Moral Policy

Do As We Say, Not As We (Reportedly, Per the Liberal Media) Do

2005-03-06T15:37:00.000-08:00

This just in: Pot calls kettle black. From the Center for American Progress:

THE TWO-FACED WHITE HOUSE

The State Department released its annual report documenting human rights abuses in countries around the globe. A total of 196 different countries were cited in this year's report; over 70 countries had human rights records described as "poor." (An examination of tactics used by the United States is not included in the annual report.) Some were countries with chronic abuse records, such as North Korea, Syrian and Iran. Others, like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are currently among the White House's key allies. Sadly, this year's report won't carry as much sting or influence as in years past. Many of the tactics countries are being censured for are in use by the Bush White House. That, unfortunately, has drastically undercut the moral authority of the United States to compel autocratic nations to comply with human rights standards. Here's a further look at the findings of the report:

THROWING STONES FROM A GLASS HOUSE: The State Department criticized countries for what it called "torture," including "sleep deprivation for detainees, confining prisoners in contorted positions, stripping and blindfolding them and threatening them with dogs." These are all methods, however, which have been approved "by the Bush administration for use on detainees in U.S. custody." For example, in 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed off on stripping detainees at Guantanamo Bay and using dogs to terrorize them. Much of the legal framework for torture was set up in a series of memos approved by former White House counsel – and current Attorney General – Alberto Gonzales.

THE DIRTY SECRET OF RENDITION: The State Department also harshly criticized Syria and Egypt for their treatment of prisoners. The report failed to address the fact that, to circumvent torture rules, the White House has quietly been shipping suspects off to these countries known for torture. The practice, known as "extraordinary rendition," has become a "principle weapon in the CIA's arsenal" against prisoners. In one highly publicized example, the administration, lacking enough evidence to detain Canadian citizen Maher Arar, shipped him off to Syria. There, he claims he suffered 10 months of prolonged torture. In another case, the U.S. shipped Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib off to Egypt for "questioning." There he claims to have undergone six months of torture. When he finally arrived at Guantanamo Bay, he was missing most of his fingernails. Both men were eventually found to have no connection to terrorists and were released.

IRAQ HAS A LOT TO LEARN: The report cites serious abuses in the U.S.-supported, brand-new government in Iraq. According to the State Department, last year Iraqi police officers and government officials committed serious human rights violations, including rape, murder, extortion, torture and illegal detentions. (Iraq is also currently having problems with freedom of the press: today's Washington Post reports that after a devastating suicide bomb killed hundreds in Iraq yesterday, Iraqi police prohibited journalists from talking to any of the wounded at the hospital and "beat several cameramen" who tried to enter.

RUSSIA'S RECORD ON RIGHTS: Russia under President Vladimir Putin has been sliding closer and closer to a totalitarian state. President Bush had a key opportunity in his meeting with the Russian president last week to hold Putin accountable for his attacks on democracy. He blew it. Putin remained silent on his transgressions, and instead of pushing him to recommit to democratic principles in Russia, Bush merely said the world should trust the Russian leader. The new State Department report shows what happens when you just trust Putin to do the right thing. Specifically, it criticized Putin's government, saying "government pressure continued to weaken freedom of expression in the media, that the killing of civilians in Chechnya continued unabated, and that there are credible reports that law enforcement personnel engaged in torture, violence, and other brutal or humiliating treatment, often with impunity." It also faulted Russia for "its restriction of news media, and its allowing of political pressure to taint the judiciary."

KEY ALLIES AT FAULT: Many other countries the U.S. counts among its friends were guilty of crimes against human rights, according to the State Department's report. The White House has long turned a blind eye to abuses in Saudi Arabia; the report charges abuses in the country today "far exceed the advances." Saudi Arabia is charged with "a lack of legal rights, violence against women and children and discrimination against religious minorities" as well as "torture," including sleep deprivation and whippings. Libya, which recently enjoyed resumed diplomatic contact with the U.S., is charged with chaining prisoners to walls while threatening to attack them with dogs. (According to the Washington Post, the Libyan "menu of torture" also included electric shock and finger-breaking.)

