Obama is not Weak, He's Conservative, and This is a Gut Punch

I have bristled with rage as I have listened to the news of the health care bill in the Senate. Fucking assholes! They are doing major damage to us, as sure as shootin' with Dick Cheney. Lieberman and his new butt buddy Senator Nelson (the one from Nebraska) have played a Bushian game on the Senate, and they (the Senate Dems) caved like bitches.

And yes, the liberals in the Senate are weak. They are weak because they care about Americans and are letting those who don't hold us hostage. A senator like Bernie Sanders knows how fucked-up this bill is, how it is among the most corrupt enterprises ever foisted on the American people. He also knows it will give health care to about 30 million people who don't have it. This hedges his opposition, he wants so badly to help those people get what they need.

This makes me think of the movie "Speed." When Kianu Reeves' character decides the best way to deal with a hostage delima is to shoot the hostage (just a flesh wound). We need a real liberal who can aim well enough for a flesh wound. We need real liberals to call the bluff, to shoot uninsured Americans in the leg if necessary and learn what Leiberman and Nelson have learned - don't compromise.

But I'm getting off track. My post title is about Obama. Liberal columnists, radio hosts and bloggers have been all over the map this week. The most oft-repeated complaint is the wish that the President would "get tough" with these senators, and join in the fight for the public option. I think that this is horrible analysis. He has gotten tough - too tough.

When you hear criticism of Obama's weakness, you usually hear about his failure to fight for the public option. But make no mistake, Obama has weighed in on the public option at least two times, with great impact. Once with Harry Reid, and once with the Senate Dems. Both times he made it clear - kill the public option.

Shit, Max Baucus and Kent Conrad tried for months to kill the public option, but it was stubborn - the American people wanted it badly. Obama met with the Senate two weeks ago and killed it in half an hour. You think that's not tough? Before that, when Reid asked for help getting the option, Obama made it clear that he was "on his own."

Obama put a serious smack-down on the public option. He was certainly more deft about fucking the American people than Bush was, but no less effective. He still may do this without too much blood on his hands. He also effectively killed Chuck Schumer's Drug Reimportation amendment. All those senators looked butt-sore after that fell down. Obama basically orchestrated a filibuster against a measure that would have greatly lowered drug prices for Americans. He filibustered his own party! He is a Machiavellian badass!

But he sure as hell is not a liberal. Nor is he in favor of the much vaunted "change" (TM Obamacorp). With Wall Street, wars, and in general sucking the chrome off of corporate trailer hitches of the Medical Industrial Complex, he is not much different from Bush/Cheney. And this is what hurts so much.

I was adamant about Obama's election in the primary. I so wanted him to beat Hillary because I did NOT want a right-of-center, DLC corporate shill candidate to win. I really did get sucked in by the "change" mantra. Now we must come to grips with the fact that Obama used the netroots to unseat Hillary as the new master of the Democratic corporate gravy-train. He used us, not to fight the power, but to solidify power for a narrow, non-liberal cadre of Dems who are now loyal to him. And everyone else better get in line or else he won't even throw a bone, like forcing 30 million Americans to buy private insurance from the same companies who shovel campaign money into Democratic coffers.

And this is what would make Tom Delay blush. And why I am so profoundly disappointed. With no anti-trust reinstatement, with no cost controls, and NO PUBLIC OPTION, Democrats will force Americans to buy a product they may not want from companies who give money to Democrats. This is so corrupt it makes a decaying corpse look good by comparison. Obama is using his political muscle for this, not for change. We now know who he is.

And it sucks. It sucks to have a president who will give billions to asshole bankers so they can have more bonuses while there is 10% unemployment. It sucks to know that our president will escalate a war in Afghanistan even though there is no credible partner in the country to work with. It sucks to know that our president cares more about the CEOs of Primera, Wellpoint and Big Pharma than he does about hundreds of millions of people like me.

It sucks to know that I voted for him.

Why the Senate Health Care Deal is Bullshit

The United States Senate buried the public option this week. Barack Emanuel made it clear in a 30 minute meeting with Democratic Senators that Insurance Companies and HMOs would not be happy unless Americans were thoroughly fucked on this deal, so Harry Reid put 10 of them in a room with strict instructions to thoroughly fuck us.

"But wait," you say..."Obama did his best." Yes he did. Did his best to kill the public option and not have the blood on his hands. But this is about the Senate, at least until the end of this rant. The "liberals" in the meeting came out smiling because Medicare got extended. This sounds great, but it isn't. It was opposite of how Medicare should have been expanded. But let's look at what they did:

• Medicare will someday start when Americans pass 55 years of age, instead of the current 65. It can be argued that any expansion of Medicare is a good step in reform.
• A "non-profit" option will be triggered at some point if insurance companies don't behave by keeping costs under control.
• Subsidies for Americans who can't afford health insurance.
• That ridiculous abortion shit was scratched.
• Some other stuff that I was too lazy to look up.
• More Americans WILL be covered, especially because the mandate for coverage will still be there.

The Medicare expansion is a cherry on the top, and will allow Dems to declare victory. But it is all bullshit. Without serious revisions by the House this is a preemptive bailout for health insurance companies. Billions more of our tax dollars will flow into the corporate coffers without actually lowering costs, or improving the health coverage product. We are tired of the fight, and as progressives, not used to standing our ground when friends turn on us. Even Howard Dean (my choice for Chief of Staff) was feigning satisfaction with this deal. He's just happy the blue dogs didn't blow the whole 2010 election up by nuking any reform. And, everyone gets paid...except us.

Why is this deal so bad? Well...

The Medicare expansion is ass-backwards. By extending Medicare to those over 55, taxpayers take the burden of the most potentially health-impaired population off the backs of the insurance companies. The coverage mandates will drive tens of millions of younger, healthier customers to take their places. The +55 age group is also the highest wage earning group in the workforce - the most able to afford their own insurance. They are the last group we should cover.

To do this right, we should have started from age zero through nine. This is the group that suffers from the least coverage right now, thus doing the most good. This also takes the burden off of working families and makes kids healthier. Healthier kids are higher achieving kids in schools. The benefits to America are huge on the low end, and make 100 percent more sense if you care about what's good for America, instead of what's good for Primera.

Finally, if your politics are truly oriented towards health reform, this is the gateway to Medicare for all. When those kids get close to turning ten, millions of families will collectively turn to their representatives and say "you're gonna' take away my kid's health insurance? How quick can you pack up your office?"

The "non-profit" option is a sham. Do we really trust the same companies that have been providing us with an overpriced product that under-serves us to sell insurance that would be priced at public rate? No way. And waiting for triggers? Please! And do we really think they will change practices on preexisting conditions? Not without disastrous cost consequences. Either the final version will have small loopholes that allow complete disregard of all new regulations, or the Health Care Industrial Complex will just ignore them. You don't think so?

Look at the Wall Street crowd. They were given billions to fix over 700,000 mortgages. They have taken the cash and just sat on it. Paid themselves millions in bonuses because they are showing record profits. They say "oh, yeah. That mortgage thing, we'll get right on that..." Then they smirk as they wire our money to the Bahamas. Or hows about AIG executives that had to be rescued to the tune of almost 200 billion when they nearly took down the entire global economy? They paid themselves over 160 million in bonuses, and when we got pissed said they would give 46 mil back. But it turns out they didn't. This week they said they were thinking about giving just 19 million back. And, fuck us if we don't like it.

And our federal government, the entity that handed the bankers all of that public cash, says "yes sir, may I have another." And by that they mean another campaign contribution. Health care companies donate many millions too, and this deal shows how solidly the fix is in.

Mandates and subsidies are insane without a true public option. Are senators really going to mandate that tens of millions of Americans purchase a shitty, overpriced product from the evil health hooligans that are in turn feeding millions into senate campaign funds? C'mon, this is like something out of a bad 80's movie about the future gone horribly wrong. It is such a blatantly corrupt idea that it wrenches my guts to think that my government would do this.

Look, I get the need to spread the risk among a larger and healthier pool of insured people. It makes complete sense IF you are doing it responsibly. Responsibly means controlling the costs, and having those who are elected be accountable for these kinds of mandates in a democracy. Government has to play a large role in this kind of mandate, or we the people are so much meat for the corporate lions.

Finally, I hope I've seen the last of that abortion shit that was plugged in by Blue Dog Dems. But I am not holding my breath. That crap started in the House, and this still has to go through conference.

And finally finally, I am tired of being told by Obama sycophants to just be patient. And I swear to Jupiter, if one more pundit, blogger or caller to a talk show tells me that Obama is playing chess while we are playing checkers, I will desire to shove chess pieces up their ass! I supported Obama, but I am not blind, nor am I as stupid as he seems to think I am. It seems to me that the American people are playing Go Fish, hoping for a good card while Obama and the Senate are running a three-card monte hustle on the American working class.

