I sent to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel regarding an editorial they published attacking Congressman Robert Wexler for co-sponsoring articles of impeachment (pdf) (videos here) that Congressman Dennis Kucinich presented against (still)President George W. Bush.

This article was forwarded to me by Congressman Wexler and the shortsightedness of the author and the editorial board that published it deeply saddens me. It is nothing more than a low brow attack on a person attempting to fight for those things the author claims to want.

In the editorial, the author claims that holding impeachment hearings to address the current president's actions against our country is a distraction from issues that should be focused on. The examples this author gives of such "real" issues are Iraq, the economy, health insurance and oil/gas prices. However, this author misses the actual bottleneck these issues are running into.

On every single one, Congress has passed legislation, or begun holding hearings. Every piece of legislation that has passed to address these issues has been vetoed by that same president this author wants to leave in office.

Congress passed, repeatedly, legislation that would set firm benchmarks that would allow our military and national guard to come home and would set actual goals that the Iraqi Parliament had to meet. This was vetoed.

Congress at the beginning of the year passed legislation that authorized tax rebate "stimulus" checks to be issued. This bill fortunately was signed by President Bush, but the new one currently wending its way through the Senate, one that would help those who have lost their jobs during this crisis, currently faces a veto threat.

Earlier this year Congress attempted to legislate an update to the expiring SCHIP bill providing government subsidized health care to hundreds of thousands of young children. This is personal to me because my wife and I were able to afford to have our child because we barely fell on the cusp of the former income level. If I had been making $100 more a year, we would not have been able to afford to have a child. When the Democrats, including Rep. Wexler, attempted to expand this bill to catch those who would fall through the cracks, the Republicans in the Senate were able to block it with a veto from the president.

On energy prices, Congress has been holding a number of hearings attempting to get to a point where they can fix some of the issues. Some proposals include measures such as taxing the excessive profits of the oil companies (some making more than all but a couple nations, worldwide) and using these revenues to fund research and development of new forms of energy that would help drive down consumption of these commodities and push the prices lower. These measures also face a presidential veto.

The only way to pass meaningful legislation on these "REAL issues" is a change in the presidency. There are only two ways to change the president, an election held every four years electing a new president, the inauguration of whom is just over six months away, or impeachment. According to the Constitution, "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." A president who has violated the Constitution he has sworn twice to uphold - in removing habeas rights, unwarranted wiretapping of civilians, and more - and who has sold our military and our children's futures into the hands of Halliburton and China has, in my informed opinion, acted treasonously and committed high crimes and misdemeanors. This president, and his equally guilty vice president, should be removed not only because of his illegal activities outlined by Rep. Kucinich, but also so Congress, and the nation, can move forward on REAL issues.

If you too would like to send the Sun Sentinel a piece of your mind on this issue, email them at letters@sun-sentinel.com.

Rest In Peace

2008-06-13T14:22:00.003-06:00

Moderator of Meet the Press for the past seventeen years, Tim Russert today passed away from an apparent heart attack. He was one of the few political pundits willing to ask the harder questions (not that he would always push for real answers). He will be missed.

Thin Veneers

2008-06-11T17:55:00.003-06:00

Two short stories of how easy it is to see through John McCain:

Some of you may have noticed that he has updated his website taking many layout aspects from Obama's site. To most viewers it is nice and flashy. Me, however, I browse using Firefox with the NoScript add on enabled. This means javascript doesn't run on pages unless I tell it to. So when I loaded his fancy new page, there was a giant "McCain Golf Gear" ad. That is what is central to his website message... Obama's, on the other hand, looks fine with javascript turned off - his people do it right. As a side note, this is also what search engines like Google see.

This evening, McCain's new TV ad came on during dinner. You know, the one that says, "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war." After the end of the commercial, my son asks, "Is John McCain pretending to be Barack Obama?"

Yes, Isaac, but he isn't doing a good job of it...

Thank You, Sen. Hillary Clinton

2008-06-07T21:49:00.002-06:00

"[I]t's time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish and the country we love."

Thank you, Sen. Clinton, for these kind words. My only hope is that it will reach as many ears, and as many hearts, as if it had been said on Tuesday.

Let us come together as a family and begin the healing we so desperately need before November.

What stands between us and unity

2008-06-04T21:08:00.004-06:00

Yesterday, my wife, son and I went to an Obama party to watch the final primary results. Originally it had been scheduled for a restaurant, but the level of response from area Obama supporters was so great, they had to move it to an art gallery at the last minute. When we got there just after six, there were easily fifty people around the room and (horrors) a giant Lou Dobbs on the projector (fortunately, the room was loud enough that his drivel was drowned out).

As the evening wore on toward the time the South Dakota primaries closed, more people crowded in. Eventually, McCain took the stage to a small smattering of "boo"s, but he was largely ignored similar to Dobbs. Every so often, the CNN delegate ticker would roll over as a new super delegate would pledge for Obama, bringing cheers from the whole room. There his counter was at 2114 when the head of the Missouri Democratic Committee took the stage. He and three other Missouri super delegates were still unpledged and had said that they would vote as a block. He told us, five minutes before the SD polls closed, that all four of them had decided to pledge their support to Obama. The applause of the couple hundred people was deafening.

With this enthusiasm we welcomed even Republican pundits calling McCain's just finished speech "the worst ever." We watched as South Dakota was projected for Clinton, but our spirits weren't dampened because we knew this nomination battle was finally won.

Then Senator Clinton took the stage. We applauded her; proud of the fight she had fought; respectful of the enormous effort that her supporters had put out for her as we had for Sen. Obama; glad to have such a strong leader on our side.

Then she began her speech: "I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run." "Uh oh," I said to my wife, "this doesn't sound too conciliatory..." In fact, to me it sounded like the sort of thing she would say to the loser of a contest. But we were still optimistic and applauded her praise of Obama.

"Nearly 18 million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history." Yup, there it was, the knife in the back. The glaringly misleading half-truth designed to divide the party. The tone in our room immediately changed. We knew that more than 18 million people also cast their vote, as best they could, for Obama. In fact, by all counts except one, Obama won more votes than any primary candidate. Even on that one in which he didn't, more people voted against Clinton than have ever voted against a primary candidate in history.

"And I am committed to uniting our party so we move forward stronger and more ready than ever to take back the White House this November." Ok, we thought, after what she has just said, how does she intend to do that?

"You know, I understand that that a lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want? What does she want?'" We are, Mrs. Clinton. We do want to know what you intend to gain by drawing this out with more divisive politics. What do you want?

"I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential." So do we all. Work with us, help us get Barack Obama elected the next president of the United States and you will see all these things and more. "And I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected. " Ah, there it is, 'I want to use those people that voted for me as bargaining chips." It couldn't have been said more clearly.

The problem with this is manifold. She herself showed in this speech that she doesn't hold respect for those voters beyond the power it will give her. She has also, with this stance shown that she does not have even that level of respect for the 18 million people who voted for someone else. And she has shown that she doesn't respect her opponent enough to even admit when he has had a clear victory. Even this morning, her communications director couldn't answer when asked whether Obama had won the majority of the delegates needed to become the nominee.

Senator Hillary Clinton, I do not know what drove you to take this stance on the day your own metrics for victory were met by your opponent. What I do know is that you threw away your best remaining chance to bring this party together, not as Clinton or Obama supporters, but as Democrats. Instead, for whatever reason, you have chosen to drive that stake into the heart of this party. You had the opportunity to leave with the strength of a leader, instead you have encouraged the idea that your due was stolen from you.

You, of all political leaders, know what this image means to so many. And yet, rather than leading your supporters past that, you chose to relish in it. You know better than most, that none of those things you hope for will be accomplished under a McCain presidency. You also know that without the support of your followers, we may be doomed to four years of McCain. But still, rather than securing a central role as a Democratic leader, you chose to hold your own party hostage.

I do know that your campaign has said you will concede the nomination this Saturday. My only hope is that such belated words will be strong enough to bring us all back together.

A Time for Unity

2008-06-01T00:32:00.002-06:00

Yesterday, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee ruled on Florida and Michigan's delegations to the Democratic National Committee Convention. The final ruling gave Florida and Michigan their full delegation, but reduced each delegate's vote to 1/2. Also, in order to more fairly seat Michigan's delegation after Sen. Obama removed his name from the ballot according to his view of the oath he gave following Michigan's early primary, Hillary Clinton was given 69 delegates, and Obama was given 59. These numbers reflect not only the actual primary ballots, but also the exit polling that showed many of Obama's supporters voted for Clinton because only her name was on the ballot. This wound up giving Obama an extra 4 delegates out of Clinton's total. This was worked out as a compromise to Clinton's request that Obama receive no delegates from Michigan and the rules, as laid out last year, that no Michigan delegates would be seated.

This now gives Obama a delegate total of 2052 to Clinton's 1877, with the goal post set (firmly I hope) at 2118. Obama now needs 66 of the remaining 280 unpledged delegates (24%) and Clinton needs 241 (86%). Switching those four delegates would mean Clinton would need 239 (86%) and Obama would need 68 (24%). Unfortunately, as Sen. Clinton made clear beforehand, any seating of Michigan's delegation that gave Obama any votes would be completely unacceptable to her, and as such Harold Ickies, her representative at the meeting, has stated he will fight this ruling to the Convention.

What follows is part of a comment I left over at BAC's blog:

...[T]he votes by this committee could have no effect on [party unity], no matter how they voted. The only way we will see unity is if Sen. Clinton, and her ardent supporters, stop vilifying Sen. Obama as the devil re-incarnate and work to bring unity themselves. The people have spoken; Obama has won more states, more pledged delegates, more "super" delegates, more caucuses, more primaries, and more popular vote.

Sen. Clinton has fought an incredible campaign, but she has lost fairly. If she continues to drive wedges between her supporters and the DNC and the Democratic presidential nominee, not just women, not just Americans, but the whole world will be forced, by her, to suffer under a third George W. Bush term.

As much as we might wish (the more salient of us at least), nothing Sen. Obama could say, nor anything any of his supporters could say, can prevent Hillary Clinton from driving that wedge in if she so wishes. There is no magical speech Obama could make; sometimes the ball is just in the other person's court and there is nothing one can do about it. Insults have been bandied, feelings hurt, but we are willing to lay those aside and apologize for any we have delivered. But we cannot take that step without Sen. Clinton and her supporters.

Unity can only be brought by both sides working together.

May 31

2008-05-29T17:43:00.003-06:00

Unless you have been hiding in a cave, or just plain ignoring the political season as much as possible (not really a bad idea), you know that this Saturday the DNC Rules Committee is meeting to discuss Florida and Michigan. Almost a year ago, the Committee ruled that any state that moved their primary elections before February 5, other than the four chosen early primary states, would lose all their delegates. The Florida and Michigan state legislatures didn't think they were serious and decided to start a game of political chicken. The head of the Florida state party went so far as to threaten the DNC with law suits and protests if they enforced these rules.

The state legislatures wound up moving the primaries forward, Florida's legislature voted 118 to 0 on the bill and Michigan, at the behest of Carl Levin, voted to move theirs up in a 67 to 34 vote (at least here 1/3 of the Dems voted against it). In order to prevent a complete collapse of the primary schedule, with the risk of some states holding primaries as early as November or December of 2007, the rules committee gave them an ultimatum to move their primaries back or lose all their delegates.

As late as March 6, Sen. Clinton opposed re-votes in both states, with a blanket opposition to any Florida re-vote, "I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida." It wasn't until she was significantly behind in pledged delegate count in mid-March that she began calling for re-votes in both states.

The first proposals by Florida were mail in primaries similar to what is held in Oregon. However, according to Florida state law, mail in elections are illegal for nominations like this. Another thorn in the re-vote plan was that the Floridian representatives to Congress were against the plan. By the time Clinton supported a Michigan re-vote, it was nearly too late to set one up, and her plan was to disenfranchise anyone that voted in the Republican primary, a restriction made impossible by the fact that voter rolls aren't taken at the primaries and such a system would then be completely an honor system. Due to this, the respective legislatures were unable to pass new plans.

That brings us forward to May 31. At the committee meeting, Clinton wants all 368 delegates seated. This would add about 192 delegates to her total, and, depending on how the Michigan uncommitted delegates are divided, 70 to 132 delegates to Obama's total (with a few also going to Edwards in Florida). At best, this would give her 122 delegates to cut into her 199 delegate deficit. More likely it would get her 60 delegates. This would bring the current delegate counts to 1974 for Clinton and 2051 or 2113 for Obama. The new goal line would be about 2210. With only 280 delegates remaining available, Clinton would still need 85% of them. Obama would only need 56 - 35%.