Bush's Fiscal Deceptions

2005-02-11T08:45:00.000-08:00

Nice piece here on Marketplace by tax expert Len Burman on the foolishness of Bush's budget. The gist: rather than have the federal government grant vouchers ("irresponsible growth in discretionary spending") to fund federal programs, Bush instead provides the same service with tax deductions ("tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts"). Either way, the fiscal impact is the same--a drain on the government's coffers, and a bigger budget deficit. But this way Bush gets to say he's cutting taxes out of his undying love for everyday Americans, rather than wantonly increasing discretionary spending like those spendthrift liberals.

Although the fiscal impact is the same either way, from an oversight standpoint the two approaches are very different--the program shifts from being administered by the appropriate agency (in this example, Health & Human Services) and subject to Congressional oversight, to being overseen by the IRS, which has no experience administering health programs.

SBC Wins Bidding War Against Itself

2005-01-31T14:28:00.000-08:00

Nice to see SBC doing what it can to make any boycott dilemma moot. $16 billion for gasping dinosaur AT&T? What some CEOs will pay for the ego gratification of an expanded corporate organization.

What's next? $20 billion for the Pony Express?

"Journalists" Who Are Paid Off By Politicians

2005-01-29T17:10:00.000-08:00

Gee. Maybe someone will report that the people at FOX News are paid by Republican interests, too.

If Truth, Honesty, And Accuracy Mattered

2005-01-27T07:09:00.000-08:00

See the link.

This Is How It Works

2005-01-26T21:07:00.000-08:00

If you give me a credit card with no limit and no obligation to pay off the debt, then I am the Republican Party. Of course, if you do this, you are an idiot. There are almost 60 million of these idiots who voted in 2004. The expiration date, sadly, did not apply.

(Note: I do not know where this image came from; if you do, please let me know so I can give appropriate credit.)

RepubliCard (author unknown)

The Esteemed Senator Boxer

2005-01-21T07:53:00.000-08:00

Barbara Boxer is rapidly becoming one of my political heroes, alongside Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, Jon Corzine (a native of East Central Illinois and U of I grad, no less!) and soon-to-be-governor Eliot Spitzer.

Boxer Is Loudest Voice of Opposition to Rice Nomination
By CARL HULSE, New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - While some Democrats are still struggling to find their voices after November's election losses, Senator Barbara Boxer of California is not among them.

Her full-throated and combative questioning of Condoleezza Rice during two days of hearings on her nomination to be secretary of state was a vivid illustration of the aggressive posture that Ms. Boxer, a 64-year-old liberal from Marin County, near San Francisco, brought back to Washington after rolling up a big margin of victory in her re-election to a third term.

(Full article)

Nobody Was Tough On Condoleezza Rice

2005-01-20T09:43:00.000-08:00

I have read numerous news articles that used words like "tough" to describe how Condoleezza Rice was treated during her Secretary of State confirmation hearings.

Let me get some terminology in place.

Horrible is being killed in war.

Tough is having to deal with a disability, such as those caused in a war. Missing a couple of limbs is very tough.

A day at the office is dealing with questions at a hearing which won't do anything in terms of whether or not you get the job.

No, if Senators were really being tough on Condoleezza Rice, the whole hearing would have had slide shows of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, visuals of troops and Iraqis who have been killed or maimed, a reminder that 9/11/2001 was on Ms. Rice's boss's watch, an explanation of why this all adds up to gross incompetence, and a not-so-polite statement that people who are grossly incompetent don't get the job.

That would still be easier than dealing with a disability caused by a war.

Boycott, But Wisely!

2005-01-20T07:44:00.000-08:00

No need to recopy my thoughts on the half-baked Inauguration Day retail boycott--just read my blog post here.

I've been soda-less all week, and my monthly gas tank fillup of the other night found me bypassing Marathon in favor of Clark. And no long-distance calls to line the pockets of SBC, either.

Senator Kennedy Is Incorrect

2005-01-17T16:21:00.000-08:00

Ted Kennedy asserted in an interview with the Washington Post that Iraq "is clearly George Bush's Vietnam."

No, it's not so clear. With Vietnam, we're talking about a country and a people from that country, so we can, to a reasonable extent, put parameters around that war.

With Iraq, we're talking about the people of Iraq, other countries with high Muslim populations, and scattered groups around the world who take offense at the invasion.

