Mandate, My Ass

President Bush refuses to rule out war with Iran. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami says his country is ready to defend itself against a U.S. attack. The United States is pushing for a peaceful solution to its nuclear impasse with Iran but, with mistrust on both sides running high, encouraging signs are hard to find.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday in an interview with radio host Don Imus, hours before being sworn in to a second term.

[...]

"We don't want a war in the Middle East if we can avoid it," Cheney quickly added, "and certainly, in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would best suited by, and or best treated or dealt with, if we could deal with it diplomatically."

Perhaps the most pessimistic comment of all this week came from Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.

"There may be nothing we can do to persuade Iran not to develop weapons of mass destruction," Biden said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing for Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice.

# posted by filkertom : 9:00 AM  1 comments

"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results.

SpongeBob needed no introduction. In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."

Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."

[...]

On Wednesday... Paul Batura, assistant to Mr. Dobson at Focus on the Family, said the group stood by its accusation.

"We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," he said. "It is a classic bait and switch."

• attacking a public service announcement based on being nice to each other;
• saying that suggesting people be nice to each other is a "bait and switch", i.e., "be tolerant of each other's differences" equals "it's okay for boys to shag" (which I suppose it actually does equal on several levels, but not as a direct substitution, you godly putz);
• saying a talking sponge holding hands with a starfish is a threatening icon of gay sex.

# posted by filkertom : 7:00 AM  2 comments

For example, consider a common life sequence for an educated woman. She grows up and goes to college. Perhaps she goes to graduate school. Then, during her most fertile years, when she has the most energy for child-rearing, she gets a job. Then, sometime after age 30, she marries. Then, in her mid-30's, when she has acquired the maturity and character to make intelligent career choices, she takes time off to raise her kids.

Several years hence, she seeks to re-enter the labor force. She may or may not be still interested in the field she was trained for (two decades earlier). Nonetheless, she finds a job, works for 15 years or so, then spends her final 20 years in retirement.

This is not necessarily the sequence she would choose if she were starting from scratch. For example, it might make more sense to go to college, make a greater effort to marry early and have children. Then, if she, rather than her spouse, wants to stay home, she could raise children from age 25 to 35. Then at 35 (now that she knows herself better) she could select a flexible graduate program specifically designed for parents. Then she could work in one uninterrupted stint from, say, 40 to 70.

This option would allow her to raise kids during her most fertile years and work during her mature ones, and the trade-off between family and career might be less onerous.

But the fact is that right now, there are few social institutions that are friendly to this way of living. Social custom flows in the opposite direction.

I suspect that if more people had the chance to focus exclusively on child-rearing before training for and launching a career, fertility rates would rise. That would be good for the country, for as Phillip Longman, author of "The Empty Cradle," has argued, we are consuming more human capital than we are producing - or to put it another way, we don't have enough young people to support our old people. (That's what the current Social Security debate and the coming Medicare debate are all about.)

# posted by filkertom : 5:05 AM  1 comments

We also see the mark of character, or lack of it, in political parties. The Republican Party today is characterized by a mission to defeat terror while exporting freedom abroad, and a policy to restrain taxes while increasing social spending at home.

Such a sharply defined character has led to electoral success and control of the White House, the Congress, state legislatures and the Supreme Court. Though George W. Bush is not an overwhelmingly beloved leader, he won a clear majority because most swing voters felt he resolutely stood for what he believed in. Their votes for character had coattails.

The G.O.P. personality will split in a couple of years, as all huge majorities do in America. Idealistic neocons will be challenged by plodding, pragmatic paleocons, who, by fuzzing the party's present character, will someday lead it down the road to defeat.

[...]

History has shown that U.S. optimism has not been misplaced. But what of reports of global griping at America's superpower arrogance - at our government's triumphalism? Has our character been warped by victories in three world wars?

Call me a chauvinist unilateralist, but I believe America's human and economic sacrifices for the advance of freedom abroad show our personal, political and national character to be stronger and better than ever. This moral advance will be more widely appreciated as an Islamic version of democracy takes root. (What's triumphalism without a triumph?)

It is that growing strength of national character - more than our individual genius or political leadership or military power - that ensures the future success of America and brightens the light of liberty's torch.

# posted by filkertom : 10:16 AM  2 comments

A conservative group is threatening to sue the Secret Service for religious discrimination over security guidelines that would ban Christian crosses from President Bush's inaugural parade route.

[...]