Personally, I don't think they should be seated fully. At the very least, all of the super delegates from these states need to have their delegate status removed. These are the ones like Carl Levin and the Florida state chairwoman who said the DNC "wouldn't dare" remove their delegates. These short-sighted representatives caused this mess in the first place and they should not be rewarded for this attempted party-cide by being given exactly what they wanted. Further, I don't think the full pledged delegation should be seated. At most, half should be seated; it wasn't the voters' fault (beyond choosing bad representatives) so removing all state delegates may have been too hasty a decision. Also, the 40% uncommitted should be given to Obama (according to exit polls, most of the uncommitted voters were Obama supporters).

Any way you slice it though, Clinton has no mathematical path to victory. It is long past time for this divisive figure to stop praising the Republican candidate at the detriment of the eventual Democratic nominee. It is time for her to unify the party, not compare it to Mugabe, those against civil rights, or anti-suffragists. It is time for her to set aside her self-importance and join the fight against those who would roll back Roe v. Wade; those who are against the Lilly Ledbetter Act; those who support torture; those who would kill off Social Security; those who would continue the quagmire in Iraq.

Home updates

2008-05-27T18:44:00.007-06:00

Or, in some cases, repairs.

Finally, we have gotten somewhat caught up with our major outdoor projects. Of course, as with any home, there is always something more to do, but we now have breathing space.

Our most pressing repair, although it wasn't completely obvious, was a repair to the to the facing board behind the gutter on the back of our house:

We could tell it had some water damage (it had a metal cover, but part of the wood by the downspout was exposed and we could see the water damage), but after I took off the first two foot end board, I could tell the next, twelve foot section had some damage too. That twelve foot section came off in two, three foot pieces of wood:

Needless to say, this showed the quality of work that has been so evident with the rest of the house... Now we have Kilz treated cedar wood up there. That ain't rotting for a hundred years or so...

Then there is the project that took three or so weekends. Last year my wife and I (mostly my wife) started a raised bed vegetable garden. We got months of tomatoes, peppers, and green beans out of those plants. To keep the ravenous squirrels away, we used two tactics: One, that probably did the most, was bribing the squirrels by putting the tomatoes that got insects, etc. under their tree (they were lazy) so that they wouldn't go across the yard to get fresh tomatoes. The other was a quickly assembled chicken wire fence wrapped around some metal posts:

This worked alright, but was unsightly and always got in the way of the weed whacker. This year, not only did we expand the vegetable garden, but we went all out and made a real fence:

If the wood had been straighter, it would have been a quicker build, but now it is up and seems to be holding up to the insane weather we have been having the past several weeks.

I am still working on my MO Democratic Convention posts. If anyone knows a good way to post plain audio (mp3) files right into a blogger blog post, let me know.

McCain's Iraq Plan

2008-05-15T15:04:00.002-06:00

Be elected president.
???
Peace in Iraq.

No questions allowed.

No time for blogging this week

2008-05-13T21:04:00.003-06:00

Or at least this past week, and much of this week. At least Blue Gal has given us all a free pass to play hooky this month! Instead I will be recovering from my birthday a week and a half ago, my son's birthday last Friday, our trip to the Missouri Democratic Convention, and recent home repairs. In the meantime, I will be gathering my thoughts on the convention, researching atrazine and memristors, finding a way to fight Charter's attempts to remove all of my internet privacy, and preparing to head off to the PHP|Architect conference up in Chicago next week. No rest for the weary, huh?

Oh, and a quick congrats to Hillary Clinton on her West Virginia win, netting her a gain of about 9-10 delegates.

IN/NC Results

2008-05-07T09:01:00.003-06:00

After an incredibly idiotic, drawn out wait for Lake County Indiana to turn in it's results, we have some good final numbers. I guess that is sort of fitting after the long, drawn out race it is part of. Congratulations to Sen. Clinton on her Indiana win and to Sen. Obama on North Carolina.

Here is how the numbers turned out (per CNN): North Carolina - Obama won by 14%, almost 233,000 votes, and gained roughly 16 delegates. Indiana - Clinton won by 2%, a little bit more than 18,000 votes, and she gained roughly 2 delegates. Total last night went overwhelmingly to Obama, gaining more than 210,000 in the popular vote count and 14 delegates.

For the race at large, this puts Obama soundly in the lead on all counts: 1592 pledged delegates to 1421, 1844 total delegates to 1687, 15,088,235 (15,657,276 with Florida) (15,895,038 with FL and Michigan's 40% undecided) popular vote to 14,618,762 (15,475,970 with FL) (15,804,121 with MI and FL) and 13 to 1 in the caucuses. To catch up in pledged delegates, Sen. Clinton now needs 89% of the remaining delegates. If you add Florida in, that cuts Obama's delegate lead by about 30 (assuming all 211 state delegates are pledged, which they aren't), meaning Clinton would need 82% of the remaining delegates. With Michigan added (giving Obama the undecideds again), Obama's lead is cut by a bit more than 60 pledged (same caveat as with Florida's delegates) and Clinton needs only 60% of the remaining votes.

With all this, of course, we need to take into account the super delegates and the target delegate count. With Obama's current delegate total, he is now within 181 delegates of the "magic number." Clinton is still 338 away. This means, according to CNN's undeclared super delegate count of 277, Obama is soundly inside of the number required to be handed the nomination.

This race is effectively over. Senator Clinton has run a very strong race. She has been a tough and tenacious opponent and I congratulate her. But now, more than ever, it is time for us to come together as a party in preparation for November. Obama very clearly articulated what we will be up against in the coming months. We must be unified to face the onslaught of lies and swift-boat attacks the Republican machine is guaranteed to throw against us. If we do not unify, they will use our divisions to try to drive us further apart. Our country and our world cannot be handed another four years of the policies of George W. Bush. As Obama said "We can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush's third term."

The power of conservation

2008-05-02T09:02:00.002-06:00

Over the past few days I have been talking a lot about the presidential candidates' plans to cut fuel costs. Very clearly, I have supported Obama's "cut consumption" plans over Clinton's and McCain's "increase consumption but lower taxes a couple cents" plans. I felt that some of the research I did for comments deserved a little bit more attention.

As of 2006, Americans were using over 20 million barrels of oil per day. This is three times more than any other country in the world - China, the most populous nation and second biggest oil consumer, uses just over 7 million. Looked at a little differently, the average American uses about 25 barrels of oil per year, the average Chinese person uses about 2; Japan, the next most consuming nation and also a highly developed society, uses about 15 barrels per person.

What does this mean when it comes to oil? It means that America is one of the best countries to focus on conserving oil. If Americans used just 10% less oil a year, that would make an incredible dent in consumption. It wouldn't completely fix the problem, but as a computer programmer, you learn to optimize starting with the largest bottleneck.

What would 2.5 barrels of oil entail? One barrel of oil holds 42 gallons of crude. Out of that, depending on the refining efficiency, about 19 to 20 gallons of gasoline can be made, along with a number of other by-products. For just gas, 2.5 barrels is, on average, a bit more than 1,200 miles of driving in a year. If fuel economy is raised to 35 mpg as called for in the recent bill, that alone would be a fuel savings of about 30% over an average year, about 143 gallons - more than 7 barrels of oil and more than $500 (not including what is saved in lower demand). Even more can be saved by using, when available, public mass transit. Or by purchasing locally grown food (shipping food from China and Central America uses quite a bit of fuel).

Or even just by recycling and buying recycled plastics. New plastic products, worldwide, consume about 1 billion barrels of oil a year (just in the plastics themselves, this doesn't include energy to produce). Recycling could cut this significantly (producers, PLEASE mark your products for this...).

It doesn't matter which candidate is the Democratic nominee

2008-05-01T18:40:00.003-06:00

This woman had better be the VP nom.

Donna Brazile for VP 2008!

Moms ask...

2008-05-01T08:40:00.003-06:00

Obama answers.

Congrats to the Momocrats on a great interview (full disclosure, my wife wrote the initial response Obama is responding to). I join them in asking the other candidates to respond to these questions as well.

At least one candidate has a decent energy policy

2008-04-30T18:01:00.000-06:00

Pandering

2008-04-29T13:51:00.004-06:00

You know, it's one thing when a Republican proposes a tax cut that will only help large corporations and hurt the rest of the country. But when a leading Democratic presidential hopeful echoes him, that really just takes the cake. I don't know if she just doesn't understand the economics of supply and demand, fails to understand what this tax will save/cost, or is just being naive, but this is just ridiculous.

At current gas prices, about $3.50 per gallon, the average American will spend $420 for gas over the three months being proposed (1000 miles per month, 25 mpg vehicle). Of that, a total of ~~$7.36~~ $22.08 (over three months) goes to the government in tax. That isn't even half a tank of gas saved should the tax be revoked for a few months. And that is at current prices; gas is expected to reach $4 per gallon or more by the time this "holiday" is proposed to go into effect. That $7 $22 won't cover a quarter tank of gas. I might be able to get to work and back on that, but I live a mile or two from work.

Then there is what that tax pays for. $7 isn't much for you or me when it comes to gas, but $7 from all of us over those three months is several hundred million dollars that go to maintain roads and bridges. McCain doesn't have any idea of how to make that up, so at least Clinton does improve on that plan by also proposing a "windfall" tax on the gas companies. The thing is, that tax is just going to be passed on to us the consumers in the form of raised gas prices. So, if you're following all this, Clinton is proposing to lower front end gas taxes for three months, but raise taxes on the gas companies that will then raise the cost of gas to compensate.

All of this completely ignores the fact that gas prices are (largely) determined by the amount of gasoline available. Now, I expect that, largely, supplies are being kept lower by these companies in order to help push prices up slightly, but there are a number of things entering into this.

One is the supply of raw oil. Much of this comes to us from the Middle East, where Clinton is doing some saber rattling of her own to match Bush's and McCain's. This heightens the instability in the region and causes crude costs to go up.

Next is refining capacity. This is where, I think, oil corporations are doing the most to keep prices up. Oil companies would like you to think that they aren't being allowed to build new refineries. This is completely untrue. In 25 years, 1975 to 2000, there was one application to the EPA for a permit to build a refinery. There are environmental requirements that must be met to build a new refinery, as well there should be. But there is nothing creating a blanket ban on building new refineries. Instead, oil companies are holding out for a tax break ransom, holding these high gas prices over our heads and threatening to move them higher unless they get paid to make new refineries instead of paying to do it themselves.

I say we don't negotiate with these economic terrorists and instead encourage lower consumption through higher CAFE standards and increased development of alternative energy sources. These are the proposals that Sen. Obama has voted for and supports expansion of.

EDIT: Fixed amount saved in the tax holiday. Originally I had calculated it for only one month.

Welcome Back, Poll Tax

2008-04-28T09:41:00.003-06:00

In a number of states, Republican legislatures have been pushing for new voter ID laws that require a government issued photo ID in order to vote. On the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. I mean, you have a drivers license, I have a drivers license, what could go wrong? This is effectively what the Supreme Court just ruled in a case in Indiana.

But look a little deeper and you will see that not only is it an infringement on normal people's right to vote, but also completely ineffective as a vote fraud deterrent.

The biggest issue is the unrealized difficulty in getting these IDs. In order to get a new ID in Indiana (if they follow the same REAL ID rules we here in Missouri do), you need proof of social security number, proof of citizenship, and proof of residence. The first one is usually a social security card, to get a replacement one of these, if you lost (or never had one, say your parents lost it...) it you need to fill out SSA paperwork, get proof of citizenship (see below) and proof of identity (a driver's license...). Already you see the circular nature of these requirements.

Proof of citizenship/age is usually a birth certificate. To get this, you have to get as much information as you can about your birth, send that and a check (price I assume varies by state, usually between $15 and $20) to your state records department and hope they find your records. The difficulty of finding your records depends on the organization of the department, and most importantly of where your parents filed your birth records. If they don't find your record, you are out the fee and up the creek.

Proof of residency is a little bit less onerous, but in some cases much more difficult to get. To prove residence you need one of: utility bill, property tax receipt, bank statement or voter registration card. This is fine if you are living on your own (and have a permanent residence), but if you happen to live in a dorm, with your parents, or are homeless you won't necessarily have anything.