Oh, it's like Vietnam in that the best Bush can do is claim victory that does not exist and then sugar it over through his propagandists that everything went swimmingly well, all things considered. And a lot of people will buy into that, hook, line, and sinker. But given that his enemies are spread out world wide, it is hard to set parameters on where to find them and how to address them.

And there is no Vietnam equivalent to Osama bin Laden who wasn't even working with Saddam, but was responsible in creating the 9/11 disaster.

The war in Vietnam's shelf life will be nothing compared to this.

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's Five Stages of Grief

2005-01-16T05:44:00.000-08:00

I have always thought that, when it came to dealing with the war in (on?) Iraq, there were three types of Americans.

1. People who understood that Iraq was not a threat to us;
2. People who bought the Bush administration's malarkey, but who, as time passed, would come to understand that all it was was malarkey;
3. People who aren't bright enough to understand that Rush Limbaugh is a propagandist.

Group 3 will never take a dim view of the Bush administration. It is sad, but that's probably how it is. Group 1 has long been outraged, but out of power. Group 2 could make all the difference, but where is that group right now in the court of public opinion?

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross wrote of the "five stages of grief" that one may go through when a loved one dies. They form the acronym DABDA and read:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

The key here is for Group 2 to go from Denial to Anger. Some heads need to roll, and let's be honest--a Republican Congress is not going to investigate transgressions of a Republican President and his cronies. (I think it safe to say that our current leadership, in the executive and legislative branches in particular, has the ethics and morals of... Hmmm, it's hard to find a good comparison.)

So what will it take for people in Group 2 to get downright angry at the current leadership? Will it ever happen? I don't think that most Americans understand the worldwide damage done by this war; I don't think they ever will. I think they treat American body counts as a minor issue and Iraqi body counts as a trivial abstraction.

Then the really scary question: How many people are in Group 3? If the percentage is near or over 50%, this country is in serious trouble. My assumption has been that none of Groups 1, 2, and 3 constitutes a voting majority...

Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo) Rocks

2004-12-26T16:26:00.000-08:00

"This land is your land.
This land is my land.
From California.
To the New York Island.
This land is red land.
Paid for by blue land.
This land is paid for you by me....

"We pay for farming.
We pay for mining.
We get back nothing.
But we're not whining.
They elect the president.
We get to pay the bills.
This land was paid for you by me."

When A Lead Is Not A Lead

2004-12-24T22:53:00.000-08:00

In Washington state, Christine Gregoire now leads Dino Rossi. Or so the media would convey it to you.

What I'd like to know is how she was ever behind. Isn't it the case that when all the votes are in, the outcome is determined, and the order in which the results are presented should be irrelevant? Trouble is, we have a media which treats elections like football games.

The difference is subtle, but it definitely frames how people think about elections. Let's face it--as it stands, Republicans will cry that they were robbed. Were they? Who would be robbed if the votes were not properly counted? And don't get me started on the will of the voters; Florida Jews for Buchanan from Y2K is still a farce.

Is it just me, or does it seem like it is always Republicans who are trying to stop votes from being counted?

And is it just me, or is something really screwed up when we cannot get this right the first time? We can complain about Diebold machines all we want, but how hard is it really to put together voting kiosks that print receipts of votes so that the user can verify the transaction and then hand in the paper trail to the election officials? You'd have it all online and offline. You could do a bunch of random integrity checks to make sure nobody is cheating. Why is it so hard for this country to get a simple election done properly?

And, again, is it just me, or does anyone else find it comical that the US can go into other countries as an observer of their elections? Exactly what expertise do we really have, given today's technology, to show others how it is done right the first time?

Help The Poor? Humbug!

2004-12-22T06:44:00.000-08:00

If you happen to run into any conservatives over the holidays who profess to be Christians, you might politely ask them what ever happened to the biblical imperative to minister to the poor. Framing it as nicely as possible, of course.

U.S. CUTTING FOOD AID AIMED AT SELF-SUFFICIENCY
By Elizabeth Becker, New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - In one of the first signs of the effects of the ever tightening federal budget, in the past two months the Bush administration has reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.

With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, the administration has told representatives of several charities that it was unable to honor some earlier promises and would have money to pay for food only in emergency crises like that in Darfur, in western Sudan. The cutbacks, estimated by some charities at up to $100 million, come at a time when the number of hungry in the world is rising for the first time in years and all food programs are being stretched.

