RIPPLE OF HOPE

Databases for the Democrats

2006-03-08T10:41:00.000-05:00

I came across this interesting article in the Post today regarding infighting about whether a private firm or the DNC should create a new, comprehensive database to profile and target Democratic voters for GOTV and other efforts.

Because Shayna Englin (another ROHer) knows so much about this kind of thing, I sent her the article, asking her for her opinion. She wrote me back in her usual thorough, well-informed style. It was so helpful, that I asked her if I could put the exchange in ROH. She said yes. Here's what she told me:

"I think the DNC shouldn't be so territorial about the voter file. I
think it's difficult to argue that 1) we aren't light years behind the
GOP in terms of voter file technology, 2) even if we catch up on the
technology front, we don't have any coherent strategy for using that
technology to good effect, and 3) even if we develop a killer
strategy, we don't have the infrastructure of people on the ground to
implement it.

The DNC should let Ickes, et al, dump the money into the technology
end to address problem number one, while the DNC targets resources
toward strategy and implementation capacity to address problems two
and three. If Ickes, or any of the other half-dozen entities working
on it, are successful on the technology end, the DNC can contract for
it.

The GOP has been so much more succcessful at this in no small part
because they understand that top-down is not generally the best way to
arrive at the most innovative, effective, or efficient ways forward.
They've let a thousand flowers bloom, tested the most promising
approaches in off-year and down-state elections across the country,
and then invested heavily into the ones that prove best.
The DNC, on the other hand, has done the opposite - invested heavily
in what they think/hope is the one best approach, tested it
haphazardly in a big national election, and then, finding that the
approach they'd championed is unsuccessful, invested heavily in the
next interesting idea.

Aside from the internal politics, on the question of whether we should
be micro-targeting based upon publicly available but still creepy
personal information about voters: I say resoundingly, uncomfortably,
YES. If we don't, we will lose."

Congress: Do your job!

2006-02-09T21:20:00.000-05:00

Today's Washington Post reports that our Congress is wavering on conducting a formal investigation into the White House's warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Now is the time to speak out about why they absolutely cannot drop this matter--and here's why:

First is the question of whether this program is a good idea or not--and it's hard for an average citizen to judge this for certain. I personally tend toward a libertarian streak, so I prefer for the government to stay out of my home entirely, and yet I understand that some liberties have to be sacrificed for the sake of security, and at some level one has to trust that our system of self-government won't allow that balance to get too out of whack. So I'm willing to trust that there's more to this story than I understand, while I allow my congressional representatives to learn more.

Which brings me to the most important reason for the Congress to treat this seriously: our government functions because of its system of checks and balances, and there is ample evidence that this Administration wants neither checks nor balances. Far more alarming than the mere existence of this program is the fact that the Bush Administration did it for four years virtually in secret--and clearly in violation of the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Out of 535 members of Congress, only 8 were regularly briefed about the program, and they were prohibited from seeking legal counsel or policy advice on the matter (eliminating the first 'check'); the court established specifically for this purpose wasn't allowed to review the process (check #2); and the American people were obviously not informed (the ultimate check).

David Ignatius, typically a cautious, centrist editorialist, wrote this morning about the danger of the Bush Administration's hubris. I found this article a sobering reminder of just how dangerous an unchecked executive can be. But this is less about the Bush Administration than it is about Congress, and that body's unwillingness to do its job as an equal branch of government.

A review of every important issue facing this country over the last several years shows the ineffectivess of our Congress. Iraq war? No questioning of the intelligence used to justify the war or of the preparation for the aftermath. Torturing prisoners? No serious investigation, no one held accountable. Even the anti-torture legislation passed by Congress got a 'P.S.' from the president saying, "I'm not actually promising anything." Homeland security in the aftermath of 9/11? We get an 'F' from the investigating commission, and everyone admires the press conference and then moves on. Medicare prescription drug plan? No independent verification of the cost, which we now know the White House lied about. Budget? Swelling, structural deficits as far as you can possibly imagine--even if, as the Administration plans, we eventually stop supporting poor people entirely. When A.G. Gonzales comes to testify before the Congress on the very topic of whether the Administration lied, he's not forced to testify under oath?! This is incomprehensible.