Add to all this the necessity to get to the SSA office and the DMV to file all the paperwork needed, and the cost of the government ID card, you wind up paying $40-$50 to get this information. And the ones that have the most to fight to get these are: elderly, whose paperwork may have long since been lost, if it was filed properly to begin with, and the poor, who have transportation issues, housing issues, and also difficulty getting the paperwork. This implicitly violates the 24th amendment against a poll tax.

Then there is the second sub-issue in that it will be ineffective except as a vote suppression tool. Anyone who works in security knows that a security system is only as strong as it's weakest link. The same holds for this scenario. The ID card you are required to present to vote on its face is pretty secure. It is difficult to forge and very clearly shows who is supposed to own it.

The problem is that all the paperwork required to get one is easily and regularly forged. Illegal immigrants across the country purchase or are given these documents in order to work. Now, instead, all they need to do is forge them, present them to a DMV employee (who won't pay close enough attention to notice a forgery), and walk away looking to all the world a legal voting citizen. This makes the new state IDs inherently flawed from the beginning, but it looks good to the general populace.

'Nuff Said

2008-04-27T16:49:00.001-06:00

Courtesy Blue Gal

Pennsylvania Round-up

2008-04-23T12:45:00.004-06:00

First of all, let me congratulate Sen. Clinton on a fight successfully fought. She got the double digit win that gives her an excuse to continue what many believe will turn out to be a debacle. Not to steal too much from my wife's secret lover, "I CALLED IT!" (I would run around the office, but people might look at me oddly).

Unfortunately for Hillary, even with this victory her odds just got even slimmer. As I said in that previous post, since Ohio, etc. Clinton needed to win by 65% or better to tie in pledged delegates. Getting 10% less than that has raised that margin to just over 68% (she needs 279 of the remaining 408 pledged to catch up to Obama's total.) If she loses even one of the remaining contests, or even just ties in North Carolina, she will need upwards of 75% in the few contests left.

A counterbalance to this is that Sen. Obama's chances of reaching the 2024 delegates without any new super delegate votes is much slimmer now also. He needs somewhere around 299 of the remaining delegates, 73%. However, the most relevant numbers - popular vote, pledged delegates, total delegates, and contests won - are at the very least mathematically impossible if not completely impossible to overcome.

As for the question I hear time and again "Why can't Obama 'close the deal'?" there are two valid responses. One, turn the question on its head - Why can't Clinton beat this 'rookie' senator from Illinois? Two, really a corollary of the first, Obama has to go against 60 to 40 polls against him in all of these states, he has to compete against 16 or more years of popular inertia Clinton has behind her, and he has to compete against not just Hillary Clinton, but also Bill Clinton and his incumbency and John McCain and the Republican party (which has already realized what the Clintons won't admit). Having to fight against the "silly season politics" coming from all three fronts is a bit much for anyone and it's amazing that he has done as well as he has.

Good luck to both candidates and PLEASE STOP WITH THE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS. If you want to criticize the other's policies, that's one thing; give us the strengths of your policies vs. the other's. I could care less about someone who served on the same board for three months, or who was pardoned by a spouse. Talk about your differences on the economy, on health care, on globalization, and the United State's position in the world.

GIVE VOTERS SOMEONE TO VOTE FOR FOR A CHANGE. The only choice I have had since I reached voting age is to vote against someone and pick someone less bad (the reason I didn't even bother voting in 2000). Let's make this election different.

"And I would have gotten away with it too...

2008-04-19T10:16:00.005-06:00

... if it weren't for you pesky voters"

Hilzoy over at Obsidian Wings pointed me to this comment by Clinton at a fundraiser in February:

We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And they turn out in great numbers. And you know they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them.

Yes Clinton, it's so dismaying that voters are actually voting on issues. And how dare they turn out in droves for elections. I mean, the nerve of those voters.

BTW, Move On never opposed the war in Afghanistan. Now, she could have just been confusing Afghanistan and Iraq, which they did oppose, but that doesn't speak well for her either.

One hour into the debate

2008-04-16T18:48:00.002-06:00

The questions thus far have been:

Will either of you pledge to take the other as VP?
Clinton, do you think Obama is electable?
Clinton, are Obama's comments in San Fransisco going to damage him?
Obama, are your ties to Rev. Wright a liability?
Obama, why don't you wear a flag pin?
Clinton, how do you address the trustworthiness issue?
Obama, do you think the comments of a former associate (something about bombings, it was the first I had heard of it) reflect on you?

So far, despite these relentless attacks from his opponent and the moderators, only one person has tried to talk about real issues we are facing.

McCain "Economy, shemconomy"

2008-04-15T15:40:00.002-06:00

John McCain has released a few of his planned economic policies this week. As reflective of his previous statement "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military issues," these changes will do a lot of harm our economy, especially long term. His policies are - update the tax code to something simpler, but leave the old tax code in place if you would prefer to use it; create a "gas tax holiday" for the entire summer; and offer government backed 30 year mortgages to at risk borrowers, with applications available at the post office.

That last one may be something helpful, he is vague on the details though so I can't say for sure. We do need real help on the mortgage front, but I am wary about the government arbitrarily buying back mortgages. I need to look at this proposal more closely, should more details be released, and compare them with the other candidates' before I can make more detailed remarks.

The gas tax holiday has to be the most ridiculous proposal I have heard in a while. The problem with fuel prices isn't the $0.18 added to unleaded to pay for road repairs. Repairs that are used (or should be) to keep bridges from collapsing for example. This will save the average driver less than the cost of one tank of gas over the three months he is proposing (3 months, 15 gallons per week, $3.50 per gallon). The problem is the $1.00+ hike created by an oil man's war in the Middle East. The instability we created there reduced output and encouraged speculators. Meanwhile, encouraged to "keep spending" here, our consumption has gone up. Bush's unwillingness to push for tougher CAFE standards until Congress just recently acted, plus his unwillingness to encourage funding in new energy sources has also helped raise demand. The last thing we need to deal with $114 oil is an 18 cent per gallon encouragement to use more. What we need is real encouragement to consume less or at the very least, more wisely. We need to stop using oil and natural gas for electricity when infinite (at least for the next several million years) energy is beamed to us 11-13 hours a day. But pushing a policy like that could hurt the Exxon's of the world who are making $41 billion off of $100+ oil.

The change to the tax code has to be almost as idiotic. So now, should his plan go through, not only would we have the convoluted craziness of the current tax code, where someone making billions of dollars can pay less in taxes than his secretary making $30-$50k, but we will also have yet another (lets call it 1040EZ-R) form that may or may not allow us to pay less. In order to figure out which one is the best, we will still have to pay tax professionals hundreds of dollars while the tax code adds five more books. "Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes -- what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands." This is why we will offer one more random form for you to compare with the other arcane rules and demands.

Get Your Priorities Strait

2008-04-14T19:45:00.004-06:00

The following is a letter I sent to Obama's campaign last week after hearing that he and McCain both rejected invitations to the Science Debate 2008. Clinton's campaign did not respond at all.

All of the candidates have disappointed me on this, particularly in light of the "Compassion Forum" Obama and Clinton took time for Sunday. The following is what I sent, but the sentiment holds for all the candidates:

I am a signee to the petition for the presidential candidates to participate in a 2008 debate focused on science. As a signee, I received an email today saying that none of the candidates accepted, but also that Sen. Obama actively declined.

Your campaign has consistently been at the forefront on science and technology issues; this is in fact one of the many things that drew me to your candidacy. This is why it greatly confuses me and also disappoints me to see you decline this opportunity to bring science back to the limelight.

Our nation has suffered under a president who doesn't believe in science for the past eight years. It has been eight years of inaction on global warming. We have fallen eight years behind on stem cells advancements. And most importantly we have consistently for the past eight years fallen in international science education levels.

We need a president who will turn this situation around. I believe that you are the candidate to do it - so much so that I am currently a state level delegate for you hoping to become a national delegate from Missouri. Please take the lead on this.

Thank you for your time,
John

The Petraeus/Crocker Testimony

2008-04-10T12:50:00.001-06:00

This will probably wind up being a series of posts as there has been a lot said over the past couple days. In this post I am only going to focus on the prepared testimony Petraeus delivered Tuesday (charts here).

Petraeus starts out by pointing out the reduction in deaths in Iraq, at least until this recent renewal of attacks. Unfortunately, due to the compactness of the chart, it's very hard to see where that reduction is other than the overall change. There was a reduction in heavy arms fire (rockets and mortars) as well as sniper and small arms attacks. However, it appears IED and infrastructure attacks are little changed since the surge started (although down from the peak a year ago). There also appears to have been a drop in "ethno-sectarian" deaths.

These numbers, on their surface, make it look like the surge is working. But looking at those charts, his further testimony, and other things going on in Iraq, you begin to see that it isn't so simple.

There are three main causes of this drop in violence nationwide. The one Petraeus talked about the most is the so called "Sons of Iraq." This is an army of over 90,000 mercenaries that we are paying top dollar not to shoot at us. This would be like the city of New York paying the mafia protection money. Except it gets praised in Washington. Even Petraeus shows some hesitancy about this group in his testimony, "[The] transition of Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi Security Forces or other pursuits will require . . . careful monitoring."

The second, and this gets brief mention, is Al-Sadr's cease fire. This started back in August and was meant to last six months, coincidentally the planned duration of the surge. Unfortunately, this has recently ended, and violence is back on the rise. It also appears that Sadr has lost some of his control over these militias, which would make enacting another one of these difficult at best.

Lastly, and this is not talked about during his opening remarks but it is reflected in some of his charts, is the increasing segregation of neighborhoods. Like in Palestine now and Germany ages ago, areas where large numbers of Sunnis live are being walled off and guarded by largely Shiite military and police.

Then he gets to where Bush wants him to go, Iran. He claims that Iran is aiding in these recent attacks while the only proof he gives is that the weapons are Iranian. That would be like claiming Russia or China were involved in attacks because AK-47s were used. Are there weapons and supplies going to the militias from Iran? Probably, but no more so than from Saudi Arabia or Jordan (the home of the former Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader). This claim also dismisses Iran's well noted influence over the current Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki.

He goes on to detail improvements in Iraq's security forces. Thousands of troops and police trained, all in the same facility. Now it may just be my sense of paranoia, but do you really want the civilian police to be an offshoot of the military? He also highlights their contributions to the peace effort by saying that three times more of them have died than American soldiers. Could those numbers be largely reflective of the poorer equipment and training compared to our troops? He says "The number of combat battalions capable of taking the lead in operations, albeit with some Coalition support, has grown," meaning they still can't take the field alone. This is highlighted best in the uprising in Basra, where even now we are still fighting. Oh, but he does give a caveat to that " some of our assessments may be downgraded as a result [of our after action reviews]." So, in other words, this assessment isn't very accurate, huh?

What have we gained? A well funded mercenary force that may turn on us again at any moment, but some of them are in the main military, so it's ok. What do we need to do in Iraq? Don't withdraw forces and give us more money to keep paying them off...

And that is where you will stay

2008-04-10T08:14:00.004-06:00

Yesterday, during a question and answer session, McCain was asked whether he would give up his seat in the Senate for his presidential run. The idea was to have the special election to replace him while his name was on the ticket for president to give his successor a better chance, rather than waiting until after the presidential election.

His response, very prescient in my view, was “I will go back and think about it, and think about the scenario that you just described,” adding, “right now my intentions are to remain in the United States Senate.”

Those are my intentions as well.

Let's Hope This Isn't on the President Test

2008-04-01T06:20:00.003-06:00

Wow, he bowled a 37, now that's something even I could beat him at...

Update: Looks like Clinton thinks the same and has challenged Obama to a "bowl-off" to get the top placement on the Democratic ticket.

A Belated Re-cap

2008-03-30T09:33:00.003-06:00

I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat. - Will Rogers

I think that quote is more self fulfilling than anything. Thursday was Missouri's congressional district caucus day. Unfortunately there was no wireless (on a university campus of all places...), so live blogging was right out, but here is the walk through as I took my notes throughout.

Doors there opened at 6:30PM and closed at 7:30. We got there just after 7. At the time there dozens of people milling about in the building's lobby and another several dozen in the auditorium/classroom where the main caucus was being held. A number of people were going around giving out form letters from Sen. Obama and a couple other party leaders recommending these people as national caucus delegates. I too walked around for a few minutes introducing myself as one wanting to be a national delegate.