As a result, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services and other charities have suspended or eliminated programs that were intended to help the poor feed themselves through improvements in farming, education and health.

"We have between five and seven million people who have been affected by these cuts," said Lisa Kuennen, a food aid expert at Catholic Relief Services. "We had approval for all of these programs, often a year in advance. We hired staff, signed agreements with governments and with local partners, and now we have had to delay everything."

(Full article)

People Don't Know What the ACLU Does

2004-12-21T01:52:00.000-08:00

Here is what the ACLU does:

ACLU link.

Yet my wingnut friend (who, honest to God, is just fine in person) says, "I thought the ACLU only attacked schools that had manger scenes."

I'm a public school teacher, yet I must confess that my friend is a shining example of the failure of the American public school system. If you want to argue that the public school system works well, I present Exhibit A to refute your claim. You can argue that most public schools are effective, but then I merely point to the POTUS and his All Children Left Behind "policy."

In any case, since we are stuck with incorrect beliefs about the ACLU, a question arises. In short, how can its image be recreated such that it is viewed as the beacon of freedom that it is? It seems to me that it will take a lot of time--a generation, perhaps--to get this done. Where to start?

Economics Frame

2004-12-07T01:39:00.000-08:00

http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3446249

How is it that the Republicans can get a free pass on their stewardship (or lack thereof) of the economy? What is it that is in the minds of voters that lets them believe that the Republicans are remotely competent in terms of running a country like a business?

Is it possible that since the Republicans have laid claim to being "pro-business" that they get to lay false claim to competence by mere association?

Framing Versus Message Crafting

2004-11-30T15:44:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4170

For example, the Tax Fairness Act of 2005 as suggested by Atrios would be an example of message crafting. The underlying frame would be the notion of "fairness" which is probably dicey, but may well work on this topic. The "Baby Tax" would be another example of crafting a message, but it would work on the notion of "fairness" and appeal to emotional frames as regards babies.

Now Under Attack: Social Security

2004-11-29T10:17:00.000-08:00

Let's see...bigger budget deficits, less money going into the Social Security trust fund that benefits average Americans, higher payroll taxes on workers, decreased benefits to current retirees. And, of course, a huge windfall for Wall Street. Yes, Bush's priorities become even more obvious.

Social Security Schemes
Center for American Progress
November 29, 2004

Conservatives and their Wall St. investment backers opposed the creation of Social Security in 1935 and they've been trying to take over it ever since. Seventy years later, the fruit of these efforts can be clearly seen in the Bush administration's current attempts to privatize Social Security. Conservatives have created an elaborate budgetary shell game to hide the true costs of privatization: a $2 trillion hole that will be financed by saddling younger generations with more debt, increased payroll taxes, and decreased benefits to current retirees.

+ There is no Social Security financing crisis. There is a dirty little secret in Washington that the Bush administration doesn't want you to know about: Social Security is in pretty good shape. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, without any changes at all, the Social Security program can pay all benefits through at least 2052.

+ President Bush's tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of earners could more than compensate for any Social Security shortfalls over the next 75 years. Over the next 75 years, the total shortfall for Social Security amounts to just 0.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Meanwhile, over that same period, President Bush's tax cuts just for the top one percent of earners (a group of people whose average income exceeds $1 million) will cost 0.6 percent of GDP. All of Bush's tax cuts will cost 2 percent of GDP over the next 75 years – or five times the projected 75-year Social Security shortfall. The current system could be made solvent for the indefinite future with adjustments in the tax code far more modest than those approved by Ronald Reagan in 1983 to protect Social Security.

+ Investment bankers are the only ones guaranteed to come out ahead under the administration's privatization scheme. Any potential increases in yields from private accounts will almost certainly be wiped out by the rising debt burden heaped on the young from the financing of the transition to a system of individual accounts, which could cost as much as $2 trillion in the first ten years. In the meantime, payroll taxes will have to increase and benefits will have to be cut in order to shift the money into the private sector. And regardless of whether these private accounts perform well or poorly over time, investment banking firms will reap billions of dollars in new fees and service charges as could insurance companies.