The directive also prohibited folding chairs, bicycles and other structures, and displays "such as puppets, papier mache objects, coffins, crates, crosses, theaters, cages and statues."

"The way it's written, it's an unequivocal ban on crosses," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition. The group is seeking to have the prohibition overturned in federal court if the Secret Service fails to retract it.

"They are not banning large displays of the Star of David or Islamic symbols," Mahoney said. "The only resolution is that they would have to pull 'crosses' out. And they could easily protect religious freedom by saying, 'We ban all structures made of wood."'

The Secret Service was working on a clarification Monday to resolve the flap. Spokesman Tom Mazur said the ban on crosses "is strictly in regards to structures -- certainly not the symbol."

"There is no prohibition on crosses, symbols or messages based on content -- only structures made of materials or of a size that could be used in a potentially threatening or harmful manner," Mazur said.

# posted by filkertom : 3:24 PM  1 comments

Democrats "as a group are uneasy" about attacking and defending on character, says Harold Ickes, a former Clinton aide who heads the Media Fund, a political ad organization. "But they damn well better get the stomach," he adds, because "we've seen way too many of our candidates taken down on issues of character."

"ALBERTO R. GONZALES missed an important opportunity yesterday to rectify his position, and that of President Bush, on the imprisonment and interrogation of foreign detainees. At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination to be attorney general, Mr. Gonzales repeatedly was offered the chance to repudiate a legal judgment that the president is empowered to order torture in violation of U.S. law and immunize torturers from punishment. He declined to do so...."

The American Civil Liberties Union today called Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales’ confirmation hearing testimony vague, evasive, and said that it ultimately raises more questions than answers about the Bush administration’s role in formulating legal policies surrounding the abuse of prisoners in American custody.

"While Gonzales hoped to quiet concerns about his nomination in today’s confirmation hearings, he ironically refused to answer some of the important questions about his policies that may have contributed to widespread torture and abuse," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Gonzales couldn’t even ‘remember’ if he approved or agreed with a now disavowed memo addressed to him in 2002 that justified certain torture techniques."

While as a matter of policy, the American Civil Liberties Union neither opposes nor endorses the Gonzales nomination, Romero said that the nominee’s testimony during today’s hearing has been frustrating at best.

Uh, guys? You're the organization that defends the Bill of Rights. First thing: No torture. Mm-kay? And what's this "vague, evasive... raised more questions than it answered" wording? Put it later in the press release. With the first line, you're supposed to be going for the hearts and minds of America here, framing your sound bite. Say "Alberto Gonzalez refused to directly answer questions about his justification for torture, which apparently led to the widespread abuses at Abu Ghraib."

Senator Joe Biden, the one who's supposed to be the attack dog on the committee, going after Gonzalez? He spends so much time in a lecture that ended with "We're looking for candor, old buddy. I love you, but you're not very candid so far" that Gonzalez didn't have to be candid -- his time was up.

Here's from the transcript of Meet the Press this week. Mention of Gonzalez? None. Not one word.

Dick Meyer actually gave a pretty good smackdown of Gonzalez on CBS.com... but how much of one are we going to get on The CBS Evening News? That would be "none".

Then there's this whole Armstrong Williams fiasco. No sympathy for the guy here -- he took himself down. But three Senators wrote a letter to the White House demanding explanations on this payola scheme. Where the hell were they when Gonzalez was nominated? Why didn't they write a letter saying, "Fuck you, send somebody who's not a torturer"?

Amy Sullivan points out something that the blogs have been going on about for months: The Dems keep hiring the same losers -- as in, inept, unable-to-win advisors -- over and over again.

Meanwhile, in the last ten years, among many other things:

• The Repubs have been able to impeach a President based on an extramarital affair, and even though the impeachment failed and the Repubs lost two Speakers of the House of Representatives within a month for the same offense during the impeachment, Clinton is looked upon as the one without morals.
• Using the fear and solidarity of 9/11 as a backdrop, and over the protests of the world, the US government lied us into an illegal war that we don't know how to get out of.
• Saying the tax system is broken, Bush has lied repeatedly about the budget and its problems, and given huge tax breaks to wealthy people while lying to the poor and middle class about how much "tax relief" they would get. For the past three years, cities, counties, and states have been desperately trying to take up the slack.
• Bush lied about how No Child Left Behind works, and then he lied about funding.
• Bush lied about AIDS funding to Africa. He said $15 billion; it hasn't been delivered.
• Former Attorney General John Ashcroft is more worried about prostitution, bare breasts on statues, and invasion of people's rights than he is about terrorists. He captured hundreds of "terror suspects". Convictions: None.
• We're setting up permanent facilities in Guantanamo Bay, to hold "enemy combatants" against whom we have little or no evidence. Funny, I thought when you had little or no evidence you were supposed to let them go free.
• The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said Kerry lied about everything he did in Vietnam, even though they had no evidence to the contrary and weren't anywhere near him to find out. They were discredited, but not before they had gobs of free airtime and discussion on news programs.
• Max Cleland, a decorated veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, lost his Georgia Senator's seat to a man who equated Cleland with Saddam Hussien and Osama bin Laden.
  