Max Baucus and Kent Conrad tried for months to kill the public option, and they couldn't - even with the teabagger heat being poured on them. Obama only needed 30 minutes. There is no question that he killed the public option. No question that he killed the last vestige of real reform. Why? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! NEW #1 ISSUE.

How's About a Military Spending Poll?

President Obama seems dead-set on a surge in Afghanistan. This is a disaster for the obvious reasons. One, it will result in more unnecessarily dead people; two, we can't afford it; three, the Afghan government is hopelessly corrupt and not a viable partner; and four, it will not work.

Sending troops in spite of this represents the kind of political weakness that has brought you the bankers bonanza from Geithner and Summers, and the constant attempt to quietly kill the public option from the White House. It is a cave-in to the right and to the Pentagon. It is a boon to generals who have political and or career ambitions. It serves a myriad of special interests, but not the American people in general.

However, Congress does seem to listen to polling pressure from the public, hence the survival of some form of public option (so far). The polling on Afghanistan is mixed: Americans want to defeat Al Queda and/or the Taliban, but don't want to stay a long time in Afghanistan. But the questions missing are along the lines of "does being in Afghanistan keep us safe?" I have heard a lot of people say no.

Even if the answer is to some degree "yes," the next question needs to be "how much do you want to pay for a degree of safety?" Is it worth several billion dollars a month, indefinitely, to keep some terrorists out of Afghanistan? Is it worth an extra million dollars per soldier per year for a troop increase?

I would answer "hell no" if given the option.

In fact, I would like to see military spending in general polled heavily in this time of economic crisis. These are the questions I would like to see polled extensively with the American people:

• Should America cut its military spending to help fix the deficit?
• Should America be spending as much on its military as its top 20 allies combined?
• If we could cut military spending by 50%, and still have the most modern and most powerful military in the world, should we do it?
• If we could pay off our debt to China by cutting military spending, should we?
• Should we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, currently costing 10 billion per month, so that our kids won't have to pay any more of the debt for these conflicts?

Poll these heavily now that a "war tax" is being bandied about in Congress. I think you would find that Americans would be at least open to a real debate about military spending. The idea that we spend more than the G8 countries combined on our military is appalling. Regardless of how patriotic Americans feel, they should be amenable to a conversation about saving real money. Apart from Social Security, or Medicare, the military budget is the place to get those savings.

Schooling Obama on Education

On the day of a mixed-results, off year election for Democrats - a day when the President perhaps should have been in DC declaring victory and perhaps kicking a few asses, he was in Madison Wisconsin, making a speech on education. I did not hear the speech, just the highlights. As a teacher of eleven years, they made me a little sad. And a lot pissed off.

Obama continued the education memes he’s been pushing for months now: unions – bad, teachers – bad, vouchers – good, charter schools – good. Oh, and over four billion dollars available in grants IF you agree to fire “bad” teachers, piss off the unions and open charter schools. All things which will, in my state, put the final nail in the coffin that the Bush Administration tried so hard to bury public education in for eight years.

By the way, those were eight years in which about a billion dollars that used to be in public school districts has been put in the pockets of the private sector, in the form of payments to testing companies. The goal of NCLB was not to make every child in America succeed. If it was, they would have funded it. It was to destroy public schools, and put ALL of the cash that school districts get in the hands of the private sector (because Wall Street does not get enough of our money already). National private education is what NCLB is designed to accomplish, just like our military operations have been at least partly privatized by companies like Blackwater.

Let’s look at Obama’s main points, and rip the shit out of them…

Beat down the teachers’ unions
Yes, the hallmark of a Democrat – attack organized labor? What is it about teachers’ unions that have become anathema to Democrats in the last few years? Are you going to have at the firefighters’ union if a house or two burns down? The police union if crime is not at zero percent?

I don’t hear anyone say that more structures would be saved from fire, or that crime rates would be less if we could just bust the firefighters’ and policemans’ unions. These unions watch out for their members’ safety, wages and benefits. To assert that the unions had a significant impact on fires or crime is stupid. It is just as stupid to assert that the teachers’ unions are ruining public education.

I understand that the argument is that teachers unions stand in the way of education reform. To which I say, fuck yes! Where that reform has an effect on working conditions, safety, wages or benefits they should work as hard as possible to block education reform. That is what I pay them for!

Labor unions are just that – labor unions. They are not child advocacy organizations. I pay around $1000 per year in dues to my union to see that they look out for my interests. I expect them to go to work with a baseball bat if necessary to get me the best deal they can.

The fact is, in Washington State (where I teach), the unions have already given in on several key reform measures, including the elimination of tenure and site-based hiring for principals. We teachers have performance evaluations annually, and, can be removed from a building if a principal does not like the job we are doing. It happens frequently. We, as a labor force, have largely been rewarded for this with scorn and contempt by media, politicians and district administrators when it is convenient for them to score points at election or negotiation times.

The real problem is that the education pie is too small, and unions have to fight for our fair share. That is what they are fucking supposed to do! So why trash them so much?

Could the fact that the floor of the nominating convention was almost 10% NEA members have an impact on Obama’s apparent distain for teachers unions? Did this threaten corporatist Dems the agenda of their private sector masters? And, instead of helping a solid block of supporters, you want to spurn us because we don’t have piles of corporate cash to shovel into campaign coffers? Think about it.

By the way, what do teachers’ unions want? Decent wages and benefits for their members, and the best public education possible for our nation’s children. What do corporate donors want? The elimination of all impediments, no matter what the harm to the commons, to maximize profits. Way to pick ‘em, Mr. President.

Bad Teachers
Yes, there are bad teachers. There are also bad firefightes and bad policemen. I don’t hear a call for the total assault on their professions. In fact, if we remember recent history, we have had a bad President.

The question is, how do you measure bad teachers? I work in a school that is in its fifth year of being “in the penalty” according to NCLB. And, I can tell you, that no staff has worked harder than the one I belong to to improve student achievement.

But I can tell you this also: we will not meet the 100% mark by 2013. No way. It won’t happen by any rational measure.

And this is not because I don’t have high expectations for my students. I believe fervently that America, and my school district, has the best public education to offer in the world. I am taking migrant students from the fields and putting them in college. They come back to visit. And these college students did not always meet standard on the day they took the state’s NCLB reporting test. But they are on the road to becoming America’s leaders today.

But if you just look at the test results, you should fire me now.

You should fire me now because the student who came from Mexico 18 months ago, and reads at a second grade level (in middle school) will not pass the state-mandated test. You should fire me now because the student who has been in three foster homes in the past six months wasn’t able to fully focus on her math, science or social studies. You should fire me because the student who slept in a car for several weeks, and still caught the bus to school every one of those days, didn’t get homework done. (God damn these kids are awesome! How dare you call them failures!)

Yeah, fire me and maybe, just maybe you will find someone who will do better. But I doubt it. But you will find many hard-working, caring, professionals who DO have the HIGHEST expectations of every student who enters our classrooms, yet who fail by the measure of a date-specific, standardized test. Now, show growth, and I will rock your world.

There are, I’m sure, bad teachers. But they will be few and far between. We are mostly a profession of mostly white, mostly middle-class practitioners who could mostly have gone into business or much more lucrative careers, but sought a career in public service instead. We do this to make a difference for our community and our country, along with a decent living (thank you, teachers' unions!).

Vouchers? Seriously?
I am not sure I even heard this right…vouchers? I sure as shit hope not. Vouchers are a death-knell to public education. They will be used by affluent and middle-class parents to put students into schools that they regard as superior to public schools. They will take public money and, in defiance of the First Amendment, give it to religious institutions. Oh, and the corporate schools, like Edison Schools.

Yeah, Edison Schools, a publicly traded school-corporation where, in 2002, in Philidelphia, trucks came to load up all the books and computers because the company’s stock price slid to under a buck.

If you are stupid enough to risk our nation’s education system to the whim of market forces, or the doctrine of religious institutions (in the 21st century, where science will be the economic growth engine), then I can’t even continue a conversation with you. Go back to Medieval, or Elizabethan times where churches or wealthy patrons were the only way to get an education. Do we really long for these times?!? It makes my head hurt!

Charter Schools
Perhaps the most reasonable-sounding, and most insidious of all the proposals.

As public education stands today, I hate charter schools.

I totally see the appeal. I understand the desire of public school teachers who band together to form these (often) high-performing schools that buck the system. I could easily see myself as a member of a charter school staff, innovating and achieving at high levels.

Oh, and cherry-picking students and families from the public education pool.

Of all the charter schools I have seen, they all share one particular, deal-sealing advantage over normal public schools: opt-in.

Charter schools are opt-in programs that only exist because there is a school like the one I teach at down the road to take the students who don’t meet the requirements. And mine is the failing school?

But what charter schools don’t advertise is the fact that EVERY child in America is guaranteed a FREE public education…period! Charter schools contract with students and families to meet certain academic and behavior standards. If students fail to meet those standards, they are gone! Where do they go? Well, to the schools like the one I teach at.