Shortly after 7:30 we all took our seats as the head of the caucus meeting took the stage and called us to order. We then proceeded to go through roll call, going through twenty or thirty precincts worth of state delegates. Due to horrible communications, both at the precinct caucuses and in the month since, a large number of delegates didn't come to this meeting because they either weren't fully informed about the caucus or were told, as we were, that this was optional. After 45 minutes of this, there were 7 delegate seats for Clinton lost (I think just on the congressional caucus level, not state, but I'm not sure) and 18 Obama delegate seats. This left the Clinton caucus with 34 delegates and Obama with 70. Out of these, we needed to pick a total of 7 delegates to send to the national convention - 2 for Clinton, 5 for Obama and no alternates at our caucus.

To do this, we were split into our respective groups and a temporary caucus chairman was appointed to each group. For some reason, the main caucus chair already had a Clinton caucus chair picked, but asked for volunteers for the Obama caucus. The person in charge of our precinct caucus, Matt Robinson, was floated as a chair, but the main chair said "He's in charge of too many of my meetings lately, does someone else want to do it." Another gentleman near the front was the loudest one and most easily seen and was quickly appointed.

We then went upstairs to our separate conference rooms where the actual delegates were supposed to sit at the front of the room and alternates and observers were supposed to sit in the back. Of course, there was no enforcement of this so who knows what actually happened. After we all got in and took our seats, the temporary chairman was elected permanent chair because no one else wanted to compete for it.

Then came the mess of trying to pick our delegates. In order to be a national delegate and sent to the convention in Denver, we had to have already filled out Form F3, a fact not all of us were told in our precinct caucuses (Jaelithe and I only found out through her digging into it). This meant that many of us either didn't have the necessary paperwork, or didn't know if it was already filled out. So for the next thirty minutes we debated back and forth the best way to verify that all the potential delegates had the proper paperwork while the chairman repeated the quote above.

Eventually we started nominating delegates, men only first (we had to pick two men and three women) and the state officials with the list of people who filled out Form F3 (yes, there was a list, the debate was whether we should read out the names in advance or as the names were nominated) checked that we were eligible. Some people were nominating themselves, others were nominating boyfriends, brothers, sons, fathers, etc. My wife stood up and nominated me, making the comment that I was her husband. Later, I noticed that Mr. Robinson hadn't yet been nominated, even though I knew he wanted to be a delegate, so I raised my hand to nominate him. The chairman looked at me and said "I see your plan. Your wife nominated you and you are going to nominate her." Then he moved right past me and wouldn't listen to me. This completely ignored the fact that we weren't nominating women and people were nominating themselves. He went on making fun of half the other people nominated and complained that so many people wanted to participate.

Eventually twenty men were nominated. According to Form F3, we were supposed to be allowed one minute to make a speech and introduce ourselves. Instead the chairman was unwilling to give us any time, but was eventually forced to give us ten seconds each. And not a real ten seconds, instead the chairman would count to ten on his hand. If the candidate took less than "ten seconds" the chairman would then go on the mic and say "Wow, he only took 9 seconds!" (wasting more time than the speech itself.)

Then came the voting. Everyone was given a piece of green paper on which to write the names of two men. Now, according to the original roll call, we were only supposed to have 70 votes. The first vote, we wound up with more than that. Then we took fifteen minutes debating how to re-vote. Eventually we decided to do a roll call and give each delegate a piece of paper to do the second vote. So one person started calling out our names, and the chairman handed out the papers. Unfortunately, the names were called one after the other and were not matched against who was giving out the papers. After the second vote we had eighty-eight votes. Since it was the same number twice, we went with it.

While we were counting the men's votes, we started nominating the women. This time twenty-three candidates were nominated and, since most of the craziness was already worked out with the men, it went a bit smoother. The chairman still didn't want to let anyone speak, but was forced to give them the same "ten seconds" as the men. The best moment of this was when one of the women wouldn't give up the mic saying "You know we all have wanted to do this to him."

All the votes were finally counted. I ended with seven votes and Jae got ten. The winners however were Darryl Piggee, Burt Boxerman, Yaphett El-Amin, Jennifer Haro, April Ford Griffin - all party insiders except Jennifer Haro, who is the head of St. Louis's Obama group. I expect that these people will represent us well, but if it's just insiders in these caucuses, many of us outside may still question the outcome.

Here's hoping the state convention is better organized and maybe it won't be just insiders going to the national as Missouri's "at-large" delegates. Maybe they'll even have wireless...

For more info, check out my wife's write-ups over at her blog and Momocrats.

A Picture is Worth

2008-03-26T21:17:00.005-06:00

A moving mural by Nico Pitney, national editor of the Huffington Post.

Thanks to Kimy over at Mouse Medicine for sharing this.

How the Media Got Wright Wrong

2008-03-22T08:20:00.003-06:00

Florida, Iraq War, George Bush, Swftboats, Hannity, Coulter, Rove - you would think with a record like this of lie after lie people would start to catch on that Faux News has issues with telling the truth. But no, time and again the MSM goes back to them and repeats their talking points. This time it is Sen. Barack Obama and his former pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr. who have drawn their ire.

All of you, those not living in caves, by now have seen the clips this "news" agency has put out on the reverend. All of you have seen media source after media source parrot the idea that Barack must harbor, exclusively, these 10 second sound bites and hate America and white people. And we, as a country, have eaten it up. If it's on TV it must be true, right?

But any honest journalist, especially one dealing with politics, knows that context is king. Just watching Colbert's "Better Know a District" segment will show you what a sound bite can be used for. You can make anyone sound like the biggest idiot or racist bigot if you get just the right 10 seconds. Yet the "journalists" at media outlet after media outlet failed to acknowledge this most basic fact.

Fortunately, Rev. Wright's former church has started a YouTube channel with the full sermons. Snippets like "America's chickens have come home to roost" are turned into sermons decrying violence as a response to violence and a call to love our enemies. "God damn America" is turned to God is a god of love who is against oppression.

I leave you now with the actual post 9-11 sermon Wright gave to Trinity United:

In Memoriam

2008-03-19T06:47:00.006-06:00

This is my small contribution to the Iraq Blogswarm.

I am a member of an increasingly smaller group of Americans. I am a person who has not lost a close friend or relative to this war. But I don't live in a bubble. I do know some who have been directly affected by this travesty that has taken almost 4000 members of our armed services from us; this insanity that has left hundreds of thousands of our military members wounded and many permanently disabled.

The most personal was a girl my wife used to work with. Months before, she got engaged. This was just before her fiancee was called up and sent off to Iraq. She hung on every news report coming out of Iraq, always worried that the worst would happen. Just a month before he was scheduled to come home, he was killed. Many of you have heard or been a part of similar stories and my heart goes out to all of you.

I also work some weekends as a wedding DJ. Most of the time, I don't know too much about the people I am working for (I work for a larger DJ company that just gets me the show). But one time, late last fall, one of the couples I was working for brought me much deeper into their personal story. The groom and his brother both were serving in the Marines. The groom had already served one tour in Iraq and expected to have to go back. His brother was in Iraq during the wedding. Even so, he wanted to have a part in his brother's wedding. He sent his mother a video toast from the front lines. This was a complete surprise to the bride and groom and I don't think there was a dry eye left in the room afterward. Every time I hear of a local soldier killed, I pray that it is not a member of this couple's family.

These aren't unique stories, many of you others writing for this blogswarm I'm sure have much more personal stories of loss and bravery. I just want to add my voice to those honoring these brave soldiers' sacrifices. I ask that we don't use this loss to seek further revenge; that we don't fall into the trap of "we can't let these soldiers die in vain." They didn't die in vain; they died reminding us how precious all lives are. They died showing us how valuable and important an asset a strong military truly is and how it shouldn't be used fighting a lie like this war is.

I want to leave you with one good thing this war has done. It has brought an entire generation of citizens directly into the political process. It has shown us that politics isn't some nebulous thing that only affects us at tax time. It has shown us that politics is personal and can reach into our lives and tear out a part of us.

RIP

2008-03-18T23:18:00.002-06:00

Photo from CNN

Road to the nomination

2008-03-16T18:34:00.006-06:00

I recently put up a post with my prediction for the general election to answer the electability question for the two Democratic candidates (I have been updating it slightly as new primary results come in). Basically, it showed both are equally likely to be elected come November, but Obama had a lead in states that could be brought back into play.

Now I would like to turn those numbers to something a little more immediate, the Democratic nomination. I will be leaving currently unpledged super delegates out of the equation for now. My general idea on them is that both candidates are correct - Clinton is correct that technically they can vote however they want; Obama is correct that if they are seen to overturn the will of the people, there will be hell to pay.

They delegates, as they stand today (I'm not sure if they include the recent changes in Iowa and California) Obama is in the lead with 1,618 (1,411 pledged) against Clinton's 1,479 (1,242 pledged) - a healthy 169 pledged delegate lead - only 139 total. In order to catch up to Obama, Clinton will need to win about 65% of the delegates (there are 566 pledged delegates still open) from the remaining contests. Even so, Obama would need to win almost 72% of the remaining non-super delegates to make it to the 2,024 needed to clinch the nomination.

I don't see either of these things happening. Instead, this is the break down I see, based on current polls and similar states won (play with the delegate counts as you see fit on CNN):

State	Percent	Delegates
PA	Clinton - 55%	87
PA	Obama - 45%	71
IN	Clinton - 55%	40
IN	Obama - 45%	32
WV	Clinton - 53%	15
WV	Obama - 47%	13
OR	Clinton - 45%	23
OR	Obama - 55%	29
SD	Clinton - 40%	6
SD	Obama - 60%	9
GU	Clinton - 35%	1
GU	Obama - 65%	3
NC	Clinton - 48%	55
NC	Obama - 52%	60
KY	Clinton - 55%	28
KY	Obama - 45%	23
MT	Clinton - 44%	7
MT	Obama - 56%	9
PR	Clinton - 55%	30
PR	Obama - 45%	25

This will give Obama 1,685 pledged, plus his current 207 super delegates is 1,892. Clinton would have 1,532 pledged (a 16 delegate gain), plus her current 237 super delegates giving her 1,769 total. There are only 351 super delegates that haven't pledged their support yet - Clinton would need about 73% of them to support her, Obama would need about 38%.

Oh, but wait! Clinton has also been asking that the Florida and Michigan delegates be seated. This would add 210 delegates from Florida and 156 delegates from Michigan (I couldn't find a break down of regular and super here). If we seat them as they voted already, that would add 191 delegates to Clinton's total and (if we give the Michigan undecideds to Obama) 132 delegates to Obama - pushing their totals to 2,024 for Obama and 1,723 for Clinton. Obama would win without any more super delegates. If they re-voted those totals would be greatly different, especially as Michigan may even switch to Obama (he would at least get better than the 40% "undecided" got almost two months ago).

Be careful what you wish for.

I see your bet

2008-03-13T13:53:00.003-06:00

Too bad he can't raise McCain one.

Earlier today, John McCain called on fellow Senators Obama and Clinton to release the earmarks they requested. This is part of an initiative he is co-sponsoring to block all earmarks for one year. According to information released last month, Clinton was in the top 10 Senators requesting earmarks, having requested more than $340 million in 2007, Obama was in the bottom 25 Senators, having requested $91 million, and John McCain (and my home state Senator, Claire McCaskill) are among the 5 Senators that did not request any earmarks.

Both Democratic candidates have agreed to co-sponsor the amendment proposed by Jim DeMint amendment to the 2009 budget. Sen. Obama has also, with a very quick turn around, released a full list of his earmark requests, not only from the 2007 budget year, but also from 2006. This list also includes a full description of what the request would do. I haven't looked over the full list (it's $91 mil., and, just skimming it, the average request is for 1/2 to 3/4 of a million), but it includes requests for scientific grants for local universities, law enforcement funding, education, health, and others. Dig through it, let me know what you find.

A Week of the Mighty Falling

2008-03-12T12:14:00.003-06:00

This has been quite a week. From the Elliot Spitzer mess, to Geraldine Ferraro, to Clinton losing more ground in both the popular vote and delegates.

The Spitzer stuff has been much better covered by other bloggers, so I will leave it to them to discuss. I'm not from NY anyway, so my knowledge of him and everything else is limited. Suffice it to say it is sad to see someone who has been a fighter against corporate America fall and give those same corporate leaders a chance to dance with glee...

