NeoProgBlog, The Neoprogressive Magazine online

After Arizona, A Simple Question About The Second Amendment

2011-01-10T10:38:00.000-08:00

The Arizona shootings are a good opportunity to reconsider the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority declared in 2008 that the Constitution gives people a personal right to possess firearms, ignoring the 2nd Amendment's limiting clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Note that there's no serious movement today to take away people's hunting firearms; politically, the fight is over whether students may carry guns at school, use of body-armor-piercing ammunition, etc. The recent Supreme Court ruling is now being used as the basis for arguments in favor of "cop-killer" bullets, fully automatic weapons, unlimited concealed-carry rights (even, in Arizona, in bars and schools), etc.

My Q: does anyone really believe the Founders considered universal ownership of military weaponry, outside the context of a National Guard unit or other "well-regulated militia," to be a human right as fundamental to human liberty as the freedoms of speech and religion? Are your Bible and your hollow-points equally sacred? (If so, what does that say about the primacy of your faith?) Or have we gone too far in the name of "gun rights," with political game-playing & intellectual bankruptcy now costing lives?

Korans4Korans

2010-09-07T10:17:00.000-07:00

Update, Sept. 8: Allah be praised, someone has an even better idea. Please support these guys.

Original post:

In the Founders' concept of the "Marketplace of Ideas," bad ideas won't find as many buyers as good ones -- so good ideas ultimately will win. Here's a plan to put that concept to work.

"The NeoProgressive" generally is not intended to take sides in passing political debates. Its goal is to look past hotbutton issues to look for ways Americans of varying opinions can join together to pursue common, truly American objectives. My focus here is ideological, not inflammatory.

But sometimes events occur that call for citizens of good will to stop merely talking about principles, and start acting on them. This is such a time.

The misguided and misanthropic pastor of Florida's Dove World Outreach Center church has announced plans to burn thousands of Korans on September 11. He's doing this despite a clear warning from David H. Petraeus, the American general in charge of operations in Afghanistan, that doing so would jeopardize both the lives of American troops and prospects for success in that war:

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan," Petraeus said. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult," he said.

Of course, in America, private individuals are free to both publish books and to burn them. The Constitution guarantees free expression, including offensive expression. But, if the Founders' "marketplace of ideas" concept is correct, there should be many more right-thinking people willing to print books than there are wrong-thinking people willing to burn them.

Accordingly, the NeoProgressive is gathering pledges from people who are willing to pay the costs of printing and distributing at least twice as many Korans as the Dove World Outreach Center burns on 9/11.

I don't propose this for religious reasons. I'm not Muslim. The book's content doesn't matter; what matters is establishing that more Americans support freedom of religion and expression than oppose them, and that there are more compassionate, tolerant Americans than there are narrow-minded, intolerant ones. By causing there to be more Korans in the world on 9/12 than there were on 9/10, we will be standing up for American ideals. And, if the same news media that cover the Koran-burning also report that Americans have created more Korans than they destroyed, we might even help save America's reputation in the world's Islamic community -- and, consequently, American soldiers' lives.

If enough people show interest in this project, I'll do the legwork needed to determine the exact costs involved and propose a method of distribution. At this point, I'd just like to know who's interested in participating and how much money we may have to work with.

If you think Korans4Korans is a good idea, please send me an email at Korans4Korans at gmail dot com, with your name, email, and what you might be able to contribute to the effort (in both money and skills -- I'm a mediator and writer and would love to connect with people who really know how the mechanics of this might work). And please follow the #Korans4Korans hashtag on Twitter.

M.S. Bellows, Jr.

Reprise: A NeoProgressive Philosophy, Collated

2008-03-01T18:09:00.000-08:00

(Photo: Republican President and Progressive, Teddy Roosevelt.)

The central goal of this blog is not to eliminate partisanship from American government. Quite the opposite: I believe that the "center" is best arrived at isometrically, with both sides pulling hard in separate directions. But even tug-of-war has rules, and that's what this blog seeks to do: to help identify the ground rules of American political society; to sketch out a deeply American way of viewing the world that's neither liberal nor conservative but outside those two categories. NeoProgressivism includes some basic, good-government "rules of war" within which the liberal and conservative camps -- and others who straddle those two, like Libertarians and Greens -- can do honorable, honest, and (most of all) constructive rather than destructive, battle. Picture it like this: the current debate between the parties is summarized by Hannity and Colmes; a truly NeoProgressive nation would debate like William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal did before the neocons took over Buckley's party.

That's straightforward enough as a concept -- but then I was forced to actually deliver something more when, on my other, proudly partisan, explicitly liberal blog, VichyDems, a reader asked a seemingly simple question: Can you point me to a site that outlines what a progressive agenda would look like? One that is left of where the dem party is now, but right of the Green party?

Putting all the pieces of a NeoProgressive philosophy together in one place wouldn't fit into a single post or essay -- it would be a book (which, someday soon, I intend to turn this blog into). But I was able to offer my reader two things, which I'm repeating here for you:

First, I was able to refer my reader to three books that lay out what I would consider to be a progressive-left agenda. These won't satisfy conservative neoprogs -- yes, I firmly believe that true conservatives can be Progressives -- but they still fall within the parameters of the broader Neoprogressive ideal rather than being extremist or radical. They are: James Carville's "We're Right, They're Wrong" (I know, Carville's fallen to the Dark Side lately, but this earlier book is a good, fairly short summary of basic liberal/progressive political philosophy, peppered with some good Cajun recipes); Jimmy Carter's "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis"; and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's "The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming the Compassionate Agenda."

I also was able to compile a list of links to individual posts on this blog that, taken together, lay out what I consider to be a fairly good start on stating a workable NeoProgressive philosophy:

Welcome to the NeoProgBlog

On the Proper Role of Government in a Democratic Society

A Neoprogressive Approach to the Abortion Debate

The War on Christmas

Alito and the Slippery Slope to Totalitarianism

Can't Have DemocracyWithout Knowing the Facts

Watching the Watchers: A Good Journalist Keeps Digging...

Fans of Good Government: A Good Day

Should I Stay or Should I Go Now? (Iraq)

Mine Safety

But It's Just a SMALL Hole in the Dike, Right? (Economics and Foreign Trade)

Mind-Numbing Stuff About the Fed, Money Supply, M3, and the Possible End of the World As We Know It

Gozar's Coming Ho-ome! (A soldier comes home.)

Trustbusting in the Modern Era: Not?

Alito Clearly Opposes Roe v. Wade. Why Can't He Say So, And Let the Chips Fall Where They May?

A Tale of Two Nations

Tom Delay and the Ungrateful Gerrymander

Profiles in Cowardice

How To Fail in Government Without Really Trying

Science in the Vatican

How to Fail in Government, Mental Health Edition

Yet Another "Texas Model" Federal Education Program. Yikes.

In 2002, the White House Said It Didn't Need FISA Standards Lowered -- That Existing Law Was Just Fine, Thank You.

Things Change, But the Constitution Abides

"Checks and Balances. How Quaint!"

Now HERE'S What I'm Talkin' 'Bout: Pete McCloskey

Former Reagan Official on What's Conservative...

Links Resources: The Mishandling of Iraq

That's a lot, but it covers the waterfront, from journalism to fiscal responsibility to national security and supporting the troops to religion to economics to abortion. At least it gives an overview of how one Progressive thinks about these issues, and tries to put them into the context of basic American values. More to come, especially after the Democratic Presidential primary race is resolved and I can turn my attention from VichyDems back to here.

Vichydems

2008-02-12T12:01:00.000-08:00

Vichydems.

Attention Froomkin Readers

2007-02-09T11:00:00.000-08:00

Link to my post on Tim Russert and "access journalism" is here. Thanks for visiting.

Troop Increases: I Told You So.

2006-12-19T18:31:00.000-08:00

I both hate and love to say it: I told you so.

NeoProgBlog, Nov. 27, 2005: This Administration, in particular, had no and still has no intention of withdrawing substantial numbers of troops from Iraq [as they are promising]. They are still building 14 permanent bases on Iraq's sandy soil, and a permanent presence in Iraq -- to replace the airmen and other soldiers we pulled out of Saudi Arabia in capitulation to Osama bin Laden's demands and to secure a backup oil source in the event the Saudi royal family is overthrown -- is a key part of the neocon foreign policy and energy strategy. They will, of necessity, rotate exhausted, three-tour units home, but they will not willingly do more. If they do do more, it will be a capitulation to Congressional Republicans worried about their seats, and is not likely to last past next November. (Post: Bush Administration Claims Credit for Troop Reduction Plans.)

VichyDems (my other blog), Mar. 14, 2006: “President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence. Bush, who until now has resisted concrete timelines as the Iraq war dragged on longer than he expected, outlined the target in the first of a series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory. While acknowledging grim developments on the ground, Bush declared "real progress" in standing up Iraqi forces capable of defending their nation.” [Quoting from and linking to the Washington Post]

I call bullshit. This is Nixonian politicking of the crassest, cruellest kind. The only troops coming home are those already due to do, some after two or three tours in-country. And after the election, forces “beyond his control” will force Bush to ramp troop levels back up.... [N]o serious, well-informed person actually believes that Iraq is anywhere close to self-sufficiency, or that Bush plans to bring our troops home soon. The only reason Bush is raising our soldiers’ and their families’ hopes is to bolster Republican chances in November. And raising false hope based on self-serving propaganda is a damnable thing to do, even for a Republican politician.... (Post: ~~Nixon~~ Bush Promises Troop Withdrawals Just After the Next Election.)

Washington Post, December 19, 2006: "President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point. In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin...."

Frankly, I wish I had been wrong a year ago, and that Bush had kept his promise. And I'm shocked, shocked that the MSM isn't pointing out Bush's "reduce troops by end of 2006" pledge... could it be they're not fair and balanced?
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Lamont Over Lieberman: A Harbinger of a New NeoProg Era?

2006-08-09T09:50:00.000-07:00

(Substantially cross-posted from VichyDems)

Lamont won, and Lieberman -- unlike in 2000 -- displays something resembling a cartilaginous proto-spine and vows to fight on as an independent. Lots of analysis on the net (most of it insightful) and on the mainstream news (most of it completely misunderstanding the real point). I won't waste time rehashing what Atrios, Kos, HuffPo, and a host of others already are saying well, but as an early leader in the effort to identify and oust Vichys -- "starting with Joe Lieberman, of course" -- I'm proud, and have some short points to add:

1. THIS WASN'T ABOUT IRAQ. Well, in part it was, but other Democrats, even now, support the war, and while there's some opposition to them, they haven't sunk to the bottom like Lieberman has. It's about Iraq, but also about Iran, the bankruptcy bill, his unflagging support for Israel drunk or sober, etc. He actually has a decent voting record -- something like 90% of the time voting with the Dems, according to Jon Alter -- but that 10% has been on the most important issues. It does no good to be a good Democrat on some appropriations rider giving pork to a blue state but side with the Republicans on preemptive war. And a lot of us still remember he's the one who covered his ass by running simultaneously for VP and for his old Senate seat in 2000, and reportedly persuaded Gore to cave in early on the recount. So this isn't about Iraq; it's about Lieberman.

2. THIS WAS A VICTORY FOR IDEOLOGICAL, PARTISAN POLITICS -- NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. On the Today show, Lieberman just said that Lamont stood for the "old politics" of partisan division. Well, damn straight!

Look, there are fascists and there are free French, and the fascists are wrong and the free French are right, and the Vichy -- pretending to be the mediators bridging the two -- are nothing but accommodationists without vision or values. I want an America that embraces two parties, each rooted in intellectually honest and fact-based ideologies and values, often in opposition but both committed to the success of our nation, playing by the same fair rules and respectful of the other. And I want each of those parties to play hard, because it's in that isometric tension that America finds its way through hard times. When one party is dominant, the other should act as a brake and a reality check: the two-party system as an unintended part of the "checks and balances" system. That's a major part of what I've labeled "neoProgressivism": an honest, but vigorously argued, political system rather than a tepid, accommodationist one.

The problem with Lieberman and the DLC/DSCC/DCCC crowds are that they are trying to stand in the middle of the tug-of-war and negotiate a compromise, when their role is to stand on one side and haul like hell, trusting that only by doing so will the other side be counterbalanced and something like "neutrality" or "balance" be achieved. Imagine what would happen if, in the middle of a tug-of-war contest, 1/3 of the people on one side suddenly let go and said they were tired of partisanship. The rest of their team would be face-down in the mud, and the quitters would stand there clean as whistles, sweat-free, saying, "see where conflict gets you?" No: that's where dodging the hard work gets you. Lieberman let go of the rope; Lamont grabbed the rope; the rest of the team appreciates Lamont for doing so. Simple as that.

2.5 THE HALF-JOKING, HALF-SERIOUS RELIGIOUS ANALYSIS, SUPPLEMENTAL TO NO. 2 ABOVE: LIEBERMAN LOST PRECISELY BECAUSE GOD DOESN'T LIKE BUCKETS OF LUKEWARM SPIT. Revelations 3:15-16: "I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Lieberman is neither hot nor cold, and he was spewed out of Connecticut's maw. Good for Connecticut. Lesson: even God wants people to pick a side -- hot or cold -- and stick with it, 'cause lukewarm spit just sucks. Other "centrist" politicians, take note: God's mad at you.

3. LIEBERMAN'S INDEPENDENT BID IS JUST A SETUP FOR HIS FUTURE JOB AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. He doesn't have a chance in hell of actually winning election as an independent unless the Rs rig the election against their own guy, which I doubt will happen. Lots of R money Joe's way? Sure, but only enough to help him split the D vote -- just as Rs donated heavily to Nader, not so he'd win but so that Bush would. So why's he acting all sanctimonious about his "independence"? Just as he did when he dissed Clinton's morality over a minor sexual peccadillo that wasn't 1/100th as bad as what King David did with Bathsheba and Uriah, he's portraying himself as the righteous man for political gain (and to stroke his own ego). He lost, but he can claim he lost in the name of noble bipartisanship. And it will help his career: unlike Zell Miller, he's not interested in a one-shot speech at the R convention and some book sales; he's trying to establish nonpartisan credentials so he can (a) ideally, take Don Rumsfeld's job as S.O.D. (he recently gave an interview in which he very guardedly criticized Rumsfeld but said "it's the President's decision" whether to replace him, hint hint); or, if that doesn't pan out, (b) he can work both sides of the aisle as possibly the highest-paid lobbyist (whether by that title or not) in history.

4. IF WE KEEP WORKING, THIS CAN BE DAY ONE OF THE NEOPROGRESSIVE ERA: Pundits are saying that the "liberal bloggers" will cost Democrats elections by driving the party to the left. Stop, think: what Congressional election have we won since the centrists took power in 1992? None. Zippo. Not one. All the DLC ever did was get Clinton elected -- but he's tremendously charismatic, would have won anyway against the lukewarm Bush 41, and in hindsight Clinton did a lot of harm (e.g., passing NAFTA without environmental or labor safeguards). I'll write more on this later, but the evidence is that when Democrats act relatively progressive rather than accommodationist, they win more. Everyone predicts this new direction for the party -- the netroots-driven, ideologically purer, more combative direction -- will lead to disaster. The liberal Republicans in 1964 said the same thing about the neocons who tried to reclaim that party for conservatives. I pray we never become as extreme as the neocons did, but you have to admit: the centrist Republicans of the 1960s were wrong, the "purists" in their party did succeed in taking control, they've succeeded in taking control of all three branches of government -- and, crazy as it sounds, are talking seriously about securing a "permanent majority" (in Rove's words). That's a pretty good forty-year run; not even the Raiders have managed to put together a streak lasting that long.

Now it's our turn. Kris Kristofferson wrote a great song saying, "I ain't sayin' I beat the devil, but I drank his beer for nothing, and then I stole his song." Democrats are going to steal the Republicans' songs in terms of political stratagy by moving left and actually standing for something for a change, and then they (unlike the more extreme Republicans) will -- unlike the DLCites like Lieberman and both Clintons -- hopefully are going to use our power for good, to fight to re-establish an America that works better for Main Street than Wall Street, that balances its budgets and spends its money on its own people instead of on transnational corporations and that combats terrorism by building schools and medical clinics in the Middle East the way Hamas and Hizbullah have (earning people's support) instead of just forts and embassies (which generate enmity and have never worked, ever since the Crusader States fell to the Muslims a thousand years ago).

This is a big deal. It's a good sign for the upcoming midterms, it's a wake-up call for the seven Dems in the Gang of 14, Landrieu, Feinstein, Ben Nelson and all the other lukewarmers, and more broadly, the start of a new era, not a liberal one but a neoprogressive, fairer one. I'm happy and, for all you who've supported this effort, proud. (And a little proud of myself, too: what was the first site to label this loser as "Lieberman, Joseph (V-CT)"? VichyDems! So let's avoid calling him an "I" and be sure everyone labels him a "V".)

5. KEEP GIVING MONEY TO LAMONT! He'll still need it, all the way up to the general election. I just received my first AdSense check from Google (after half a year!): $100.41. It's mostly going to Lamont (with a little to Menendez, a good first-year Dem from New Jersey who's going to have a tough time in the general election). Please do the same; you can donate here.

I'll be fully back in the saddle soon, taking aim not at the general election but at retooling the Democratic political apparatus and fighting to reestablish a political system that is both fair (no rigged electronic voting, reformed campaign finance laws, zero voter tolerance for "Swiftboating" AND vigorously diverse. And all of that before the 2008 Congressional and Presidential primaries! As far as I'm concerned, 2006 is now over. Happy New Year. Let's go to work on 2008.