During last week's hearings, it was Senators Specter, Leahy, Graham, and Feingold who treated this warrantless wiretapping matter with the appropriate amount of gravitas, and they deserve our kudos. If they represent you, thank them for their efforts and urge them to keep going. This morning's Post reported Senators Snowe, Hagel, and DeWine as waverers unwilling to hold this adminstration accountable--and they should hear from us, too. You should find out where your own Senators and Representatives stand on this issue, make your own opinions known, and ask them to stand up to an increasingly imperial president. This is about far more than the specifics of this program--it's about Congress fulfilling its responsibility to be more than a lapdog to George Bush.

(You can read the transcript of A.G. Gonzales's appearance at last week's Senate Judiciary hearing on this topic to learn more here. It's actually really good stuff.)

Of budgets and morality

2006-02-02T16:36:00.000-05:00

The posting two days ago that provides a link to E.J. Dionne's column on the budget bill is still the must-read entry on this issue. Nevertheless, having just seen the news that the bill passed and is going to the president for his signature, I find myself at one of those moments where I think I have to raise my voice as a citizen, or I've abdicated my responsibility.

First, my histrionic moment. I have children, and any of you reading this who also do will understand viscerally Dionne's image of the woman who, sometime next year, will have to make the decision about whether or not she can afford to take her sick child to the doctor. Not being able to take your sweating, vomiting child who has a 104-degree fever to the doctor because you can't afford it (and if you have a child, at some point s/he is sweating, vomiting and has a 104-degree fever) is the kind of thing that drives a parent to practical insanity. The dicates of decency say that we should try to avoid a situation where our fellow human beings face such choices if we can. And we can.

But we didn't. From what I understand, the bill that just passed actually does cut benefits like health care for the poor while giving tremendous financial perks to the wealthy and large companies. And the tradeoff actually was straight forward and happened in a back room. We're used to people on both sides of the aisle taking complex negotiations and complicated legislation and oversimplifying to demonize an opposing position. But in this case, it's what happened. The poor are getting less, and the non-poor are getting more.

Which brings us to the moral dimension of a nation's budget. We tend to treat budgeting as a technocratic issue. (In truth, as a general public, we tend not to treat budgeting at all. It's overwhelmingly complicated and opaque.) The line items in a budget, however, and the tradeoffs made to derive them, inherently express the priorities--and yes, the values--of the citizenry. A budget is a moral document.

I don't believe the budget bill just passed reflects the core values of our country and its citizenry. I believe that only the most conservative and the most libertarian among us believe that we have no obligation to provide a safety net for each other, and that the core responsbilities of the state do not include providing for the basic human needs of its citizens. I also believe that few of America's citizens really believe that cutting back programs for the poor in order to give those financial benefits to a wealthier class---as opposed to using the reductions strictly to reduce the deficit or increase personal or national savings, for example--is a moral approach to governing.

The previous posting on this subject referred to "spend and spend" Republicans. I look at this budget and see "bleed and spend." And I'm giving that label to anyone who engaged in the backroom dealing and then put this thing over the top. We're bleeding the people who need it. And we may be bleeding morally, too. We have to stop the bleeding.

The Lesson of Alito: Elections Have Consequences

2006-01-31T11:51:00.000-05:00

Alito, like Roberts before him, was confirmed easily and with very little real opposition from Democrats. Which is exactly as anyone watching could have predicted upon the moment of his nomination.

Why? Because ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Not being able to get good people on the courts, or even prevent bad people from getting there, is one of the biggies.

Choice took a big hit today.
The environment took a hit.
Civil liberties took a hit.
Separation of powers took a hit.

Hopefully, Democrats took the hit that will WAKE US UP.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. If you don�t like getting beaten up, then I humbly suggest that you find a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate near you and write him or her as big a check as you can. Sign up to volunteer for him or her. Recruit your friends to do the same.

No viable Democratic Senate candidate to jump behind? Then find a Democratic candidate for something else. State house. City Council. School Board. Dog Catcher. We�re behind. We�ve been falling behind for 20 years. While Republicans have been diligently building their base, training their grassroots, and filling their bench, we�ve been�I don�t know what, exactly. But clearly not building our base, investing in our grassroots, or filling our bench.