Talking Points wallet card
NY Times article

R. I. P.: Irony

2004-11-27T07:51:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15404-2004Nov26.html

George Lakoff, "The Progressive Morality"

2004-11-24T11:06:00.000-08:00

Strong article from Lakoff here. Check out some of the conservative arguments in favor of the strict-father/Bush model:

- We need a strong president who knows right from wrong to defend the nation.

- Social programs are immoral because they give people things they haven't earned and so make them undisciplined – both dependent and less able to function morally.

- The prosperous people are the good people. Those who are not prosperous deserve their poverty. Taxes take away the rightful rewards of the prosperous.

- Wrongdoers should be punished severely.

- Government should get out of the way of disciplined (hence good) people seeking their self-interest.

- The president is to be obeyed; since he knows right from wrong, his authority is legitimate and not to be questioned. In foreign policy, he is also the absolute moral authority and so needs no advice from lesser countries.

- Strict-father marriage cannot be gay; it must be between a man and a woman.

- For a wife to seek an abortion on her own or a daughter to need one is an affront to strict-father control over the behavior of the women in his family.

So, how do we reframe each of these to point out the wisdom of the progressive ideal?

Democratic Party strategizing

2004-11-21T18:08:00.000-08:00

This was a really interesting read:

http://dailykos.com/story/2004/11/21/15564/896

It does lead one to wonder why it is (relatively speaking) easy for Republicans to see the value in a top-down everyone-follow-the-rulebook plan whereas the author seems to feel that the Democrats cannot feel that way. It seems to me that is a belief, and it is not clear to me that it needs to persist.

A question is how does one present a methodology that can be carried out at all levels that Democrats all over the country will do unhesistatingly? If there is an issue with the current global mindset (is there such a thing?) of the Democrats, then what needs to be done to alter that mindset?

Abortion Rights

2004-11-20T23:11:00.000-08:00

It appears that the GOP is trying to push through forms of anti-abortion legislation by sneaking it onto bills. A recent example is an attempt that would permit hospitals to deny women counseling on abortion. This got me to thinking three things.

1. If it is OK to permit hospitals to deny women such counseling, shouldn't that position be approved through public discourse, rather than sneaking it in on a bill? Doesn't it speak volumes about the will of the American people that the GOP feels it cannot make its case based on merit?

2. How many other things is the GOP pushing on us that are going unnoticed?

And then there is political future:

3. What would happen if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade?

I would think that the backlash would be deafening. I think that at some point, we are going to hit a critical mass of people who knew people who came home in body bags from Iraq such that those who supported the war are going to be revisiting their position in a very serious way. In a similar way, I think that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, we would hit a critical mass of people who knew women who went through some form of hell because abortion were not an option.

More to the point, I don't think the GOP can afford that to happen if it wants to remain politically viable. I think that there is a very good chance that two things would happen. First, a lot of people who have been spending their time fighting Roe v. Wade would have a lot of time on their hands and get complacent. Name a form of competition where that does not happen. Second, a lot of people who have enjoyed the rights afforded by Roe v. Wade will get really pissed and politically active.

To quote a song from the musical, "Tick Tick BOOM", "Why does it take catastrophe to start a revolution?" Hopefully, it won't take a catastrophe. Hopefully, the GOP will see that it needs Roe v. Wade in place to remain in power. Hopefully, the Democrats will get their sorry act together and fight like hell to keep Roe v. Wade in place. Hopefully.

A Frame Ingrained...

2004-11-15T14:34:00.000-08:00

...is plainly all in vain.

Here is a recent email back-and-forth between a friend of mine--I'll call him Ben to protect his identity--and me. Ben is a great guy, but it is very hard to discuss foreign policy with him. He has three members of family in Iraq now, so it is not hard to imagine that, from his point of view, the war *must* make sense. Still, I thought it was worth reproducing the discussion here because of how hard it can be to get someone to attend to facts when those facts are not what they want to be reading/seeing/hearing.

First, I sent this to a bunch of former colleagues; the usual feathers were ruffled and I got a reply from someone I shall call "Ben" to keep the identity protected.

--- begin email discussion ---

Me:

Folks--

Well, one has to decide whether to give up the fight or keep on keeping on. Since I am tired of opinion and falsehoods trumping facts and truths, I'm going to keep on pointing out facts and truths as best I can for as long as I can and hope that people actually care about their country.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20041114/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_scene_dc

Let's remember that one man's "Den of Thieves" is another man's city the size of Cincinnati.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

Wow. In 2003, Virginia got back $1.58 on each dollar it sent to the feds. California got back $0.78.