More on China, and Why Bush is Disastrous for National Security

2006-04-10T09:28:00.000-07:00

I keep writing about our own weak economic condition, how dangerous it is, and how it hands control of our country to creditor nations like China. And news is trickling out, especially from Gary Hart's new book, about how focused on China some people in the Administration are. You'd think one of those high-rollers would be able to make the link and realize that our economic reliance on China is a serious security risk, but nope, it comes down to clear-thinking pacifists like NTodd to realize, and try to communicate to people with power, that the Chinese consider economics to be part of warfare, and that the link between our economic insecurity and our defense posture overlaps even into Iraq (where insurgents are bankrupting us for pennies a day), and that Bush's deficits and American job losses are endangering us while the Republicans bloviate about "national security" in the narrowest sense.

Bush: "We Never Said There Was a Direct Connection Between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

2006-03-20T23:30:00.000-08:00

From a George W. Bush speech in Cleveland, OH, March 20, 2006:

First, if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.

Yet 90% of U.S. troops in Iraq believe they're there as retribution for Saddam's supposed role in 9-11.

This one's being added to my laundry list of reasons why sane, patriotic people can be opposed to the war in Iraq. Hat-tip to Crooks & Liars.

Afghani On Trial for Being Christian

2006-03-20T08:54:00.000-08:00

and could face the death penalty.

But it's sure a good thing we brought Democracy to Afghanistan, huh? And leaving Afghanistan to start a war in Iraq was still really wise, right?

Yergh. (h/t to Moonbotica.)

Heading Off the Upcoming Propaganda About Venezuela

2006-03-06T09:34:00.000-08:00

Once the Administration digests the reality that it has turned the Middle East into even more of a quagmire than it was pre-Iraq-invasion, it will need to create a new enemy to distract us from our ignominious pullout and to maintain its "we'd-love-liberty-and-democracy-at-home-but-we-just-can't-risk-it- right-now" rationale for consolidating power. So who will be the new non-Middle-Eastern "Dangerous Other"? My bet is Hugo Chavez' Venezuela.

Venezuela is imperfect, and Chavez is imperfect, but compared to most other Latin American countries over the past fifty years, it's on the high end of the scale. Chavez is a sort of "Castro-lite" President who combines realpolitik (his party does seek to use its currently position in government to consolidate its control) with liberal social policies; think Karl Rove working for Jerry Brown and you'll get a sense.

During the Cold War, the U.S. didn't like South American countries that leaned socialist, because it was trying to keep them from falling into the Soviet camp. That was a legitimate concern then, because Cuba was, indeed, a serious danger to the U.S., and no wise politician would want a repeat elsewhere in the hemisphere. Today, however, there's no reason to care one way or the other whether a sovereign nation has liberal or conservative government policies -- I don't see us talking about invading Sweden, for example. Yet President Bush keeps talking down Chavez, calling him a dictator and making vague threats to unseat him in order to "free" the Venezuelan people. Why?

Well, duh. Oil. Venezuela is the largest oil exporter in South America. And Chavez, wisely raising his profile in hopes that any American coup attempts will receive immediate American media attention, has embarrassed Bush by such tricks as providing low-cost fuel oil -- subsidized by the Venezuelan government -- to low-income Americans struggling to keep their homes warm in the Northeastern U.S. (I've written about Chavez' other tactics to make friends and help South American nations free themselves from U.S. influence here.

You just know Bush turns purplish whenever his limo cruises past a Citgo station (which sells Venezuelan, not Middle Eastern, gasoline).

So Bush amps up his claims that Venezuela is a dictatorship whose people need to be liberated. To "catapult that propaganda," here's a contrary view, from someone who's been there: John Hofer, a Peace Corps volunteer with extensive South American experience, writing in the Eugene (Oregon) Register-Guard:

No one showed the least hesitation to talk about Chavez. One fellow in the Caracas metro even walked up to me and asked about him. Not waiting for a response, he said, "I hate Chavez."

A bus driver said that ordinary people get more respect now that Chavez is in office. Many offered complex opinions, citing the good and the bad, winners and losers. Many talked about disliking Chavez's tendency to talk too much, a view I share about politicians in general.

A few days later, in a heated interview on one of the private television networks, an opposition figure was visibly agitated about elements of Chavez's elections law. At one point, the interviewer asked, "Are you threatening Chavez?"

The guest responded, "No, I'm putting him on notice." I could only sit in awe, trying to remember the last time an American opposition politician showed such gumption.

If anything, some Venezuelans enjoy too much freedom. Four years after the Chamber of Commerce led a failed violent coup, those responsible have not been tried, indicted or jailed.

In the meantime, the government's prosecutor on the case was assassinated, the only major act of political terrorism in recent Venezuelan history. I can only imagine that Chavez's tolerance shows his commitment to the rule of law and to the judicial process - however slow, inconvenient and dangerous.

Hofer's whole article is worth reading. Venezuela may not be perfect. Chavez's regime may not be a model of pure democracy. (Is ours? Ask Bev Harris.) But Venezuela sure doesn't sound like a dangerous dictatorship to me.

Supplement, 3:50 pm PT: Condy Rice gave an example of what's to come just last month.

Supplement #2, 9:15 pm PT: An EXCELLENT and comprehensive analysis of Venezuela-U.S. relations by Common Dreams.

Ideology and Competence

2006-03-06T09:29:00.000-08:00

I’ve written extensively here on what I hope becomes a bipartisan meme: that whatever size government we choose to create, and whatever we choose to ask it to do, we should demand, expect and enable it to do well. Incompetence is simply not an option in either a conservative or a liberal government.

I’ve also written about the fact that certain tenets of modern conservatism are self-defeating -- specifically, people who fundamentally believe that government by its very nature is hopelessly inept and fails miserably at everything it tries to do tend to be very bad at governing, since they do not expect themselves or others to succeed. A government run by self-fulfilling prophets of doom is very likely to fumble the ball when it comes, say, to organizing an adequate response to a major hurricane, maintaining civil order and enacting a swift return to local control when occupying another country after a war, or balancing a budget.

In that regard, it’s fun and reassuring to see that
conservatives themselves are starting to recognize this administration’s fundamental incompetence (though they have not yet realized that their own philosophy is at least partly to blame).

Still, I have to say, no conservatives have put it as eloquently as -- ahem -- I have:

Under the current administration, the government succeeds at almost nothing it sets out to do. It spends money like a drunken 1970s Democrat, embraces global imperialism and foreign wars with the misplaced enthusiasm of a William Randolph Hearst, prostitutes itself to donors and lobbyists with the promiscuity of Ulysses Grant, and does less for the average American than Cal Coolidge. It has done almost nothing skilfully except gain office.

Or here:

[C]ontrary to the ideologies of both liberals and conservatives, the Bush administration is giving us government that is functionally incompetent and fiscally incontinent. It's the worst of all possible worlds.

I also wrote on this topic here.

So what SHOULD we expect from our government? I discussed it at length in one of my first NeoProgBlog posts, which I’ll excerpt at length below to close out this post:

7. What Government Does, It Should Do Well – Which Imposes Obligations On We Citizens To Help It Do So.

We can debate what it is we want our government to do, but we should all agree that what it does, it should do well.

This seems like a facile proposition, but it has important ramifications. There is a direct connection between a government’s ideology and its effectiveness. When the government is run by people who ideologically are opposed to government action and who doubt the government’s ability to act competently, then any action it does take will be slow, hesitant, incomplete and inadequate. Hurricane Katrina showed this kind of government at its worst. There is a direct connection between the ideology that wants to suppress the federal government in favor of states rights and personal responsibility, and Michael Brown’s Congressional testimony blaming Louisiana and its citizens for the failures of FEMA.

We should have made up our minds. If FEMA was not going to act, it should have said so early and loudly, so that the states and their citizens knew what to expect. If FEMA was going to act, it should have done so rapidly and effectively. The tepid compromise that actually occurred cost lives, hurt our nation’s morale, and undermined our faith in our government – which means it undermined our faith in ourselves. The Neoprogressive assertion that there are proper times and places for government involvement in the civil affairs of our nation carries with it the assertion that, when the government acts, it should do so boldly and well. A Neoprogressive FEMA would have stepped up to the plate and gotten the job done.

However, our expectation that our government work well obligates we citizens to help it do so. First, we must insist that government agencies be staffed by people who believe in the mission of those agencies, not (as is often the case) by people who, prior to taking office, lobbied against the very agencies they now head. There is no place, in a Neoprogressive nation, for a Michael Brown, overseeing the hobbling of FEMA, or a John Bolton, recess-appointed ambassador to an organization he believes should not even exist. Effective government cannot be accomplished by people who question the legitimacy of the very agencies we citizens have hired them to administer.

Practically, this means that we must continually lobby our President to appoint competent and committed administrators, and we must support the right and obligation of the Senate to exercise oversight over Presidential appointees. As James Madison made clear, the Senate’s right of advice and consent and the minority’s right of filibuster exist, not to frustrate the President’s right to choose his executives, or to allow the minority party to unfairly advance an ideology that failed at the polls, but to shine sufficient light on the President’s choices that he will be embarrassed to appoint anyone who is not competent and committed to the task. Neoprogressives should refuse to be drawn into debates over party ideology in executive agency appointments, but focus on competency. We should make ourselves aware of these obscure appointments, and write our editors and Senators to register our opinions about them. We should act like employers conducting a job interview -- which is what we are.

Second: if we ask our government to undertake a job, we should give it the tools to accomplish that job. No National Guardsman should have been deployed to Iraq with Vietnam-era body armor. No teacher should have to buy classroom supplies from her own paycheck. To ask government to act, then inadequately fund it, creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that government is incompetent. It betrays our citizens, it betrays the soldiers, sailors, teachers, and others who work on our behalf, and it betrays our integrity.

Oh, Gawd, Not MORE Mind-Numbing Economic Stuff!

2006-03-03T15:41:00.000-08:00

Yes! More mind-numbing economic stuff! But it's short:

I've already warned about the government's discontinuation of M3 reporting, which will tend to conceal a particular kind of economic activity that both anticipates economic trouble (meaning most of us won't have as much advance notice as the insiders do) and can reveal who's doing semi-insider-trading that insulates them from slowdowns (meaning we won't catch the fat cats who DO see trouble coming and sell the rest of us short to insulate themselves from it).

Now the government also is eliminating the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which provides meaningful long-term data on how real Americans, including poorer Americans, are actually doing -- i.e., a key measure of how Main Street and the Mean Streets are doing, rather than Wall Street.

But I'm just a Cassandra. Screw the regular people. It's not like they're allowed to vote anymore anyway.

A NeoProgressive Philosophy, Collated

2006-02-28T14:52:00.000-08:00

On my other blog, a reader asked what should have been a simple question: Can you point me to a site that outlines what a progressive agenda would look like? One that is left of where the dem party is now, but right of the Green party?

I'd like to think that this blog fills that order, but I haven't yet gotten around to trying to put all the pieces of the NeoProgressive philosophy together in one place. Certainly not one single post or essay -- it would be a book (which, someday, I intend to turn this blog into).

But at the very least, I was able to surf all the posts on this site and identify the ones that, taken together, lay out the basics of such a philosophy. So, I did that; a list of those links is below.

I also referred my reader to three books that lay out a progressive-left agenda. These won't satisfy conservative neoprogs, but they still fall within the parameters of the broader Neoprogressive idea (in other words, they're left-progressive, while other people are right-progressive, but they're still progressive rather than extremist or radical). They are: James Carville's "We're Right, They're Wrong" (fairly short, political philosophy peppered with some good Cajun recipes); Jimmy Carter's new "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis"; and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's "The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming the Compassionate Agenda".

This blog, of course, tries to point to a middle way -- an American way that's neither liberal nor conservative but sets moral, good-government ground rules within which those two camps can do honorable battle. Along those lines, I offer a ridiculous number of links to individual posts from this site that, taken together, lay out what I consider to be a good neoprogressive philosophy:

Welcome to the NeoProgBlog

On the Proper Role of Government in a Democratic Society

A Neoprogressive Approach to the Abortion Debate

The War on Christmas

Alito and the Slippery Slope to Totalitarianism

Can't Have DemocracyWithout Knowing the Facts

Watching the Watchers: A Good Journalist Keeps Digging...

Fans of Good Government: A Good Day

Should I Stay or Should I Go Now? (Iraq)

Mine Safety

But It's Just a SMALL Hole in the Dike, Right? (Economics and Foreign Trade)

Mind-Numbing Stuff About the Fed, Money Supply, M3, and the Possible End of the World As We Know It

Gozar's Coming Ho-ome! (A soldier comes home.)

Trustbusting in the Modern Era: Not?

Alito Clearly Opposes Roe v. Wade. Why Can't He Say So, And Let the Chips Fall Where They May?

A Tale of Two Nations

Tom Delay and the Ungrateful Gerrymander

Profiles in Cowardice

How To Fail in Government Without Really Trying

Science in the Vatican

How to Fail in Government, Mental Health Edition

Yet Another "Texas Model" Federal Education Program. Yikes.

In 2002, the White House Said It Didn't Need FISA Standards Lowered -- That Existing Law Was Just Fine, Thank You.

Things Change, But the Constitution Abides

"Checks and Balances. How Quaint!"

Now HERE'S What I'm Talkin' 'Bout: Pete McCloskey

Former Reagan Official on What's Conservative...

Links Resources: The Mishandling of Iraq

That's a lot, but it covers the waterfront, from journalism to fiscal responsibility to national security and supporting the troops to religion to economics to abortion. At least it gives an overview of how one Progressive thinks about these issues, and tries to put them into the context of basic American values.

Links Resource: The Mishandling of Iraq

2006-02-08T16:43:00.000-08:00

Last Updated: April 10, 2006
When my pro-war friends ask why I think the war was disingenuously sold to the American people, and why I think it's being mishandled, I tend to rub my eyes in disbelief; it seems so obvious to me. But then, I tend to obsess on blogs, rss feeds, news sites, etc. Thankfully for the national economy, not everyone does.

Rather than attempt piecemeal explanations, it seems like a good idea for me to assemble some key documents in one place. Below are links to some good, "overview" type documents that help explain my conclusions that the Iraq War is a solution that is far, far worse than any problem Iraq posed before the war, and that the Administration is culpable for how it handled both the runup to war and the war itself. Of course, there are many more pieces to this puzzle, but this is a good "this is a football"-type beginning.

So: Want to know why I think what I think? Click away, and please keep an open mind.

Did the Administration cook the intel? In what way? Wasn't it really the CIA's fault?

Hersh, Selective Intelligence

Downing Street Minutes

But the Senate had the same intelligence the President did, and they voted for the war!

Nonpartisan Congressional Research Service memo on Congress' relative access to intel

Is the War Really Going So Badly? Why? Why Is The Iraqi Army Taking so Long To Come Up to Speed?

William F. Buckley, U.S. Has Failed in Iraq

Fallows, Blind Into Baghdad

Fallows, Why Iraq Has No Army

The Cost of War

NEJM Caring for the Wounded, A Photoessay

$1-2 Trillion Long-Term

Secret Pentagon Study: 80% of Upper Body Fatalities Would Have Been Avoided With Better, Readily Available Armor

Army Stretched to Breaking Point

Security chief says Israel may come to miss Saddam compared to Iraq now

Let's Just Do What the Troops Want Us To, How's That?

72% of Troops In Iraq Want to Come Home Within Year; 90% Believe War Is Retaliation for Saddam's Role in 9-11.

Bush on March 20, 2006: "I don't think we ever said... there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq... in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Originally posted: Nov. 28, 2005, and subsequently updated.
link link link link

More on how NSA spying hurts us in the War On Terror

2006-02-07T14:12:00.000-08:00

Convicted terrorism plotter seeks dismissal of charges because conviction was based on warrantless NSA wiretaps:

An Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in a terrorist plot to attack Washington and New York yesterday urged a judge to throw out his plea, in part because he was spied on through President Bush's controversial warrantless eavesdropping program.

Iyman Faris argued that the surveillance violated his rights because it was illegal and that the government therefore could not use it to build a case against him.

When you get evidence against criminals by spying on them without a warrant, courts label it "fruit from a poisoned tree" and exclude it from evidence. If poisoned evidence was used to obtain your conviction, that conviction is overturned. If you want to put bad guys in jail and keep them there, you make damn sure all your evidence was constitutionally obtained.

I've prosecuted criminals; I know this. George W. Bush was rejected by a Texas law school and went to Biz School instead, so apparently he does not. Gonzalez, of course, has no excuse.

The Fall of the Fourth Estate, Part 1,296:

2006-02-07T14:02:00.000-08:00

Here.

At least three reporters involved in an October 2003 Time magazine article that suggested Karl Rove was no longer under suspicion of outing Valerie Plame, and that contained Scott McClellan's denial that Rove was involved, knew at the time of the article that Rove had, in fact, outed Plame.

Public relations people spread a message without caring about its truth or falsity. Journalists dig until they learn the truth about a situation, then publicize it to the broader public to enable us to engage in informed democracy. We live in an age of PR flacks posing as journalists.

I don't subscribe to Time, btw.

Former Reagan Official on What's Conservative...

2006-02-07T14:00:00.000-08:00

... and what's not, and the ground that real Americans should be fighting over, and the ground they should not.

Here.

This Is Not How Great Nations, or Great Statesmen, Act

2006-02-07T13:56:00.000-08:00

Guantanamo, the War on Terror, and White House credibility:

Who's Really in Guantanamo

Now HERE'S What I'm Talkin' 'Bout: Pete McCloskey

2006-02-05T11:59:00.000-08:00

Pete McCloskey is a progressive Republican running against incumbent Richard Pombo, as low-down dirty crooked and antiprogressive a guy as Congress has ever seen, in California's 11th District. McCloskey is a classic California progressive, and one I'd love to see elected. My fuller take on McCloskey can be found here, in a parallel universe, but the important thing is to visit McCloskey's website here.