Where do I start with Ferraro? I can't think of any way she could have said what she did worse (at least not before she responded this morning). Anytime someone tells a minority that "the only reason you got to where you are is because you are a _____" you are asking to be labeled with an -ist. If I were to say to any woman CEO, legislator, or anything else that the only reason she was where she is is because she is a woman, I would deserve whatever she would dish out. The same goes for Ferraro. Do I think that she is a racist? No, I sincerely doubt it, but her comments were.

And I wish I could say that was where it ended, but it got worse. When Clinton was asked about the comments, her response was "I didn't say it." She went on to say she regretted that those words were said, but I still haven't caught any hint of a rejection or denunciation that she demanded so strongly of Obama after Farrakhan's endorsement. Then Ferraro responded by saying "They're attacking me because I'm white." My mind still can't wrap around what sort of mind set went behind that statement.

I also wanted to address the actual content of her statement. I do not believe that Obama got where he is now just because of his race, any more than Clinton got where she is because of her gender. Has identity politics entered into this race? Yes, for both of them. But the effect of that would favor Clinton by almost a 2 to 1 margin. Women make up 51% of the population at last estimate, African Americans are about 30%. The glass ceiling argument has also been used similarly, but again that favors Clinton over Obama, this time with 4:1 or better odds. Just a few numbers: there are 8 female governors currently, 29 historically - there are now (after Spitzer resigned) 2 black governors, 4 historically; 16 (80 in both houses) women Senators, 35 (251 in both houses) historically - 1 (42 in both houses) black Senator, 5 (121 in both houses) historically; 10 women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, 4 black. Worldwide (outside of Africa) there have been (historically) 39 women elected heads of state; not one black (that I could find, updates are welcome).

Barack Obama is leading the presidential race not because he is black, that's been a negative in a number of votes. He is leading because his message and his vision for the future of the nation has resonated with more people. More people believe his policies are better than Clinton's. More people prefer the campaign Obama is running. These are not white/black issues; these are not male/female issues. These are the candidates themselves, and they have no one to blame for where they are in the race except themselves.

As for the elections themselves, Obama now leads the state count 28 1/2 to 14 1/2 (including FL and MI), delegate count 1404 to 1243 (pledged), and popular vote 12.5 million to 12.1 million (without FL and MI). If you include FL and MI, with Obama getting 0 votes in MI, Clinton gets a 146,956 vote lead, but if you give Obama the 40% undecided votes from MI, it swings back in his favor by 90,806 votes. The popular vote also ignores (dare I say, disenfranchises?) the voters in 14 caucuses, 13 of which went for Obama. This week also raised the number of states won by 20% or better to 18 to 1 in favor of Obama. (all stats via CNN's election center)

Note to self

2008-03-10T07:20:00.003-06:00

When running a political campaign, make sure I know who the actors/actresses are.

Apparently, not only does she support Obama, she is a precinct captain and a delegate on her way to the state convention...

Electoral math

2008-03-07T10:00:00.004-06:00

This is something that has come up again and again, especially as the delegates have been close in the Democratic race. Based on the primaries to date and the vote in 2004, here is the breakdown I see so far (the percentages won't add up to 100%, they are my guess to each candidate's chance of winning that state):

State	EC	Obama	Clinton	McCain
AK	3	45%*	45%	55%
AL	9	55%*	35%	50%
AR	6	25%	45%*	60%
AZ	10	25%	25%*	75%*
CA	55	70%	75%*	30%*
CN	7	80%*	75%	10%*
CO	9	55%*	50%	50%
DC	3	99%*	95%	5%*
DE	3	90%*	80%	5%*
FL	27	50%	55%**	50%*
GA	15	50%*	30%	55%
HI	4	99%*	95%	5%
IA	7	55%*	50%	40%
ID	4	55%*	30%	60%
IL	21	99%*	95%	10%*
IN	11	40%		65%
KS	6	50%*	40%	60%
KY	8	25%		75%
LA	9	57%*	49%	50%
MA	12	95%	99%*	5%
MD	10	60%*	60%	40%*
ME	4	90%*	90%	10%
MI	17	50%	55%***	50%
MN	10	65%*	60%	45%
MO	11	51%*	50%	50%*
MS	6	45%*	25%	60%
MT	3	10%		90%
NC	15	45%	40%	60%
ND	3	20%*	10%	75%
NE	5	40%*	30%	65%
NH	4	55%	60%*	50%*
NJ	15	75%	80%*	20%*
NM	5	45%	45%*	60%
NV	5	48%	50%*	60%
NY	31	90%	99%*	10%*
OH	20	45%	55%*	50%*
OK	7	35%	40%*	65%*
OR	7	65%		30%
PA	21	50%	55%	50%
RI	4	85%	90%*	10%*
SC	3	45%*	35%	55%*
SD	3	10%		80%
TN	11	45%	50%*	60%
TX	34	45%	44%	55%*
UT	5	15%*	10%	90%
VT	3	99%*	99%	1%*
VA	13	55%*	50%	50%*
WA	11	80%*	75%	20%*
WS	10	60%*	55%	40%*
WV	5	40%	45%	60%
WY	3	30%	10%	90%

* - won by candidate
** - no candidates campaigned after mid 2007
*** - Only candidate on the ballot still in the race

Summary: I'm pretty sure, just going back over the percents I put up there, the primaries have slanted these numbers in the favor of the Democrats. Anything 60% or greater is almost guaranteed for that candidate, 40% - 59% are states that will have to be fought over, and less than 40% is not likely. For electoral votes this gives: Obama has 203 mostly guaranteed, 152 with a better than even chance and 123 that may be fought for; Clinton has 204 mostly guaranteed, 151 with a better than even chance and 101 that may be fought for; McCain has 121 mostly guaranteed, 195 with a better than even chance and 37 that may be fought for. This definitely gives the Democrat an advantage in the upcoming general election and gives Obama a slight edge by bringing more states in play.

What worries me the most is how the numbers from the primary turnouts will change depending on the candidate chosen by the Democrats. Obama has been able to get people to turn out that almost never do, especially not for primaries and caucuses - the young and the african-americans. Clinton has very strong support among women, many of whom may see the selection of Obama as a slight against women and may not turn out themselves, or may go the way so-called "security moms" have gone in the past and vote for the Republican.

What I believe, more than anything, is that both candidates need to work together if we want to win in November. The smear tactics that have been going on lately in the Democratic race need to stop. It will only weaken our position come November, and throwing this clear opportunity away would hurt us more than anything.

Emblematic of the campaigns

2008-03-04T23:22:00.003-06:00

These are the two campaign chants that you hear most often in rallies for the two Democratic candidates and I believe show the heart of the actual campaigns and what they want to accomplish.

Yes WE can!

Yes SHE will!

The presidency isn't about ego. A democratic (small "d") leader works for the people.

One of _______'s laws of politics

2008-03-01T11:10:00.002-06:00

"If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

Follow the link to see who is endorsing Obama's message now.

Welcome to the machine

2008-02-29T14:00:00.004-06:00

Missouri, as many of you know, had it's primaries as part of the "Super {fill in your own superlative here} Tuesday" at the beginning of this month. Well, in usual confusing political style, Missouri Democrats also hold caucuses to pick the delegates to go to the state and national conferences. And guess what. It's not talked about almost anywhere...

Fortunately my wife is much more up on these matters and found out that the caucuses were being held yesterday evening so we decided to go and check out the process. Neither one of us has been greatly politically active, but we were both curious and this year has gotten us (and many many others) much more interested in what is actually going on.

Given that last fact, we expected there to be a large number of people showing up at this, even though almost the only places you could find any information was on the MO DNC website, with barely a mention in the local news. Doors were to open at 6 and the "festivities" were supposed to start at 7:30. To our great surprise, when we showed up at 7, there was almost nobody, just one older gentleman that I couldn't tell if he was affiliated with the caucus or just with the school where it was being held. It turned out that there had been one other person there who had been waiting since 6:30, but had been in his car when we got there.

After about 20 minutes or so two more people showed up, one of them being the person in charge, our local councilman as it happened. This gave us, with that first person, who turned out to be one of the heads of the county election board, a total of six people. As we were getting set up, our councilman got a call from another nearby township's caucus saying that they had one of our people at their caucus and that she was on her way over to us. This gave us the seven people we needed to meet our delegate quota.

So it looks like our curiosity was the only thing that made sure we were going to actually send all the delegates from our township that we were supposed to. According to the councilman, if there hadn't been enough people at the caucus for each candidate (there might not have been, depending on whether or not the election committee person can be a delegate for a candidate, as he and the first person were the only two that chose to be delegates for Clinton) those delegate seat(s) would have been "open" (your guess is as good as mine what that means).

Anyway, it looks like I'm now officially a delegate for Obama.

Now is when the procedures get really confusing. First, late in March, the congressional caucuses are held. During that, anyone who was picked as a delegate on the township level can be nominated to be a national delegate, about 2/3rds of our state pledged delegates are picked during these. If you can't make it to that, or just prefer to run during the state-wide caucus, you need to file paperwork by the middle of March, and you can try to get nominated in May. Even if you don't want to be a national delegate, if you are picked as a township delegate you are still supposed to show up at the state convention.

Does anyone else think this is a very complicated way to get your vote counted?

Everyone Has Rights

2008-02-28T10:46:00.004-06:00

Or why we should have more than two parties

Last Sunday, Ralph Nader declared his candidacy for president this coming election. This has started a hail of denigrations and personal attacks on him, largely from Democrats and other groups on the left.

All I can say to these groups is shame on you! You stand up for civil rights, but when someone else exercises their civil rights in a way you don't like, you want to revoke them. The tactics taken on their behalf to remove his name from the ballots in key states back in 2004 were horrible. Everyone, whether as part of a party or not, has the right to be a part of the election.

As has been said in some free speech debates "To stand up for your right to free speech, you must defend the speech you hate." If anyone is allowed to arbiter who gets to say what because the general public doesn't like it, it is a very short step for that person/group to say I can't speak freely as well. The same thing goes for the right to run for president. It is a very short step for one group to go from blocking one person's right to be on the ballot to blocking someone else they don't like.

These things also remove our ability to argue morality on civil rights. We cannot in good conscious say that one set of rights we like and support, but these rights, or this person's rights, we don't like and so they shouldn't be allowed.

Addressing Nader's candidacy directly: Do I support him? No, but I fully support his right to run. Do I support his positions? Some, but others go too far in a direction I don't approve. I will, after the Democratic nominee has been selected, do a break down on all three major presidential candidates positions, similar to what I have already done. Am I afraid Nader will "steal" this election for the Republicans? No, Nader did not cost Gore the election in 2000. That election was won, by all counts, by Gore. It was handed to Bush by the Supreme Court. Take out your anger there. He had no effect on the election in 2004.

What we need to do is show how our candidate is better than the others, not denigrate the opponents or say that a vote for them is a vote for "the enemy" or other fear tactics like this. I believe that the Democratic candidate can win even against 100 Naders.

Say it isn't so...

2008-02-21T18:48:00.004-06:00

Democratic supporters in 2004 remember the spurious 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. This group formed during the presidential campaign between Kerry and Bush for the purpose (it claimed) of standing up for veterans' affairs. The group had to claim such a purpose because election law restricted organizations like this to only talk about a policy issue, not about any candidate. The reasons for this and other restrictions are because donations to these political organizations are effectively unrestricted. One person could donate $5 million dollars to such an organization if so desired. We all know how well those rules and restrictions turned out.

It worried me slightly then, when I heard that such an organization might be forming during the Democratic primary. This organization, the American Leadership Project, is fully financed by Hillary Clinton supporters who have maxed out the donations they can make to her campaign. They are asking for 100 donors to fill their coffers with $10 million. In and of itself, this should not be an issue; after all in supporting free speech I need to support all speech. But this organization goes beyond 527 rules, potentially breaking some of them.

The first thing is that such organizations need to be established lobbying organizations focused on policies in Washington. This group is brand new, first formed on Feb. 15, not even a week ago.

These organizations also cannot be for the advancement of any single candidate, but for a policy. This group is only advertising in states Clinton is campaigning in and is echoing her talking points.

These two things, coupled with who the financiers are, show that this organization is at best walking the line of the law, and potentially have crossed over this line.

Please, Sen. Clinton, separate yourself from this group or call them off. Actions like these tarnish everything we have stood for. We cannot become the monster we are fighting against, not for ANYTHING.

Tenth Amendment? Bah!