I guess that you have to be intellectually superior to move to Virginia from California, so why dignify the facts with opinions? Not only do you get to call California socialist, but you get to take their tax dollars and make them yours. Exactly where are the welfare queens and socialists in this picture?

This not a one-time thing, either. While 2003 represents a peak on Virginia draining the federal tax base, it has been on the receiving end for ten consecutive years. California has been giving for ten consecutive years. In fact California has been in a steady decline in terms of money returned to it by the federal government.

The next time someone wants to tout the glory of capitalism and the pitfalls of socialism, it can be illuminating to see what state they live in.

Why does Mississippi need $1.83 back on every dollar it puts into federal taxes? That might be a really good question to answer. And why is it that the biggest feeders on the system are almost uniformly red states and the biggest donors are almost uniformly blue states?

Capitalism, my ass. Politics is more like it.

---

Ben:

And how sure are we that Reuters has remained neutral in the news over the past 10 years??? And are we sure there the situation is the same thru all of that city, when this reporter was just in one place??

---

Me:

> And how sure are we that Reuters has remained neutral in the news over the
> past 10 years???

Facts are facts. Reuters could be the most biased, corrupt, evil, nasty bunch of people on the planet. But that would not change facts. I mean, you are a warmonger, but not everything you say is stuff that is spun by the GOP. Since you often cite stuff that is spun by the GOP, should I assume that all things you say are therefore tainted?

Do facts not count if we merely do not like them? Do they bounce off us because we are no longer able to be receptive to them because of our biases?

> And are we sure there the situation is the same thru all of that city, when
> this reporter was just in one place??

How do you know that the reporter was just in one place? For that matter, how do you know that the reporter was even on site? I have read more than a few articles that have described how problematic it is to leave the Green Zone. How do we know that the reporter was even present as opposed to receiving photos and quotes from, say, native Iraqis?

I think we have enough news accounts to suggest that maybe life in Fallujah would be pretty FUBAR at the moment. Do you want to suggest it is peaches and cream anywhere in Fallujah? I'm open to facts to that end.

Present evidence, Ben. As I said before, I want facts, not opinions. Particularly opinions that are formed without facts.

Show me that the reports are inaccurate. Show me that the problems described there do not apply also to places such as Mosul (police stations burned down while the army attended to Fallujah) or Baqubah or Samarra or Baiji or Tuz or myriad other places.

(It has gotten bad when I find myself getting more familiar with Iraqi geography than I am with Illinois geography.)

What about the picture of the little kid who was shot up? Was that a Hollywood production? How do we know it is not all fabricated? Maybe it's all straight out of Orwell's 1984.

---

Ben:

Facts are ok, But the press needs to give the facts from more than ones mans opinion, O am not a warmonger, I am a defender of freedom,

---

Me:

Facts are "ok?"

Facts come from someone's opinion?

I'd like to do you the courtesy of having an actual discussion on the merits of the war, but it is clear this is impossible. Any kind of serious thinking must be based on facts.

As for finding more than one reporter's take, go to http://news.google.com. There, you can get thousands of matches for the conflict in Fallujah. Since you seem to like short and sweet, those reporters who quote the DoD or Rumsfeld or Bush often make things look lovely. Those reporters who are working independently of the DoD (like a free press is supposed to do, methinks) are talking about inability to get humanitarian aid to Fallujah and problems all over Iraq in terms of violence.

Last, and I am serious about this, whose freedom do you claim to be defending? And exactly how do you claim to be defending it?

---

Ben:

I am defending our Countries freedom by supporting our president and our troops.

---

Ben:

To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing and be nothing. - Elbert Hubbard

--- end email discussion (as of now) ---

How do I respond to that? To Ben, his last line is completely serious. To me, it is a parody.

It is clear that Ben equates defending freedom with supporting the President (though I do wonder whether that would be true if the President were a Democrat) and the troops. I am unclear on what "supporting the troops" means to Ben.

Missing from this discussion is that I have read a load of GOP-spun tripe from Ben in prior emails, so I have a pretty fair idea of his way of "fact-finding." This is why I came out with both barrels firing; this is perhaps a mistake on my part.

