And while we're at it...

Andrew Kohut, who runs polling at Pew, had an interesting piece in last week's NYT about popular opinion and the Schiavo case. Here's the link:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=2840&content_type_id=18&issue_name=Public%20opinion%20and%20polls&issue=11&page=18&name=

Latest Polling Data from Pew on Congress, Social Security, etc.

Check out the new polling data coming out of Pew. Of particular note is that Americans are really unhappy with Republican Congressional leadership. Rather than giving Dem leaders a bounce, however, their approval ratings have plummeted even further. This link takes you to a summary page, which in turn will link you to the full report.

The Pew Charitable Trusts: Informing the Public: Public opinion and polls

All Schiavo, All the Time

There's a fantastic discussion going on in the comments to Tom's living will post below. Vandergirl gets the best of this one. The Constitution establishes limits on the powers of federal courts in Article III, Section 2. The Constitution establishes limits on the power of Congress to enact laws in Article I, Section 8. I don't see any provision of Article I, Section 8 that permits the interpretation of the Schiavo legislation -- that it directed the federal courts to act in a certain way -- being advanced by purported conservatives and a few disability rights advocates.

Smart People Talk About the Schiavo Case

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in the Schiavo case is extremely well-reasoned. Check it out. It's a nice surprise to see a court actually doing its best to follow the law and bedrock rules of procedure, rather than manipulating the law and the rules to reach a certain result. The Supreme Court can always screw things up (this would be unheard of, of course).

You should really also read Dahlia Lithwick. Because she's just right.

Note to Self: Time to Write a Living Will

I have a cynical outlook and a rather high tolerance for idiocy in politics. But I get nauseous when I read about the absurd Republican-orchestrated circus act that congress is performing in order to justify the torture of Terri Schiavo and her husband. After I get nauseous, I get very angry. Egged-on by utterly misguided family members--thank goodness they are not my relatives!--Republicans are once more following the model of Abu Ghraib: use other's lives to further your ideology, regardless of their interests.

Whatever else you get from this awful charade of "caring," get the motivation to write a clear living will and give it to everyone you know. If you consult doctors and hospice workers, they will tell you that having a feeding tube is one of the so-called "heroic measures" that you should explicitly state you do not want. Otherwise, you may get Congress's version of compasion. And for my part, I would rather die.

Taking Back America: On Democrats and Safe Seats

I posted a version of this on MyDD and Daily Kos, and based on feedback I got decided it's generally applicable enough that it can go here, too (full disclosure: the versions on those sites are blatant pitches for support).

As you know, David's running for office in Virginia. Here in the Commonwealth, just like nationally, Republicans approach their safe seats strategically. They nominate and elect young conservatives who build relationships, gain experience, and establish a record and a war chest for subsequent runs for higher office. Republicans use their safe seats as platforms - for moving the state rightward, to establish legitimacy, over time, for ideas that take some selling, to generate money, organization, and support for less-safe legislators, and most of all, to build a farm team.

Democrats approach our safe seats, well...less strategically. We reward loyalty and nominate and elect people who've waited their turn. We nominate and elect people who convince us best that they can "work with the Republicans" - without ever giving any real indication of how that might happen. One of David's opponents said, in a public forum, that she would accomplish it in part by taking each and every one of the Delegates to lunch. Funny, I wonder what it is on the Chili's menu that she thinks will turn the right-wing legislators, who this year voted against birth control and seriously considered making it mandatory to report miscarriages to the police, into reasonable people open to reasonable policies. I can't wait to hear which burger does that. I'd suggest she do the research first, then run for office.

In the meantime, there are at least two safe Democratic Virginia House seats that are open this year - the 57th District (Charlottesville), the seat from which strong progressive leader Mitch Van Yahres is stepping down, and the 45th, the seat from which long time progressive Marian Van Landingham is stepping down.

David's running in the 45th, and in this district, Democrats have a choice. We can act like Democrats in safe seats and dutifully elect someone who's going to be a safe Democratic vote, someone who's been waiting his or her turn, someone who tries to convince us that the key qualification is willingness to try to get to know the Republicans in Richmond better. Or, we can learn from our Republican counterparts' successes in dramatically shifting the agenda in this state (not to mention, nationally). We can elect a young, true, and strong progressive leader who understands that, while legislating is ultimately about compromise, and that until the ratio changes we're going to continue to be disappointed in what comes out of the VA House, we must never start from a position of compromise.