2008-02-20T17:46:00.003-06:00

Ever since the Civil War, this amendment has been more and more marginalized. In three cases ruled on today by the Supreme Court, it has effectively been thrown out the window. The basics of this amendment say that any power the Constitution doesn't give to the federal government, or doesn't explicitly ban, belongs to the states and the people. This gave the states final word on a large number of topics, but kept them from removing civil rights from the people.

Slowly this has been eroded. Recent laws like this include the CAN-SPAM act, which overruled much stronger state based anti-spam laws, throwing out lawsuits that were in court at the time. There are also the medical marijuana laws in California and Oregon that are completely overruled by FDA and other federal blanket bans on the use of it. Today, using the same premise as was used in these cases, the Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings against medical equipment providers. These rulings were prosecuted in state courts on state laws that were more restrictive than FDA and related rules. These infractions caused serious damages to the litigants. The Supreme Court decided that the lesser restrictions provided by the federal government (you know, the FDA that took 5 years to remove heart attack inducing drugs from the market) overrule state laws and indemnify the corporations.

This is a clear violation of the tenth amendment. The states have a very clear law on this and the Constitution doesn't cover this area of law. If there were no state laws and the federal government did have one, the federal law would hold sway. But the Constitution is very clear whose laws take precedence. Our laws and courts should not take away citizens' rights, yet time and again under this administration we have suffered. It is time for a real change.

Duty calls

2008-02-20T17:42:00.002-06:00

Ah, XKCD, you know me so well....

Happy Valentine's Day

2008-02-13T19:20:00.004-06:00

Make your own, thanks Mad Scientist and Make

Integrity and Courage

2008-02-12T16:51:00.000-06:00

A lot of noise has been made in the past year about Barack Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois state Senate. The Illinois chapter of NOW has recently joined the Clinton campaign in implying that Obama's present votes on certain bills while in the Illinois state legislature mean he is weak on women's rights; on the contrary, Barack Obama received a 100% positive rating from Planned Parenthood during his state senate career, and has consistently received 100% positive ratings from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL since being elected to the national Senate. Anyone who knows how the state Senate works in Illinois, however, realizes that Present votes are merely procedural votes, and are usually actually a sign of support for the bill . These assertions that Obama is weak on women's rights were so fallacious that former Chicago NOW president (1995 - 1999) and strong Hillary Clinton supporter, Lorna Brett Howard, publicly changed her affiliation and now supports Obama and is now being slimed by NOW and the Clinton campaign.

These tactics are bad enough on their own, but something that happened today in the Senate slams home the irony. Many of you know I have been supporting Sen. Dodd's fight against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted the government in illegally wiretapping American citizens. This fight has been delayed time and again through numerous procedural tactics, even though Democratic Majority Leader Reid fought hard to bring it to a vote. A civil rights betrayal succeeded today in the Senate when a version of the FISA bill including immunity provisions passed despite Senator Dodd's objections (fortunately the House did not pass the retroactive immunity clause so the fight does go on). In the vote for cloture (end the debate) only 29 people voted against, among them Sen. Obama. Also voted on at the same time was an amendment proposed by Sen. Dodd to remove the retroactive immunity; this vote failed 67 to 31, again with Sen. Obama voting to remove the immunity.

Sen. Clinton on the other hand didn't even have the political courage to vote "present"; she chose not to be there at all.

It doesn't take much integrity to twist your opponent's votes in such a way as to make him appear weak on women's rights. It takes a complete lack of integrity to launch such attacks when you aren't willing to put your voice on either side of the debate for everyone's rights. Sen. Obama has fought for 26 years, from the beginning of his public career for women's, minority, and everyone else's rights - from his time as a community organizer in Chicago, through his time as a civil rights lawyer to his state and federal Senate positions. It takes true political courage to stand up for what is right when it is not popular.

As a side note, my local Senator, Claire McCaskill (also an Obama supporter), voted to bring cloture and against the anti-immunity amendment, a vote which seriously lessens the likelihood of my voting for her again two years from now. We'll have to see.

The EFF has much more information on what the FISA provisions mean for you; check it out and while you are at it throw them some support.

Is the world nuts?!

2008-02-07T21:38:00.000-06:00

I just turned on my TV to watch a movie we got from the library and as I was going to put it in, I noticed that rather than the standard mid-writers' strike trash on TV, it was news. I watched for a minute and found out that, in a pretty quiet suburb nearby, a man barged into a public works meeting, shot seven people, and was eventually himself shot and killed. Five of those he shot are now dead, including two police officers, and two are in the hospital.

I just wanted to add my voice to those giving condolences and prayers to all involved.

Blog Roll Amnesty Day

2008-02-03T23:37:00.000-06:00

Gotta love internet holidays right?

Fortunately I have about 20 more minutes to get this in before I'm late (whew, made it with 5 minutes to spare). I am not a deeply read blogger by far yet, but I have a few that I follow daily (and some I even respect ;) ), and this is a good excuse to get me off of my rear about updating my blogroll.

Of course, first there is my beautiful, brilliant wife over in the State of Discontent. I have a couple local friends that inspired me to join up - Trip Down the Rabbit Hole, and more recently found TomKro. No blog roll would be complete without my favorite antagonist BAC at Yikes. We may not always agree on how a political campaign should go, but she has a great insight on many topics and is someone I have great respect for. Thanks to her blog I have also been pointed at some other great political bloggers Dr. Zaius of Zaius Nation and GMB of I Can't Believe It's Not a Democracy. One blogger from the other end of the aisle that I enjoy reading regularly, although she hasn't blogged much recently since Thompson's drop out, is Freeman Hunt. To finish out my regular reads I have Worth the Lack of Sleep, Teller of Truths, and Beyond Satire.

Thank you guys all for always giving me something new to think about.

As a quick note, I do not use SiteMeter or any other tracking tool on my blog, due to the fact that as a rule I block most JavaScript and cookies and so would would be pretty hypocritical to expect others to not do so on my site. As such, I don't see incoming links except on sites I already read. I will add you though if you leave a comment or throw me an email with a link to your blog.

On Redefining "Universal"

2008-02-03T22:05:00.000-06:00

As can be seen throughout the media and on a growing number of blogs, the Democratic candidates' health plans is drawing a lot of attention. There is, however, one word that is drawing this attention more than anything else - "Universal". The meaning of the word, in this usage, is to mean that everyone will be covered. However, both candidates miss that mark and instead redefine it in significantly different ways.

Going back over the basics of their plans they are very similar: Both want to offer plans similar to the Congressional insurance plan (no specific information found about the coverages). Both want to expand Medicaid and SCHIP. They will both give subsidies and tax credits to help people afford the premiums. And both will force the removal of "pre-existing condition" clauses. These plans are an attempt to make insurance coverage more affordable and available to everyone.

Unfortunately, because insurance companies are for-profit and beholden to their stock holders to keep increasing those profits, these plans will never push the citizen payout to zero (at least not without bankrupting the government [further] and making it a short lived program). This means that there will be those who: can't afford one more bill, don't believe that the insurance companies that have screwed so many people over time and time again deserve their hard earned money, or are healthy and never see a doctor anyway who don't think they need to pay for health care when they can buy something they want/need. These people will not automatically be covered under the cores of these candidates' plans.

This is where Barack Obama has chosen to redefine "universal" to mean "universally available". He has said that he will make it affordable enough that anyone who wants insurance can get it easily. To make it even easier, he intends to set up a national institution to allow people to compare coverage side by side and get the plan that best suits their needs, if any. But he does not provide insurance to everyone. He has said in debates, speeches, and interviews that he doesn't want to fine people who can't afford it. And when someone uninsured does show up at a hospital or doctor's office needing care, they will likely face fines or have to pay back premiums - to keep everyone else's premiums down.

Hillary Clinton, however, does go another step. She believes that in order for her plan to be "universal", everyone has to pay for an insurance plan. This is how she changes "universal" to "universally enforced". She as yet has not explained how this will be enforced, but if her interview with George Stephanopoulos is any indication, if someone doesn't choose their own plan, one that matches the premium the government believes they can afford will be chosen for them and they will have to pay for it (either through garnished wages as former Senator Edwards proposed or fines/taxes - again, a very vague, dodgy answer).

Unfortunately, both candidates miss the real problem - although Obama comes closer in some of his related proposals (see the Providers heading on my previously linked chart). The problem isn't just getting insurance. I have insurance, and half the time I feel I would be better off without it. The problem is quality of insurance. It's all well and good for me to be able to say I have insurance, but if my deductible is $2,000+, I'm still bankrupt at my first medical emergency.

Just to throw some real numbers in here, lets say my premium is $200 per month (lower than what I expect the lowest rate they will get for middle income earners) and the limit of my health care needs is going to see a doctor once a year for an annual physical. I just wrote a check for $2,400 to an insurance provider (plus $20 to my doctor, who gets maybe $50-$100 more from the insurance company). Now, taking the long view, that $2,300+ is supposed to go to help Joe down the street when he is diagnosed with cancer and has to get treatment, but 1) there are, roughly 250 more "me"s than there are Joes (otherwise this would be an idiotic business model), and 2) Joe's coverage has an upper limit of (for the sake of argument) $500,000, even though his treatment is going to cost $1,000,000.

No matter which candidate wins the debate over this, who do you think is the real winner?

P.S. Don't even get me started on the Republicans' "plans"

St. Louis Weather

2008-01-29T17:19:00.000-06:00

70 degrees at noon today, a record. Right now, it's less than 27 degrees. Need I say more?

Break Down of the Issues - Part 8

2008-01-29T07:33:00.000-06:00

Domestic Policy

Well it looks like I made it before whatever you want to call next Tuesday. This is the last major topic I intend to do a break down on, but if anyone has more areas they would like me to dig into to compare, please feel free to ask in the comments or email me. Once the Republican field has thinned a bit (maybe after today?) I will try to compare them on the same topics.

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Civil Liberties
Link Link Link Link	Link Link Link Link Link Link Link	Link Link Link Link(PDF)
Women
Support equal pay for women and men Expand access to family planning services	Require businesses to offer seven paid sick days a year Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover more workers and help states offer paid leave Protect women's right to choose Support the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen the remedies for sex discrimination	Work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination Pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work Make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority
LGBT
Ensure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits End Don't Ask Don't Tell	Support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act Allow LGBT to serve openly in the military Allow gay and lesbian parents to adopt children equally to strait couples	Support civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples Repeal Defence of Marriage Act Expand federal benefits to same sex couples Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell
Government and Elections
Ban cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration Strengthen whistle blower protections End abuse of no-bid government contracts and post all contracts online Cut 500,000 government contractors Restore the Office of Technology Assessment Publish budgets for every government agency Push the passage of the Count Every Vote Act Provides a paper trail for every vote cast Designates Election Day as a national holiday Allows same-day registration Makes sure that impartial officials administer our elections Allows the attorney general to bring suit against anyone using deceptive practices (like distributing flyers with incorrect information about voter eligibility) to keep voters from voting	Require the use of paper ballots verified by voters and mandatory audits Allow same-day voter registration Support the right of Washington, D.C. residents to have voting representation in Congress Enact a new law making intentional interference with the right to vote a federal offense Prohibit Chief of State election officials from publicly supporting federal candidates Create a federal matching funds program to do an 8:1 match on campaign donations, up to a maximum $800 (donations over $100 still get $800 matched); limit donations to $1,000 Provide for public matching funding for Congressional campaigns Require corporations to disclose all political spending and activity Create a line item veto restricted to one package of rescissions per bill that can be overruled by Congress Prohibit all federal candidates from accepting campaign contributions or bundled contributions from federal lobbyists Bar appointees from lobbying their former colleagues for five years Expand the definition of prohibited lobbying to include directing strategy for other lobbyists Ban corporate lobbyists and lobbyists for foreign governments from working in the White House Require lobbyists to disclose within 48 hours which federal officials they met with and what about Prohibit executive branch employees from accepting corporate gifts End the practice of issuing presidential "signing statements"	Create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings Ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients, or tax earmarks, are also publicly available for viewing online Require independent monitoring of lobbying laws and ethics rules Support public financing of campaigns Provide free television and radio time to campaigns Require that nearly all government contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded Require all non-emergency bills be available to the American public to review and comment for five days before signing Require disclosure of the name of the legislator who asks for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before it can be voted on Ensure that all communications about regulatory policymaking between third parties and White House staff are disclosed to the public No political appointees will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years No political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch during the remainder of the administration All new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution
First Amendment and Privacy
Unable to find specific information on her site	Prohibit surveillance of Americans’ phone calls and emails without a warrant Define robust public interest obligations for digital broadcasters	Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media Promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints Supports restrictions on how personal information may be used and create technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used Update surveillance laws to ensure that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law Appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer Ensure the safety of our communications networks Ensure that each arm of the federal government makes its records open Ensure technological interoperability of key government functions
Miscellaneous
N/A	Close down Guantanamo Bay Restore habeas corpus	Eliminate sentencing disparities Give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in drug rehabilitation programs

Break Down of the Issues - Part 7

2008-01-27T19:39:00.000-06:00

Domestic Policy

Sadly, while the following issue is one dividing communities across our country, the candidates do not go very in depth on their immigration policies. Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Immigration
Link	Link Link	Link
Deploy new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants Create a new employer verification system Protect families in the immigration policy Opposes a general guest worker program supports an Ag Jobs program which will include fair wage and labor protections for the workers	Increase border patrol forces Keep family reunification as a core of our immigration laws Give illegal immigrants here the opportunity to pay a fine and learn English to earn American citizenship	Increase personnel and infrastructure along the border Crack down on employers hiring illegal immigrants Focus immigration reforms on family reunification and jobs Illegal immigrants may pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line to gain legal status Promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration

Break Down of the Issues - Part 6

2008-01-26T22:39:00.000-06:00

Domestic Policy

Back on track. After a one week battle with our bathroom, we finally have a new floor in. My advice to anyone planning to do any work on ceramic tile, buy a wet saw. The other tools out there are important (tile scorer, tile nipper, etc.) but after fighting with these tools for three days to almost no avail, the wet saw let me cut everything and get it in mortar in about six to eight hours. And now on to the second most commonly discussed subject in this campaign - health care.