We�re in this war for the long haul, and if we want to win the battle this November, November 2008, November 2010, and beyond, we�ve got to get down to the hard work of learning from those who have vanquished us � and it�s impossible to look at today�s U.S. Senate and argue plausibly that we have not been vanquished � changing our battle plan, and getting truly prepared to win the war.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. All elections. The consequences may manifest next year, or they may manifest in twenty years. Take a look at how many Senators held down-ticket offices first. They rarely come from nowhere. The City Council candidate you help elect today could be the U.S. Senator who votes to restore our rights in many tomorrows.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. There�s a time and a place for issue politics. That time is not now, and the place is not where there are truly contested elections. Until the numbers change, we have no control of anything, and I would hope we all agree that more Republican control is not going to be a good thing.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Let's have a late new year's resolution: we'll put all of our political energy toward making sure that they're the consequences we want.

What conservatives?

2006-01-31T09:50:00.000-05:00

I don't know how many times E.J. Dionne has been praised on this blog--but whatever the number is, it's not enough. This morning he writes about the budget about to be voted on in the House of Representatives--one which "balances the budget on the backs of the poor", as our fair president spoke against back when he was still trying to get people to vote for him.

As Dionne says, this budget is terrible for many reasons--because it takes from the poor (Medicaid recipients) to give to the rich (health insurance companies), because it was worked out in some backroom deal behind the backs of the conference committee (now a regular practice in the Republican-controlled Congress), but--most bafflingly in this era of supposed conservative control of government--because it continues to perpetuate our growing budget deficit.

Just last weekend I heard the president complaining about Democrats who want to "tax and spend". Besides the fact that that label grew old about fifteen years ago, it provides the perfect opening for Democrats. In order to win elections, you've got to have some crossover into the other person's territory, and the perfect issue for Democrats to steal from Republicans is fiscal responsibility. The one genuine good conservatives are supposed to bring to government is the ability to manage a budget responsibly, and yet under Republican control our annual budget has never been balanced and our national debt has steadily increased--this after a Democrat worked so hard to bring our fiscal situation under control. Repeat after me, Democrats: what's even worse than a "tax and spend liberal" is a "spend and spend" (suggestions welcome on a catchier alternative title than this one!) right-winger hijacking the label of 'conservative'. Republicans are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility. Sing it from the rooftops, and we'll have control of Congress back in January 2007.

Oh, yes--and be sure to contact your Congressional representative TODAY to register your opinion on this budget bill. If you're not sure who it is, look it up at www.congress.org.

And now, for something a little nicer

2005-12-21T09:32:00.000-05:00

I wrote this several months ago. A publication picked it up, but then never ran it. It's something that makes me happy, and this Christmas week it feels like we could do with a little more happiness, so I thought I'd put it out there.

***

We baptized my infant son, Jude, last month. On that morning four legacies, bequeathed by strangers, came together.

It actually happened before the baptism. Jude was in his crib, squirming in his linen knickers and shirt. The poor little guy had no idea how much more uncomfortable he�d be when we put him in the baptismal gown. It hung on the side of the crib, freshly and lovingly pressed by my mother, who had baptized eight of her own children, including me, in it. Her Aunt Jenny made it more than half a century ago, imagining�I like to think�the generations of babies, as yet unknown, who would feel the touch of holy water and scented oil while squirming in it.

My husband, Steve, and I stood over the crib as I fumbled with the clasp of a necklace. It was a wisp-thin gold chain, bearing a medal of St. Jude, the Patron Saint of Lost Causes, and the saint whose name Steve chose for his confirmation 20 years ago. I bought the necklace for Steve in Italy, home of mine and Aunt Jenny�s ancestors, the year after we married. We dreamed then of having a son one day. A son we would name Jude.

The crib had its own legacy. I�d purchased it for $15 at a yard sale from three generations of the same family�mother, son and grandson�who all had used it. I carried it in pieces in the back of my Toyota for six weeks with no place to put it. We lived in 600 square feet, I was pregnant, and we needed a house. The crib was a symbol of defiance against mortgage and asking price�a sign of optimism that we would find a way to buy the 125 year-old farmhouse I�d fallen in love with�in which I wanted to raise my family, and in which it sits today.

Jude is indifferent to the arc of life experienced by each child who wore the gown before him, or slept in the crib, or gew up in that house. And it is Steve's and my responsibility not to saddle him with the hopes and dreams that brought us together and brought him into the world, but, instead, to let him have his own. He neither needs to, nor will he, set upon some path to finish the unfinished business of those who came before him. And yet, we help make his own journey possible.