"Checks and Balances. How Quaint!"

2006-02-02T07:58:00.000-08:00

Civics lesson: Congress passes laws. The Executive Branch executes the laws (that's why it's named that). There's a feedback loop, in that Congress then has the power and duty to exercise oversight over whether those laws are being faithfully executed. The mutual jealousies between the branches keep either one from grabbing too much power. James Madison, Federalist Papers, all that stuff. Basic.

Congress passes a law empowering the Executive Branch to do unprecedented levels of spying on Americans thought to be trafficking with terrorists and foreign spies. The law sets up a secret court to authorize special warrants in those cases without delay and without compromising national security, but it makes any such spying WITHOUT one of those warrants a federal crime. A President signs that legislation into law. Several Presidents abide by it. Congress amends it to make it even more powerful. Another President signs that. More compliance. Lots of spying takes place.

9-11 happens. Congress asks the White House whether it needs the law made even more powerful. The White House says, "no thank you, it's working very well just the way it is, and besides, if it were broader it might be unconstitutional." (Which makes sense, because it IS a broad law already, and even in dangerous times the Constitution remains in force).

And, all the while, the White House knows full well that it's ignoring the law altogether, and wiretapping hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans without any warrants at all, even secret ones.

What's a responsible Congress to do? Why, exercise oversight, of course! Find out what the hell's up, bless it if it's lawful, rein it in if it's not. Balance of powers, mutual jealousies, James Madison, Federalist Papers, all that stuff. Basic. Right?

Right. One day after the most pro-executive-power justice in modern history is sworn onto the Supreme Court, the White House tells Congress to screw off: it won't produce the documents behind its illegal decision to surveil Americans without warrants.

If the Founders shared one belief, it was this: that the accretion of power in a single Executive without meaningful checks posed THE greatest danger to the Republic. They had studied the failure of the Athenian democracy and the rise of the Roman Caesars, and they had lived under the careless hand of an uncaring monarch. And this -- this moderately paced but inexorable accumulation of power by an unaccountable executive -- was the foremost evil the Constitution sought to avoid.

Bad thing. If Congress doesn't do its job and force a showdown over these papers, WITHOUT recourse to an increasingly partisan and unreliable Supreme Court, then we need to replace the Congress. It's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of courage, and a matter of preserving the Republic.

Ask James Madison. He'll tell you.

Oh, And While We're Screwing Things Up, Can We Waste Money, Too?

2006-02-02T07:47:00.000-08:00

Above: a guard with $58 million in cash that our government gave to a convicted felon to disburse in Iraq for rebuilding.

This one speaks for itself:

Robert J. Stein Jr. could not have been clearer about his feelings toward the American businessman who was receiving millions of dollars in contracts from Mr. Stein to build a major police academy and other reconstruction projects in Iraq.

"I love to give you money," Mr. Stein wrote in an e-mail message to the businessman, Philip H. Bloom, on Jan. 3, 2004, just as the United States was trying to ramp up its rebuilding program in Iraq.

As it turned out, Mr. Stein had the money to give. Despite a prior conviction on felony fraud that his Pentagon background check apparently missed, Mr. Stein was hired and put in charge of at least $82 million of reconstruction money in the south central Iraqi city of Hilla by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the American-led administration that was then running Iraq.

Might some of that money been better spent at home, where we just cut $39.5 billion from programs that help the least among us, including students, the disabled, and the elderly?

Or even, say, actually rebuilding Iraq, so its people don't want to kill our kids quite so much?

Just asking.

Neutral GAO Report: "No One In Charge" of Fed Effort in Katrina

2006-02-02T07:40:00.000-08:00

Broken record here, but as I keep saying: Conservatives oppose big government. Liberals oppose bad government. Bush is giving us big bad government. And incompetence is something no American -- lib or con -- should tolerate in the government that serves it. It's the primary NeoProg plank, at least these days, when incompetence is so common.

So more fuel on the fire: a Government Accountability Office report criticizing the federal response to Katrina (which puts the lie to the Administration's efforts, just yesterday during Congressional hearings, to put the main blame on the (Democratic, of course) New Orleans and Louisiana governments).

Highlights:

No one from the federal government was clearly in charge of the response to Hurricane Katrina, Congressional investigators said Wednesday, and in the absence of clear leadership the general federal approach was "to wait for affected states to request assistance."

In a preliminary report, the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, criticized Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, for waiting until Tuesday, the day after the storm hit, to designate Hurricane Katrina an "incident of national significance," a status that more clearly put his department in charge.

An Excellent Alito Post-Mortem...

2006-01-31T14:13:00.000-08:00

from Digby.

72-25 is bad. But it's not as bad as it seems, historically. Something's happening here, and the astounding amount of lobbying that went into getting 25 votes for filibuster are the start of a movement. And no, I'm not drinking this early, I'm serious. Read Digby.

Gear Up for $262/Barrel Oil. Soon.

2006-01-27T17:01:00.000-08:00

Scary News from Davos. And guys like George Soros and the others attending the World Economic Forum aren't stupid.

For comparison, right now we've been running about $60/bl. So, we're looking at, say, $8/gal. for gas and home heating oil.

Yow. Add this my other Cassandra-like predictions of economic gloom.

Alito Filibuster: Up to Date Info On Where Each Senator Stands

2006-01-27T14:14:00.000-08:00

Alito gameplan: who stands where, who's come back to the side of the angels, who's being a Vichy, and most of all -- who to call, what to say, and contact information. All at the VichyDems blog.

Independent Study: Abramoff Steered Donations AWAY From Dems!

2006-01-27T14:11:00.000-08:00

Link here. Thanks to Josh Marshall.

And it's what I've been saying.

Things Change. But the Constitution Abides.

2006-01-26T08:49:00.000-08:00

The Administration's basic argument in support of patently illegal, warrantless spying on American citizens -- when warrants were quickly and readily available -- is that "9/11 Changed Everything."

Yes: 9/11 changed everything. Foreign nationals killed over 3,000 Americans (and others) on American soil.

But:

The fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the Cold War (15,000 American deaths from nuclear test fallout alone) changed everything.

Watergate changed everything.

Vietnam (47,000 American deaths) changed everything.

The assassination of JFK changed everything.

The atomic bomb (over 200,000 killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) changed everything.

Pearl Harbor (2,400 American deaths) changed everything.

The Crash of '29 changed everything.

The War To End All Wars (5 million Allied or "Entente" deaths) changed everything.

The War Between the States (618,000 American deaths) changed everything.

The British invading our nation and burning the White House in 1812 (2,260 American battle deaths) changed everything.

Things change. Yet the Constitution abides.

In 2002, the White House Said It Didn't Need FISA Standards Lowered -- That Existing Law Was Just Fine, Thank You.

2006-01-24T14:50:00.000-08:00

At least I'm still capable of being stunned.

As I've explained before, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") sets out a procedure for American intelligence agencies to quickly obtain a warrant to do surveillance on American citizens who may be having communications with terrorists. It's easy to get those warrants: out of over 19,000 applications, only 5 (not five thousand -- just five) have EVER been denied. The FISA court is located down the hall from the AG's office. And warrants can even be obtained retroactively when there's a time crunch. So there is NO reason for Bush to have permitted wiretaps of American citizens without going through the FISA process.

And now, an amazing revelation: in 2002, a bill was introduced in Congress to make it even easier to get FISA warrants -- like a 99.97% warrant-granting rate isn't enough! -- and ...

Wait for it...

The Bush Administration declined to support the bill, saying it was unconstitutional.

Yes: the Bush Justice Department argued, post-911, that lowering the standard for spying on Americans from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" violated the Constitution. It even said that the Patriot Act and FISA were already loose enough, and it didn't need anything more to get the job done, thank you.

So what does that say about the SAME ADMINISTRATION doing warrantless spying on Americans without complying with FISA, and claiming now that it did so because FISA was too strict?

Thanks to Glenn Greenwald, who's doing a great job of untangling the legal issues surrounding the NSA/FISA controversy.

SUPPLEMENT, JANUARY 26, 2006: Another stunner: the Administration's explanations of WHY it opposed the proposed bill. According to David Savage of the L.A. Times, one Justice Department skokesman says '[t]here was a conscious choice not to have a public discussion about it." Others quibble about definitions: that "reasonable cause" equals "probable cause" but not "reasonable suspicion." It all sounds tres wonky, but it's significant to see the Administration wiggle and squirm to evade Glenn Greenwald's discovery -- without success.

Alito, the Filibuster, and Political Cowardice: A Prediction

2006-01-24T13:56:00.001-08:00

Here is how the Alito nomination should, in a better world, play out:

1. One or more Democratic or Independent Senators would filibuster Alito.

2. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would call a cloture vote (i.e., a vote to cut off debate, which in the Senate ordinarily is unlimited. Cloture would end a filibuster, which is actually nothing more than unlimited debate actually occurring.)

3. 41 Democratic and Independent Senators would oppose cloture. The filibuster would continue.

4. The mainstream press would have no choice but to cover at least some of the filibuster speeches, communicating Alito's problems to the American people.

5. The Republican party would do instant polling and, depending on the results, either back down and withdraw the Alito nomination or, as they have threatened to do, "go nuclear" -- Frist or Cheney (as President of the Senate) would declare that filibusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional, turn off the filibustering Senators' microphones, and hold a simple vote to confirm Alito.

6. If the latter, Alito would become a Supreme Court justice, the Republicans would look bad, and the Democrats would keep the issue alive from now to next November's elections by effectively shutting down all Senate business (except for military and public health matters) by insisting on strict compliance with every. single. procedural. rule. in. the. book.

The two parties would have succeeded in distinguishing themselves from each other; both sides would have stood on principle; and the voters would, at long last, have a clear choice in November (instead of a choice between Republican and Vichy Democrat, as they have had in the past).

That's what I'd like to see: principled confrontation, backbones, and a decision of "who wins" by the voters in November.

Now here's what I predict will happen:

1. Since Democratic activists are increasingly calling for a filibuster, one or more Democratic Senators -- especially ones whose seats are susceptible to a primary challenge, like Joe Lieberman -- will mount a filibuster.

2. They will do so knowing, in advance, that there aren't 41 votes against cloture. Frist will call a cloture vote, several Democratic Senators (those up for re-election in largely conservative states) will side with the Republicans, and the filibuster will fail.

3. The Vichy Democrats will rail against the Right without actually having done anything concrete to stop it and without taking any political risk.

4. The Republicans will keep their Senate and House majorities in November.*

* Disclaimer: unless there are enough indictments of individual Republican congresspeople in connection with the Abramoff and Delay corruption trials, in which case the Democrats may win enough seats in the House despite their cowardice over Alito.

There. I'm on the record. Let's see how it plays out.

Yet Another "Texas Model" Federal Education Program. Yikes.

2006-01-21T22:22:00.001-08:00

The federal "No Child Left Behind" program is based on a similar program implemented in Texas when George W. Bush was governor. Touted as "The Texas Miracle," the Texas version of "No Child" supposedly reduced dropout rates and improved student test scores astronomically.

As it turns out -- and this is old news -- the "Texas miracle" was more of a "Texas boondoggle." The numbers were cooked. The Columbia Journalism Review explains:

"We have no dropouts!” Robert Kimball declared in a sarcastic e-mail to his boss, the principal of Houston’s Sharpstown High School, in November 2002. Sharpstown had just reported that none of its 1,650 students had left without graduating or transferring elsewhere, and the assistant principal could not believe the math. “Amazing! We go from 1,000 freshmen to less than 300 seniors with no dropouts.”

*** Two other inner-city Houston high schools that ordinarily lost about half their students by graduation also reported zero dropouts. A dozen more schools reported losses of less than 1 percent.... Sharpstown’s teachers and administrators had received $75,000 in bonuses as accountability rewards for keeping children in school.

[But] [i]nvestigative reporters ... tracked down several actual dropouts, including a seventeen-year-old student who Sharpstown officials claimed was enrolled in a private school. In fact, she was working behind the counter at a Wendy’s. Following up on the story, Texas state auditors discovered that the district including Sharpstown falsely recorded nearly 3,000 high schoolers as “moved away” or “transferred” instead of as “dropouts.”

*** Houston was at the epicenter of the “Texas Miracle,” the standards and accountability reform movement championed by former Governor George W. Bush.... [Newspaper] stories revealed that scores of mostly black and Latino students in Houston were held back in the ninth grade for several years, enabling them to avoid taking the tenth-grade graduation exam, a test that had been diluted over time to include many questions better suited to sixth- through eighth-graders. Children who repeated ninth grade ended up dropping out in large numbers, and only half the students who did graduate went on to higher education. Not exactly the stuff of miracles.

In other words: the entire basis for "No Child Left Behind" was fabricated. A con job. An apparent miracle that actually involved smoke, distraction and piano wire, not real improvement. In fact, excellent teachers, with outstanding credentials, are being designated "unqualified" -- and their students' parents are being TOLD they are unqualified -- simply because "No Child" isn't flexible enough to recognize real excellence. Take the story of Oregon teacher Jonathan Steinhoff:

Last year I was a finalist for Teacher of the Year. Last year the National Geographic Society awarded me a $5,000 grant to help build an outdoor classroom with natural materials. Last year the Portland teachers association and school board asked me to mentor new teachers. Last year I trained a group of Portland teachers in the Tribes process, which nurtures supportive classroom communities.

Last week letters went home to the parents of my students telling them I'm not a "highly qualified" teacher. How can I fall so far in one year? Easy. I've been afflicted with the No Child Left Behind Curse.... In its push to "leave no child behind" the law disregards my license, even though it's issued by the state, which sets some of the toughest standards in the nation. My license says I'm qualified to teach English to speakers of other languages and bilingual education in specified subjects though grade 12.

But the new law doesn't recognize my qualifications because I, like other bilingual teachers, was encouraged to take college courses focusing on bilingual and special education. That left me without a few teaching methods courses [that "No Child" requires before granting the "highly qualified" designation].

Here's the "news" part of this post:

When a huge, new federal program is based on a lie, fails to accurately identify the best teachers, and otherwise falls on its face, what's a responsible government to do?

Why, more of the same, of course!

When Republican senators quietly tucked a major new student aid program into the 774-page budget bill last month, they not only approved a five-year, $3.75 billion initiative. They also set up what could be an important shift in American education: for the first time the federal government will rate the academic rigor of the nation's 18,000 high schools.

The measure, backed by the Bush administration and expected to pass the House when it returns next month, would provide ... grants to low-income college freshmen and sophomores who have completed "a rigorous secondary school program of study"....

It leaves it to the secretary of education to define rigorous, giving her a new foothold in matters of high school curriculums.***

"I do not see this, at all, as an expansion of the federal role," Sally L. Stroup, an assistant secretary of education, said in an interview... Furthermore, states and communities can decide on their own whether their students will compete for the grants. "We don't force people to do anything," Ms. Stroup said.***

Like the No Child Left Behind law, the new grants are largely an effort to take a Texas idea nationwide. The legislation is modeled on the Texas Scholars program, begun during Mr. Bush's governorship, which enlisted certain Texas high schools and encouraged their students to take a "rigorous course of study."***

After Mr. Bush became president, his administration financed a Center for State Scholars, based in Austin, to spread a curriculum modeled on Texas Scholars nationwide. In the 2006 budget, he proposed supplemental Pell Grants for college freshmen and sophomores who had completed the "rigorous" curriculum outlined in the State Scholars initiative....

Democratic lawmakers said they were barely consulted.

"We were shut almost completely out of the process," said Representative George Miller of California, the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.***

[U]nder the proposal approved by the Senate, Department of Education officials would need to scrutinize high school courses of study and discuss curricular matters with local officials to a degree that Washington officials never have.

"We haven't actually sat down yet and decided how we're going to go about it," Ms. Stroup said.

A larger role for the federal government in local education. Vague standards that no one in the government has any idea how to apply. Students unable to even apply for federal college funding simply because they happen to attend schools that do not meet the (undefined) standard for "rigor." The Democratic Party, which though a minority still represents half of the American people and historically is strongly interested in education, completely left out of the process. More nationwide education policy based on the discredited Texas model.

What's not to like?

See why I believe conservatives and liberals have a lot in common, and should band together in a movement to bring back common sense and restraint to government?

As I've said before: this is no way to run a nation.

How To Fail In Government, Mental Health Edition

2006-01-21T16:21:00.002-08:00

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: contrary to the ideologies of both liberals and conservatives, the Bush administration is giving us government that is functionally incompetent and fiscally incontinent. It's the worst of all possible worlds. Here's yet another example:

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan drastically cut federal spending on mental health care. One of his initiatives was to discharge residents of mental health facilities who were fairly stable and whose conditions could be managed with medication. What he didn't realize was that many of those patients needed the structure and support systems provided by inpatient facilities in order to maintain their medications. Once on the outside, many of those patients slid downhill. Some forgot to take their medication. Some, as is common with the mentally ill, decided to stop taking their medication. (Sort of a microcosm of the entire Reagan mental health policy: if they seem better, then they no longer need the treatment that made them better, right?) As a result, a whole lot of relatively stable in-patients became highly unstable out-patients: many wound up homeless, developed serious physical illnesses and serious relapses of mental illnesses, used emergency rooms for primary health care, and clogged the criminal justice system. Once all the additional social program, criminal justice, and emergency room costs were factored in, the Reagan mental health system "cuts" cost the taxpayers more money than they saved.