We must start out fighting for what we really want, even while we know what we'll ultimately get will be a compromise. Republicans start out at what they want and compromise when they have to. Democrats start out with what we hope we can get and then compromise some more. It's no great mystery how politics has shifted increasingly to the right - Republicans have systematically pulled it there, and Democrats, by and large, have walked along behind them.

Democrats in safe seats can and do have a huge impact on the future of the party, and whether we'll ever be a governing majority again. We have twenty years of Republican history to learn from, and it's about time we start applying those lessons. Safe seats aren't for moderates, they're not for compromise, and they're not for rewarding party hacks. Safe seats are tools for change.

When he announced his retirement from the 57th, Delegate Van Yahres called on Democrats to break form and elect some new blood:

"Since 2000 the level of petty partisanship in the House of Delegates has increased to almost intolerable levels. Democrats spend all our time trying to defeat the increasing number of bills that attempt to take away people's rights; whether these efforts are directed at women, non-Christians, gays, immigrants, or anyone else that the majority party doesn't like. The General Assembly used to be about protecting rights and helping those who can't help themselves. Now it's about a narrow conservative political ideology and getting re-elected....

In order for this to change we need more energetic young members. So I have decided to step down to let a new generation of Democratic leadership take over."

Amen, Mitch. You'll be very much missed, but let's see if Democrats in the 45th, the 57th, and in every other open safe seat take your sage advice.

Administration declares War on Truth... Again

The headline reads, Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos. But what could that mean? Is it that the administration thinks it's OK to present its view to the public in pretend news stories disguised as actual reporting? Yes, that's what it means.

The White House "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda'," reports the Washington Post. You mean, the law against covert propaganda does not apply to "covert" "propaganda"? They follow it up by arguing that they can set their own rules, and so the GAO--i.e., Congress--has no authority to tell them how to interpret the law.

(And these are the people who mocked Clinton about the meaning of the word 'is'? Ah, but those were the days before misunderestimation was so common.)

The Washington Post and the New York Times are both editorializing on this matter today. The message is simple: This administration will do whatever it takes to push its agenda, with utter disregard for the truth. I've said it once and I'll say it again, we must insist on the value of truth. If you're not sure why, read my friend Michael Lynch's book, True to Life: Why Truth Matters.

Once you know that there are some false news stories out there, the credibility of all news is damaged--and thereby the hope for any accurate information, any truth. Mercury in the air is not so bad? Social security going bankrupt? Drilling in Alaska urgent? WMDs in Iraq? Cuba preparing to invade? Moon mission a scientific priority but Hubble not-so-useful? Coalition of the willing? "Clear Skies"? Social Security "Reform"? Tax "Reform"? "Patriot" Act?

But hold on. There is a narrow and blurry line, but a line nevertheless, between propaganda and rhetoric, between lies and ideologies. If there is going to be any debate at all, we cannot lump positive spin (talk of "reform" rather than "cuts") with outright deceit of the sort perpetrated in these false news stories. Reasonable people can disagree about the future of Social Security. But they will not be able to rationally debate or compromise unless they can count on one another to make a good faith effort to get the facts right. Democracy requires that we value the truth more than our own opinions.

But this last set of observations points to the truly sinister conclusion: The administration does not want rational debate that might lead to compromise. As the President has said, it's much easier to rule in a dictatorship. Alas.

Women and the "Pass to Success"

There was an op-ed piece in last Friday’s Financial Times titled “How to keep women on the path to success”, by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the director of the “Hidden Brain Drain” taskforce. The piece described an article in the latest edition of the Harvard Business Review, titled “Off-Ramps and On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success”.

According to that study, 37 percent of highly qualified women voluntarily leave their careers at some point and a further 21 percent take flexible or reduced hour options. Among the women who leave their careers, 93 percent want to return to work – but only 74 percent of those who want to return actually do so. On average, women lose 18 percent of their earning power when they temporarily leave their careers. The figure rises to a staggering 37 percent when they spend three years or more out.