And…
Schools like the ones I teach at are the best schools in the world. Case closed. No more debate necessary.

We are the best because we take EVERYONE. We don’t care about your race, religion or income. We send a bus.

We send a bus to the fields for the migrant workers kids, and to the homeless shelter. We send busses to the trailer parks, and the housing projects.

We send a bus for kids with severe behavior disorders, autism, downs syndrome and the over-diagnosed ADHD. You think China and India do that? Fuck no!

We are, God dammit, the BEST PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THE WORLD because we take locally generated funds, no matter how poor the community, and send a bus for EVERYONE. And we send ‘em to college. Not as many as we like, but we don’t quit on any of them until they are out of the system. Or until they are so demoralized by the lack of economic opportunity in their community that they quit on themselves.

So…
You wanna’ do more for public education than any other President? Raise the minimum wage to over $10 per hour, and tax the rich more. Give poor families a chance, and back rigorous federal standards with fat wads of federal money. This will do more to enhance public education than any union-bashing, teacher-firing, charter-schooling and private vouchering program could do to destroy it.

Or, keep hammering away at teachers, administrators and organized labor, and then “tut, tut” when the result of using the hammer is a broken system. Give us too little money, and sit back and watch teachers and administrators fight over the scraps, and then say how horrible our unions are for robbing kids of an education. That is what is happening now.

We are a system under siege. We need your help, Mr. President, not your scorn. When you look at my students’ test scores this spring, you will say that I am one of the “bad” teachers. You will say “look, there are teachers who show two years growth in one year.” But NCLB does not measure growth. And, I show two years growth all the time. The problem is, many of my students need four and five years growth in a year to meet the NCLB benchmarks. And for this, our school will be called a failure.

Don’t get me wrong, we need improvement. But until you are here to help, Mr. President, please get the fuck out of our way.

Race to the Top = Bullshit

Thanks, David Brooks, for adding to the unlimited library of poorly researched articles on public education. Way to spend a day in a classroom. Way to beat up on the teachers' unions. Way to denigrate public servants yet again. Have at the "troops" next, I dare you!

Yes, Obama's Race to the Top grants sound like one more "innovative" initiative to use free market methods to improve public schools. To reward innovative thinking with federal dollars. Right! This is more of the neoconservative wet dream of wholesale privatization of every sector of government, and ultimately, the death of public education altogether.

Let's look at the highlights:
1. Teachers' unions are bad. Awww...did teachers' unions, I don't know, stick up for their members' rights? Did they bargain for as much pay and the best benefits and working conditions that they could get? NO SHIT! As a member of the NEA, that's what I pay them almost $100 per month for! They should go to work on every state legislature with lead pipes and blow torches for that kind of cash! But seriously, the WEA (Washington State's branch of the NEA) has given in on all kinds of bargaining positions for education reform, including seniority and site-based hiring. Sometimes I have to yell at my union president that he runs a LABOR UNION, not a CHILD ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION!

Seriously, unions will look out after their members. They are supposed to! Is David Brooks, or worse, President Obama suggesting the unions should not fight hard in collective bargaining for their members? The problem is not that the teachers are asking for too much, it is that they are asking for a fair slice of too small a pizza. And unfunded mandates like NCLB don't help that pizza go 'round.

2. Vouchers - Why not just turn public education over to Dick Cheney? That's how we will provide public education - just divide up the state education money and give it to every family with kids and say "have at it!" This is what we are talking about. Do we really want to privatize public education? You think the achievement gap is bad now, wait until we give white middle class families vouchers. This idea will doom our public schools, and our nation to social and economic obscurity.

3. Charter Schools - The easiest to sell, and perhaps the most insidious idea. Don't get me wrong, there are wonderful charter schools. They do great things, and serve their students and families well. BUT, I have never heard of one that doesn't impact the public education system adversely. I"ll give you an example: The City School. The City School is a wonderful charter school in Spokane, Washington. They offer a project-based education for students up to 8th grade. It is a world class, and highly engaging curriculum taught by caring professionals. I was psyched when I saw their presentation at a seminar put on by our state's education department.

Then, one of my colleagues asked a question: "what happens when a student disrupts class, or doesn't do his/her work?" The answer from the principal (the same answer from some half-dozen other charter school videos I have watched): "they're gone." They sign a contract to be here, and if they violate it, they are kicked out.

The problem with this is that EVERY CHILD in the United States is guaranteed a free public education. Charter schools can only be this selective if there is a school like the one I teach at down the road that will take them, warts and all. The real American public school system does not get to cherry pick students or supportive families. We take everyone.

I teach in an 82% poverty school, of which maybe 25% would make it at the City School. But these are American kids, and we need to stop dicking around and develop some strong NATIONAL standards. And then, have the fight in Congress to put some real FEDERAL MONEY into the schools. To make them truly world class. Funded well enough to compete with a global marketplace of economics and ideas. If we don't, if we leave it up to retired rural voters to decide how much county's will fund schools in their property tax-based levies, then we will get our asses kicked. It's simply a numbers game: China and India have more honor students EACH, than we have students total.

Having said that, I will proceed with my usual rant: American public schools, as they stand now, are the best in the world. Period.

No question - unless you are in the top 10% of income or status in your country, you want your kids in American public schools. That is because WE TAKE EVERYONE! Downs syndrome, autistic, behavior disordered, it doesn't matter. We send a bus. We send a bus to the fields for the children of migrant workers. We send a bus to the homeless shelter, or the the corner for the kids who live in a car. We send a bus to the "hood," and to every neighborhood, and put them on a track for a four-year university education and beyond. And we do this every day. Tell me China does this - or India. Or even Western Europe, where kids are trade-school tracked by eighth grade. Hell no, we do what no other country even attempts, every day.

So, put your federal money where your mouth is, or get the fuck out of my way and let me continue doing the fantastic job that no other nation on earth even dares to have its educators attempt - putting every child, no matter their family or disability, on a university track. And, to elected Democrats (Obama), how's about easing up on the unions. Beating up on unions is the Republicans' job. At least is used to be.

Ed Shultz is a Crybaby - a new Reality Show

I fucking hate reality TV.

I never watch it. If my kids are watching it, and I don't feel like fighting for the remote, I leave the room. I can't stand watching shmucks parade their foibles on TV for celebrity status. It tarnishes the word celebrity - a term developed with the root "celebrate," as in, to acknowledge people worthy of celebrating.

This is why I hate the Balloon Boy story, it was a three to four hour reality TV show, foisted on unsuspecting haters (like me) as "news."

The day of the story, I was passing through the break room at work and saw the limp UFO zooming across the landscape. I got the update from my coworkers and then listened to the CNN feed for about five minutes. Then, I had to get to work. I checked back a couple of times (but mostly, I was working), and then listened to the radio on and off during my hour commute home.

I was wondering, how did the kid get in? How cold was it at 8000 feet? Who was going to have to find a dead, six-year old body in the wreckage? Then, at the end of my commute, more than three hours later, I heard for the first time, that this was a reality TV show family.

At which point I said: "Bastards!"

Not the balloon family - their motivations were completely transparrant - no, the cable news channels. They suck. I mean, really? You're not going to tell me for three hours that these knuckle-heads are veterans of reality TV? I mean, FOX, CNN, MSNBC - you haven't been talking to the local affiliate? Who have already done features on this family! That within 15 minutes of the balloon being on TV you aren't reporting the STRONG likelihood that this whole thing is a hoax? A stunt to get back on TV?

Oh yeah, and verifying the story you are covering. Before the day was over, "aviation experts" were chiming in. No, not the one that was being interviewed about the possibility of rescue. The ones that were saying that there was no way that the balloon could have carried a 40 plus pound person.

No no no no no. They knew. They just milked us for ratings. And that is bullshit from any organization that has the word "news" anywhere in their title or description of what they do. This was presented as "breaking news," but the obvious doubts about the story were left out until hours of ratings had been recorded. Either through extreme incompetence, or through a quest for those same reality TV ratings. We should be pissed off, because either way we were sold a bill of goods, and provided ratings to the networks, for what turned out to be bullshit.

Now, of course, we know the truth - after many hours more of "news" coverage. We even have video of this family releasing the balloon. We have an admission from the kid, on TV (mission accomplished) that it was "for the show." And people are pissed. Arianna Huffington was among the first to express her displeasure on the Ed Shultz show.

And today, after days of milking this non-story, Ed was whining on his radio show like one of my kids about criticism he received for preempting guests to cover Balloon bullshit. "This was a breaking story!" he cried. "We do news too, and this is a news network!" "I'm gonna' go back to Fargo, I don't need this!" he lamented. "Our ratings, and the ratings of all three cable networks were huge" [sic] "Progressives can be mean!"... Jesus, he went on for at least five minutes.