But we all make mistakes, and we learn from them. For instance, if we decided to restructure the way that prescription drugs are paid for, we would remember what happened in the 1980s and make certain that as psychiatric patients were transitioned from one drug plan to another, their treatment wouldn't be interrupted. We'd do this because we've learned that even a few days without proper medication can cause people with mental illnesses to suffer serious relapses, requiring expensive hospitalization and other services. What's more, if we considered ourselves disciples of Ronald Reagan, we'd be especially careful to ensure that patients who were doing well with correct medication didn't wind up back in mental hospitals, because that would undo what President Reagan did. In short, we'd ensure continuity of medication care during the Medicare Drug Benefit transition. Right? If we were intelligent public servants concerned about the people's welfare? Right?

Yeah, right.

HILLIARD, Fla., Jan. 16 - On the seventh day of the new Medicare drug benefit, Stephen Starnes began hearing voices again, ominous voices, and he started to beg for the medications he had been taking for 10 years. But his pharmacy could not get approval from his Medicare drug plan, so Mr. Starnes was admitted to a hospital here for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia.

*** When [Mr. Starnes] gets his medications, he is stable. "Without them," he said, "I get aggravated at myself, I have terrible pain in my gut, I feel as if I am freezing one moment and burning up the next moment. I go haywire, and I want to hurt myself."

Mix-ups in the first weeks of the Medicare drug benefit have vexed many beneficiaries and pharmacists. Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said the transition from Medicaid to Medicare had had a particularly severe impact on low-income patients with serious, persistent mental illnesses.

"Relapse, rehospitalization and disruption of essential treatment are some of the consequences," Dr. Sharfstein said.

The proper size and role of government is a legitimate ground for discussion. But big, bad government isn't acceptable. Government that fails the weakest among us -- children, the elderly, the mentally ill -- isn't acceptable. We're better than this.

Or at least, we should be.

Crunch Time: Here's Why You Need to Call and Demand a Filibuster of Alito

2006-01-20T08:41:00.001-08:00

My Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, after some inexcusable but probably politically expedient dillydallying, has finally announced that he will oppose the Alito nomination. So far, not many Senators have come out opposing Alito -- to their shame -- but only one Vichy Democrat has announced he will actually support it (Ben Nelson, D-NE). (The Senate switchboard, toll-free, is 888-355-3588. Call and bury Sen. Ben Nelson in shame.)

This morning, Sen. Wyden called the Eugene, OR Air America affiliate, KOPT, and spoke with the morning show host, Nancy Stapp. (Note: he called them, not the other way around, which should augur something good...) Nancy brushed past the floor vote question and went straight to the only one that matters: the filibuster. Wyden answered, "I am not ruling anything out this morning." He noted that several members of the "Gang of 14" were "not inclined to support" a filibuster, so that "it will be difficult to find 40 votes to sustain a filibuster."

Most significantly, he said he wants to see WHAT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS HAVE TO SAY WHEN THEY MEET AT LUNCH NEXT TUESDAY.

There are enough Democrats in the Senate, even without Nelson, to sustain a filibuster. The Gang of 14 is irrelevant to that question. The Gang of 14 only has to do with whether there are enough votes to prevent Bill Frist from unilaterally and unconstitutionally declaring filibusters unconstitutional. And the political reality is, Frist probably can and will do just that.

The question before the Democratic Senators, therefore, is this: DO THEY HAVE THE COJONES TO FILIBUSTER, KNOWING THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WILL RESULT?

I say they should. My earlier posts explaining why Alito is bad for America are here, here (see the Supplement near the bottom of the post), here (Alito takes a narrow view of the Government's power to regulate huge corporate monopolies), here (Alito, conversely, has a hugely expansive view of what the President is allowed to do under the Constitution), and here (Alito's evasiveness on the abortion issue puts him in opposition to 60% of Americans, who think nominees should just answer the damn question).

Don't get me wrong: Alito will be on the Court no matter what. If the Democrats filibuster, and muster enough votes to prevent cloture, then Frist will declare judicial filibusters unconstitutional and hold a floor vote anyway. Every Democrat (except maybe Nelson and Lieberman) will walk out, Alito will be elected, and the Democrats will then stall all Senate business other than military and safety legislation, at least until after the election in November.

So Alito gets on anyway, but the message a filibuster would send -- that Democrats DO, contrary to popular belief, have spines, and have the ability to affect the functioning of the Senate even though they're in the minority -- would reverberate through the press and the electorate and would yield strong Democratic gains in November. Just as Clinton won when he faced down the House Republicans over a budget bill and allowed the entire government to be shut down, the Senate Democrats will win if they face down the Republican majority over this issue. Alito's the smallest part of it: the issue is whether the Republicans can exclude the Democrats from every aspect of government, or whether they need to play ball a little. And the American people want to see both parties play ball.

America is not well-served when the Executive, both houses of Congress, and seven of nine Supreme Court justices are in Republican hands, especially when we have a President whose approval ratings are only a mere 40% yet who is trying to accrete more and more power, free of legislative or judicial oversight. America is best-served when both parties share power and the mutual "jealousy" the Founders described drives them to check and balance each other. Want smaller, more effective, less intrusive government? Then don't let either party have a monopoly. Today, that means: support the Democrats, and oppose Alito.

The Democratic caucus is meeting next week. Between now and then, we need to flood every Democratic and Independent Senator with calls, sending a clear and politically sophisticated message:

"It's not enough to oppose Alito. Senator [insert name here] needs to filibuster him, even if that means Frist 'goes nuclear.' The voters won't hold it against you. In fact, we welcome the fight!"

Call. Say exactly what I said above. Then call someone else, and repeat. Again, the Senate switchboard is 888-355-3588. There's a list of the Democratic senators, their individual phone numbers, and their emails, here.

SUPPLEMENT, JANUARY 21, 2006: Conservative Presidents generally nominate justices who lean conservative. Liberal Presidents generally nominate justices who lean liberal. That's what the American people expect, and no sensible person has any heartburn over it.

But that's not what the Alito nomination is about. Alito is a radical conservative who has done a good job at avoiding being pinned down. He isn't mainstream, just evasive enough to look that way.

Here's a hypothetical question: what would conservatives say if a liberal President nominated a candidate who was not just progressive, but was conservatives' "worst nightmare"? Wouldn't that be over the top?

Bill Frist publicly has asserted, over and over, that Sam Alito is completely in the mainstream of American thought. But last night, in what he now wishes were a private conversation, Frist told fellow Republicans that Alito is not just conservative, but liberal Democrats' "worst nightmare."

The people don't want nominees who are anyone's "worst nightmare." Senate Democrats should take Frist at his word, and filibuster the good judge. Then, next time the White House makes a nomination, it might have the good sense to choose someone who is anathema to no one.

New Bin Laden Tape Should Be Taken Seriously

2006-01-19T13:29:00.003-08:00

Osama bin Laden purportedly has issued a new audiotape, offering an undefined "truce" and warning the American people that if they do not force a change in U.S. foreign policy, then he will attack the U.S. again.

May no nitwit wilfully misunderstand me and claim that I support terrorists. I hate bin Laden and wish him dead, dead, dead. And I have said before that America needs to be MORE courageous, not less, in standing up to al Quaeda.

Here, I'm just going on the record with a warning. Under Islamic ethics, a jihadist who is about to attack innocents must give them fair warning and offer a truce. Every major Islamic terror attack against the U.S. (both WTC attacks, the Cole, the embassy) were preceded by messages like this one, offering to negotiate or else.

So I take this seriously. Whether it's really bin Laden or another al Quaeda leader using his name, I predict that there will indeed be a significant, attempted attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests, and I fear that our government, which has spent over four years now with its eye OFF the ball, can do little to stop or mitigate it. If that happens, I will blame bin Laden. But I also will be looking closely at whether the people we elected to protect us fell down on the job. If bin Laden attacks us successfully, it will be their fault, too.

Let's pray that I'm wrong, and that our government, in pretending not to respond to terrorist threats, doesn't take a "called strike" on this one.

SUPPLEMENT, JANUARY 20, 2006: Bolstering my memory that prior attacks were preceded by warnings, that's exactly what terrorism expert Christopher Brown is saying, too. From The New York Sun:

A terrorism analyst in Washington and a fellow at the Hudson Institute, Christopher Brown, said yesterday that Mr. bin Laden's warning of an impending attack may not have been an empty threat, not because of Mr. bin Laden's statements, but because of a January 6 message from Mr. Zawahiri.

According to Mr. Brown, a pattern has emerged over the last eight messages from Mr. Zawahiri whereby every two messages are followed about 30 days later by an Al Qaeda attack - in Saudi Arabia, in London, and in Bali. If the pattern continues, Mr. Brown said, a new attack would be due in about a month. The analyst also pointed to recent postings on Al Qaeda Web sites threatening an imminent attack on "the land of the Romans," which Mr. Brown said could mean Italy or could be a figurative reference to America. (America, of course, being the new imperial power and Crusader, in bin Laden's symbology.)

And this pleasant news, from CNSNews.com:

French terrorism investigators reported that an interrogation of al Qaeda suspect Abu Atiya revealed the group had allegedly procured advanced Russian-made man-portable missile systems and ricin, botulin and other toxins from Chechnya.

The missiles, which are especially made to avoid electronics-jamming defense systems, were known to be in Europe but may have been smuggled into the U.S.

So my pessimistic view? Sometime within the next 30 days or so, there will be a major al Quaeda attack, I'm betting either at the Winter Olympics (and intended to kill American athletes along with others) or here in the U.S. An attack connected to the upcoming Italian elections is a distant third.

Now is the time for our government to prove it can do the job. We have been warned, we've had four years to prepare, and there can be no excuses. Will the Bush Administration rise to the task? And if they don't, what will we, the People, do about it?

Damn damn damn, I hope I'm wrong.

Science in the Vatican

2006-01-19T07:22:00.000-08:00

I'm pleased and, admittedly, a little surprised given the ideology of the new Pope, to read that the Vatican has given a clear, albeit indirect, nod of support to Darwin and science in general, and against the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools:

ROME, Jan. 18 - The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

The New York Times explains the extent to which Professor Facchini's article represents the position of the Vatican itself:

The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI. *** L'Osservatore is the official newspaper of the Vatican and basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all its articles represent official church policy. At the same time, it would not be expected to present an article that dissented deeply from that policy.

This does not mean that the Vatican disbelieves altogether in a divine role behind the mechanisms of evolution; Pope Benedict XVI himself appears to believe in something resembling Intelligent Design. But the article does suggest an impressive openmindedness, a fairly clear instruction not to confuse the science classroom with confirmation class, and, perhaps most importantly, a good example of how people with deep faith generally don't fear science (or anything else).

Why is this relevant to Neoprogressivism? Because while we don't insist on any position regarding the origins of life, we should insist that science not be confused with faith; that we treat each other not only with courtesy, but with real respect, the kind of respect that allows each his own, proper turf; and that we should stop fearing and fighting each other and start finding ways to work together, respecting each other's strengths and bailywicks.

How To Fail In Government Without Really Trying

2006-01-16T22:47:00.000-08:00

I've preached before that all Americans should demand competent government -- effective government, government that succeeds in accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish. Liberals and conservatives can legitimately debate whether government should be big or small. But Americans of all stripes should demand that government, big or small, be effective. Effective government is the first and sturdiest plank of the Neoprog platform.

Under the current administration, the government succeeds at almost nothing it sets out to do. It spends money like a drunken 1970s Democrat, embraces global imperialism and foreign wars with the misplaced enthusiasm of a William Randolph Hearst, prostitutes itself to donors and lobbyists with the promiscuity of Ulysses Grant, and does less for the average American than Cal Coolidge. It has done almost nothing skilfully except gain office.

I should not be shocked, shocked at the fact that the Bush administration is so bad at governing, because there is nothing in its ideological underpinnings that would enable it to govern well. While it has abandoned traditional conservative values by expanding federal spending and involvement in state affairs, and by embracing the neoconservative passion for nation-building and military imperialism, many of its key players still subscribe (inconsistently) to the ultraconservative tenet that Government does almost nothing well. As Ronald Reagan famously said in his first inaugural address, they believe "government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem." Rather than empowering the government to succeed, as traditional liberals would, or reining in "the big bad Government", as traditional conservatives would, this administration is creating a government that is both big AND bad. We should not be surprised that such people, who fundamentally believe government is inept, will fall victim to "the soft bigotry of low expectations." They expect government to fail, and so it does.

And what colossal failures. This is an administration that was advised to focus on terrorism, was warned al Quaeda wanted to hijack airplanes, and knew that al Quaeda members were in the U.S. learning to fly airliners but not land them -- yet did nothing to prevent 9/11 from happening, and claims it was not preventable.

This is an administration that, following 9/11, knew that creating a competent interagency communication system was the top priority of law enforcement and emergency services organizations -- but had (and still has) no such system in place, which disabled FEMA and Homeland Security from coordinating relief efforts when a hurricane predictably hit New Orleans.

This is an administration whose spokesman, Gen. Erik Shinseki, told Congress accurately that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed in Iraq, not to win the war but to secure the peace. That advice contradicted Donald Rusmfeld's "small army" gospel and made members of Contress question the wisdom of such a huge venture, so the Administration retired Gen. Shinseki early, told Congress to disregard his testimony, assured the nation that "Mission Accomplished" would come in mere weeks, and deployed too few troops -- and then had to send ill-equipped, ill-armored National Guard units overseas, for multiple tours of duty, when Gen. Shinseki proved right and not all Iraqis greeted us with candy and flowers. [SUPPLEMENT, JAN. 21, 2006 Even Colin Powell now agrees with this assessment: "[Powell said last week] that in retrospect he felt the Americans should have committed more troops to the Iraqi invasion and ensured that law, order and a functioning government were in place when Saddam's regime collapsed... [and that] 'when the insurgency started, we didn't act quickly enough to try to stop it'. But, he added, 'that's all history... the more important issue is what we do now'." (Funny, that phrase "in retrospect", since the administration was expressly advised to have more troops, and to prepare for insurgency, before the war even began.)

Again and again, the Government under this administration pretends to undertake great things, makes predictable mistakes, professes dismay at the bad results, then shrugs its shoulders and blames us for expecting too much from our government.

The latest news in this sad litany comes from the front lines in the War On Terror. We already knew that the President has authorized the National Security Agency to spy on the telephone conversations of Americans without obtaining the search warrants that the Fourth Amendment and the FISA law require. The claim that such spying isn't illegal is a lie: Congress passed a law setting forth a procedure for spying on terrorists here in the U.S., a President signed that law, and the Constitution obligates the President to abide by it. Similarly, the claim that warrants aren't readily available is a lie: FISA warrants are available on short notice, are granted in over 99.9% of cases (only 5 ever denied out of over 19,000 applications!), and can even be sought retroactively when time is short.

And now we learn that the warrantless spying was not merely illegal and unnecessary, but actually detrimental to our ability to fight terrorism:

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

This is no way to run a country. The few remaining conservatives in Congress are powerless to rein in the "big, bad government" neocons. The Democratic leadership in Congress lacks the moral fiber or strategic sense to demand accountability; instead of calling for government to actually do things, and do things well -- the traditional Democratic position -- they snipe from the shadows, watch the polls, and play to what they perceive as the "middle" of the electorate. We are not well represented by either side.

Here's a crazy idea: what if some prominent members of Congress stood up and said, plainly and loudly and most of all repeatedly: Government isn't the answer to all our problems, but it can sure as hell help out with some of them. And when government fails to protect us from foreseeable enemies, fails to provide competent relief in emergencies, and invades our liberties to no good end, then that government is not worthy of the American people, and needs to be replaced.

Now, was that so hard? Repeat 10,000 times and call me on the first Tuesday of November.

*******************

SUPPLEMENT, JAN. 18, 2006: Some may take issue with my assertion, above, that the warrantless NSA spying was unconstitutional and illegal. Attorney General Gonzalez, after all, is defending it as fully legal -- and, as the man who also opined that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and no longer applied to America, he should know, right?

So for those who may think The Neoprogressive is a thinly-veiled beard for just another liberal dove, here's some new input, via U.S. Newswire, from people with unassailable conservative credentials, people I generally detest but whose voices will serve to show what a deeply bipartisan -- what a fundamentally American -- thing it is to be outraged at what the NSA is doing:

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.

"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."

When I'm saying the same thing as the man who lead the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, the architect of disabling, "drown the baby in the bathtub" tax cuts, the founder of a group that thinks every American should own a fully automatic rifle, and two other arch-conservatives, then at least no one can assuse me of knee-jerk liberalism. The best proof that the ideas I'm advocating here at The NeoProg are deeply American and can be embraced equally by liberals, conservatives, and libertarians is that, in fact, they are.

Profiles in Cowardice

2006-01-16T18:15:00.000-08:00

Whether you like the messenger or not, here's a message worth hearing:

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. -- Al Gore, 1/16/2006

To which I say:

We do not have some much to fear as they did, but we are more fearful, and willing to sacrifice liberty for security in a way that our forefathers (and grandfathers) were not.

The way to fight "terror-ism" is to refuse to be afraid. And we, coddled cowards that we are, have failed that test.

What would a BRAVE nation -- one which refused to be cowed, which understood that living well (ie attending to domestic policy) is the best revenge, which treasured its freedom more than it fears a handful of extremists hiding in caves in Pakistan -- what would a nation like that act like?

Not like this.

How To Win Friends And Influence People.

2006-01-13T15:14:00.000-08:00

Sometimes countries have strong economies, good control over their foreign debt, and the ability and discipline to rely on their own resources instead of bankrupting themselves by constantly importing things from overseas. Then, they have enough money to help their neighbors. Such "Good Samaritans" are safer militarily, because their neighbors like them. They make friends. They influence people. They can give the brushoff to bossier countries that want to dominate their affairs. In short, they can be influential and relevant and well-liked in the world. It would be nice to be such a country again.