This is an important study, and its findings are disturbing. In a liberal meritocracy (which is what we should strive to be), a woman should be able to do what she wants when she does it best.

But I have two concerns about the thrust and basic assumptions of this article – and with what many now describe as the new front for feminism: the struggle to achieve a “work-life balance” for highly qualified professional women.

First, it is unfortunate (and perhaps ultimately counterproductive) that the need to achieve a work-life balance is viewed as an issue peculiar to women. It is not. A huge – and growing – proportion of highly qualified professional men very much want to spend more time caring for their children. I suspect the workplace is at least as unforgiving to men who want to stay at home caring for their families as it is for women: it may be more difficult for a man to walk into his boss’s office and ask for six months off to care for his newborn child than it is for a woman. His options when he returns to work may be more limited, because there may be even more of a stigma.

Indeed, whereas women today who have taken the “off-ramp” have trouble getting back on the “on-ramp”, many men today don’t even dare to take the off-ramp in the first place. In many cases – and increasingly – that’s not because they don’t want to. It’s because (like many women) they feel they can’t.

Second, while I haven’t yet read the underlying “Off-Ramps and On-Ramps” article, I find the title disturbing. The whole notion that caring for one’s own children is like taking an “off-ramp” is twisted. Why is it that the “path to success” is necessarily the commute to the office, for men or women? And are our brains really being “drained” when we care for our kids? We as a society so obviously overvalue work and undervalue family. Ironically, our twisted values even make their way into studies that are ostensibly designed to improve the work-family balance (at least for women).

Another Bad Decision

Perhaps because they had not done it in a few days, the administration decided to thumb its nose at the world and nominate John Bolton to be U.N. Ambassador. Among other things, this is a guy who led the administration's opposition to a treaty on small arms because it did not protect our precious second amendment rights -- precious rights of which the terrorists are taking full advantage (NYT, reg. req'd). Well, at least there's no global test.

Make a Statement with Sponge Bob

I have to tell you that I don't like Sponge Bob. It has nothing to do with his sexuality, because I don't care what consenting sponges do in in the privacy of their own pineapples. The bigger problem is that Sponge Bob is incredibly annoying.

That being said, yesterday I saw a man driving a car with what appeared to be a Sponge Bob air freshener hanging from his rear view mirror. Now I don't know if he was making a statement in support of gay rights and against censorship, or whether he has kids, or whether he just likes sponges. But if he was making a statement, well, that seems like a great way to make a statement.

Insane Immigration

I almost drove my car into a tree in anger this morning when I heard the NPR story that the Department of Homeland Security is forcing immigrants wear ankle bracelet in efforts to stop the amount of immigrants who fail to leave this country after they have been ordered to do so http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4519090. As an immigrant to this country who came here seeking refuge from civil war, it p--sed me off to hear that our country is treating our 'citizens in progress' with such humiliating tactics. It's insane! We need to take back our government from dehumanizing those that are vulnerable, have few resources or choices in life. In the name of a 'war on terrosim' our government is targeting those who are trying to play by the rules. I remember standing in line at 5am in front of my local immigration office to submit paperwork, I remember taking an American history test to demonstrate my dedication to this country, and I remember hearing my mother plead with INS authorities for our lives, because if we returned to our homeland we would surely be killed. It took my family over 10 years to become permanent residents of the United States of America and another 4 years to become citizens. I'm all for protecting ourselves from terrorists, but I'm pains me to hear that our government is dehumanizing those that are seeking a better life in our America. Given my family's circumstances, I'm sure my mother would have worn five ankle bracelets as if she was a criminal in order to keep her six children alive...but is that the legacy we wish to leave in our history books?

One step forward for civilization

With yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that it's unconstitutional to execute minors, we come one step closer to eliminating a practice that should have been ended long ago.

With most public policy issues, I feel that good people can disagree, and that powerful arguments can be made on either side of an issue. This is one area where I don't. Governments should not execute their own citizens. Some killing is defensive; some is vengeful; and some is sadistic. None of those are appropriate within our criminal justice system. People do horrible things to each other, and that should be punished, but not by having the government do horrible things back.

Kudos to Justice Kennedy for joining--and writing for--the majority in this case. Boos to Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and especially O'Connor, who wrote the minority opinion, and who should know better.