First of all, Big Eddie, go the fuck back to Fargo if you can't man-up to a little criticism from Arriana. Second of all, the point you made about ratings was key - that's what the journalistic decision making on this story was all about: ratings. The artificial drama that this family provided was (according to my conjecture) the sole factor in how much coverage the three cable networks devoted to this story. At your news network, nobody cared about the facts, just the drama-driven ratings. Not fact-checking, background investigation (by the way, an assistant producer, with a computer, the dad's name and five minutes could have come up with a YouTube channel of hoaxes by this family), or objective reporting (like, was it even possible for the balloon to fly with a kid in it?). No, it was about reality TV ratings. Congratulations Ed, you are a reality TV star. And so are all of your colleagues.

Whiney Ed Schultz is a reality TV star because this story reveals what the cable, and probably broadcast news has become: reality TV. The old axiom of "if it bleeds, it leads" has become the production focus, not just the teaser. And this has ramifications for how we understand what is happening in our world. The shiny, UFO-shaped health care object was "Obama and his death panels are killing your grandma!" This was untrue and crazy, but Newt was saying it on NPR without challenge or postscript investigation on the morning of Obama's health care speech. Reported as "news" and driving people to town hall rallies for serious drama. The Balloon Boy story shows us just how far down the reality TV rabbit-hole our news media has fallen. And this is why people are pissed...

...we might have to go back to reading newspapers.

Oklahoma High School Poll - Dummy kids, or dummy test?

National news was made recently by a poll taken by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. They put questions to Oklahoma public high school students - the same questions from the immigration exam for citizenship. The results were horrible, and point to yet another failure of public education. Yet, as a public educator, I wish to beg for another chance to make the case for America's (or at least Washington's - where I teach) public school students.

First, here are the questions, and the results:

What is the supreme law of the land? 28%
What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution? 26%
What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress? 27%
How many justices are there on the Supreme Court? 10%
Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? 14%
What ocean is on the east coast of the United States? 61%
What are the two major political parties in the United States? 43%
We elect a U.S. senator for how many years? 11%
Who was the first President of the United States? 23%
Who is in charge of the executive branch? 29%

First, in full disclosure, let me say that I am a public school teacher that teaches civics and history (among other things), so I have a professional stake in the interpretation of these numbers.

Second, let me say, that if we are worrying about the ability of Oklahoma high school students, or any other Americans, to answer these questions in a high-stakes assessment, then we are in more trouble than is being asserted by the coverage of this story.

One problem with the above questions is that they are basically trivia. They require no high-level cognitive functioning. They are "first level" questions in Bloom's Taxonomy. We can easily train legions of Oklahoma's, or any other state's high school students to regurgitate history names and dates, and yet they will a have no clue as to what anything they said really means. I'll bet a poll of Teabaggers will yield much higher scores on the question "who was the first President of the United States?". So what? - they are still woefully misguided as to how our government functions, and how it benefits or hurts them.

My eighth grade students right now could not pass the test listed above. But come back in the spring, and they will pass a test that asks for much more academic rigor. They will not just be asked who wrote the Declaration of Independence, they will be asked to identify a key democratic ideal stated in the Declaration, and apply it to an issue in their lives today. This will require not only a deeper understanding of the document than its author, but an understanding of the truly American principals enshrined within. They will be able to do this at 85% proficiency, or I will have to re-teach it.

Another reason why the poll was so negative? No Child Left Behind. This conservative gem (which has, ironically, forced many school districts across the nation to pay attention to the achievement gap between white and non-white students), has virtually mandated an abandonment of social studies as a curriculum emphasis. Since math, reading, writing and science, are what gets measured, they are what get attention from administrators, school boards, principals and education reporters. As it was stated clearly in one of the many books I have been required to read as part of education reform: what gets measured, gets done.

Social studies - history, civics, economics and geography - are largely not being measured in the United States at this time. Consequently, meaningful social studies content is not being taught until at least the middle school level, if not being put off until high school entirely. Even with this reality, Washington State, where I teach, has demanded a rigorous course of critical thinking for its K-12 social studies students. It does not include the Jeopardy-like questions on this survey.

Finally, 21st century students deal with information differently than students of my generation (I am pushing 50). Information like names and dates can be accessed quickly, from multiple sources, maybe even from the phones in their pockets. They don't worry about who was first, or who wrote what, because they can find out quickly if they care. They also get the crap tested out of them, and have developed a good sense of which tests have meaning to their academic progress, and which ones don't. If these Oklahoma students, given the preview that immigrants got, and given a sense that this assessment was a high-stakes test for them, could not come back in an hour and pass the above test at 85% or better, then I would worry for America.

Can American schools improve? Hell yes, and my colleagues and I work towards that goal every day. But I am going to bring it strong now, go over the top: American public schools are the best in the world. Period. You don't want your kids in any other nation's school system, regardless of the results of a trivia quiz that was meaningless to the people who took it. This is because we take everyone. Migrant workers' kids? We send a bus to the fields. Homeless? We send a bus to the shelter. Downs syndrome? Autistic? Severe behavior disorder? We will send a bus. We send a bus for everyone, and put them on a track to attend a four-year university. No other public school system in the world does this on our scale, not even close. Do you think all of China's kids attend school? India's? Please! Do you think most of Europe's kids aren't tracked for trade school instead of University by 8th grade? Again - please!

Dummy kids? I say dummy test, and dummy reporting of most education issues. And for all the dummies? We'll send a bus!

Joe Wilson Shows Us the Hopelessness of No Change

Let me start by saying that Representative Joe Wilson is an asshole, and an embarrassment to South Carolina. Having said that, he illustrates the problem that Rahm Eman...oops, I mean Barack Obama's White House is having with health care.

Obama said that the challenge from the right that the health care plan included coverage for "illegals" was a falsehood. Joe Wilson screamed "You lie!" during an address from the President to a joint session of Congress. Something that has never happened to any white president in modern history. Several organizations have pored over the only bill to leave any House of Senate committee, and have found that the President was accurate in his assertion. Big surprise. And big surprise that Wilson yelled what he yelled. I mean, Newt was on NPR the morning of the speech asserting that death panels did exist in the President's health care plan.

The problem as I see it, is not that some inbred congressman has no sense of decorum. It is that our president has no sense of progressive values at all.

There should be a fight about covering undocumented workers in America! A truly progressive position would be that anyone within our borders should be given reasonable health care. We should strive, as a modern, forward-looking and moral democracy to make sure that basic needs are met for all humans within our sphere of responsibility, regardless of race, income or other status. This is a position that asserts social justice as a guiding principle. Progressives should fight for social justice.

This also happens to be an issue that could find common ground with fiscal conservatives. The fact is, we already pay for "illegals," every time they use the emergency room. In fact, the current system is much more expensive than if we gave every undocumented person insurance that would include preventative care. We pay for their serious illnesses, their accidents and their child births in emergency rooms - at the cost of about $1000 per year for every insured American. Granting medical care to all within our borders in a systematic, preventative way SAVES EVERY INSURED AMERICAN MONEY, and saves the government money too. True fiscal conservatives can find common ground here if they can get past racism and xenophobia.

THIS represents bipartisanship - progressives and conservatives get something that speaks to their core values AND benefits America, and can be sold at campaign time as a victory.

Instead, here's how Obama sees bipartisanship:
1. Do not even allow single payer "in the room" as part of serious health care discussion.
2. Insist on Republican input even when they say - clearly - that their goal is to defeat ANY health care legislation, no matter what it contains.
3. Tax credits as a means of paying for health care reform.
4. Limit a possible public option (certainly not promised public option) to about 5% of the population - the ones that no insurance company would touch with Joe Wilson's dick).
5. Direct immediate action on tort reform - a solidly Republican idea.

Oh, and for the "bi" part of the above bipartisanship...
1. He did actually mention a public option, but conceded that he was open to other options.
2. He told progressives to calm down and shut up.
3. He managed to do this with his tongue down the back of Republican senators' trousers.

No, no, no. Progressives must raise the threat level, and keep health care reform as our firewall. REAL progressive representatives must vote NO, and hand this president a defeat if a strong public option is not in the final bill.

Obama gives great speech, but the hope is gone, along with the real change. The change must come from real progressive ideas made manifest. Real change? How about changing Rahm for Howard Dean?

Jonathan Alter Urges Surrender

Somebody investigate and tell me...how much does the medical industry advertise in Newsweek, or on MSNBC?

Columnist Jonathan Alter was interviewed on the Stephanie Miller show recently, deriding the progressives in Congress, especially those who signed a letter saying they would not vote for a health care bill that did not contain a public option. He said (and I am paraphrasing) that this painted them into a corner, and could kill any health care reform at all. He went further to champion the meme of not discriminating against sick people - a meme that I believe the dems should use, but as a cudgel, not a compromise.

I mean great, don't discriminate against me for being sick. Right now, nobody discriminates against me in the purchase of a Bently. I can go buy one tomorrow. But I can't fucking afford it!

And this is what health care reform is without a public option - something we can't afford.