Oil-rich Venezuela, having recently helped Argentina to pay off its debt to the International Monetary Fund, is floating the idea of a new "Bank of the South" that would offer no-strings loans in competition to the U.S.-backed IMF.

The scheme would be the latest in a series of moves in which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has used his country's oil revenues to expand his influence and leftist philosophy through South America.

Argentina last week repaid $9.6 billion to the IMF -- a 184-nation institution with its headquarters in Washington -- clearing away the staggering debt it incurred with a spectacular default and currency devaluation in 2001 and 2002.

America is losing influence in the world faster than Jack Abramoff is losing influence in the GOP, and that's really saying something!

(I do hate citing the Washington Times, though.)

SUPPLEMENT, JANUARY 22, 2006: To be fair, I must admit that not everything is beer-and-skittles in Venezuela. While the country is awash in oil revenue and working hard to make friends in other countries -- even offering to subsidize heating oil for poor Americans -- Venzuela's infrastructure is suffering. Chavez has work to do at home. My point above isn't that Venezuela is a better country than the U.S. -- Lordy, no! -- but that we should pay attention to the fact that other countries are moving quickly to occupy the "influence vacuum" created by our neglect of routine foreign policy, love affair with neoliberal trading policies, and unhealthy obsession with Iraq. We're losing influence to countries like Venezuela, which can't even keeps its roads open. That's a sad statement about how far we've fallen since 9/12.

Israel 1, Charlatans and Demagogues 0.

2006-01-13T09:22:00.000-08:00

I'm a Christian. A liberal, openminded, Zennish sort of Christian, maybe, but a sincere follower of Jesus, a believer in God, and an elder in a mainline Protestant church. When I defend Christianity against the kind of "Christian" demagogues the Bible warns against, I'm not just making fun of the faithful, but seriously defending the faith. Just to get that out in the open.

Here's a fun, ethical question:

What do you call someone who states a view, stands by that view, refuses to apologize -- but, when the people he insulted get so angry that they decide not to let him guild his $50 million theme park on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, suddenly realizes he was unthoughtful, apologizes, and asks for his $50 million deal back?

Answer: Either incredibly cowardly, or an utter charlatan. I won't pretend to judge.

Pat Robertson is bold in stating his extreme views to a friendly and financially generous TV audience. But when his views start costing him money, he backs away from them right quick. If this is how he acts about theme parks, I wonder how he would have handled the choice between affirming his faith and, say, being fed to lions?

US TV evangelist Pat Robertson has apologised for saying Israeli leader Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for leaving the Gaza Strip. Mr Robertson wrote to Mr Sharon's son Omri to say he now realised his remarks were "inappropriate and insensitive".

He asked for forgiveness, but there is no suggestion the Israeli authorities will overturn a decision to block a tourism deal with the preacher.

Israel said on Wednesday it would no longer sign a $50m contract with him.

Tom Delay and the Ungrateful Gerrymander

2006-01-12T07:35:00.000-08:00

Tom Delay is thinking, as have many demagogic pols before him: darn that stupid "democracy" thing!

Yet another central tenet of the original Progressives was an intense "direct democracy" populism. The Progs effected two major changes to the political system: the addition of initiative and referendum to many states' electoral laws (so that citizens could vote directly on laws instead of acting only through representatives), and direct election of U.S. Senators (who previously had been appointed by each state's legislature).

I'm generally a fan of representative rather than direct democracy, because I've lived in states where, in recent times, the initiative process has empowered demagogues more than citizens. The indefensible Supreme Court decisions giving corporations the same free speech rights as humans, and holding that spending money to influence elections, even dishonestly, is "speech" protected by the First Amendment, need to be corrected if direct democracy is to keep functioning as the Progressives intended.

But the larger concept of "power to the People" is as central to the American experiment, and to the Progressive legacy, as anything can be, especially when it comes to how elections themselves are organized and conducted. Fair, unrigged elections so that real people have real voices: good thing. Gamesmanship and gerrymandering that disempower real people but ensure that incumbents can remain in power: bad thing.

Former House Speaker Tom Delay (R-TX) oversaw a concerted effort in 2003 to redraw Texas' Congressional districts several years before such a redistricting was scheduled, in order to ensure the election of more Republicans. It was an exercise in raw power, purely partisan, and it changed Texas' electoral landscape in a major way. Texans, some may be shocked to learn, have a history of being fairly bipartisan: they tend to vote Republican for President, but they've elected Democratic governors and Congressmen. And that, of course, was anathema to Delay, so he and the Texas Republican Party redrew the districts to dilute Democratic votes and ensure Republican victories. Wherever there was a largely Democratic district, they expanded the adjacent conservative districts so that the Democrats became a minority in the new districts instead of a majority in the old one. That's "gerrymandering."

Now, I'm pleased to see, Delay's machinations may be biting him back. Delay's in serious legal trouble for violating Texas election laws (in 2003, same nefarious enterprise), he's been forced to give up his House leadership post, and now even his reelection is in trouble. Why? Because in his old district, there were almost no Democratic voters. In his new, gerrymandered district, there is a minority of Democrats -- not many, but enough that, joined with moderate Republicans disgusted at Delay's lack of morals, they may be able to defeat him at the polls next November.

Sweet irony, sweet justice, sweet Schaudenfraude. This is one of the glories of the American system: every time someone thinks they've succeeded in gaming the system entirely, their own actions eventually pull them down. We're far from perfect, but this part of the system does work. Thank God. Not for partisan reasons, but because Americans, and Neoprogs, really do want democracy and not merely the pretense of it.

A Tale Of Two Nations

2006-01-11T10:24:00.000-08:00

I had a dream last night. It was about two nations. One nation had the largest trade deficit in its history; the other tripled its trade surplus in just one year, 2005. One was losing manufacturing capacity and calling it good; the other was rapidly increasing its industrial capacity and was described by an international economist as "the factory of the world." One was fighting a discretionary war overseas that was ballooning its annual deficit; the other was at peace and running a balanced budget. The first nation constantly borrowed money from the second nation, but the second nation was starting to become more tight-fisted. One had economic growth of 3.5%, effectively zero when inflation and a flat worker standard-of-living were factored in; the other had economic growth of about 9%. One was experiencing a bond yield inversion, which is almost always a predictor of an economic downturn; the other was not. One's economy was based largely on a constantly-growing housing sector; the other owned a large percentage of the first nation's mortgages. One was on a trend of trimming civil liberties; the other, while not as free as the first, was in the process of liberalizing.

In my dream, I was asked which nation I thought was stronger; which was more likely to dominate the world economy, and thus the world's politics in all the ways that economics affect politics. And I answered: The second nation. The second nation is stronger, and has a bright future, and the first nation does not.

What makes this otherwise-boring a dream a nightmare is this: when I woke up, I was still in it. And I was living in the first nation, and the second nation was China.

SUPPLEMENT, JAN. 18, 2006: In a comment to one of my earlier posts on the Fed, M3, and the Money Supply, my reader ql in ny made a prescient comment. She said: "[T]he one thing that will prevent a complete breakdown is that the Chinese need Americans to buy their goods. So I don't fear an immediate depression, or even one in the next ten to twenty years. It will happen gradually. Once the Chinese can buy their own stuff, that is when the shit will hit the fan."

Which made me wonder: what if the Chinese start buying their own stuff, creating a self-sufficient economy? What signs will there be when China shifts from relying on exports to creating its own consumer class, freeing itself to assert real power and influence in the world?

And then I saw this from China's Xinhua news agency:

"HSBC economist Qu Hongbin said... China faced an urgent task to tilt growth toward consumption and away from investment. *** Qu told a news conference in Beijing that the government should take the lead by redirecting its own spending from physical infrastructure to areas like education and healthcare. This could help boost China's consumption-to-GDP ratio by 3-4 percentage points and give consumers a reason to spend more and save less. *** Weaning the economy off exports and related investments would reduce China's vulnerability to... trade tensions"

Hmmm again. I'm just a country lawyer/mediator, not an economist, but I dream of living in a country that considers a 9.1 growth rate to be a "cooling" economy, has the cash to spend on physical infrastructure, education, and healthcare, and is trying to get its own people to stop saving so much and start spending more.

And I am more than a little fearful when an economically powerful nation, that currently subsidizes our own debtor economy, starts to withdraw that support and (exactly as ql said) is intentionally cultivating its own consumer society -- i.e., taking the step that will enable it to stop propping up our economy and instead assume its own dominant world role.

The U.S. is "the lone superpower"? Don't make me laugh. The sheriff with the fast six-gun has nowhere near as much power as the banker that keeps buying everyone's mortgage. Rich bankers like China buy and sell sheriffs like the U.S. I'm sorry to say this, but we can either start taking lessons from China, or start taking orders from them. We have time to regain REAL power, but we're not taking any of the necessary steps right now. This is just one more way in which our current government is childishly playing make-believe instead of really keeping America safe and preserving our way of life.

Alito Clearly Opposes Roe v. Wade. Why Can't He Say So, And Let the Chips Fall Where They May?

2006-01-10T18:06:00.001-08:00

I know politics is a game, but I dislike disingenuity, and I wish our representatives would stop playing games with issues that directly affect people's lives.

In his testimony yesterday and today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has argued that legal positions he has taken in written documents in the past reflect his work as an advocate, not necessarily his personal views. However, in 1985, in a job application (not a brief or a legal memorandum), Samuel Alito said this about his views on Roe v. Wade:

“I am and always have been a conservative.... I believe very strongly in... the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values. *** Most recently, it has been an honor and a source of personal satisfaction for me ... to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court ... that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” Link. [Caution: PDF]

Also in 1985 -- when he was 35 years old, not just a kid fresh out of law school -- Judge Alito wrote a memorandum proposing a step-by-step approach to obtaining the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Again, this was a memo privately giving legal advice to his client, not an argumentative document filed with a court.

Today, Judge Alito was presented with a fair and direct question: did those documents accurately reflect his view back in 1985? He answered: yes, they did. But when he was asked whether they still represented his view today, he was evasive. His most telling exchange was with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.:

SCHUMER: *** Judge Alito, in 1985, you wrote that the Constitution -- these are your words -- does not protect a right to an abortion. You said to Senator Specter a long time ago, I think it was about 9:30 this morning, 9:45, that those words accurately reflected your view at the time.

Now let me ask you: Do they accurately reflect your view today? Do you stand by that statement? Do you disavow it? Do you embrace it?

SCHUMER: It's OK if you distance yourself from it, and it's fine if you embrace it. We just want to know your view.

ALITO: Senator, it was an accurate statement of my views at the time. That was in 1985.

And I made it from my vantage point as an attorney in the Solicitor General's Office, but it was an expression of what I thought at that time.

If the issue were to come before me as a judge, if I'm confirmed and if this issue were to come up, the first question that would have to be addressed is the question of stare decisis, which I've discussed earlier and it's a very important doctrine. And that was the starting point and the ending point of the joint opinion in Casey.

And then if I were to get beyond that, if the court were to get beyond the issue of stare decisis, then I would have to go through the whole judicial decision-making process before reaching a conclusion.

SCHUMER: But, sir, I am not asking you about stare decisis. I'm not asking you about cases. *** Regardless of case law, in 1985, you stated -- you stated it proudly, unequivocally, without exception -- that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.

Do you believe that now? *** It was a statement you made directly. You made it proudly. You said you're particularly proud of that personal belief that you had. You still believe it.

ALITO: And, Senator, I would make up my mind on that question if I got to it, if I got past the issue of stare decisis after going through the whole process that I have described.

I would need to know the case that is before me and I would have to consider the arguments and they might be different arguments from the arguments that were available in 1985.

SCHUMER: But, sir, I'm not asking you about case law. Now, maybe you read a case and it changed your view of the Constitution. *** [I]t's still important to know your view of what the Constitution contains. ***

ALITO: But the only way you are asking me how I would decide an issue...

SCHUMER: No, I'm not. I'm asking you what you believe is in the Constitution. ***

ALITO: The Constitution contains the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment. It provides protection for liberty. It provides substantive protection. And the Supreme Court has told us what the standard is for determining whether something falls within the scope of those protections.

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

SCHUMER: Well, OK. I know you're not going to answer the question. I didn't expect really that you would, although I think it would be important that you would. I think it's part of your obligation to us that you do, particularly that you stated it once before so any idea that you're approaching this totally fresh without any inclination or bias goes by the way side.

But I do have to tell you, Judge, you're refusal I find troubling. And it's sort as if I asked a friend of mine 20 years ago -- a friend of mine 20 years ago said to me, he said, you know, I really can't stand my mother-in-law. And a few weeks ago I saw him and I said, "Do you still hate your mother-in-law?"

He said, "Well, I'm now married to her daughter for 21 years, not one year."

I said, "No, no, no. Do you still hate your mother-in-law?"

And he said, "I can't really comment."

What do you think I'd think?

*******************

Two-thirds of the American people believe that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, and over sixty percent believe Supreme Court nominees should clearly state their position on Roe before being confirmed. Samuel Alito has written that he believes Roe was wrongly decided and that there is no protection for abortion in the Constitution. He declines to say whether he believes that today, but he scrupulously does not disavow his earlier position. He'll say openly that the Constitution protects free speech, but not whether it protects abortion. Even his mother has told reporters, “of course he’s against abortion.”

So the question before our Senators is simple: Will you confirm, to a swing seat, with lifetime tenure, a judge who not only has consistently and proudly opposed a well-established legal ruling that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people, but who also lacks the intellectual and moral courage to tell us, openly and clearly, what his position is?

We deserve better. If Judge Alito wants an honest up-or-down vote, then he should tell us honestly what he believes, and be prepared to defend it. If he does so with intellect, energy, and honor, then our Senators may find him worthy of the job even if they disagree with his particular stance. But if he lacks the courage even to state what he stands for, then he certainly does not deserve our trust.

That is not hard for any regular American to understand. It's how we live our own lives. But for some reason, Judge Alito and his supporters do not seem to understand that, and if they don't get the message soon, then we should give them clearer instructions -- by filibuster, if necessary.

Samuel Alito and the Abortion Debate

2006-01-10T07:02:00.000-08:00

The nomination of Samuel Alito involves much, much more than the binary abortion issue. In particular, I'm concerned about his views on executive power, which is a proxy for government power in general; I don't think someone who believes in a "unitary" or imperial presidency, as he has written he does, can truly be considered "conservative" or can honestly honor the Constitution, as Justices swear to do.

But abortion is one large issue. I'll have more to say about the entire scope of issues raised by the Alito nomination, but while his hearings are on-air on C-Span, I'll settle for linking to my prior discussion of the abortion issue from last November. It's a long read, but hopefully an interesting and educational one.

Back to Free Press Issues.

2006-01-09T13:11:00.000-08:00

Innocent? Nefarious? I say it depends on whether the tapes are returned intact.

American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the London daily, The Guardian, and TV's Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.

Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning, the newspaper reports. He was released hours later.

Fadhil is working with and the newspaper and Guardian Films "on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated," the paper reports.

"The troops told Dr. Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned."

The director of the film, Callum Macrae, said yesterday: "The timing and nature of this raid is extremely disturbing. It is only a few days since we first approached the US authorities and told them Ali was doing this investigation, and asked them then to grant him an interview about our findings.

SUPPLEMENT, JANUARY 20, 2006: Ali Fadhil's firsthand account of the troops destroying his home and terrorizing his 3-year-old daughter -- and seizing his tapes. Nevertheless, The Guardian will air what they have later in the year.

More Mind-Numbing But Important Economic Stuff

2006-01-09T06:58:00.000-08:00

Every recession in modern U.S. history has been preceded by a phenomenon called "bond yield inversion", in which the interest rates on short-term bonds becomes higher than that on long-term bonds. And, conversely, 94% of all bond yield inversions have been followed by either a severe economic slowdown or a recession. Bond yield inversion is considered the best early predictor of future economic troubles.

Guess what? In December, the U.S. entered a bond yield inversion.

Could be just a blip, caused by the Fed's recent increases in interest rates (which should stop soon). Could be that China's decision to cut back on borrowing U.S. government bonds will cause an increase in long-term bond rates, correcting the inversion. Could be, as Alan Greenspan says, that history won't repeat itself because America is special.

Could be.

But I doubt that America is any specialer today than it was before the last eight recessions, and I keep wondering why, near the end of his life, Greenspan keeps going back on everything his pre-2000 career stood for.

And I also wonder why, if we're not approaching a global recession or worse, England's bond yields have also inverted, and Japan's and Germany's are flattening.

So now we have China backing away from its continued financing of U.S. government deficit spending; an impending demographic surge putting new strains on Social Security and Medicare; corporations bailing out on their pension obligations left and right; GM closing plants here and opening them in India; an economy that's "booming" only on Wall Street but accompanied by steadily declining real-dollar incomes for working Americans; the Fed creating the right conditions for big players to game the stock market without small investors knowing; and the bond yields of the major industrial nations either inverting or flattening.

Want to know the difference between Progressivism and classic Political Liberalism? The economic climate. In good economic times, people can afford to be generous. Those are the best conditions for Progressivism, or Neoprogressivism. In bad economic times, people can't afford to be generous; rather, they're in desperate need of it themselves. Those are the best conditions for government paternalism. And, in some cases, the same conditions can lead to fascism, as in Weimar Germany. Now, I'll choose liberal paternalism over fascism during a Depression: FDR instead of Hitler. But neither a welfare state nor a fascist state is on my wish list for America.

Anyway, buckle your seat belts, folks, 'cause we may be in for a bumpy ride. I'm thinking 1929, not 1980. Hope I'm wrong.

Thanks to Holden Caulfield for the bond yield tip.