My mother came into Jude�s room just as I closed the necklace around Steve�s neck. We lifted Jude from his crib and stood in front of it. With the gown hanging next to us, and Jude grasping at the chain resting on his father�s neck, she snapped a picture that tells the story:

A house, handed down in one family for 115 years. A crib, tearfully surrendered to an expectant mother by three generations standing together in a gravel driveway. A gown, turned cream-colored with fifty years of baptizing children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. A necklace, brand new, but given in the hope of future generations.

And one infant boy, innocent and unaware that in that moment, the faith and endurance of four separate legacies baptized him with the promise of a life yet to come.

Bush Contends Partisan Critics Hurt War Effort

2005-11-12T09:24:00.000-05:00

Say what you want about the war in Iraq. Really, say what you want. The administration's contention that public debate over the pros and cons of the war is in itself unpatriotic and "deeply irresponsible" is absurd and insulting. Among the freedoms that are at stake in Iraq and elsewhere is the freedom of expression. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as saying that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. We can hardly be expected to defend freedom abroad by compromising it at home. Truth is more important than partisan politics. The insinuation that open political debate is somehow dangerous to our country or harmful to our troops appears to be nothing more than a shameful and cowardly attempt to hide questionable policy behind the unquestionable honor of those who serve our country. So say what you want about the war. It is important that you do.

The Human Security Report

2005-10-18T15:00:00.000-04:00

The Human Security Center at University of British Columbia just came out with its first Human Security Report. Strikingly, it says that armed conflict, genocide and politicide have all gone down in the last 10 to 15 years. The section called "Overview" gives a helpful summary. Surprising and heartening information.

I Won't Be Marching This Weekend - You Shouldn't Either

2005-09-23T11:09:00.000-04:00

The news reported this morning that as many as 100,000 anti-war activists will converge upon DC this weekend to march in protest past the White House.

I won't be among them, and I hope the Democrats I know won't be, either.

Setting aside the merits of their demand - that all U.S. troops be brought home from Iraq immediately - and the controversy surrounding the march organizers - the ANSWER coalition - there's substantial reason to skip it.

Just across the Potomac river from the White House we are just over a month out from elections for Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, and the House of Delegates.

The statewide elections are very close - the latest polling shows that the governor's race is within one point - and there are a handful of statehouse races where we have opportunities to knock off some of the most right-wing extremist legislators in the state.

These races are going to be won and lost on the ground - the candidates who identify and turn out their voters better will win.

Marching past the White House, and past a President who has shown countless times that he really doesn't care what we think, isn't going to change a damn thing.

Electing more Democrats will.

100,000 is a big number. If even half of those people would put down their picket signs and pick up a clipboard to take door to door in Virginia for just two hours, they could knock on 2 million doors, talk to 400,000 voters, and identify more than 100,000 Democratic voters to turn out in these coming elections. That's also a big, and even better, number.

Those are voters we could turn out again 2006 when one of Virginia's two Republican Senators is on the ballot - electing a Democratic Senator from Virginia would be a dramatic step in the right direction. They're voters we could go back to again in 2008 to help us take back the White House - a critical step in the right direction.

Republicans get this, and that's part of the reason they've been pummeling us at the ballot boxes. Don't look for a massive counter-demonstration tomorrow. Yesterday, Ken Mehlman sent a message to Republican activists. Rather than being called to the Mall to walk around preaching to either the converted or those who couldn't possibly be converted, Republican activists around the country will be participating in "Super Saturday" - making calls from around the country to ID voters in Virginia. (Click here to see a screen shot of the email message.)

I'm committed to change, and I'm committed to winning. If we progressives learned almost nothing from the past 5 years, I'd have hoped we at least learned that protest marches don't lead to either. Millions around the world marched against the war - lo and behold, we're at war. More than a million marched in DC to protect the right to choose - lo and behold, it's more at risk now than ever before. Marches make us feel better, they make us feel like we're doing something to make a difference. Years and mountains of evidence show that our feelins betray us - when we're marching we're doing something, but not something that will make a whit of difference.

If you live in the DC-metro area, or are planning to head to DC this weekend, please consider doing not just something, but something that can lead to change - volunteer on a campaign in Virginia. Email me. I'll get you plugged in.