The public option, done right, controls the costs and makes any new health care rights affordable. Without it, it is a preemptive bailout of the Health Care industry, with secret deals for big pharma, and millions in subsidies that will go to private insurers. Just like our economic bailout went to the Wall Street criminals who sank our economy, this health bailout will largely go to the HMOs, insurance companies and the pharma industry. My costs will continue to rise to cover profits, bonuses, dividends and large salaries, not Americans.

Progressives cannot compromise on this. Jonathan Alter says that something is better than nothing. I say bullshit. It is, in this case, better to go down fighting than to give in YET AGAIN to corporate interests who have corrupted the political process.

Yes, the letter they signed boxes in some progressives (as if a politician wouldn't go back on something they said in earnest). But it is also pressure on a president who has surrounded himself with corporatist Democrats. Health care needs to be the progressive firewall. This is the issue that will let us know if we even have a place in the Democratic Party at all.

As members of the Progressive Caucus have already said: we were for single payer, we have already compromised. Are we not to ever insist on anything? What about those Blue Dogs who have taken millions from the health care industry? Why shouldn't they give in? Or if they won't, be exposed for the money-grubbing bastards that they are - fronting for the industry that has the real death panels, and defending a system that hurts Americans. This includes Obama, if he doesn't give to the left a little on this one.

And let's be real about what is considered the left anymore - left of Richard Nixon. It's not like we are entertaining any extreme progressive ideas, just covering health care for all in an affordable way. Sometimes you compromise, and Progressives HAVE. Sometimes, you go down fighting the good fight.

Jonathan Alter, I hope progressives take a lesson from the Republicans on this one - double down. Tear up current bills and write one with national single-payer, 100% coverage for all Americans and full government negotiation with drug companies. Change the conversation, and the playing field with strength. Don't think it can be done?

How about George W. Bush after the 2006 elections? A painful election cycle for him with an unpopular war and a loss of both houses of Congress. The mandate was clear - end the war! Surely he was going to have to negotiate with, and compromise with Democrats. Right? Wrong! He doubles down. He says, so you don't like my war, see how you like my surge! That's right bitches, I'm not going to end the war, I'm going to increase the number of troops and expand the war. And guess what, the Democratic controlled congress obliged. Bush managed to change the question from whether the war should end to how many troops should he add.

Progressives need to change the question from whether government should be involved in health care to whether corporate profits make any sense at all as the arbiter of who gets health care and who doesn't. Then MAYBE we can settle on a strong public option. Obama obviously has no interest in this, so progressives have to do it. They just need to come strong with their message, and ignore the surrender monkeys like Jonathan Alter.

Progressives - Time to Flex

Progressives, are you going to take it again?

(For the purposes of this rant, I define a progressive, anymore, as someone with values and ideals that are left of Richard Nixon. This, in 21st century America puts you in the camp of "leftist loons" as Bill O'Reilly would say.)

We have taken it plenty. We took it in 2006 when we made Nancy Pelosi the first woman Speaker of the House, and then watched her crumble before Republican talking points and Blue Dog pressure.

We took it in 2008 as we saw Obama tack hard right after winning the nomination. We were hoping this was just political chess running up to the election.

We took it hard in the shorts when Obama surrounded himself with DLC cronies, including Hilary and Rahm, yet still hoped this was political cover for at least a mildly progressive agenda.

We took it savagely from behind when Obama gave trillions to Wall Street to bail out the criminal bankers who fucked our economy. And this is still going on. We still have these guys gambling, and paying themselves multimillion dollar bonuses - now with OUR MONEY. Oh yeah, and tax cuts too. This was not an exercise in compromise - it was a wholesale cave-in to Wall Street - a plea for them to not hate the new administration. And the economic misbehavior that caused the collapse has not stopped. Just read this Huffpo story, or even worse, this blog post by Les Leopold. No meaningful regulation, no meaningful cap on executive salaries in institutions that exist only because of our tax dollars keeping them afloat, and no meaningful help for the millions of Americans who are still losing their homes to the robber barons who sank our economy, and are losing our jobs to corporations that are sending them overseas. Ouch!

We took it with environmental legislation, which was a gift to Big Coal. Some good stuff did come out of this bill - renewable energy research, and conservation retrofitting - saving energy and creating jobs. If we didn't take it so bad on the economy, I could live with this gift to coal and oil companies. But on top of the Wall Street screwing, this was with no Vaseline.

We took it on Guantonamo. Oh sure, Obama said the right things - then caved in to Republican talking points. Seriously, like moving those prisoners to the United States would cause the country to explode. This cave-in makes so little sense. I know there are some tricky legal questions involved, but Americans should not be afraid of that. This cave-in says that Obama has no faith in our justice system, thinks Americans can't run a high-security prison, or is terrified of even the lamest Republican talking points. Jesus, I don't know which is worse!

Are we out of Iraq? No.

Are we "surging" in Afghanistan? Yes.

Is there even a hint of serious conversation about military spending? Fuck no!

And now, we are bent over the meat-counter on health care, and are about to get rammed. If this is not the line in the sand, then there is no effective progressive caucus, nor a very effective progressive voice. Don't get me wrong, I'm almost sure we will get screwed on the public option, but what will be the reaction? As Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher said on the Young Turks, "we will tear up your progressive card over this one. There is no free vote this time."

What to do?
1. Let your reps know how you feel! The House's Progressive Caucus has enough members to block health care legislation with no public option. Contact them, especially if they are your rep, and encourage them to hold strong. Hand this president a defeat, from his own party, if he screws American families for the sake of Big Pharma, HMOs, and the health insurance industry.

2. Send money to progressive legislators who pledge to vote only for a public option plan. Send money to primary candidates running against those who don't. Obama knows the power of the web, and how much cash you can raise $25 at a time. Check out Fire Dog Lake's whipcount project.

3. Coordinate health care memes as effectively as the right does. It kills me that the professional politicians of the Democratic Party suck so badly at this. Here's one that should have been brought out weeks ago: "Death panels exist! - in every health insurance corporation's office." Follow that with a list of denied claims for essential, life-saving treatments. How about this: "if government can't do anything right, then we definitely won't reelect you to keep running it!" Jesus, how long have I waited for a news anchor to ask a conservative "wait a minute, don't you run the government?" when they talk about how bad government is.

4. Go for a third party. Seriously, if the dems can't deliver on at least one meaningful reform, with control of the entire government, then what fucking good are they? The obvious answer is: none. Bernie Sanders got elected to the Senate, an independent and a true progressive. If the progressive caucus fails, the Progressive party should rise. Could it do to Obama what Nadar did to Al Gore? Sure, but so what? If all we are getting is Republican policies, the Republicans might as well be the face of evil that we fight against.

We have to stop supporting the Democratic Party if they won't give us anything. Health care is the big one. Fuck us here, and you have lost us. The progressives will leave in droves (hopefully), and the dems will go the way of the Whigs.

The Fall of the Democratic Party?

This could be it, the swan song for the big tent party.

Obama's Health Secretary today said that a public option is "not the essential element" in a health care deal. It's over. Health care reform is dead. What ever comes from the Blue-Dog led Senate Finance Committee is a joke, and a gift to big pharma, and the rest of the health care industry. There is no "change" (TM Obamacorp), just more of the rich getting over on the poor and middle class.

Is Obama better than Bush? Of course, a hundred times better. But what is 100 times zero? Zero is certainly what the average American gets out of this deal.

And negative numbers is what the Democratic party will get out of this deal. They have, with total control of the government, managed a deal which will help rich corporations, make progressives unhappy, not get universal coverage, and raise my health insurance rates yet again, and validate nearly every Republican talking point on health care. (Way to go political geniuses.)

It could also crush the Democratic party.

2008 can only be seen as a validation of PROGRESSIVE Democratic ideals, and a repudiation of the neoconservative ideals of the Republicans. It was, also a vote for real CHANGE. Republican behavior since the election has been aimed at keeping their base, a permanent minority. This seemed, even a couple of weeks ago, like a suicidal plan for a party in a country undergoing dynamic demographic changes.

The Democratic party on the other hand, with control of both Congress and the Executive Branch, have the power to make the kind of changes that Americans want, according to poll after poll. They can put a chicken in every pot, so to speak, and win electoral loyalty for a generation. My god, if you really lowered my monthly health care expenses, made my son's pre-existing condition a non-factor, let me get the meds that actually work (instead of the over-the-counter ones that I can afford, that half work), I could almost forgive handing Wall Street criminals the keys to the treasury. (By the way, if you think those guys are done asking for our money, you are deluded.) But they have done the opposite. They have caved in to every special interest and right-wing criticism. They started the process by denying the one thing that would guarantee huge savings: national single payer. And they have slowly whittled down the expectations of the public option - killing it today with Sebilius' remarks. Thanks for nothing, literally.

This is a bell-weather issue for the Democratic Party. It was Obama's #1 legislative priority, and he has made a huge mess of it by means of weakness. He will get something called health care reform passed, and call it a "victory," but it will be a huge failure. Ultimately, it will not control costs or insure all Americans, and will be publicly deemed a failure by 2012, if not before. Republicans will be proved "right" on the issue, and real reform will be dead for at least another decade. And he will fail to do even what the Republicans have managed to do: fight for what their base thinks is right.