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Health Care
Link	Link (PDF)	Link
Insurance
Give people the choice of current insurance plans or allow them to select from the congressional health plans Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP Require large employers to provide insurance at least partially, give small business tax cuts to provide insurance Give individuals a tax credit for coverage designed to keep premiums to a fixed percent of income Remove hidden taxes to reduce premium cost for current civilian plans Include mental, physical, and, in some plans, dental coverage End unfair health insurance discrimination	Create regional health care markets allowing individuals and businesses in a region to pool their money to get lower premiums Expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover families with children making 50k or less Require businesses to cover employees, at least partially Refundable tax credits to reduce insurance costs Cover mental health care as well as physical Reform insurance laws to ensure everyone is eligible Lower premium incentives for healthy lifestyle	Create a public benefit program similar to the Congressional one Expand Medicaid and SCHIP Employers will be required to provide at least partial coverage, or contribute to a national plan Individuals who aren't eligible for Medicaid/SCHIP can receive federal subsidies if needed Create the National Health Insurance Exchange - watchdog group that will monitor participating insurance companies and provide individuals with a way to compare them Dependant coverage through a parent's plan expanded up to the age of 25 Cover preventative, mental, and pregnancy health care Guaranteed eligibility, no matter pre-existing conditions Simplify public plan enrollment Regular audits of participating insurance companies Set minimum standards for state health initiatives, but will not overrule plans that meet/exceed this standard Reimburse insurance plans for catastrophic event coverage, if reimbursement is used to keep premiums down
Providers
No new provider initiatives provided on her site	Pay doctors based on results Easily available health care provider quality reports Push the use of electronic medical records Restrict direct to consumer drug advertising for new drugs Strengthen FDA monitoring policy	Reward providers who give better quality results Require health care providers to publish care reports Independent institute to review providers Invest 10 billion to move paper records to electronic records over 5 years Bring antitrust laws to bear against malpractice insurance providers that overcharge physicians Allow consumers to buy drugs from other developed countries
Mandates*
Require individuals to obtain insurance	Require all Americans to get insurance (special case exemptions)	All children must be covered

*A mandate is a requirement for each individual to purchase insurance. Candidates have not yet specified on their sites what penalties will be faced by those who do not.

Interruptions

2008-01-22T07:30:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the long delay on continuing the policy comparison. I still have at least three more policy areas I intend to focus on, but the real world interferes. We bought, this past weekend, a new sink cabinet to replace our large old clunker of one in the master bath. I had already replaced all of the fixtures in the old sink cabinet, so I figured taking out the old one and putting in a new one couldn't be that much more difficult. As my wife so eloquently describes though, nothing is ever easy.

See you on the other side of home repairs...

Break Down of the Issues - Part 5

2008-01-19T10:01:00.000-06:00

Domestic Policy

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Economy
Link Link	Link Link	Link
Taxes
Expand the child tax credit Provide marriage penalty relief Expand the earned income tax credit Expand the child care tax credit	Create a new "Get Ahead" tax credit to match up to $500 a year in savings for families earning up to $75,000 Expand the child care credit to pay up to 50 percent of child and dependent care expenses up to $5,000 Triple the earned income tax credit for single adults and cut the marriage penalty	Create a tax credit providing up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family Create a Universal Mortgage Credit that even tax payers who don't itemize are eligible for Triple the earned income tax credit; increase it six fold for people caring for a child or paying child support Eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 Simplify filing tax paperwork by allowing the IRS to supply pre-filled 1040EZ forms to people who request it Increase the child and dependent care tax credit and make it refundable Reduce the self employment tax Eliminate capital gains taxes on start-up companies Clean up the corporate tax code Create an International Tax Evasion Watch List to apply pressure on countries acting as tax havens
Mortgages and other debt
Develop strong licensing standards and require federal registration for mortgage brokers Eliminate prepayment penalties on mortgage products Expand Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's foreclosure prevention efforts	Pass a law that will strengthen underwriting standards to ensure that borrowers receive affordable loans suited to their means Create a new Family Savings and Credit Commission to protect consumers Cap interest rates on all payday loans at 36 percent	Push the STOP FRAUD act through Congress, strengthening the ability for the government to fight mortgage fraud Create a fund to help homeowners refinance mortgages Create a credit card rating system enforced by the FTC Establish a credit card bill of rights: CCs have to get consumer assent to change the agreement Interest rate changes only affect future debt Prohibit interest on fees Prohibit a change on interest rate based on failure to pay a third party Require CCs apply payments to highest interest debt first
Jobs
Nothing specific available on her site.	Raise the minimum wage to at least $9.50 an hour by 2012 and then index it to inflation Create a million short-term jobs to help individuals move into permanent work	Increase federal investments into transitional jobs Index minimum wage to inflation
Miscellaneous
Insist on a move back toward a balanced budget and surpluses by funding new expenditures with new revenues or cuts in other areas	Create a million vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods	N/A

Break Down of the Issues - Part 4

2008-01-17T21:46:00.000-06:00

Domestic Policy

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 5, part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Environment
Link	Link	Link
Emissions
Initiate a cap and trade program All new federal buildings designed to produce zero emissions	Initiate cap and trade system, targets of 15% reduction by 2020, 80% by 2050	Initiate cap and trade system, target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Create Low Carbon Fuel Standard - fuels reduce carbon emission by 10% by 2020 All new buildings to be designed for zero emissions by 2030
Energy
Reduce projected 2020 energy usage by 20% 25% of electricity produced by renewable sources by 2025 60 billion gallons of biofuels in the system by 2030 Fuel efficiency of 55 mpg by 2030, automakers funded in this by $20 billion in bonds Retrofit 20 million low income houses to increase energy efficiency Invest in a smart grid	Meet demand for more energy through increased efficiency, not increased production	25% of energy from renewable sources by 2025 Increase research funding for clean coal Get the first 2 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2013 Create incentives to fund locally owned biofuel refineries 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels in the system by 2022, 60 by 2030 Double fuel economy standards by 2026 New building energy efficiency to increase 50% by 2030, existing buildings by 25% Invest in a smart grid
Research
$150 billion extra funding over 10 years, $50 billion from a new Strategic Energy Fund, this partially funded by oil companies A new ARPA-E agency modeled on DARPA to manage this research	Create an Energy Economy Fund with $10 billion for environmental R&D, funded partially through green house gas permits (see cap and trade) and partially through repealing oil company subsidies	$150 billion over 10 years to fund green energy research Double research and energy funding $10 billion per year for 5 years to fund venture capital for clean technology start-ups Create a competitive grant to fund early adopters
Miscellaneous
Require all publicly traded corporations to report the threat posed to them by climate change	Forge a new global climate change treaty that will include requirements for developing nations	Create incentives to increase forestation Work through the UN to address global climate change

Break Down of the Issues - Part 3

2008-01-15T23:03:00.000-06:00

Domestic Policy

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. Check out part 1, part 2, part 4, part 5 part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

In this post I also want to make a request. Science has been the 800 lb gorilla in the room for the past several years. The candidates and the debates, unfortunately, give only passing mention of the real issues in science today. This is why I support the call for a full science debate this presidential election cycle. Please join me and thousands of others in supporting this debate.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Science and Technology
Link	Link Link	Link
Research and Funding
Increase NSF, DOE's Office of Science, and DOD funding 50% over 10 years Increase NIH funding 50% in 5 years, 100% in 10 years Require 8% of federal research funding go to "high risk" studies Have agencies create innovation awards, along the lines of the X-Prize Make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent Include diversity criteria when awarding grants to give women and minorities greater opportunities	Make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent Increase NIH/NSF funding	Make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent Double research agency funding
Internet
Tax incentives to increase broadband deployment No clear net neutrality stance since starting her campaign, did co-sponsor legislation before the campaign with Senator Obama meant to enforce it.	100% broadband coverage by 2010 FCC must enforce net neutrality	Universal broadband coverage through the auspices of the Universal Service Fund Increase the minimum speed that qualifies as broadband from the current 200 kbps Supports net neutrality; co-sponsored a bill with Senator Clinton meant to enforce it Protect personal privacy through new regulations on surveillance and data collection Create "Public Media 2.0" to promote internet safety, etc. to children Require distribution of tools to allow parents to regulate internet content
Please see also my previous post on education as the candidates also intend to increase science and math education

Break Down of the Issues - Part 2

2008-01-15T00:13:00.000-06:00

Domestic Policy

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 3, part 4, part 5 part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Education
Link Link	Link Link	Link
Early education through elementary
Create (expand?) Early Head Start	Universal Pre-school Expand Smart Start	Universal Pre-school Expand (Early) Smart Start funding fourfold Provide affordable childcare
Middle and High School
Reform No Child Left Behind	Reform NCLB Improve testing methods Give states control over how to reform under performing schools Create a "Second Chance" program to address dropout issue Increase guidance councilor availability	Reform NCLB Increase funding Improve testing methods Support under performing schools; don't punish them Increase focus on math and science education and, for Limited English Proficient students, English education Fund schools to address dropout issue Expand after-school/summer learning programs
College
Offer $3,500 tax credit to offset costs Increase Pell Grants to annually match against tuition costs $500 million in grants to improve community colleges Give colleges incentives to increase graduation rates Increase AmeriCorps education award to $10,000 Allow FAFSA application through tax return To offset costs for above programs, eliminate the guaranteed student loan program.	"College for Everyone" initiative Increase federal funding of state education programs to lower the cost of tuition Clarify, compared to current financial aid programs, requirements to get into his program Use information the government already has on applicants to remove 2/3 of the FAFSA form (no clarification on how, i.e. opt in on 1040, as part of the FAFSA form, etc.)	$4,000 fully refundable, immediate (available at time of college enrollment) tax credit FAFSA application through tax form
Teachers
Increase teacher and principal pay	Increase teacher pay Form a national school focused on training teachers Reduce class sizes	Teacher service scholarships (scholarship repaid by working in a high-need field/location) All schools for educators must be accredited Improve teacher incentives (incentives determined with input from teachers)