Shame on Pat Robertson

2005-08-25T00:22:00.000-04:00

I have been frustrated and baffled for years now to know that so many people on all parts of the American political spectrum, and around the world, think that the words "Christian" and "Republican" (or "fundamentalist") are synonyms. Christians who lean to the left have an obligation to speak up when right-wing nut cases, like Pat Robertson, who claim to be leaders of the Christian faith, stand in the temple (so to speak) and encourage people to break one of the ten commandments.

I know it may sound obvious to some, even most, readers of this blog, but let's just be clear: Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to the Christian faith. Too many times, I think we liberal Christians are either a) awkward and insecure about speaking from a faith perspective, for many reasons; or b) so aware of the absurdness of people like Robertson that we say nothing, assuming everyone else understands how completely off base he is. But that needs to stop. It needs to stop, because he should have to face other Christians telling him he's wrong. And it needs to stop because if it doesn't, then the multitude of both Christians and non-Christians who don't pay much attention will hear only his voice, and think that's what you must believe if you're a follower of Jesus.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I know it well enough to say with confidence that Jesus was not pro-assassination. I neither know nor care a whit about Chavez--he strikes me as a total thug. But I care a lot about people who claim to speak for God while saying things that are a poke in the eye to the teachings of Jesus. Pat Robertson is a disgrace and a fraud. Pass it on.

(and, yes, I feel a tinge of awkwardness about linking to biblegateway dot com. but I did it anyway.)

Northwest Airlines

2005-08-17T10:42:00.000-04:00

If my full-time job were to write fictional stories designed to incite working-class folks against corporate elites, I�d have a hard time spinning a better tall tale than the true-life story happening right here in my adopted hometown.

In just three days, the Northwest Airlines mechanics� union is scheduled to go on strike against the airline. Daily front page stories in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune counting down to the deadline have highlighted the situation in which Northwest finds itself:

Like many of the legacy airlines, Northwest has been in a fairly constant precarious financial situation for many years, including currently staring in the face of bankruptcy. In order to help contain costs, the airline is asking the union to accept a 53% loss in mechanics jobs and take a pay cut of over 25%. They�ve lined up and trained scab mechanics and insist that they�ll maintain a regular flying schedule should they fail to negotiate a new contract by the strike deadline, although the flight attendants� union has pledged to walk out in solidarity (what a beautiful concept) with the mechanics, which could throw a wrench in things. Of course, the storyline out of Northwest is that these massive cuts in the mechanics� contracts are necessary for the fiscal health of the airline.

Except when you dig a bit into the history of Northwest, as the Strib did this weekend while comparing it to highly profitable Southwest Airlines, you learn a bit more about some other factors in the airline�s current dire straits. First, Northwest is not achieving much efficiency in terms of flights�the planes spend too much time on the ground and not enough in the air, generating revenue. Second, Northwest failed to lock in fuel costs at a time when fuel was much cheaper and as a result now pays roughly 40% more for fuel than Southwest does. Third, Northwest has a history of more contentious relationships with various unions; by contrast, Southwest has worked hard to facilitate a work environment that is friendly not only to employees, but to the organized unions as well, which has helped fend off contentious labor problems. Finally, as Northwest stock prices have plunged by 30% over the past three years, signaling the low performance of the company, CEO Doug Steenland has collected over $8 million on salary and bonuses (low compared to other industries, but one of the highest total compensation packages in the airline industry). Each of these is due at least in some part to poor management�and yet the CEO keeps getting paid his millions while holding a hard line for significant concessions from the guys who make sure the planes don�t fall out of the sky?

While I�d love to make a larger point about the climate in this country regarding both the reputation of unions and the obscenity of executive compensation, this post has gone on long enough. To Northwest�s credit, they have made efforts to cut costs in other areas as well, including the total elimination of even the tiniest bag of pretzels on most domestic flights. But cuts in pay for what seems to be a significantly underperforming management team do not appear to be part of the plan. I tend to be a support-local-businesses sort of gal, I�m not reflexively anti-business, and I fully recognize how important Northwest is to the Twin Cities� economy. But until the airline recognizes that labor is not responsible for the airlines� woes, and decides to share the pain in a more real way, I won�t be flying with them�certainly, I won�t be crossing any picket lines. I hope any of you making air travel plans will make that decision, as well.