This deal will:
1. Piss off progressives! Hell, I was ready to vote for the Green party after 2006 Democratic wimp-outs. I certainly won't give a DIME to ANY Democratic candidates if they choose big phara over my family. Progressives will look for alternatives, or become disengaged.
2. Make moderates waver in support of Democratic policies. "Regan Democrats" will look closely at Republicans again, and will remember a party that got things done when they were in power. Never mind that it nearly broke the country.
3. Make Blue-dogs and conservative dems the feared and favored faction of the party. Progressives are openly hostile to this faction, and there is bad feelings on both sides. This is a rift in the party that will not heal soon, especially if they prevail in giving more of my paycheck to the health care industry than goes to my mortgage. If these Republicans in sheep's clothing from small states are going to kill progressive policies before we can even fight the out-of-the-closet Republicans, then progressives will be effectively ousted from the party. The Democrats are gearing up to oust their base.
4. Make sure that Obama and the party does not do the right thing for the American people.

How can thinking citizens in a Democracy support a party that does not do the right thing, over and over again. Progressive thinkers can't do it for much longer. A new party will emerge, one that will promise to fight for our ideals, or just to put up a fight for a change, maybe by 2012.

Even if I don't have a real progressive choice in the next election, I will definitely keep my wallet closed. I don't suppose that would inspire campaign finance reform? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Obama, where thy baseball bat?

Yaargh!

I wrote a post in the spring where I asked Rachel Maddow to calm down when she was crying that the heated primary between Clinton and Obama would destroy the world (or, assure a McCain victory – same thing).

Now, someone’s gotta’ calm me down.

Obama, last week, was losing in a national Gallup pole to John McCain.

Seriously, let that sink in. Losing to Grampy McSame, John McBush, Get-Off-My-Lawn John. What the fuck??!!

The fuck is: Karl Rove. Assisting the McCain campaign, either in person, or via his acolytes, Republicans are controlling the conversation again. And again, the conversation is about stupid shit. Apparently, we are eating it up.

What were the most memorable messages from the campaigns for the last week? Sexist pig lipstick, Obama teaches the Kama Sutra to kindergarten children, and McCain and Palin are mavericks that will clean up Washington? What bullshit! But what have you heard to counter it? Zip. Oh, I know Obama has responded - policy statements and paragraphs that make sense, but that NOBODY TALKS ABOUT. And that’s the point – getting people to talk about it. It has to be dramatic and controversial.

Obama said he wasn’t going to take a knife to a gunfight. He’s right – he hasn’t taken anything! He’s just getting his ass shot to pieces by Grandpa Munster and Moose Mom.

Man, Obama needs to creep up behind with a baseball bat and WHAM! And, when he gets called out by the Republican echo chamber, say “politics is a contact sport, didn’t you think I was going to play?”

Obama makes good speeches – maybe the best in our generation. But that doesn’t win an election in the age of cable TV. Palin read a decent speech, and almost matched his Neilson Ratings numbers from his Denver speech. McCain beat his numbers with a horrible speech. You must keep it simple, and make people pay attention. Use simple words that rile people up:

1. Lie – Obama must use the forbidden “L” word. He must say, in ad after ad that McCain has lied about every important issue. Fuck the idea that there are two sides to every story – take out the bat and call him a liar!
2. Dangerous – From loose nukes to starting wars, McCain is a hothead that will attack Iran and Russia. Grab the bat and call him a crazy mutha’ fucka’. “John McCain is dangerous for America” is what every news anchor should repeat.
3. Took your money! – The most powerful meme of all. “John McCain and the Republicans have taken your money.” Tell the press that they took it and gave it to Exxon and Halliburton. They took it and gave it to the same mortgage companies that are taking your house. They took it and gave it to your old boss who sent your job to China. Take out the bat!

Oh, and Sarah Palin? Stand up and shout that she is corrupt and stupid. Never mind the Republican preemptive strike that nobody can attack a woman – and that attacking her is sexist. No Republican ever said that about Hillary. Wind up the metaphorical bat and swing away. And when Hanity shrieks “how could you,” simply say “because she lies, she’s dangerous and she will steal your money.

By the way, those three points all have the benefit of being true. Get the fuckin’ bat, Obama.

Dems New Mantra: “What Happened to Our Money?”

Sarah Palin scares me.

Smug liberal that I am, in this year of Change (© Obama), I was sure that Palin was a joke. After the announcement, and the initial reaction about her past, inexperience, corruption investigations and unwed pregnant teen daughter, I was sure she would be the turd in the Republican punchbowl. I seriously wondered if her nomination for VP would make it past the convention floor.

Then I heard her speak, and watched her on TV.

She is not the frostbitten hillbilly I thought she was. She can, if nothing else, read from a script and string together coherent sentences. All while not looking like a ghoul. This is more than most Republicans these days, including Joe Lieberman, can do.

And what’s worse, for Obama, and any who care about righting the good ship America, is that she actually adds to the McCain ticket in a substantive way.

She solidifies the evangelical base. They love her. They are excited, and ready to donate and work again. We were counting on many of them sitting this one out.

She brings youth, and the Washington outsider mantle to the campaign of a career politician who is older than God. She represents the bold kind of choice that only a “Maverick” would make. Jesus, do you think the press will repeat that a million times, again?

Worse, she brings back the politics of personality. It was looking like Obama, and his old white guy, against two other old white guys. The personality story was with Obama, and he was controlling it pretty well. Now, it is the first black president versus the first woman president (oh wait, I mean vice president). This lets people who want “change” reassess the definition of change. This also lets independent and undecided white voters off the race hook. The Bradley effect on steroids.

People, who are sick of how badly the Republicans have fucked them, and the country, but are uncomfortable with a black candidate, now have a “change” option. Maybe they don’t have to pull the lever for the African American, because they can vote for a chick! After all, didn’t some Democratic chick get screwed on this whole deal anyway? They can assuage race guilt by voting against their sexist tendencies.

So what to do? Obama has been better than Gore or Kerry. He has started to pound on McCain and the Republicans. And the Democrats in general have been unified on the message of tying McCain to Bush. But Palin has the potential of obscuring that tie. Hell, McCain’s acceptance speech finished with the call for “change.” Democrats have to attack on the point that all Americans, in fact, all people, feel at their core: Money.

Obama, and all Democrats, have to lead America in asking the question: what happened to our money? And they have to guide media and voters to the right answers (and I mean “right” in the political sense – the kicking ass sense).

Bill Clinton left a half-trillion surplus…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans blew it!

The Iraq War is expensive…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans let corrupt militia leaders and terrorists steal it (remember the “footballs” of cash handed out from the backs of trucks?)

No, the War is really fucking expensive…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans gave it to Halliburton in a no-bid contract!

See how it goes?

…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans let your employer take it to China!

…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans gave it in tax breaks to your boss!

…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans gave it to the oil companies!

…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans gave it to Jack Abramoff, who gave some of it back to them in bribes!

…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans let mortgage brokers swindle you out of it, and left you homeless!

…what happened to our money?
John McCain and the Republicans took it from you, and gave it to their rich friends. And they are laughing at you, and they plan on taking more!

Can you analyze government spending and refute the above? Sure, but who the fuck, on average, will take the time to do that? Democrats need to force the message out. Make it the mantra – John McCain and the Republicans are taking your money, and they don’t give a shit if you become poor. Americans’ wallets will resonate with this message for the next 60 days. If not, I fear a nail-biter in a year it shouldn’t even be close.

Tibet – A Reflection in the Walls of our Glass House?

The Olympic torch has to be guarded by a special Chinese torch force, against the masses of western protestors. From London to San Fran, the torch has been seen as a symbol of human rights abuse by the Chinese, especially in light of their recent crackdown in Tibet. Many Americans, especially leeeborals, are expressing outrage, and calling for a boycott of the Olympics in Beijing.

Never mind the absurdity of Americans, who elected Bush and Cheney TWICE, having the gall to protest human rights abuses by any government but their own. Never mind our shared responsibility for renditions, torture, and war on a country for its oil. We also pay no attention to history, neither Chinese nor our own, when we express outrage over the Chinese in Tibet – a history much longer, and arguably less bloody and heinous than our own.

Tibet has been, to various degrees, under Chinese rule since about 1200 CE. This is almost 300 years longer than the beginning of the conquest of the Americas by Europeans, and 400 years longer than the planting of the English colonies that became the United States. Have we ever paid attention to any protests about the rights of indigenous people in this country? Some historians consider what happened to Native Americans at the hands of Europeans to be genocide. Even after the establishment of democracy under our constitution, the majority of federal money was spent fighting and killing Indians during the Washington Administration.