# posted by filkertom : 2:25 PM  0 comments

Here are five observations about the politics of Social Security reform:

First, many Republicans will be loathe to back a bill that has no Democratic support. They don't want to transform a big, popular program without bipartisan cover.

Gee, ya think? If the Repubs ramrod something like this through with no Dem support, it will pretty much expose the Repubs as everything we on the left have been saying about them for years.

Second, it will be hard to get Democratic votes for a bill that includes personal accounts. Democrats oppose them for the same reason that Republicans support them: because they think the accounts will create Republicans. People who have them will start thinking like investors.

Third, any compromises that win you Democratic votes in the Senate, lose you Republican votes in the House. For example, if Senate Republicans raise the payroll tax caps, they might get some Democrats. But they will lose House Republicans by the dozens. This is the cruel logic we are going to come across again and again this Congress. Changes that build majorities in one house destroy majorities in the other.

I'm still trying to make sense of this one. It's like the "flypaper" theory of terrorists -- if they're all in Iraq, see, the US is safe. If there is a "steady state" number of voters between the House and Senate, it's along party lines, not compromises.

Fourth, even if Republicans try to go it alone, they probably will not agree among themselves. If the White House comes out with a bill that cuts benefits, the Democrats won't have to go into opposition. Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes will already be there. On the other hand, if there are no benefit cuts, the financial markets may go ballistic. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is working on a Third Way approach to please both sides. If he can do it, he's a magician.

Besides the fact that the White House has already discussed cutting benefits, Brooks' chosen opposition is telling. Last I checked, Gingrich, Kemp, and Forbes haven't won any elected office in a long time. They're talking heads from a bygone age -- except that they still wield phenomenal power of propagandizing. What about votes from currently elected officials, hmmm?

And his second point is also disturbing, if shallow. If there aren't benefit cuts, the financial markets may go ballistic? Why? The higher the benefits, the more money going into the markets, right? If there are percentage-based fees, the more money that goes to them as well. If someone could explain this to me, I'd appreciate it.

Fifth, the administration is doing a poor job of communicating with members. Republicans, except at the top, feel isolated. They doubt that John Snow or anybody else in the administration has enough skill and authority to guide this through Congress.

Got that right. Dubya is making this a big prioirity, but not telling any of his allies how to sell it. Maybe because there isn't a way, but we'll let that pass.

All of this adds up to big trouble. Does that mean you walk away from Social Security reform? No. It makes sense to preserve and modernize New Deal and Great Society programs so they fit tomorrow's world. But it does mean you stop and look for alternate routes before you hit the roadblock.

Next, it would be useful to broaden the frame of discussion. All the talk so far revolves around Option 2 from the president's 2001 commission. Why limit ourselves? There are dozens of creative reform ideas out there.... [Some] suggest a consumption tax.

Politically, blending Social Security reform with tax reform gives you more moving parts. There are more opportunities for negotiation and compromise.

But here's the part where Brooks is at his best -- saying nothing, in a manner calculated to be eloquent but ultimately both clumsy and vacuous:

The president's role - at the Inauguration and the State of the Union address and after - will be to educate the country about the problem and lay out some parameters. He doesn't need to say what the legislation should look like. That's too wonky. He should talk about what the country should look like. Social Security is more than accounting; it's values.

Here are some of the values he might endorse:

First, Social Security reform should liberate our kids, not shackle them. It should eliminate the fiscal overhang so they have the money to tackle the problems that will arise in their own day.

Second, the reform should be transparent, so that people can see what kind of return they are getting on the money they put into the system. People should have information about their own lives.

Third, it should enhance people's control over their own retirement. In a self-governing democracy, citizens should do for themselves what they can do for themselves.