The Cost of Iraq

2005-08-14T12:37:00.000-04:00

With today's announcement that the Administration is 'scaling back expectations' in Iraq, and the news that, two plus years into the war, we still somehow can't quite manage to make sure our troops have adequate body armor, it's worth devoting a moment to thinking about what a colossal, costly error this endeavor has been. It should be seared into our brains, both for the purpose of deciding on who should represent us in Congress in 2006, and as a cautionary tale as we think about future activities in the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism", or whatever euphemism we're now using.

To that end, one of the most devastating costs is achingly chronicled on today's New York Times op-ed page. There's not much to say about the piece, except that it should be required reading for every member of the Administration, every Senator and member of Congress (and their aides), and every history student in this country. Maybe then--maybe--we'll spend a bit more time honestly contemplating the costs and benefits of going to war next time instead of reflexively grabbing our flags and Vietnam-era equipment and trotting off to show the world who's boss.

If you, like I did, read this article and feel both sad and responsible, and you agree it's something everyone in this country should understand, there are at least two things you can do: first, forward the piece on to family and friends; second, encourage your local paper to pick up and re-run the piece so that a wider audience beyond New York Times readers hears what Mr. Crawford has to say.

Calling All Luddites - New York Times

2005-08-03T11:32:00.000-04:00

Calling All Luddites - New York Times

A fantastic wake-up call I never even would have thought of.

Michael Ignatieff: Who are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread?

2005-06-28T15:15:00.000-04:00

Check out Michael Ignatieff's new piece in the NYT. It's worth the read, especially with Independence Day approaching

Michael Ignatieff: Who are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread?

Go David Englin

2005-06-13T22:37:00.000-04:00

The primary race for the Virginia House of Delegates seat for which David Englin is running is tomorrow. Just wanted all the Ripple of Hopers to join me in wishing David the old broken leg, and thus a landslide success, tomorrow.

Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

2005-06-02T12:03:00.000-04:00

Human Events online ("The National Conservative Weekly") has published its list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. It's not clear what the decision procedure was, but the authors who are lumped together include Marx, Mao, Hitler, Darwin, Nader (Nader!? Nader is as "harmful" as Hitler!?), Nietzsche, Kinsey, Dewey, and Keynes. Actually, Darwin, Mill, and Nader are only on the Honorable Mention list, along with Freud and the anthropologist Margaret Mead. What did the Samoans ever do to Anne Coulter?

Even better are the explanations. My favorite concerns Dewey: "in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking 'skills' instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education--particularly in public schools--and helped nurture the Clinton generation." Ah yes, those dangerous thinking skills!

Sheriff Leis Rides Again

2005-05-24T08:36:00.000-04:00

You may remember Simon Leis from his previous debacles: jailing a museum director for showing Mapplethorpe photos, fighting to keep Hustler from opening a store in Cincinnati (Leis being one of the main "people" in "The People Vs. Larry Flynt"), and saving us all from the urgent threat of in-room video porn at suburban hotels.

Now Leis is after Satan and all the other liberals. As reported in Cincinnati CityBeat, Leis gave a rousing sermon at the Police Memorial Day recognition on May 10. A brief sample will give you the feel--capitalization original from Leis's transcript:

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AFTER 150 YEARS OF BIBLE STUDY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THIS COUNTRY, BANNED BIBLE READING AND PRAYER IN OUR PUBLIC CLASSROOMS, AND DECLARED STARTING IN THE 60�S, THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES TO BE VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE RECITATION OF PRAYERS COMPOSED BY ANYONE INCLUDING SCHOOL OFFICIALS, BIBLE READING, RECITATION OF THE LORD'S PRAYER, AND PRAYERS AT PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADUATIONS.

SINCE THE FIRST OF THOSE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, JUVENILE CRIME HAS SKY-ROCKETED, TEEN PREGNANCY AND SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES HAVE INCREASED DRAMATICALLY; VIOLENT CRIME (INCLUDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE) HAS RISEN 600% OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS; TEEN SUICIDE IS UP 300%; AND DEPRESSION AMONG CHILDREN IS UP 1000%. EVERY DAY, TELEVISION AND NEWSPAPERS INUNDATE US WITH HORRIFIC ACCOUNTS OF CRIME IN OUR COMMUNITIES. AS LAW ENFORCMENT [sic] OFFICERS WE CONFRONT THESE SITUATIONS EVERY DAY.