Break Down of the Issues - Part 1

2008-01-13T23:48:00.000-06:00

Foreign Policy

In this and a series of post following (Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, part 5, part 6 and part 7) I will attempt to detail each leading Democratic candidate's position on a number of topics. For all of the information, I am pulling directly from each candidate's website (where information is available) and links will be provided to the relevant page. Where information is not available, I will pull information from recent (within the past few months) legislative action or speeches made by the candidates.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Iraq
Link	Link	Link
Troop Involvement
Work with Joint Chiefs of Staff to determine troop draw down rate Start pullout within 60 days Some troops left (unclear where) to deal with Al-Qaeda	40,000 to 50,000 troops removed immediately 100% (almost, see below) withdrawn by January 2010 3,000 to 5,000 left to protect US embassy and humanitarian workers	Withdraw 1 to 2 brigades (1,500 to 7,000 troops) removed per month 100% (from Iraq, see below) by mid 2010 No permanent bases in Iraq Some special forces troops left in Middle East to target Al-Qaeda
Diplomatic Efforts
Form coalition of our allies, other global powers, and Iraq's neighbors to: Keep Iraq's neighbors from interfering with the Iraq civil war Work with the UN to mediate between the Iraqi factions Collect money to rebuild Iraq	Bring all involved nations together to stop sectarian violence Convene a regional peace conference	Press Iraqi leaders to work together by showing we aren't going to stay Work through the UN to secure agreements on Iraqi federalism and oil revenue sharing Work with Iraq's neighbors to secure the borders, reconcile Iraqi factions, and fund rebuilding
Miscellaneous
Fund unspecified agencies to stabilize and rebuild. Get money from the UN to help Iraqi refugees	"Clarify the Lack of Legal Foundation for the War" (to Congress)	Form an international group to get $2 billion to help countries in the region handle the millions of Iraqi refugees and protect them in Iraq.
Iran
No specific information on her site Most direct references on the site only deal with Iranian leaders' anti-semitic comments Recently supported a bill to declare the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization	Link Speak directly to Iran's leaders while working with a multi-national coalition Increase threat of targeted sanctions Offer incentives to start open talks Direct talks with Russia and China to increase their pressure on Iran	Link Condemns Iran's leadership's anti-semitic stance Stop constant threats against Iran (voted against declaring IRG a terrorist organization) Begin direct talks with Iranian leadership without preconditions Offer incentives for ending the nuclear program, but increase sanctions if they don't
General Diplomacy
Link Long involved in international affairs while in White House and Senate Strongly pro-Israel	Link Strengthen non-proliferation agreements; replace with an even stronger treaty Continue working with North Korea through the six party talks Encourage Russia to work with us on a number of the current international issues Push for UN and NATO intervention in Darfur and Uganda	Link Pushes for a two state solution in Israel/Palestine (Re)Open consulates and embassies worldwide, specifically in Africa Double funding to fight global poverty Strengthen NATO Secure loose nuclear material Strengthen non-proliferation treaties through automatic sanctions

New Hampshire Follow-up

2008-01-10T23:01:00.001-06:00

Yeah, I know its a couple days late, but I listen to most of my news a day later, just to let it ferment a little. Congratulations to Senators Clinton and McCain. They both fought hard for their victories.

The thing that gets me about this result though, is that the pundits are all acting like it is a complete surprise. With idiotic statements like "No one predicted this would happen" it's no wonder most people would rather watch Howie Mandel smiling like a chipmunk. They themselves predicted exactly this outcome (on the Democratic side) not 10 days before. On the Republican side they were even more accurate. I too predicted exactly this (yay being vague) not 36 hours before voting started.

"Oh, but the polls didn't show this." Two problems with this: 1) Polls only reflect opinions up to the last time they were taken, they can't reflect 11th hour events, like the harsh, sexist media backlash at Hillary's emotional plea. 2) The polls weren't used properly. New Hampshire voters, if they are registered independents, can vote for either party. According to the voters themselves, independents who were Obama supporters, voted for McCain because they expected Obama would win without their vote, but they didn't want Romney to win.

Maybe pollsters need to learn a bit of physics. According to the Uncertainty Principal (sorry, I've been listening to A Brief History of Time so I have been hearing a lot about this along with a lot of other brain hurting things from Hawking), you can either know where a particle is or where it's going, never both at the same time because the act of observing changes the particle. I have the feeling polling does the same thing. You can't take a poll without affecting the data.

Anyway, to throw my hat back into the pundit ring, in South Carolina I see Obama narrowly over Clinton and Edwards (where those two wind up depends on whether or not Edwards's remark Tuesday made it down there...) and similar in Nevada (I will be better able to say something after the debate down there) with not much being decided until February 5th at the earliest. The problem with predicting this is that most Democrats I hear from would be happy with either candidate and so it comes down to last minute, "who do I like more right now?" voting.

The Republican side seems much more interesting, at least from a horse race and ideological point of view. In SC, I see Huckabee edging out McCain with Thomson finally starting to make a bit more than a half-hearted appearance (don't know if it is going to push him to a third place finish though). 9iul1an1 (Thank you Run From Fire, I hope you don't mind me borrowing this.) Will start blipping the radar, but not show much until a second or third place finish in Florida. I see McCain more likely than not winning in FL and if second goes to Huckabee, it will be a very interesting following couple weeks afterwards. What I see the Republican race boiling down to are conservative centrists coalescing around the McCain/9iul1an1 side of the party and the evangelical populists around Huckabee. The way this turns out could redefine the Republican party (or at least finish defining it) or possibly even lead to a cromulent third party.

False identities, aliases, pen/stage names

2008-01-09T22:21:00.000-06:00

Many of you have heard about the teenage girl, Megan, that took her own life after being rejected by a "boy" on MySpace. This profile actually turned out to be created by her one time friend and this friend's mother. In fact, the mother admitted to creating the profile in order to track the online activities of Megan. Unfortunately, the St. Charles, Missouri prosecutors felt they could not provide enough evidence to prove who made the last post that led to the suicide.

Personally, I believe there were a number of things that the prosecutors could prove, and they should have charged her with something. Now LA prosecutors have. They are charging her with defrauding MySpace by providing a false information.

To my great regret, as much as I would like to see this woman locked up for a very long time, I feel the moral requirement to defend her. What the prosecutors are charging her with is acting on her Constitutional right to anonymous free speech. Everyone deserves the right to create an anonymous account on any site they desire. This has been enshrined in political speech for centuries by political writers writing under pseudonyms. Stage actors can act under any name they want. And, in a great irony, from the above article, this right is strongly enshrined in the press:

Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, however, are exploring the possibility of charging Drew with defrauding the MySpace social networking website by allegedly creating the false account, according to the sources, who insisted on anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

Emphasis added.

We should not give up the right to privacy. No matter how many trolls we have to put up with on Slashdot, no matter how much spam I (my filters) have to deal with, it is our right, and their actions cannot take that away from us. The woman should be prosecuted for what she did, but I will not give up my liberties just to get her charged with anything.

Politicians losing direction

2008-01-08T19:30:00.000-06:00

Many of you have already heard about John Edwards's recent attack against Hillary. Hillary Clinton, in a town hall meeting Monday, was asked how she keeps going with all of the pressures of the campaign. Her response was "It's not easy." and went on to "tear up" (she appeared to get emotional, but I wouldn't so far as most media outlets are classifying it - you be the judge). Edwards, for no reason I can fathom, decided to attack this moment, to his apparent great detriment (current primary results at 8 PM CST have him with about 17%).

This sort of thing is exactly the sort of politics we need to move away from. Petty attacks, especially against the way someone makes and emotional plea, is guaranteed to turn more people away from you than encourage them to vote for you. What strikes me even more is that Edwards himself uses such emotional pleas in his campaign. Any time he evokes his father's life, or random middle class person he too gets emotional. This isn't a sign of weakness, it is often used to be a sign of connection to the subject you are talking about.

Unfortunately, in Hillary's response to the question she decided she should do similar attacks against her opponents, instead of answering the question. I have yet to see her talk about her position directly, at least in the past couple months, she only talks about what she thinks her opponents aren't.

Please people, give me something to vote FOR. I have enough things to vote against, and all the Democratic candidates share my views on these things, to one degree or another.

Companies going green

2008-01-08T19:28:00.000-06:00

I just got my monthly electricity bill from Ameren UE and guess what. They are offering me the chance to go green, or as they are phrasing it "support clean renewable energy." How, do you ask. By signing up for "Pure Power". What this does is allow Ameren to buy "certificates" from its own green energy branch. No, I'm not getting electricity from renewable energy. Instead I get to pay for Ameren to charge another area (my state fixes Ameren's rates because it is a state sponsored monopoly) for the priviledge of getting green energy.

So let me go through this again... I pay extra for nothing, the people getting the energy are (likely) getting charged more, and Ameren gets a tax credit for supplying green energy. Oh, and if I were to put solar panels on my roof or something similar, Ameren won't buy back, or even give credits, for the extra energy I produce.

Update: News.com is running a much more in depth article on the FTC beginning to look into these tactics.

Update 2: Ameren is now awarding companies that give a lot to this Pure Power campaign, and the number two corporation listed: Ameren UE!

From the mouths of babes toddlers

2008-01-07T21:16:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure who this is a stronger endorsement for, Barack Obama or Charlie Rose...

Debate roundup

2008-01-06T09:31:00.000-06:00

Well, the debates were yesterday and boy, what difference you can see in the parties. Completely ignoring Regan's "11th commandment" never to attack a fellow Republican, the candidates were constantly throwing little jabs at each other (or full bitch slaps to Romney on a regular basis). Ron Paul of course took the second hardest hits, barely being allowed to explain his point.

They also showed very effectively how little they know about what is going on. All of them (except for Ron Paul) said we have the best medical system in the world, completely ignoring and actual facts. Ron Paul at least admitted there was a problem, but his solution of letting the market handle the problems ignores the fact that the market has been in control of the problem and it doesn't work. The problem with letting the market control things is that the market is only worried about making money. If you don't have money to be taken, the market will ignore you and you won't be able to get health care.

The Democrats were almost a complete inverse. I wasn't able to watch the entire exchange (bedtime for the little one often interferes with these things...). They were often much more on topic, and there were many fewer snarky comments against each other (I don't remember either, but I wasn't there the whole time). My biggest complaint was that the moderators didn't ask the same questions of the Democrats as they asked of the Republicans. We already know what the candidates think of the war in Iraq; it is repeated back to us on a regular basis. The best question asked of the Republicans was, oddly enough, asked by President Bush. "What would be the underpinning of -- of -- of your decisions?" Huckabee, being the only Republican that actually answered the question, gave the reason that question matters: "because [policies] can change with each generation, with each year, with each circumstances . . . What is it that's deep inside of us that -- that guide us, that direct us, that show the framework of what we're going to do." I know what policies the Democrats (and Republicans) are pushing (largely), what I want to know is how the candidates view the world as this will show how the candidate will handle things that come up unexpectedly. Obama I feel I understand after reading his memior, but not so much the others.

Instead, Gibson took the easy way out. He focused on the things we have heard over and over: Iraq, nuclear terrorists (currently completely irrelevant and for which there is only one response), and a question that started out looking like a domestic policy question and instead changed into a question about change, which we hear about constantly in this campaign. That last question showed a very sharp divide between Obama/Edwards and Clinton/Richardson. Obama and Edwards view change as a change in the political process and the reduction of the lobbyists' power in Washington. Clinton views change as a different person and gender in the White House. Richardson, from how I understand his quote, doesn't think change can happen at all...

All told, I don't believe these debates will have changed much, especially on the Democrat side. On the Republican side of things, Huckabee continued to do well and may have strengthened his position in New Hampshire while Romney continues to fade. My personal prediction for the primary is a much tighter race between Obama and Clinton - it has been much too close to call for a while and I can't tell what, if anything, Edwards's move yesterday to support Obama against Clinton will do. On the Republican side, I'm pretty sure McCain is going to come in first, and a tight race for second between Romney and Huckabee, either way, Romney probably won't last much longer.

Transcripts are available on the New York Times website - Republican/Democrat.(free registration or bug-me-not may be required)

Congratulatons

2008-01-04T07:08:00.000-06:00

The caucuses are done and it's on to New Hampshire. Congratulations to Barack Obama on the victory, but the biggest news, in my opinion, is the turn out of the youth vote. This is what the country as a whole needs. Hopefully, the result of this caucus will encourage young people in every state to vote, both in their primaries and in the general election. In the past, people my age and younger didn't vote, I believe (from personal experience) because we were largely ignored in both the polling and the final result.

Almost right.

2008-01-02T14:17:00.000-06:00

Ok, about three weeks ago I predicted that if the Fed lowered the interest rate we would see $100 a barrel oil. It looks like I was not quite right. Between a rise in inventories and Saudi Arabia hinting that the would ignore OPEC and send out more oil, futures had dropped to the mid $80s. I was about to be happily wrong.

That all changed today. According to Yahoo, oil has broken the $100 barrier. It did take a week and a half longer than I had expected, so I guess James Randi can keep his million for now...