SUPPLEMENT: Plus, Americans may have had a negative net savings rate in 2005 -- for the first time since the Great Depression. Thanks to rorschach.

Boy, I'm cheery today.

Trustbusting in the Modern Era: Not?

2006-01-09T06:08:00.000-08:00

One lasting legacy of the original Progressives, and of Teddy Roosevelt in particular, is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which is still used to keep companies from conspiring to artificially raise prices about market level. Although many neoconservatives pretend that government regulation of business is anticapitalist, the Sherman Act shows how good laws can protect true capitalism by leaving the "invisible hand" free to move.

Normally, the Act is used against two or more companies that conspire to fix prices. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving Shell, Texaco, and Saudi Refining Inc., on whether the Act also can be used against a single legal entity (a joint venture) that was used by its members to fix prices, especially when the joint venture was initially created for a lawful purpose. It's like asking whether the Mafia itself is a bad organization or if only its members are, or whether the Mafia is a bad organization now if it originally was created to raise money for an orphanage.

Sound like a stupid "angels on the head of a pin" question? It is -- and it's not. It's in cases like this that the Supreme Court either protects American values like free markets and "Main Street" rather than "Wall Street" economics, or empowers crony capitalism and the consolidation of wealth in ever-fewer hands. Do consumers win, or do Texaco, Shell, and Saudi Refining Inc.?

Five people make that decision, case-by-case. Any questions about why the Alito nomination is important, or why abortion isn't the only issue at stake?

Here's a summary from the nice folks at the Willamette University College of Law in Salem, OR:

Texaco Inc. v. Daugher and Shell Oil Co. v. Daugher (consolidated)

Argued: 01/10/06

Nos. 04-805; 04-814

Court below: 369 F.3d 1108; unavailable

Full Text [CAUTION: PDF!]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0256509p.pdf

SHERMAN ACT (Whether It Is A Violation Of The Sherman Act When The Two

Parties To A Joint Venture Set A Price For Gasoline Which Is Followed By The Joint Venture And Both Parent Companies)

The issue is whether it is in violation of the Sherman Act when the twoparties to a joint venture set a price for gasoline, which is followed bythe joint venture and both parent companies.

Daugher filed a suit against Texaco, Shell Oil (petitioners), and Saudi Refining Inc. (SRI) on the grounds that the companies were using two joint ventures to create a price fixing scheme in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 USSC Sec. 1 (Act.) The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioners and SRI, finding that the joint venture was not created in order to cover up a price fixing conspiracy. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) affirmed the summary judgment in favor of SRI. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment in favor of Petitioners, finding that there was enough evidence for a reasonable juror to believe that the petitioners may have violated the Act. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the petitioners will argue that the Act does not apply to a single firm when the two companies legitimately formed a valid joint venture. Petitioners will

argue further that even if the Sherman Act is applicable, the price setting should not be per se illegal because the per se rule is an exception to the reasonable person standard and should be used only if the evidence shows the companies are plainly anticompetitive. [Summarized by

Meghan Erickson]

Gozar's Coming Ho-ome!!

2006-01-09T05:36:00.000-08:00

Here's small yet infinitely good news: my kid brothers' friend Joey is coming home from Iraq, where he's been for a year with the Oregon National Guard. There's one! His blog isn't deep philosophy but it's still wonderful, especially the way this young American bonded with the beautiful Iraqi children near his base, started a drive back home to get them shoes, etc. His blog has wonderful photos.

Gozar's coming home! La la la la la! Pray for a safe flight.

Most of my life I’ve been interested in politics and philosophy. During our train up for our part in this war I had myriad opinions and criticisms. But to paraphrase a line from the book "Jarhead," once you’re here politics and opinions don’t mean a thing. I witnessed both the terrible and the grand. I learned of the compassion and generosity of the Iraqi people and the beauty and innocence of their children. My personal barometer of success in Iraq no longer relied on the larger picture of a stable government, reduced troop levels, or number of dead insurgents. My goal has simply been to leave my little piece of this country a little better than when I found it. And by that standard I can say with pride that we accomplished our mission here. Not only have we been able to affect the lives of many people but they have had an enormous impact on us. I remember first thinking how different Iraqis were from us, how strange their behavior and customs were from what we’re used to. Now I see just how similar we are. It’s cliché but true. The children are just as cute and playful as any others. The men and women have the same dreams that we all have; to provide for their families and live happy, fulfilling lives.

Privatizing the Marketplace of Ideas

2006-01-08T12:22:00.000-08:00

I know, this is a little technogeeky for some readers. And I know, private individuals can do what they want with their own property, the marketplace adjusts itself and is working here too, blah blah. I still see this story as a serious cautionary tale about the philosophical inclinations of the corporate right (i.e., essentially anticompetetive and controlling, not really dedicated to free markets in either ideas or commerce), and as a good example of why people generally are safer relying on a democratic government, in which they have a stake, rather than big business, in which they do not, to preserve their liberties and a degree of control over their own lives.

The original Progressives were freedom-loving trustbusters. I suspect a lot of kids on MySpace could become NeoProgs if the ideas ever reached them.

Thanks again to Atrios for the lead.

NeoProgBlog readers: chime in! I'm getting increasing numbers of hits but my voice still is sorta echoey in here!

A Word From Our Sponsor

2006-01-07T12:34:00.000-08:00

"I love this sweater. I think it's a beautiful sweater, but I also think it's an ugly sweater, and I hate it. I think I'm going crazy."

This is the same delightful and intelligent child I lauded so lavishly for coming to my defense against a Bill O'Reilly fan. Someone please explain 11 year old girls? Please?

Mind-Numbing Stuff About the Fed, Money Supply, M3, and the Possible End of the World As We Know It

2006-01-07T08:42:00.000-08:00

Reader Morrighan forwarded this link concerning the Federal Reserve's decision to stop publicizing a "bottom line" figure on total money supply, and exploring the ability the government and the Fed will have to manipulate the money supply -- and even to spend public money on individual stocks -- without the rest of us knowing.

I'm not sure whether I think this is perfectly consistent with my fears about our ballooning debt and trade deficit and China's ability to threaten us with a "Debt Bomb" more destructive than any nuke, or whether it's tin-hat conspiracy nonsense.

Three points come to mind as I chew on this:

1. If the U.S. starts madly printing money, our overseas debt shrinks in real dollars. Creating hyperinflation this way would be a sort of economic, instead of nuclear, mutually assured destruction: if the Chinese start selling our bonds and cripple our economy, we print money like Weimar Germany and make the world's U.S. holdings worthless. It's actually not a stupid idea, at least no more than nuclear counterstrikes were -- if it's intended as a threat to keep the peace, and not actually implemented. But making such machinations secret by discontinuing reporting of M3 doesn't really make that threat more credible; it just makes it more likely, which is different.

2. The new Fed chairman is said to be less inflation-averse than Greenspan was. And now the Fed seems to be setting itself up to create inflation without public knowledge of its role. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

3. Some people seems to be hell-bent on having the government start investing in the stock market, which would both prop it up and enable insiders to earn tremendous illicit profits by boosting the prices of specific stocks. Social Security privatization would have done this, but that's dead in the water. So, shortly afterward, the Fed Board sets up a mechanism that allows semi-governmental agencies to do the same thing, without public knowledge? That's a little scary.

I don't think there were two shooters in Dallas. I don't think there was a nefarious bulge underneath one of the airliners that hit the WTC. I don't think a cruise missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11, I'm not afraid of the Elders of Zion and I like my brother in law even though he is a Mason. In other words, I do not generally cotton to conspiracy theories. But I do know that the world is a complex place, and that conspiracies and plots do occur.

NeoProgBlog readers: please help me out here. I'm just a country lawyer/mediator, not an economist. Is there a story here?

Supporting The Troops

2006-01-06T20:46:00.000-08:00

A conservative friend of mine accused Democrats of playing political games when they started calling for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to be better-armored. But as we now know, the timing of this war was entirely discretionary -- it could have waited six months or a year if the President chose -- and our troops could have had adequate body armor before deployment if that had been important to the Administration. And, even after they were deployed, they could have been up-armored faster, especially when the growing insurgency -- which military experts had predicted but the Administration refused to acknowledge until it was well under way -- forced us to deploy more National Guard troops with older gear.

Has the quality of armor made a difference? According to the Pentagon, yes. Thanks to the New York Times (via Atrios), a secret Pentagon study has been made public. It finds:

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops. Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. *** [But the] vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until this September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine Corps officials acknowledge.

The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase....

But It's Just a SMALL Hole In the Dike, Right?

2006-01-06T12:50:00.000-08:00

One hundred years ago, America was a creditor nation. We exported much more than we imported, our people had an ever-increasing standard of living, and that prosperity -- not the "Paris-Hilton-rich" kind, but the "My-family-is-safe" kind -- enabled middle-class Americans to build a truly great, and generous, country. The original Progressives were, essentially, middle class people who had enough and felt a moral obligation to give others a hand up.

Today, America is the world's largest debtor nation. We are running unbelievably huge deficits, and facing even larger deficits as we confront a demographic bump that will require the government to start paying back all the money it borrowed from the Social Security system and to fully fund Medicare. Our government borrows money by selling bonds to foreign governments, including China, and our people borrow money, largely in the form of mortgages, a large percentage of which ultimately are bought in the secondary market by, again, China.

So what happens if foreign governments, especially China, decide to stop investing in the U.S.? The cost of borrowing money skyrockets. The interest payments on the national debt become so huge that other government prorams can't be funded. Mortgage interest rates increase to late 70s levels. The construction industry tanks, and the jobless rate increases. Ignore everyone who tells you that our country's financial position is strong, or that there's nowhere else for foreign countries to put their money. We are not invulnerable; we are increasingly beholden economically to other countries, and that weakness makes our military strength irrelevant. He who owns our debt, owns our policies and our destiny.

Well, here's bad news: it's happening. China has announced it will start selling off U.S. bonds. Which, of course, means that it won't be buying as many of our new offerings. Which could be really, really bad news.

And, as if to confirm that institutional investors are seeing the same thing I am, gold futures just topped $540/ounce.

If China stops buying our debt, it could be a perfect storm that brings down the entire U.S. economy, domino by domino. It won't happen suddenly -- foreign investors will want to pad our landing somewhat to preserve the value of their investments as much as possible -- but it will still be severe and longlasting, not just a cyclical recession but a complete structural change to our economy, and to our position in the world. The end game may not come for another decade or more, but we can see it coming.

I love my country and I hate the fact that our leaders, of both parties, have not positioned us to avoid what's coming. Being able to say "I told you so" will be no solace at all if what I fear comes to pass. In the time we have left, the U.S. needs to rapidly rebalance its budget, strengthen our domestic manufacturing base, educate our people for a more diverse and self-sufficient economy, create tax disincentives for U.S. companies moving jobs overseas, dump wads of cash into an Apollo program to end our dependence on foreign oil and make us energy-self-sufficient, disentangle ourselves from our expensive overseas commitments (including Iraq, which is costing $2 billion per week that we cannot afford), and bolster Social Security and Medicare while we still have the leverage to do so. We need to be self-sufficient again, and we need to have something to sell to the rest of the world, neither of which we can claim at present.

No pithy conclusion. I hope I'm wrong. But we may not have three more years to start making significant change to salvage our position in the world, and we all need to WAKE UP a.s.a.p.

Mine Safety

2006-01-05T05:51:00.000-08:00

Government oversight of working conditions to ensure worker safety was a big part of the Progressive platform 100 years ago. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, where factory owners had locked the doors to make sure their workers didn't duck outside for a break from time to time, resulted in hundreds of deaths, and while corporate interests tried to argue that working conditions were a matter of contract between employer and employee, public -- Progressive -- outrage forced the creation of the first workplace safety laws.

Question for my readers: are those laws a good thing? Is adequate staffing of OSHA and similar agencies that protect workers a good use of taxpayer dollars? And when employers violate safety rules repeatedly, should the fines be significant, or just slaps on the wrist?

For example, what would you think if you learned that the West Virginia mine where twelve miners just died had received 208 safety violation citations last year, but hadn't fixed the problems -- maybe because the largest penalty for not fixing them was only $440?

In my law practice, I defended plenty of employers who were being cited for inconsequential safety violations. I'm not saying that all bureaucracies always do good. But in places like mines, where every incremental gain in safety has a high monetary cost, it's natural for the owners to set a lower bar for safety -- "good enough" -- than the miners' families might like, and it makes good sense for government agencies, which make rules in a public process that takes all sides' concerns into account, to enforce minimum standards, like a referee.

My constant refrain: the issues I'm writing about -- this time, keeping miners and other workers reasonably safe -- aren't based on specifically Democratic or Republican values. Hard work is an American value, and keeping workers reasonably safe is an American value. It should be on the Neoprog radar.

Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now?

2006-01-05T05:07:00.000-08:00

Simple question: are we planning on leaving Iraq eventually, as the President says, or are we building a dozen or so hardened, permanent bases there, as the Army admits when pressed?

We all know what the answer should be: if I go there will be trouble, if I stay it will be double. (Everyone remember their Clash?) I don't want double trouble in Iraq. But it appears that the administration may be planning on rockin' the casbah for decades to come.

As I said in a post back on November 27, right after Democratic-but-hawkish Congressman Jack Murtha put the troop withdrawal issue front and center, our construction of permanent bases undercuts the administration's assertion that significant troop reductions are planned for 2006 (something they didn't mention until Congressman Jack Murtha finally put the issue on the public's political radar). In November I said:

This Administration, in particular, had no and still has no intention of withdrawing substantial numbers of troops from Iraq. They are still building 14 permanent bases on Iraq's sandy soil, and a permanent presence in Iraq -- to replace the airmen and other soldiers we pulled out of Saudi Arabia in capitulation to Osama bin Laden's demands and to secure a backup oil source in the event the Saudi royal family is overthrown -- is a key part of the neocon foreign policy and energy strategy. They will, of necessity, rotate exhausted, three-tour units home, but they will not willingly do more. If they do do more, it will be a capitulation to Congressional Republicans worried about their seats, and is not likely to last past next November.

The idea that we invaded Iraq, in large part, to establish a base of operations in the Middle East is consistent with the fact that we have vacated our bases in Saudi Arabia (much to bin Laden's pleasure), and with President Bush's statement recently that even knowing that Iraq had no WMDs and knowing there would be an active insurgency he still would have gone to war. The continued construction of permanent bases in a country where our troops are dying, where the insurgency is growing (90 people killed today, according to this morning's news), and where 80% of the people say they want us to leave, will be a good test of what the real motives for war were.

And if we ramp up troop strength again after our midterm elections next November, I won't be happy, even if I am able to say "told ya so!"

Abramoff and Delay Links Grow

2006-01-03T14:33:00.000-08:00

In case anyone failed to realize the links between lobbyist Jack Abramoff's fraud and bribery charges and the looming criminal trial of House leader Tom Delay, the AP is reporting that Ronnie Earl, the Texas prosecutor prosecuting the Delay case, has subpoenaed Abramoff records relating to Delay today -- the same day that Abramoff pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Coincidence? I think not.

As I said before, Abramoff is a loose thread that will unknit a lot of sweaters, and I'm betting Delay is one of those hoping they keep the thermostat up in his jail cell, 'cause he won't have a lot of cover in the months to come.

Fans Of Good Government: A Good Day

2006-01-03T10:45:00.000-08:00

Here's a novel idea for a Neoprogressive plank: good government. You know, the kind where our representatives remember they work for us and not for lobbyists, and put the interests of the American people before the interests of a handful of plutocrats. That kind of thing.

So it's a good day for Neoprogs, not just for Democrats, when uberlobbyist Jack Abramoff is finally indicted, and an even better day when we learn that he has been naming names and will continue to cooperate with prosecutors. He is a loose thread that may unravel a lot of sweaters.

A couple points to keep in mind as all of this unfolds:

1. The press is reporting that Abramoff's maximum exposure is ten years in jail, which will be reduced the more he spills the goods. Actually, his maximum is 17 years, because he's facing ten years for his political crimes (the D.C. investigation) and another seven years for his fraud concerning ownership of a cruise ship line (the Florida investigation). Part of his plea deal is that if he cooperates, the two sentences will run concurrently -- but if he doesn't actually deliver the goods, then that deal could still fall apart and expose his to consecutive sentences. That's a pretty big motivator. I think he'll sing.

2. At this point, this is a Republican scandal, not a bipartisan one. Abramoff was, above all else, a Republican lobbyist. He mainly dealt with Republican bigwigs, participated in the Republican "K Street Project" to cut off Democratic access to lobbying money, and personally gave money to Republican candidates. He never made any direct contributions to any Democrats. However, he covered his tail by having his clients make contributions to some prominent Democratic politicians, presumably because they would be more likely to take the money if they didn't know Abramoff was behind it. The press is doing its best to make sure everyone remembers that Democrats may be involved as well, which I suppose is "balanced" but isn't really "fair" based on the currently-known facts. Politicians generally say "yes" to campaign contributions; that's not a crime. (It should be, but I'll discuss public financing of elections later.) No: it's only a crime if you (a) violate the (relatively lenient) rules governing the kinds of contributions you can take and what reports you must make, or (b) take a contribution in exchange for a particular vote on a particular matter (which transforms the contribution into a bribe). There's no evidence, yet, that any Democrats did anything illegal. There IS evidence that some Republicans did. If any Dems broke the law, then they deserve what they get. Bad apples of either party must be tossed in the compost bin. But it's premature, and bad journalism by the MSM, to paint Abramoff as a bipartisan scandal yet.

In case anyone's interested, here's a link to Abramoff's criminal information (basically, his indictment). [CAUTION: PDF!] Ohio Congressman Bob Ney is implicated all over the thing, but reading between the lines, there are a lot of other players, as well.