DAILY WE LEARN OF THE MASS KILLING OF STUDENTS IN OUR SCHOOLS, SHOOTINGS TAKING PLACE IN DAY-CARE CENTERS AND PLACES OF WORSHIP. IS THERE ANY WONDER, WHY SO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE ARE COMMITTING SUCH HORRIBLE CRIMES AGAINST INNOCENT VICTIMS, WHEN WE PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ATHEISTS, AND ABOLISH THE RECOGNITION OF ALMIGHTY GOD IN OUR CLASSROOMS?

THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE HARD WORKING, GOD FEARING PEOPLE BUSILY CARING FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, CONTRIBUTING TO THEIR COMMUNITIES, PAYING THEIR TAXES, AND TRUSTING PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO RUN THE DAILY BUSINESS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT.

WHAT MANY FAIL TO SEE, HOWEVER, ARE THE FORCES OF MORAL CORRUPTION WORKING FEVERISHLY, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. THEY ARE OUT THERE EVERY DAY WALKING THROUGH THE HALLS OF CONGRESS, STATE LEGISLATURES, AND THE COURTS. THE GAY AND LESBIAN COALITIONS, RABID FEMINIST GROUPS, AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ALL COMPETING FOR POWER. MANY USE THEIR POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE FUNDS, TO INFLUENCE ELECTED OFFICIALS, TO REPRESENT THESE PARASITIC GROUPS WHO PROSELYTIZE AND FORCE US UNDER THE PROTECTION OF LAW, TO TOLERATE AND ACCEPT THEIR DESPICABLE CONDUCT AND AGENDA.

You might wonder whether Leis will weather the storm caused by this outrageous display. But, first, as far as I can tell there is no storm, in fact the whole event has not been mentioned in Cincinnati's main daily newspaper. (Maybe they think Leis is protected by their settlement with Chiquita a few years back, where they sold out all their journalist integrity and promised not to say critical things.) Second, you could look to history--in fact the specific history of sheriffs giving this speech. You see, Leis appears to have plagiarized this fine piece of oratory from Sheriff John J. McDougall of Lee County, Florida, who gave it in 1999.

Maybe the ACLU made Leis plagiarize?

Workers of the world, unite

2005-05-15T22:47:00.000-04:00

In the past week, we've heard about the declining union membership in the United States and about corporations defaulting on their pension plans. Paul Krugman wrote on Friday about the changing relationship between corporations and their employees. He also hinted at something my own paper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, featured today--the growing gap between CEO and worker pay at companies throughout the country.

Nationwide, the median increase for CEO pay last year was right around ten percent (depending on how you calculate compensation). Meanwhile, real wages for workers have remained basically flat for the past three years. In 2003, the average large-company CEO pay was 500 times that of his or (sometimes) her average worker.

This is a problem with many contributing causes and no easy solution. But there are some questions we should all ask ourselves about how this issue intersects with our lives. Which companies do we invest in, shop at, work for? What are the pressure points that impact corporate decisions about how employees are treated and compensated, and how can we use our power--purchasing, bully pulpit, policy, or otherwise--to reach those pressure points? And does an 'ownership society' suggest policies that help people become owners (like helping first-time homebuyers), or policies that protect people who already are owners (like total elimination of the estate tax)? Especially as our society trends towards protecting the rich, we have a moral imperative to make sure we are looking out for 'the least among us'.

Homeland Insecurity

2005-05-11T17:23:00.000-04:00

I keep on expecting someone like Andrew Sullivan or Instapundit to link to this story and include a sanctimonious quote about "this is a sober reminder that we are at war." Maybe they already have. It's actually more of a sober reminder of how far we have to go in this department when two guys on their way to an air show in North Carolina can shut down Washington. It's a good thing these guys are in federal custody. I feel much safer knowing that.

WP says: "Women Returning to Democratic Party".

2005-05-10T11:27:00.000-04:00

"Women Returning to Democratic Party, Poll Finds" is the title of a Washington Post article today. Evidently, Celinda Lake, et al, pitted nameless Republicans against nameless Democrats in fictional congressional elections held today...and women chose Democrats.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to delight at any positive indications regarding the future for Democrats, few as they are. Women favoring generic Democrats over generic Republicans is certainly a good thing.