I have no idea what the fuck he is saying here, except that people should be self-aware and do what they are able to. Thanks, Brooks. That's helpful. Except, of course, that part of the point of Social Security is to help people who sometimes aren't self-aware, and who even if they are have little or no knowledge of the financial markets, and who have tried to do for themselves, but circumstances have thwarted them. They don't want to become investors. They want to eat, and to sleep under a roof.

Fourth, people should be encouraged to work longer. In an age in which many live into their 90's, we should be making better use of people in their 70's and 80's.

Fifth, we need a savings revolution. The plan should encourage the nation to save more, to create more capital for America's future greatness.

This is a time to trust the legislative process. Social Security has a better chance of passage if Congress leads. It's also time to think big. Social Security reform plus tax reform go a long way toward getting you to an ownership society.

Government exists to do what individuals can't and private companies won't. Individuals can't provide police and fire protection or negotiate international trade agreements or maintain food and water safety standards and pollution controls or preserve parks or guarantee the health of old people. Private companies can do much of this, but they do so with their own interests at heart, and for as much profit as possible. Taxes pay for a great many good things, and tax reform should encourage those who have the most to help those who have the least, not because we want to penalize people for being rich, but because it's good -- Biblically good, if you wish -- to help those in need, so that they have food, shelter, comfort, and hope.

But not in Bobo's World. There, everyone is an investment wizard, and we can all be rich if we just clap our hands and believe.

# posted by filkertom : 9:10 AM  1 comments

Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being, and is not creationism, the school district said in its response....

# posted by filkertom : 11:00 AM  1 comments

No American citizen should wake up the morning after the election and worry their vote wasn't counted. No citizen should be denied at the polls if they are eligible to vote. And, as the greatest, wealthiest nation on earth, our citizens should never be forced to vote on old, unaccountable and non transparent voting machines from companies controlled by partisan activists.

Tomorrow, members of Congress will meet to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election. I will not be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors.

Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.

But, that does not mean we should abandon our commitment to addressing those problems that happened in Ohio. We must act today to make sure they never happen again.

I urge you to join me in using this occasion to highlight our demand that Congress commit itself this year to reforming the electoral system. A Presidential election is a national federal election but we have different standards in different states for casting and counting votes. We need a national federal standard to solve the problems that occurred in the 2004 election. I will propose legislation to help achieve this.

Florida 2000 was a wake up call. But the Republicans who control Congress ignored it. Will they now ignore what happened in 2004?

There are nearly 3,000,000 of you receiving this email. We accomplished so much together during the campaign. Now let's use our power to make sure that at least one good thing comes from the voting rights problems of the 2004 election. If we want to force real action on election reform, we've got to demand that congressional leaders hold full hearings. Make sure they hear from you and help hold them accountable.

Speaker Dennis Hastert: 1-202-225-0600
Leader Bill Frist: 1-202-224-3135

And please report that you've made your call right here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/electoral_reform.php

I want every vote counted because Americans have to know that the votes they stood in line for, fought for, and strived so hard to cast in an election, are counted. We must make sure there are no questions or doubts in future elections. It's critical to our democracy that we investigate and act to prevent voting irregularities and voter intimidation across the country. We can't stand still as Congressional leaders seek to sweep well-founded voter concerns under the rug.

Please join with me in calling Speaker Hastert and Leader Frist and telling them that you want action on election reform now.

A recent report from Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) reveals very troubling questions that have not yet been answered by Ohio election officials. I commend the Democratic National Committee for its announcement this week that the DNC will be investing resources and reaching out to non-partisan academics in a long term study of Ohio voting irregularities. I am only sorry that we haven't seen the same from Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell and GOP officials.

Congress must play a positive, proactive role on this issue. That's why I will soon introduce legislation to reform our election system, ensuring transparency and accountability in our voting system and that all Americans have an opportunity to vote and have their vote counted.

Please remember to let us know that you made your call when you're done. We're hoping to ensure House and Senate leaders' offices hear our demand for action on election reform in meaningful way. Please take a moment to let us know you have made your call here: http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/electoral_reform.php

Thank you,

John Kerry

P.S. Thanks to all those who participated in our USO "phone home" campaign last week. The totals are coming in from the USO, and they are thrilled with your generosity and support for our brave men and women in uniform. We will send you totals as we get them.

Because, man, we had your back. And you folded like a map.

# posted by filkertom : 2:45 PM  8 comments