NEOPROGBLOG READERS: Any thoughts on campaign finances, the "K Street Project", Abramoff, Delay, or good government in general?

SUPPLEMENT, JAN. 7, 2006: I said above that Ohio Republican Bob Ney, who holds a minor leadership post, is one of the unnamed Congressmen likely to be caught in Abramoff's tentacles as he goes down. Here's some confirmation.

SUPPLEMENT, JAN. 8, 2006: I noted above that despite glib claims to the contrary, this appears to be solely a Republican scandal, with no Democrats involved other than as the unknowing recipients of contributions from Indian tribes who coincidentally were also Abramoff's clients (and, it turns out, his victims). Did Abramoff direct those contributions? Doesn't matter, so long as the recipients didn't know and didn't offer any quid pro quo.

This morning, DNC Chair Howard Dean not only made the above clear, but also underscored how badly the mainstream media (represented, in this case, by CNN's Wolf Blitzer) misunderstands this story:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

Dean's statements are absolutely accurate. If any Democrats turn out to be nefariously involved with Abramoff, they should fry. But we shouldn't let our desire for evenhandedness cloud the truth: as I have said before, neoprogressivism is different than mindless centrism, and sometimes one side is right.

SUPPLEMENT, JAN. 13, 2006: Bob Ney continues his slide to oblivion as the first Republican caught in the Abramoff net, as House Majority Leader Denny Hastert asks him to relinquish his leadership post. Adding insult to injury is the reason: that Ney is crooked and tainted: "A source close to Hastert said the Speaker does not want to unveil lobbying reform legislation with Ney still in possession of a senior House position." And his troubles are far from over: he has a long and nefarious history that's only beginning to be unraveled.

Again: this is, so far, a purely Republican scandal. And again and again and again: I don't care about that fact because I'm a partisan, I care because I care about good government, and the media reporting the truth (instead of the constant, unsubstantiated refrain that this is somehow a bipartisan scandal) is absolutely indispensable to holding the bad guys responsible.

SUPPLEMENT, JANUARY 26, 2006: Even the editor of the conservative National Review thinks Abramoff is a Republican, not bipartisan, scandal!

Link: How Not to Make Friends And Influence People

2006-01-02T10:16:00.000-08:00

One reason I was, and am, opposed to the Iraq war is its almost unbelievable expense. When Paul Wolfowitz, on behalf of the Administration, promised the Senate that the war wouldn't cost the American people anything because it would be paid for out of Iraq oil revenue, I was dubious, and events have proved me righter than I wish to be.

I'm not a nativist, but I do think our government should put our people first, and spending half a trillion dollars -- over $2 billion a week at present -- on a war that could have been avoided or better-prosecuted is just a waste. The stories that have surfaced, about the U.S. flying cargo planes full of stacks of money shrink-wrapped on pallets to give without any accounting to operatives and contractors in Iraq, just boggle my mind, especially when the Congress just passed "budget reconciliation" legislation that pretends to save real money by cutting services to America's poorest people.

So you might think that I'd love any cuts to our spending in Iraq -- but I don't. We shouldn't have gone to war in the first place, in my not so humble opinion, but now that we're there, we need to leave the people at least as well off as when we arrived.

Colin Powell was right when he told President Bush that the "Pottery Barn Rule" applied: if he invaded Iraq, then what he broke, he'd have to pay for. And leaving a stable, economically-healthy Iraq behind is the best thing we can do to defend ourselves against all the newly-minted terrorists that our actions in Iraq have created. Right now, Iraq is producing less oil, has less clean water, and has less electricity than it did when Saddam was in power, even under U.N. sanctions. It won't cost much, relatively speaking, to fix those problems before we leave. Does anyone remember the last scene in the great and abysmally short series "Over There", about our troops in Iraq? The American soldiers finish drinking some contraband beer around a campfire, then conscientiously extinguish the fire and put all the empties back in the box before walking away. Neatening up. That's what we should do as a nation.

Atrios, of the Eschaton blog, wrote a nice comment about the Administration's plans to do the exact opposite of what they should be doing, to-wit:

I never thought much of the chances for our Iraq Excellent Adventure, but I did think a narrow window of opportunity existed right after the invasion such that if we really could've gone in and metaphorically paved the streets with gold - got the infrastructure working, made noticeable improvements in peoples' daily lives very quickily - that we would've at least been a bit more popular with the locals. The basic ethnic conflict issues would've remained but perhaps US soldiers and the occupation generally wouldn't have been as much the targets of the insurgency as they are now. Now, it seems, we're just going to give up.

BAGHDAD -- The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say. The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.

Just under 20 percent of the reconstruction package remains unallocated. When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people.

"The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters at a recent news conference. In an interview this past week, McCoy said: "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."

I'm a believer in Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, so I believe people without clean water, decent food, and a little security are naturally focused more on survival that on building a competent democracy. At a minimum, therefore, I'd want to provide the Iraqi people with the basics of life: clean water, functioning sewers, reliable electricity to run hospitals and refrigerate food to prevent disease. Most Iraqis had those things under Saddam, and don't have them today, even after all the money we've spent. I simply don't think they can have a stable democracy without electricity and clean water, so we shouldn't be cutting off reconstruction funds yet. But I'd like your thoughts.

So, NeoProgBlog readers: what do you think? How would you balance our need to focus our spending on our own people instead of squandering it overseas, and our responsibility to do the right thing by all the Iraqis who aren't blowing us up but whose lives are immeasurably worse now than they were, even under Saddam? When we invade another country that turns out not to have WMDs, that wasn't anywhere close to making a nuclear bomb, that didn't have any way to attack us, that had allowed weapons inspectors back in, that opposed al Quaeda, and that didn't play any role in 9/11 -- when we invade such a country, do untold damage, and realize that all our rationales were mistaken -- what do we owe that country, and how do we determine when enough is enough?

Watching the Watchers: A Good Journalist Keeps Digging...

2005-12-31T16:01:00.000-08:00

Some people may think that the New York Times' disclosure that the National Security Agency has been conducting warrantless surveillance of American citizens jeopardized national security. Others, noting that the Times had the story at least a year ago (possibly before the 2004 Presidential election) and bowed to Administration pressure not to run it, consider the Times to be in dereliction of its journalistic duty.

Meanwhile, Byron Calame, the Times' public editor, is intent on doing his job -- even if that means exposing his own bosses' misstatements and evasions. We need more professionals like Calame, who understand that their job is to learn and share the truth even if it makes those in power uncomfortable. The old Progressive "Muckrakers" would be proud.

Can't Have Democracy Without Knowing The Facts

2005-12-29T12:18:00.000-08:00

Implicit in my earlier posts on the tenets of Neoprogressivism, but not discussed yet, is the idea that citizens in a successful democracy must base their decisions on facts, not opinions or "spin." Ideology is great, but too many people ignore any facts that contradict their ideology -- and doing so is not only unwise and intellectually dishonest, it's poor citizenship.

Do you believe that "No Child Left Behind" is a good idea? Then you should want to know whether that program did or did not work in Texas, where it has been tried for about a decade (long enough to start generating results). Do you think the President lied us into the Iraq War? Then you're concerned with knowing what facts were available to the President, when, and to the Senate, when.

Stephen Colbert, on "The Colbert Report," did a great parody of some demagogues' manipulation of our emotions disguised as facts. He promised his viewers:

"There are those who think with their heads and those who know with their hearts... But the gut's where the truth comes from...I know some of you may not trust your gut yet. But with my help you will. The truthiness is that anyone can report the news to you, but I promise to FEEL the news AT you."

Unfortunately, neither our citizens nor our mainstream media are sufficiently focused on identifying and communicating the facts that we, as citizens, as voters, need to make sound decisions. A new survey shows that while things are getting better, there's still a lot of misinformation out there:

-- Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had "strong links to Al Qaeda." (The truth, as determined by the 9/11 commission, is that there were no operational ties between the two. Hussein was a secular dictator who idolized Josef Stalin and often jailed or killed religious zealots; Bin Laden is (was?) a theocrat who detested Saddam and wanted him overthrown so that an Islamic state could be created.)

-- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11." (Again: simply not true.)

-- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded." (Neither the weapons inspectors who were in place before the war, nor our own troops, found any evidence of actual WMDs, and there is no evidence at all -- no intel, no satellite photos, nothing -- that Saddam smuggled any to Syria, as some conspiracy theorists have theorized.)

-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis." (None were. Most were Saudi citizens. Saudi Arabia, which says the Koran is its constitution, still executes women accused of promiscuity, and continues to fund fundamentalist Islamic madrasas around the world, is considered a U.S. ally.)

Of course some politicians will lie about things like this. But what excuses our media's failure to correct those misimpressions, and some of our citizens' refusal to set aside what they believe in order to see what truly is?

My Daughter Comes to My Defense

2005-12-27T23:52:00.000-08:00

I need to share how blessed I am.

Last week my local paper, the Eugene Register-Guard, published an opinion piece decrying the illusory “War On Christmas” that (without any prompting) I had submitted to them. Since then, I have received numerous letters, emails, and blog comments, almost all complimentary beyond my deserving, a few critical, and some just baffling (one gentleman keeps mailing me envelopes full of sheets of Bible verses, which I appreciate as showing a kindly concern for the state of my soul).

Today, I received the following letter from a critic:

Dec. 19, 2005

To Mr. Bellows, “Christian”

I feel compelled to point out just a few fallacies in your newspaper article ‘The Truth About Christmas.’

First of all, there isn’t much truth to your article and it’s obvious you live in your own liberal bubble as they all do at the Register Guard. How quaint they found a ‘Christian’ they could use to propogate their secularist, close minded and predictable opinions. You pointed out that the Register Guard actually prints a ‘one size fits all’ religious article called ‘Heart to Heart.’ Big wow! You gotta be kidding. Most newspapers in this country have full two page articles regarding religion.

Like all liberals, you also have a big time problem with Bill O’Reilly. Tsk. Tsk. You headlined “O’Reilly promotes commercialization.’ Yeah. Right. You do an excellent job of twisting and manipulating what O’Reilly has said to your [sic] fit your own needs and opinions. Is that all yo can come up with? Let’s see. Who am I going to agree with – a small town, very provincial, clueless ‘Christian’ or O’Reilly who happens to have the NUMBER ONE highest rated, cable program on TV and has had for 5 years running now. More people are watching and listening to him than all the other news shows combined. If you go by your articles, you didn’t even know he was on TV. All O’Reilly wanted was for people to have the freedom of expression to wish people a Merry Christmas if they chose to do so.

There is a war against Christians in this country and there is a war against Christmas. I have lived in may different parts of this country. No where have I seen such Christian intolerance that exists in the sol called open minded, diversity tolerant town of Eugene. One excellent example is how the city council drove their own hospital out of town just because it is a Catholic Hospital. Now the city council is bending over backwards to place a for profit hospital ANYWHERE in this city. As a neighbor recently told me, ‘We’re lucky they’re not shooting Christians in this town.’ ----- Not yet.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Kimberly DeChoates

My wife, whose birthday it is and who was in a festive and amused mood, read that letter aloud to the family after dinner over decaf and port. My eleven year old daughter Elizabeth was offended and decided to come to my defense; she penned the following response:

Dear Ms. DeChoates,

My Dad is very informed on what is going on in the world, thank you very much, and he keeps me informed on everything. I am writing this on my own free will, my Dad is not the type of person to force something on anybody. Yes he is a liberal, and so is my mother, they are very proud of it.

My IQ is120, and so I am very smart and I know when somebody is being rude and inconsiderate. I am angry with you for disrespecting my family, and Madam, although I am only eleven, I am appalled with your behavior.

Merry Christmas is not suitable for this time of year, because there is also New Year, Kwanza,, Hanuka, and also Solstice. I also noticed that you used it almost like a curse. Tsk, tsk.

Happy Holidays, Kimberly.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Bellows
Age 11
Liberal Young Lady

Elizabeth is such a good child that she asked my permission to mail it. Since it meets our family’s standards for children’s conduct toward adults – honestly sharing her opinions and beliefs while showing the respect we require they show every adult – I told her she was welcome to send it. It'll be in tomorrow's mail, hand-addressed by her.

And I feel blessed, blessed, blessed. My daughters have been practicing all day on the new used piano that Santa brought us. I just finished an excellent dinner to celebrate my loving and lovely wife’s 51st birthday, am listening to Erroll Garner, Eva Cassidy and Laurindo Almeida in rotation on the stereo, and have lively and intelligent daughters who are quick and articulate in coming to my defense. What more can a man ask?

Thank you, God, whoever you are. You are very, very good to me.

Happy HannuSolstiKwanzaMas, everyone.

Thersites

Sorry, but... more War On Christmas

2005-12-27T12:58:00.000-08:00

As Christians who attend traditional, mainline, liturgical churches know, Christmas Season is finally here. It started on Sunday, December 25, and in the fabled Twelve Day countdown, today I’m expecting my true love to give me Three French (oops... I mean, Freedom) Hens.

So, while I’m anxious for the War on Christmas to recede into an uneasy truce for eleven months or so, liturgical honesty forces me to admit that it’s still Christmas, and skirmishes are still being fought.

What makes me flog this sorry horse is two articles that are worthy of attention.

The first is an Op-Ed in the Eugene Register-Guard by Norm Fox, a conservative church elder in my home town who disagrees with my opinion piece from the week before. I don’t agree with what he has to say, mainly because his opinions are based on John Gibson-style rumors that don’t bear out when factchecked – but I’m glad to provide a link to his article so folks can decide for themselves. (I haven’t decided yet whether I’ll research and write a point-by-point rebuttal – I’m more interested in teaching my daughters to play the new used piano that Santa brought.)

The second is a nice article in The New Yorker by Hendrik Hertzberg, giving a great history of the War’s antecedents. I wrote that before the War On Christmas there was Christmas Under Siege, but was surprised to learn that in 1959 the John Birch Society was warning about an Assault On Christmas. The more things change, the more they stay the same, but today the Birchers, whom 90% of Americans used to shun, have a lot more pull than they used to.

And if you don’t want to read any more about the War, good for you. Just say no. It's far more important that everyone simply do what they can to have, and help others have, a Merry Christmas, a fruitful Kwanzaa, a Happy Hannukah, and a healthy, prosperous New Year.

Poor People vs. Beet Farmer Subsidies... Hmmm...

2005-12-27T11:39:00.000-08:00

Fiscal responsibility is an old tenet of the Republican Party (now largely ignored), a relatively new tenet of the Democratic Party (about time!), and a fundamental tenet of Neoprogressives.

The Senate just passed a spending reduction bill. Great. Over the next five years, it will save an amount of money roughly equal to what we're spending every four months in Iraq. Not so great: like trying to lose weight by switching from whole to skim milk but still eating a quart of ice cream every evening while watching TV. And the bill makes most of its cuts in social programs, which, after the Clinton-era welfare overhaul and five years of Republican control of both the White House and Congress, aren't exactly overgenerous. I'm glad to see spending cuts, but real reform will take courage, and this bill shows none.

A story from the L.A. Times on December 24 shows the kind of courage this bill required of our political leaders. (The site requires membership, so I'm posting the entire article below for those who don't want to jump through those hoops.) The playbill: Gordon Smith is a moderate-right senator from my home state, Oregon. Norm Coleman is a far right senator from Minnesota. Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, is a physician whose family owns a chain of hospitals.

Let's see how sausage is made, and whether the interests of ordinary Americans are being taken care of:

Last-Minute Swap Let Spending Bill Through
Senator gave his vote to save a farming subsidy. It's a stark example of political horse-trading.
By Joel Havemann
Times Staff Writer

December 24, 2005

WASHINGTON — The 770-plus page budget-cutting bill that went to the Senate floor this week was considered a political must-pass by Republican leaders, who were loathe to go home for the holidays without demonstrating at least some concern about the red ink that has swamped the federal government. Because every budget cut hurts some people while sparing others, lining up votes usually comes down to horse-trading.

This year, the process turned into an unusually stark demonstration of how the game is played.

As they prepared to send the spending cuts to the floor, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and his GOP lieutenants realized they were headed for defeat unless they secured one more vote. And to get that, Frist had to meet the asking price of one of two GOP senators, Norm Coleman of Minnesota or Gordon H. Smith of Oregon.

Smith vowed not to support the bill unless it was changed so that proposed savings on Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for the poor, were achieved at the expense of drug companies and other providers instead of coming in the form of lower benefits for Medicaid recipients.

Coleman's price for supporting the package was removing from the bill a provision that would have eliminated $30 million in subsidies for sugar beet growers, many of them in his home state.

In the end, sugar farmers got to keep their subsidy and Frist got Coleman's vote. With the Minnesota lawmaker on board, the bill passed: 50 senators in favor of it, 50 against, and Vice President Dick Cheney cast the tie-breaking yes vote — as is his prerogative as president pro tempore of the Senate.

It was the sort of deal, involving a call to Coleman by top White House political aide Karl Rove, that politicians usually prefer not to talk about. In this case, however, Frist laid it out in public by issuing a press release. "Sugar farmers will not face any cuts in this important budget agreement," he said, "and Sen. Coleman will support the package."

Every budget bill involves making trade-offs — money for bombers or bridges, perhaps, or environment or education. As they try to put together majorities, legislative leaders consider what it will take to get each vote they need.

In this case, the House and Senate had passed very different versions of the budget-cutting bill. In particular, the House voted to cut Medicaid benefits and increase co-payments that beneficiaries would have to pay when they received care. The Senate achieved its Medicaid savings by letting the government negotiate more favorable rates from drug manufacturers and managed care facilities.

As House and Senate negotiators labored to write a compromise bill that both chambers could support, it was clear that the 100-member Senate was almost evenly divided. The Senate's Republican leaders figured they could not count on the support of any of the 44 Democrats or the one independent; that meant they could afford no more than five defections from their own ranks.