So, if this were you, how would you try to communicate with Ben? Is there any way to produce a frame through which he might try to see things differently, or is he past the point of absorbing new evidence which conflicts with his beliefs?

And, in a sickening thought, does it take a family member coming home from Iraq in a body bag to get someone to see the war in a new light? Would it even matter? Here's hoping that Ben never has to deal with it...

Red States and Blue States

2004-11-15T06:34:00.000-08:00

Ron Grossman had a very interesting article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune that explored the roots of political tensions between rural and urban areas. The Socrates anecdote was particularly emblematic of the urbanist mindset.

The Shifting World of Red and Blue

(I saved this story to my personal storage to get around the Tribune's site registration. The story is copyrighted by the Tribune, which retains all of the usual rights.)

Do Petitions Matter?

2004-11-12T06:35:00.000-08:00

A petition came through my emailbox yesterday. It was in regards to W. David Hager, Bush's appointee to head the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The petition was to be sent to President Bush, requesting that he reconsider this choice. Since I concurred that Dr. Hager was an inappropriate choice for the position, I sent it along, both to President Bush's email address and to various friends whom I also thought would want to put their names on it.

One friend replied by saying not to bother as Dr. Hager had been on the committee since 2002. I very much doubt that President Bush cares one iota about an email petition. However, I have been trained since my youth to think that speaking out, even if in the form of a petition, is an important part of the democratic process.

Given how polarized things have become in this country, it makes me wonder whether this seemingly naive belief holds much value. At the end of the day, it seems to me that being passive is definitely not the correct way to go. Protestors do not seem to be as effective now as they did 30+ years ago. There is a combination of anger, frustration, and helplessness right now that makes one wonder what options there are, if any.

Is the United States condemned to being a theocracy with the kind of draconian rule that its founders tried to escape?

A Unified Message

2004-11-11T09:02:00.000-08:00

Arianna Huffington deftly refutes the notion that "moral values" won Bush the election in this column. Interesting to note that Bush gained ground in big cities, while losing ground in smaller ones, while Kerry slipped in big cities versus Gore and gained in the smaller ones.

Her call to arms for a unified Democratic Party message is a welcomed one. I think "E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one." has a nice ring to it. Familiar yet inspiring. And considering that it appears on all U.S. coinage (though not on paper money--why is that?), even the mammon-wallowing conservatives might like it.

Welfare Queen Red States

2004-11-09T17:59:00.000-08:00

I screwed up. There is a more recent version of the state give and receive tax table from The Tax Foundation.

In 2003, California only got back $0.78 on the dollar it put into the country; Virginia got back $1.58.

My friend who shall remain nameless in Virginia would do well to explain why the capitalistic nature of the welfare queen state Virginia is much, MUCH less productive than those damned socialists in California.

And then there is Alaska. Alaska gets $1.89 back on the dollar. What's more, they give tax rebates to their citizens annually. Since when should, say, Illinois which gets $0.73 and New Jersey which gets *shudder* $0.57 back subsidize that? I mean, there may be legitimate reasons for it, but it would be good to know what they are.

To be fair, Mississippi's take has dropped from $1.84 on the dollar to $1.83 from 2002 to 2003, so they are clearly righting the ship. Still, what exactly is the New York taxpayer getting in return for the 20 cents out of each dollar that is not being returned to New York? I mean, it isn't as if New York is in need of any massive reconstruction projects, is it?

Who is the Bush Voter?

2004-11-08T06:44:00.000-08:00

Bearing in mind the questionable reliability of polls in general and exit polls in particular ("Uh, why are you asking, ominous-looking stranger?"), here is some very interesting exit poll data which cuts a rather sharp profile of the typical Bush voter. (Percentages in parenthesis are for the electorate as a whole.)

1. 88% Are white (77%)
2. 88% Consider the war in Iraq part of the war on terrorism (55%)
3. 85% Think the country is safer from terrorism than it was four years ago (54%)
4. 78% Think things are going very or somewhat well for the U.S. in Iraq (44%)
5. 62% Think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases (42%)
6. 57% Are very concerned about the availability and cost of health care (70%)
7. 54% Strongly approve of the U.S. decision to go to war with Iraq (29%)
8. 51% Live in a gun-owning household (41%)
9. 51% Do not believe there should be legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples (37%)
10. 50% Attend religious services at least once a week (42%)
11. 2% Are gay, lesbian or bisexual (4%)

(Source: National Election Pool Survey conducted by Edison Media Research/Mitofsky Intl.)