But on the other hand, I'm hard pressed to say what exactly that means. We're not British - we choose individuals, not parties. We never vote for generic candidates - we choose between individuals who inspire us, or not; who we trust, or not; who we like, or not. The vast majority of us are not partisans, so who we say we�d vote for in a generic partisan sense is all but meaningless.

What my party needs right now is not grasping at straws � and the more I reflect on it, the more any amount of glee regarding women choosing generic Democrats in hypothetical elections feels like grasping � but leadership. We need to identify, cultivate, and groom the next generation of leaders.

We can rail all we like against the reality that elections are about personalities as much as they are about issues, but our railing won�t change the reality. And it�s been reality for quite some time. Majorities of voters disagreed with Ronald Reagan on most of his primary policy points � anticommunism the complicated exception � but they liked him. They trusted him. They voted for him. Majorities of voters said they disagreed with Dubya on all sorts of issues � from choice to the war to education policy � but they liked him, they trusted him, so they voted for him.

So, huzzah that women prefer generic Democrats to generic Republicans in pretend elections. Until we run real Democrats in real elections who can earn the support of these same women, we haven�t moved the ball anywhere.

From an "On Point" Radio Diary

2005-04-21T15:08:00.000-04:00

One of my fellow bloggers here at Ripple of Hope suggested I post this text. It's from a Radio Diary I did for the WBUR/NPR show "On Point" on Tuesday night.

***

I had a baby a week ago. When you deliver a baby, you become overwhelmingly aware of both the robustness and the fragility of life.

You feel how robust life is in the brute strength of the kicking and pushing going on inside you. But you are also struck by life�s fragility as you pray helplessly that the heartbeat you're hearing over the monitor won't slow down or stop before the baby is delivered.

It�s within this context that I have been watching so much of what�s happening in politics of late. The country has been talking a lot about life. And, somehow, the conversation seems so much cheaper than the real thing.

There�s been the Terry Schiavo case and, more recently, the death of the Pope. The Supreme Court ruling against execution of minors. The battles around appointing pro-life judges. New revelations of murder and torture of prisoners of war.

All of these are serious issues. But all of these have been high jacked in one way or another, and by one side or the other, to promote what seems less about a culture of life, and more about pure political agenda.

One side has chosen fear-mongering. They seem to argue that life is so fragile, its flutter so tenuous, that it has to be defended with a fierceness, a zealotry, and a kind of meanness that seems to give no credence to life�s robust, nearly indestructible essence.

And the other side seems so afraid to give ground to its opponents that it denies any fragility at all. All questions of life�at any stage�seem to get treated cavalierly, as if any qualm, any instinct to reach out a protecting hand, is fundamentally both ideological and traitorous.

Well, I don�t buy either side. I couldn�t possibly. Especially not while while that sense of strength and delicacy that holding a tiny but screaming new baby sears into you is still with me. And enough of us are parents, have families, or care for those who are sick or dying, that I don�t think most of us buy either side entirely.

I believe most of us understand, better than we�re given credit for, both sides of the stories we�ve been hearing. Just as any mother would understand how inevitable the baby I carried felt to me in the last weeks�and at the same time, how much his hold on life seemed horribly tenuous until I heard his first cry and held him in my own arms.

Life is not a wedge issue. It�s what we have in common, with all its nuance. And I can tell by the way people look at me and my newborn these days with a mixture of joy and empathy, that those of us not stuck in a turf war understand that completely.

Conservatives in the Ivory Towers

2005-04-05T09:14:00.000-04:00

Paul Krugman's speculations concerning why there are fewer conservative Republicans on university faculties are interesting. I doubt it's the whole story--not because there is bias in hiring, but because it is an even deeper question of values than simple career choice. (Roughly: In the current climate, open-mindedness and willingness to question authority have been defined as "liberal" values. Consider the research by John Jost and his colleagues, that made such a flap a couple years back.) But Krugman reminds us that truth and science are under attack.

And while we're at it...

2005-03-28T13:16:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-03-28T11:39:00.000-05:00

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

2005-03-24T15:22:00.001-05:00

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.