And as for our European colonized neighbors, we have been at least as Chinese as the Chinese have been to Tibet. We went to war with Britain in 1812 in large part to snatch big chunks of Canada. And it has only been about 150 years since we took the entire Southwest from Mexico, by means of an unjust war of conquest that we started. What if the world demanded that we give back California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Nevada? Would we agree, or send our own special torch force when we next get an Olympics? I think we know the answer.

The Dalai Lama is getting a hero’s welcome in Seattle this week. The papers are calling him “his Holiness.” (Is the pope pissed, I wonder?) He is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. But again the historical context is missing. The Dalai Lama is fundamentally a Chinese spiritual leader – or at least a Mongol spiritual leader.

The first Dalai Lamas were installed and supported by the Mongolian rulers of China. In and around the year 1400, the preferred Chinese version of Buddhism was installed in Tibet to push out the Indian version (and India’s political and economic influence) that had been there for hundreds of years, and to continue to suppress the original Bon religion. China and Tibet have a shared religious history in the Dalai Lama that goes back for 600 years. In short, the Dalai Lama is a Chinese invention! This context is missing in all the news coverage.

We European-descended Americans have all but wiped out native religion and culture on this continent. There were various treaties and deals, but most were broken. Likewise, there have been various treaties and deals between China and Tibet. Today in our country, the native people experience the deepest poverty, and the shortest life expectancy of any in this richest of nations. And, we still honor the man who doomed the Cherokee to the Trail of Tears on our twenty-dollar bill.

Was this treatment of Native Americans, and Mexico, horrible, ruthless, and even genocidal? Maybe. And have I, as a white, euro-descended dude benefited from the removal of native people? Fuck yes! Realizing this, am a going to give my house back to the descendants of the people the land was taken from?

Fuck no!

And the Chinese aren’t either. And they wonder what the hell our problem is. To them, Tibet is an upstart province that has been part of China for close to a thousand years. Up until the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese had given the Tibetan people much more cultural and religious autonomy than we ever gave the indigenous people of America. The Chinese see us as hypocrites, and they are right.

It is okay to criticize in America. We can criticize the Chinese, who have acted badly in Tibet recently, and at times throughout history – a longer history than we have had in America. But with our recent history, we are really throwing stones in a glass house. NO AMERICAN should utter the phrase “human rights” without the words “we have violated” in front of them. And none of our leaders should say anything about it unless they are on the record as fighting the Bush Administration to preserve human rights here first.

Unlike the Chinese people, we HAVE a democracy, and have had for over 200 years. While freely electing our leaders, we have said okay to native genocide, slavery, segregation, wars of conquest, and now torture. We let, and have let, our leaders do this because we keep electing and REELECTING leaders who do this. We as a people bear a great deal of the responsibility for America’s misdeeds, and generally don’t do shit about it. So maybe we should shut the fuck up about China until we: A. understand the whole story, and B. clean up our own “glass” house.

Then maybe our protest will be taken seriously. Then maybe we will have the moral foundation to stand on as we try to extinguish the Olympic torches.

Letter to Rachel Maddow

Dear Rachel,

I thoroughly enjoy your show. I find you one of the smartest, insightful and well-informed of the liberal commentators on the radio. Having said that, I, an average schlep with two jobs have the audacity to give you some advice:

Calm down.

Who the hell do I think I am? As I said, an average guy, but with an interest in civics. I want you to calm down on your call for immediate marriage between the Hillary and Obama campaigns. I am especially shocked by your claim that a unity ticket would be better than any further campaigning. I’m not sure of that, but I am sure that the only unity ticket available would feature Hillary as the headliner.

Hillary as the nominee is the lifeboat scenario for me – the last desperate move before the whole ship goes down. I think we have time before the party sinks.

As if it was not already obvious, I am an Obama partisan. Not by choice, but by default. Neither he nor Clinton have fought the good fight, the way that Feingold, or Waxman have, or, among candidates, Kucinich or Dodd. But for progressives, a Hillary nomination is worth fighting against a little longer. Even if it increases the risk of a McCain presidency.

A Hillary nomination tells me the Democratic Party is broken beyond repair. It tells me that the party, in a year of opportunity unseen since Nixon’s resignation, will settle for a candidate that is legislatively a moderate Republican. With the exception of health care and choice issues, Hillary votes about with Spectre. Republican Hagel of Nebraska has shown more courage on the war than her.

I’m also not so sure that we could count on a President Clinton II to protect the judiciary. Hillary will triangulate, as she already has in her campaign. One of my biggest fears of a Clinton II presidency is that she will not appoint and fight for liberal justices, to replace the liberals that will be retiring. She will start by appointing “moderates,” and work her way right. The result will not be that much different than a McCain presidency. The liberal voice will be gone either way. You can kiss the restoration of the Constitution goodbye.

Clinton can only win by, well, cheating. She will have to get Michigan and Florida delegates seated. She has said “no further elections or caucuses.” This goes against agreements that she made, and that Obama stuck to. Even if she gets these, she will have to twist arms of super delegates to vote against the people – which if happens will tear the party in half in a year when they should be cleaning up. This is the only strategy she has left, and she is going for it. How terribly self-serving and expectant of her dynastic right of ascension. I have no interest in a dynastic presidency inherited in a “smoke filled room,” even if the new monarch wears the label of my party.

Since two years before my son, who will graduate from high school this year, was born, two families have controlled the Executive branch of government. This is roughly a generation of power held by these two families. The long-term health of American politics will be better served by anyone, even a Republican, who is not a Clinton or a Bush taking office.

The final reason that I don’t want to resolve the stalemate in any way that ends up with Hillary as our nominee, is that I don’t think she can win. She has already praised McCain, and trashed Obama. She has pilloried the progressive, the black, and the young. She has guaranteed a suppressed turnout in the general election, and will always inspire the Conservatives who have an irrational hatred of the name Clinton. She will lose to John McCain.

Obama, on the other hand, can inspire, raise money from across the spectrum, and will turn out the non-white vote. The white women over 50, and white men over 40 who support Hillary may split between McCain and Obama. But Obama will carry the young, African Americans, and I believe the Hispanic vote as well. He will pull in moderates and independents. He will eat McCain’s lunch on the campaign trail, and in any debate that Grandpa John is foolish enough to engage in with Obama. Finally, the voter excitement of an Obama run will have tremendous payoffs for the party downstream, in Congressional and state elections. This payoff is worth fighting for.

Even if it means fighting the Clintons. And, this is what the party should do at this point, fight them. Pressure should be brought to bear on Hillary from all quarters of the party – telling her to drop out. Super delegates should let her know in no uncertain terms that she will not be coronated, and that she cannot win. Explain to her, over and over again, how she could become the matron saint of the Democratic Party, and be owed favors for life, if she were to drop out gracefully now, and with praise for Obama and a call for action for the greater good. That would truly be a storybook moment in an amazing political year – one that may appeal to her ego.

So, calm down.

There are ways the ship can be righted before the convention. And if the party tears itself apart, then maybe that is for the greater good. This is a party that can’t fight against the worst president in our history. Today’s Democrats are only enjoying electoral victories because Republicans are so transparently corrupt, our Vice President soo evil, and our President soooo incredibly stupid. If this is the death knell of the Democratic Party, then it will be because it was time. And at least my son’s generation will have a chance at the type of reforms we need and deserve, with an upstart Green party, or a reformed Democratic party.

Thank you for taking the time to read this far (if indeed you have!). Again, I love the show, and keep fighting the good fight.

First Amendment for Obama?

So, what the fuck happened to the First Amendment in this country?

Or is that a stupid question in the Age of Bush? “It went right along with the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, dumbass!”

I’d just hoped that in the Democratic primary, we could preserve it.

But no. Hillary busted out the Obama in Africa photo, and furthered the right wing rumor that Obama is Muslim. He has had to appear in front of reporters in Ohio and deny his adherence to Islam. He said it was “offensive” to be called Muslim.

Apparently, we have a religious test to become president in this country. Please, show me where in the Constitution it states that the President must not be Muslim. Show me where in the Constitution it says that the President has to even state a religious preference. Or have a religion at all!

Oh, that’s right…BOTH parties have wiped their asses with the Constitution. Democrats have rolled over on the prohibition of torture under the Eighth Amendment. They totally caved on protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans – just this week in fact. AGAIN! In fact, Hillary has tried to ban flag burning, and prohibit the speech of video game designers and manufacturers. She has shown that she has little sympathy for the First Amendment rights of Americans who choose other than Republican-approved speech.

And Republicans? Please, they have been trying to rid us of the Constitution since the Wilson Administration. And McCain’s religious test? He was judged on just how crazy he could go. And he passed! He said he was “proud” to accept the endorsement of the absolutely insane Pastor Hagee, a crazed Texas minister who hates Muslims, gay people, and who wants to nuke Iran to bring about the Rapture.

Is the press asking McCain: “are you sure you are not a crazed, racist, revival-tent preacher who wants to destroy the world?” Fuck no! But Obama must continually explain his religious affiliation, only to have it questioned again.