With the strong sentiment expressed in items 2-4, I can't see how you could possible persuade a Bush voter otherwise. I mean, how do you re-frame objective facts in order to overcome biased, ideology-based preconceptions?

The combination of items 9 and 11 is also particularly interesting. Clearly, conservative "morality" requires your personal beliefs to be imposed on others, even if they do not directly effect you personally.

And regarding item 5, I would have love to have seen the responses to the question "Have you ever personally, as prospective mother or father of an unborn fetus, directly faced the decision to terminate a pregnancy?" Nothing galls me quite like the sight of gray-haired older men at a pro-life rally.

Why is California in debt?

2004-11-07T14:55:00.000-08:00

Think about this. If the 2002 numbers on California are right, then if the federal government merely returned $1 to California for every $1 its citizens put in to the federal tax system, it could eradicate its state debt and deficit in a few short years. Think about it.

Using Census Bureau data, we can conservatively say that there are at least 15,000,000 people employed in California. (This is a gross underestimate.) Using a really boring understanding of the world, we can pretend that they only pay $1000 per year per person in taxes. (This is another really gross underestimate.) That comes out to $15 billion. (It would be a lot more than $15 billion. But let us be ultra-conservative in our estimates.)

Given that California gets back roughly $0.81 on the dollar in federal taxes, that means it would add roughly $3 billion to its coffers if it got all of that dollar back. One year of that, and people will start praising Governor Schwarzenegger for his genius. Two years of that and the state would have a huge surplus and all this talk of California being incompetent with its economics would cease. Schwarzenegger would probably be the next President of the United States.

This is easy math, and it makes one wonder why California has to put up with all those socialist, red state, welfare queens.

[Note: This article was fixed after someone pointed out a typo in one of the numbers. My apologies; it is fixed now.]

Birth of a blog (let's visit taxes)

2004-11-06T01:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxingspendingupdate.html

I present this link as an initial talking point. It was inspired by Atrios who pointed out that there are real problems with redistributing federal tax dollars in the manner discussed below.

I posted the below information over at DailyKos but it was buried in comments which is not The Idea.

---

Think about it. Do you like the term "welfare queen?" I don't think anyone does. How do you think that the people of the US will react when it sees that the biggest welfare queen states are as of 2002, the last year for which the Tax Foundation seems to have had data to do such a report:

1. North Dakota ($2.03 returned on every dollar put in)
2. New Mexico ($1.89)
3. Mississippi ($1.84)
4. Alaska ($1.82)
5. West Virginia ($1.74)
6. Montana ($1.64)
7. Alabama ($1.61)
8. South Dakota ($1.59)
9. Arkansas ($1.53)
10. Hawaii ($1.52)
11. Virginia ($1.47)
...
41. California ($0.81)
...
45. Illinois ($0.77)

I included Virginia because a friend of mine moved there from California and likes to yammer about how California is a demonstration of how socialism fails and how great it is to be in Virginia. I have no grudge against Virginia, but maybe my friend would like to stop the socialist practice of taking money from California.

I included Illinois because it is where I grew up, and it appears that Illinois is getting the shaft.

DC, which is not a state, gets $6.17 back on every dollar it puts in. It is peculiar in a lot of ways. You could argue that it is a blue state, but it would be an extremely tiny blue state. I wonder how the numbers will change if the Expos move there.

You have to get to #10 before you find a real blue state. It's not even a large blue state. And this is according to the Tax Foundation, hardly a bastion of liberalism. In fact, if you look at their chart on this, you will find that, with the exception of Nevada (which has a pretty good revenue stream from gambling) and Colorado at #43, the states at the bottom of the list are all blue.

We have entered a battle of frames, as they are called by George Lakoff or contexts as they are called by Frank Luntz. The notion of State Welfare Queen is a way of framing what may or may not be a problem in a manner that I would think could attract a lot of attention.

I offer it up to the Democrats who, I hope, will start using it.