The sad, sad part is, Americans, including Democrats, have bought into this racist, intolerant framing. We Americans have an image of a Muslim, and it ain’t white. The Clintons, and the McCain campaign are now a team, unwitting or not, to frame Obama as the outsider. The "other." The question that middle-America is supposed to ask, and seems to be asking is:

“You mean, that nigger’s an A-Rab Islamo-facist?”

Hillary’s victories tonight in Ohio and Texas have shown that the ugliest tactics in politics have worked. The “change” we long for can be beaten back by dredging up the long-standing culture of white Christian dominance. By making white Americans fear loss of power or status at the hands of the “other.” The problem for Hillary is that her gambit will fail. Because, at heart, America is a sexist nation too. Since she played the race, security and religion cards, she has shown her hand. McCain can beat that hand. He is whiter (more racist), more Christian (at least, more rabidly, insane fundamentalist Christian), stronger on defense (at least, has pretty much the same Iraq voting record as Hillary), and a man.

And that will be enough, because they are the most institutional members of their respective parties. They each have the most consultants and lobbyists surrounding them. That “change” thing is out the window with a Hillary/McCain race. It will be depressing, boring, will depress turnout, and McCain will edge her by cheating in Florida. And all because we care more about a guy’s non-existant religious affiliation, than his freedom (and consequently our freedom) to belong to any fucking religion he chooses.

Man, I would dearly love to have the Constitution be an issue in this campaign. We know that neither party has fought for it this year. Hopefully, it is merely because they don’t give a shit, not because we Americans no longer give a shit. Hopefully, but not much hope.

The Hillary Bomb

This should be the year for the Democratic Party.

I won’t say it’s the year for “Progressives,” because I don’t find much that is progressive in the Democratic Party establishment. Still, we take it where we can get it.

But, it should be the year – if they don’t fuck it up. And there seems to be nothing this Democratic Party leadership can’t fuck up. Seriously, there is real danger that they will. And that danger is Hillary Clinton.

In the interest of full disclosure, I caucused for Obama. He was not my first, or even second choice, but I far prefer him to Hillary. In fact, I don’t like Hillary at all.

I don’t know her personally, and she may be a hell of a lady. But to me she represents all that has gone wrong with the Democratic Party these last thirty years. I also think she represents the final nail in the Democratic Party’s coffin, and can snatch defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory this fall. She is the bomb, and not in a good way.

A Hillary nomination will be a disaster for the Party in several different ways:

1. She will be the number one fundraiser for the Republicans.
2. She will suppress the Democratic vote.
3. She will only get the nomination by means of an ugly convention fight (and, even if it’s just close, it will seem this way).
4. She is, and has always been, basically, a moderate Republican – which is the last thing we need.

One, Hillary is one of the most divisive figures in American politics. And it’s not totally her fault. The Republican base has an irrational hatred of her. This is an election where the Republican base may well stay home, unless Hillary runs. If she does, they will vote, donate, doorbell and man the phones. Fundamentalist churches will work overtime to beat Hillary, when they would otherwise snooze through a McCain candidacy.

The top one-percenters did well when Bill was in office. Then, they helped smear both him and Hillary to go over the top, and take a chance at getting it all with “W.” They basically have. They don’t want the gravy train to end, and fear that a Democrat will have to ratchet back some of the insane greed that has been legislated. They fear McCain will too, but just a little less than any Dem. They are smart enough to realize that McCain won’t stand a chance in Hell against Obama, and hang onto their cash. But if it’s Hillary, they will see the blood in the water if she swims into the general election, and pour in the bucks to beat her.

Two, Hillary as nominee will keep the liberal wing of the Democratic Party from maintaining its current high energy level. She represents the party insider wing of the Democratic Party. She is the old way of doing things, the antithesis of “change,” the buzz-word that has the base so worked up. And the young voters who have been mobilized for Obama? Forget it. If she is the nominee, they won’t even bother. They will stay home, as will, perhaps, many African American voters, having had the allure of America’s first black president snatched from their grasp. The numbers of voters in the primaries and caucuses have been vastly in favor of the Democrats, Double the Republican voters in many states. This is a huge advantage in the general election IF the excitement and energy stays high. It won’t with Hillary.

Three, it won’t stay high with Hillary because she will have to pull out all the stops to beat Obama. She will have to twist arms and pull strings, and get down in the mud. She will really piss off many people who are excited by Obama, but really don’t like her (like me, and I am not alone). And, if she has to win with Super Delegates, and they go against the pledged delegates chosen by popular vote, it will be like setting a bomb off in the big tent. Many Democratic voters will see this as a back-room betrayal by party insiders, and stomp off in a huff. Conservative Dems who get pissed will cross to McCain, liberal Dems will write in Obama, or not vote, or…can you say Nadar? Even a belated Bloomberg independent run would siphon off many disgruntled Democratic voters.

The thing is, we Democratic voters are petulant. We are sick of the failures of the leadership to fight for us. We see Obama as at least a little break from the DLC establishment that has capitulated to corporate greed and Republican bullying for the last thirty years. If he wins outright, most Hillary supporters will follow him to November. He is not that different from her policy-wise, and there is enough excitement around him to make most forget ol’ what’s-her-name. However, if he is brought down at the convention by the Super Delegates in the proverbial “smoke filled room,” many of his supporters will not forgive. They will take their votes and go home and NOT support Hillary in the general election. They are already saying so on Air America. This will make Hillary vs. McCain a nail-biter, in a year when it shouldn’t even be close!

Four, it will be a nail-biter because there is not much difference between Hillary and McCain. I see Clinton as a moderate Republican. Hillary legislates about where Arlen Spectre is on the Liberal-Conservative scale. Her big legislative initiatives during the last six years? A flag burning bill, and a fight against violent video games. Gee, thanks for stepping up to the crucial issues of the Democratic base there, Hillary!

She is pro-war, pro-eavesdropping (anti-Fourth Amendment), pro-establishment, pro-corporate domination…hell, McCain may be more of a populist than she. At least he was in the old days. True, he has had to sell his soul to Dick Cheney (Satan) to get the nomination, but over his years in the Senate he can show a pedigree for the common man to rival Clinton’s. It will be a moderate Republican against a newly-conservative Republican in the general election. Great job Democratic Party!

And even if she can pull it off, and win the Presidency, she will triangulate! She will cave in on demands for, say, Supreme Court justices. She won’t appoint arch-conservatives, but she won’t fight for the ones we deserve. She will appoint “moderates” to replace the liberals that will be retiring, because she has never fought for the left. She has instead entrenched herself in the center-right. Progressives will quickly lose both hope and interest.

The liberal party supporters deserve better. We might get it with Obama, we won’t with Clinton. I think that the Democratic voters are realizing this. I believe that Obama will have a significant pledged delegate lead going into the convention. However, should Super Delegates tip the scales, or the Florida or Michigan messes spoil an Obama victory, the Democratic party will be torn in half at exactly the wrong time. It will be like a bomb going off in Denver, at the convention. The Hillary bomb.

What I learned in 2007? – No Holds Barred!

I can be taught.

When the highest offices in the land act, I can pay attention and learn. What have I learned in 2007?

Never arrest me for anything.

Seriously, never even consider arresting me for, say…spying on my neighbor. Or, if I get caught, lying about it under oath. Stealing? Please…done all the time by contractors hired by my government. And if I’m not getting what I want through theft or spying, and have to result to torture, I should have carte blanche. Yes, a free hand for crimes, up to and including the crime of treason! After all, what’s good enough for Dick Cheney and Carl Rove, right?

Republicans, under Bush, did all of this shit! They stole, tortured, took bribes, caged votes, violated the Constitution…did I mention torture? They even exposed a covert CIA agent during war time to salve political wounds – that’s treason – and got away with it. So no Republican lawmaker, or Republican-appointed law-interpreter, should ever have a thing to say about anything I do. I mean, torture and treason? I should seriously be able to get a pass on murder, at least!

And as for Democrats? Well, they had the oversight responsibility, and didn’t do shit. They even acted retroactively to make blatant and serious crimes by our current administration legal. Should I find the need to spy on, steal from and torture my neighbor, I expect (as a lifetime Democratic voter) the same courtesy. Not only should they direct the law enforcement agencies of my locale to not arrest me, but pass a law that lets me totally off the hook. It’s the least they can do.

And never let it be said that Democrats didn’t do the least they can do.

So, as the speeches from Iowa ring with “hope,” and promise of “change,” let us not forget the lesson these leaders of America’s liberal party taught us: there is no accountability! No matter how unpopular you are, you will not be made to pay for crimes against people, other nations or our own beloved country and Constitution.

So go hog wild! I expect nothing but pardons for my next neighborhood rampage - from President Clinton, or Edwards or Obama. Their actions should encourage us all to ignore the law with impunity.

Yes, I can be taught – it’s no holds barred for 2008!