Coleman was one of seven Senate Republicans who wrote a letter expressing concern over "the impact to America's lowest income and most vulnerable from policies implemented to secure budget savings." In this group were the five lawmakers who had voted against the original bill, plus Smith and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who had voted for it.

For the compromise bill, the administration and House Republican leaders were insisting that the Medicaid savings come in the form of lower benefits, not negotiations for lower prices from drug companies and managed care systems — a step that would probably cost them Smith's vote. Smith had voted for the original Senate budget bill because its Medicaid cuts landed on the drug and managed care companies and held the beneficiaries themselves harmless.

With Rove's help, the House-Senate negotiators in effect swapped Coleman for Smith in the ranks of Republicans supporting the bill. They did it by stripping the original bill's $30 million worth of cuts to the sugar beet industry.

"Karl Rove called me and asked me what I wanted," Coleman told Congress Daily. "A few hours later, it was out of the bill."

After the vote, Coleman said in a statement: "I could not stand for a budget … package that singled out sugar farmers."

Specter also ended up voting for the bill, saying the Medicaid provisions gave the states the flexibility "to ameliorate hardships resulting from the proposed reductions."

Medicaid supporters felt outmaneuvered.

"It certainly sounds to me that they made a calculation to get Coleman's support," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "With Coleman, they no longer needed Smith. And if they no longer needed Smith, they could cut Medicaid recipients instead of the pharmaceutical companies and managed care providers."

The bill is still not quite ready for Bush's signature. After the House passed the compromise bill and adjourned for the holidays, the Senate made some minor changes that require another House vote. That will have to wait until House members return to Washington in January.

Greenstein said the episode provided a case study of the importance of money in politics. There were 568,000 Medicaid recipients in Minnesota last year, and 40,000 people whose livelihood depended on sugar beets.

But in the contest between Medicaid recipients and pharmaceutical manufacturers to avoid budget cuts, drug company political action committees have made $107,000 in campaign contributions to Coleman since his successful election campaign of 2002. Medicaid recipients have no PACs.

And the pharmaceutical industry has long been a major contributor to Republicans. "You can see the political clout of the moneyed interests," Greenstein said.

Efforts to reach the sugar beet growers organization for comment were unsuccessful.

Alito and the Slippery Slope to Totalitarianism

2005-12-24T08:51:00.000-08:00

Two memoranda written by Samuel Alito in the 1980s were released yesterday. They show why the President chose to nominate Alito to the Supreme Court, and why it is IMPERATIVE that Americans who value checks on the unfettered power of the Executive – Americans who want the kind of diffused democracy the Founders wanted instead of the centralized power exercised by Kings and dictators – need to contact their Senators and demand that Alito not be confirmed – that he be filibustered, if necessary. Here’s why:

For the past five years, the current Administration has been stretching the concept of Executive Privilege to the limit. They assert the power of the President and his advisors to do what they want, free from Congressional, judicial or public oversight, so long as they (no one else) believe it is necessary to do so. The last President to rely so heavily on assertions of Executive Privilege was Richard Nixon, who used it in efforts to keep the Pentagon Papers (revealing the misrepresentations that led to the Vietnam War) and the Watergate Tapes (disclosing his administration’s complicity in Watergate) from being given to the public or to prosecutors. Back then, the Supreme Court properly put limits on Executive Privilege and allowed both the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate Tapes to be released.

Bush and Cheney have claimed Executive Privilege to deny Freedom of Information Act requests by citizens and Congress. They have used it to conceal the agenda of, and even the identities of the participants in, Cheney’s Energy Task Force (although we do know, from a leak, that those energy company executives were looking at a map of Iraq’s oilfields as part of planning America’s energy strategy – before 9/11!). Various officials have cited Executive Privilege to stymie prosecutors’ and Congress’ efforts to unravel the Administration's leak of the name of Valerie Plame, a formerly-covert CIA operative – a crime that not only stopped Ms. Plame from doing her important work (she broke up international WMD-smuggling rings), but also revealed the true identities of dozens of other American agents and foreign spies who were working with her, making them useless as well (and making America less safe).

Most recently, the President has admitted authorizing espionage on American citizens located here in the U.S. without a warrant, which is a crime under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). He claims it was his privilege to do so.

The question is not whether such spying sometimes needs to be done, or done quickly. FISA already gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies remarkable power. It set up a special court solely to review requests for search warrants in spy cases. Its judges’ identities are kept secret, and its offices are located literally down the hall from the Attorney General. When intelligence agencies need a search warrant to spy on a possible terrorist, all they need to do is walk down the hall and ask for it. The warrant can be issued in minutes. In 2004, the government asked the FISA judges for secret surveillance search warrants 1758 times; none were denied. Since FISA went into effect in 1979, over 19,000 requests for search warrants have been made; only five of those requests were denied.

So: the government is constitutionally and legally obligated to obtain a search warrant before conducting surveillance inside the U.S., it can obtain such a warrant merely by walking down the hall and asking for it, and the warrant will be issued, no questions asked, 99.97% of the time. In fact, in emergencies where there isn’t even time to walk down the hall, FISA even allows the government to do domestic surveillance without a warrant, as long as it asks for the warrant within a reasonable time after the surveillance starts. So even the “Jack Bauer”-type scenario – where a federal agent sees the bad guy’s car and has thirty seconds to slip a handy bug inside before it drives away or else Los Angeles will be blown up – is permitted by FISA.

Yet the President now admits that, over thirty times, he has authorized U.S. intelligence agencies to ignore FISA and do domestic surveillance without getting a warrant either beforehand or afterward. Under FISA, that is a crime, and a serious crime, because the Constitution bars government surveillance of citizens without a warrant. Period. It’s beyond partisan; it implicates fundamental American values – specifically, the right of Americans to be free in their persons and property from unreasonable governmental searches and surveillance under the Fourth Amendment.

Bear with me; I promise I’m getting to the Alito connection.

The President’s supporters are claiming that the President gained the power to order warrantless surveillance on September 14, 2001, when the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the President to go to war against the people responsible for 9/11. That resolution permitted the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attack.

The President is claiming that “all necessary and appropriate force” includes the authority to spy on American citizens inside our own borders. Undercutting that argument is a new revelation by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has disclosed that minutes before the Senate voted, the White House tried to add new language allowing domestic operations. That language would have given the President authority to use "all necessary and appropriate force in the United States and against those nations, organizations and persons" responsible for the attacks.

With the requested language, the President arguably would have had authority to use military and intelligence forces against people both inside and outside the United States, without warrants or due process of law. But the Senate rejected the effort to add “in the United States and” to the resolution, and as passed, the resolution only gave the President authority to wage war overseas. Domestically, the President remained obligated to abide by the laws and Constitution of the United States. Which wasn’t exactly onerous, because, again, to do domestic surveillance, all his lawyers need to do is walk down the hall and ask a secret judge, who will rubber-stamp a warrant within minutes.

The Presidentially-authorized domestic wiretaps will eventually be brought before the Supreme Court, which will be asked to interpret both FISA and the September 14 resolution in deciding whether the President acted illegally. Normally, in interpreting statutes, courts look both at the precise words of the statute and also try to decipher what Congress’ intent was when it passed the statute. Congress’ intent here was clear: it intended to authorize the President to exercise “necessary and appropriate force” overseas, but to comply with the (still-easy) requirements of FISA here at home, to protect our citizens’ rights. To any first-year law student, it’s a no-brainer: the President did wrong. The legal issue is so clear under current law that one of the FISA secret judges -- a man who has worked "undercover" and authorized thousands of surveillance search warrants and may have denied none -- has resigned in protest of the President's actions.

But what if – what if – some judicial activist decided to change the rules, and look, not at what Congress’ intent in passing legislation was, but at the President’s intent in proposing and/or signing that legislation? In that case, the President could simply state what his subjective intent was: “I intended it to mean such-and-such.” The intent of Congress is reflected in committee reports, conference reports, and interminable floor speeches; there’s lot of contemporaneous information about what various representatives thought. But the President doesn't generate that kind of legislative history. He doesn’t need to discuss his thoughts with anyone, let alone write them down, and if he does discuss them with people, he can keep those discussions secret by invoking Executive Privilege. The only evidence of what the President was thinking is what he says he was thinking – and, as we all know, a politician’s explanation of his actions seldom reflect his true motives.

If the Supreme Court adopted a “Presidential intent” rather than a “Congressional intent” approach in the upcoming domestic surveillance cases, the President could say simply that he intended the September 14 resolution to include the power to do domestic surveillance regardless of what the Congress thought, and the Court, which would have no legally-admissible reason not to take him at his word, would rule such surveillance lawful.

This legal argument -- Alito's legal argument -- eventually cuts Congress out of the picture entirely, and allows the Executive Branch to spy, or even use military forces against, American citizens on American soil without restraint. And that, as all historians know, is how democracies end: a threat arises; a panicked population and parliament or congress cede power to the executive, and the executive never gives it back.

Thanks for being patient. Here, finally, is the Alito connection:

Yesterday, the White House released two memos written by Judge Alito in the 1980s, when he worked for the Justice Department. In one, Judge Alito argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps Americans. Recognizing that this proposal would be anathema to all right-thinking judges, Alito also advocated an incremental –read "sneaky" – approach to establishing the principle that government actors are immune when they invade Americans’ civil rights. Each case would move only a little way in that direction, he argued, but we'd get there eventually. (Judge Alito has argued for a similar approach to overturning Roe v. Wade, as I’ve noted before; scroll to the bottom of the post under “SUPPLEMENT, NOV. 30, 2005".)

Luckily, the Rehnquist Court flatly rejected Judge Alito's view of the law, holding in 1985 that the immunity Alito advocated would be an invitation to deny people their constitutional rights.

In the second memo released yesterday, Judge Alito proposed incrementally shifting court’s analysis of statutes from “Congress’ intent” to “the President’s intent” by having the President issue a "signing statement" about what the law means whenever he signed a bill into law. Again, he was trying to incrementally – again, read “sneakily” – undercut bedrock principles of American jurisprudence and give increased power to the President.

Alito’s preference for looking at Presidential rather than Congressional intent is especially salient because, as I posted yesterday, it is the agreement between the branches that makes it proper for Presidents to be subject to the laws: Congress writes bills, Presidents sign them into law, and the joint nature of that exercise deprives the President of the right to say that he is immune from having to follow them. If Alito has his way, the President will have grounds to argue – as Bush is arguing now without justification – that he is not obligated to honor any legal restraints placed on him.

Under legal principles that have been in place at least since Blackstone wrote his Commentaries ten years before the American Revolution, the President acted illegally and must stop spying on American citizens without obtaining a FISA warrant (which, again, are available on short notice and are issued 99.97% of the time). But under Alito’s theories, which are new and therefore constitute judicial activism, warrantless searches would be legal as long as the President said they were legal, and even if they weren’t, the President and his men would be legally immune from any consequences. To any student of history, to any true patriot, that’s very, very scary.

Stalin was allowed to spy on Russian citizens without any court or parliament exercising oversight. Hitler was allowed to spy on German citizens without any court or parliament exercising oversight. But we are America, and we are better than that. We believe in checks and balances; that’s the brilliance of the Constitution the Founders were inspired to create, one in which the President cannot become a dictator. But if Samuel Alito is confirmed to the Supreme Court, and if his views are adopted by his ideological colleagues Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Roberts, then the America we knew will be lost.

And, under Alito's "incremental change" strategy, we won't even notice our democracy slipping away until it's too late. Whatever his goal is -- criminalizing abortion, granting immunity to government officials who violate Americans' civil rights, allowing Presidents to exercise whatever powers they feel they need to exercise -- Alito consistenly recommends an "incremental change" strategy to keep people from protesting. It's like the adage about boiling a frog: toss a frog into boiling water and he'll jump right out; put him in cold water and slowly increase the heat, and he won't notice until it's too late. Alito would move our democracy little by little toward the hell of totalitarianism, and we wouldn't recognize we were being nudged that way until, someday in the future, we noticed the flames and wondered how we got there. Every democracy in history has eventually walked, incrementally and willingly, out of fear, from democracy to totalitarianism. This is what it looks like, and true patriots should do what they can to stop it now.

There’s a link on the left to the U.S. Senate’s webpage. There, you can look up your Senators’ phone numbers and addresses. Please, call and beg them not to confirm Judge Alito. Our democracy – no kidding – may be hanging in the balance.

Link re: Domestic Spying and the Limits of Executive Power

2005-12-23T11:24:00.000-08:00

Glenn Greenwald has posted a nice essay summarizing the legal issues surrounding the “domestic spying” brouhaha. I am still digesting what he wrote, but do want to add the following, for clarity and not as criticism:

Glenn’s article contains these passages:

absurd and dangerous proposition that the President has the right to violate a criminal law passed by Congress.

...that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations

The President's defenders are pretending this is a conflict between the President and Congress, and that in times of war, the President's authority prevails. The language I quoted above inadvertantly supports that false distinction by saying, basically, that the President is subject to Congress' laws.

This misses an important point: that the laws passed by Congress are also signed by the then-President. In other words, the laws that Bush violated represent a prior agreement between the Congress and the Executive that they are right and good; the President (in the form of his predecessors) has already agreed to be subject to them.

This makes the "Congress vs. Executive" distinction false and misleading. Bush violated laws that both branches enacted. To claim that the Executive Branch is not subject to a law that the Executive Branch already endorsed is disingenuous – and illegal. And, not to put too fine a point on it, impeachable as a “high crime.”

Redux: On the Proper Role of Government in a Democratic Society

2005-12-22T11:30:00.000-08:00

Unlike most blogs, I see the NeoProgBlog less as a fast-moving, topical newspaper and more as an online interactive magazine: The NeoProgressive Magazine online. The news of the day is important mainly as it illuminates larger issues: what is the proper role of government, how should Americans deal with good-faith conflicts over cultural and religious values, etc.

What I want from my readers, more than anything, is input and feedback on those larger issues, and posts that come and go in a day or two just can't generate that kind of deep discussion.

So, every now and then I will resurrect an older post, and invite readers to chew on it a little. Over time, we should come up with pretty thorough analysis.

Today's selection is a perennial favorite of all political philosophers. Ever want to join the illustrious company of Plato, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Marx, and both Roosevelts? Now's your chance! Please, check out On the Proper Role of Government in a Democratic Society and let me know your thoughts!

I Think We Won... A War That Wasn't (?!!?)

2005-12-21T13:28:00.000-08:00

On The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly apparently reversed his previous position that the phrase "Happy Holidays" is offensive, stating, " 'Happy Holidays' is fine, just don't ban 'Merry Christmas.' " O'Reilly has previously claimed the term "Happy Holidays" is offensive to "millions of Christians" and 'insulting to Christian America."

O'Reilly Retreats

I do have to ask: if neoconservatives can't even win a nonexistent war against a holiday, why does anyone think they can successfully prosecute a war against real terrorists, or stabilize Iraq?

But I'm being snarky. Good for O'Reilly. Now if John Gibson will remove all copies of "The War On Christmas" from store shelves and donate all profits to the Anti-Defamation League, and the U.S. House will pass a resolution apologizing for H. Res. 579 (and for refusing to include Hannukah in its language), then everything should be pretty much OK.

Now Anarchists Get Into the "War."

2005-12-21T08:33:00.000-08:00

OK, this is just surreal: Santarchy.

But, sadly, no more surreal, no more artificial or disingenuous, than the bill "protecting" Christmas that passed the House, or the whole "War On Christmas" itself. It's all tendentious, self-serving, and irrelevant to the religious or spiritual holy day.

Props to NTodd from Eschaton.

Eugene Register-Guard Runs NeoProgBlog Op-Ed

2005-12-18T12:09:00.000-08:00

I'm pleased and humbled that the Eugene (Oregon) Register-Guard is running an expanded version of my essay on the War On Christmas as an Op-Ed style piece on the front page of their Commentary section today. I knew this was coming, but was flabbergasted to see my essay taking up 2/3 of the page, accompanied by two large editorial cartoons, and sharing space with a (shorter) piece by Salman Rushdie. I also was surprised to notice that, according to the R-G's count, the War On Christmas was the number one topic of Letters to the Editor last week. Apparently a lot of people are turning on to the issue, and I'm honored that a MSM editor chose to place me front and center.

Thank you, Jack Wilson.

Readers of that piece, please let me know your thoughts by commenting below.

Congress Enters the Nonexistent War on Christmas

2005-12-15T15:00:00.000-08:00

It isn't taking His name in vain if you're seriously imploring Him for help, so:

Jesus help us.

The House of Representatives is voting on a resolution to save "the symbols and traditions" of Christmas.

And, to make sure no one wrongly accuses them of serving ALL Americans, without regard for religion, the resolution's sponsors refused to include protection for the "symbols and traditions" of Hannukah in the same bill.

Thank God, again literally, that someone was able to point out, humorously, how life-wastingly, sinfully, deeply silly this is, at a time when our nation faces real enemies and needs real leadership from our Congress.

Of course, the bill’s sponsors are calling for a roll-call vote, so that anyone who votes against it as being too damned silly to waste Congress’ time on can be accused of being “anti-Christmas” the next time they’re up for re-election.

I am very, very angry. This Congress' work year is about to expire, and there is much pressing business for them to do, including deliver relief for the over 1,300 children who are still separated from their parents following Hurricane Katrina and funding delivery of vehicle armor that still, after all this time, is needed by our troops in Iraq. What a cynical, political, sinful waste of resources.

I am telephoning my Congressman to ask him to vote no. You can find out who your Congressperson is here. The Capitol switchboard can be reached at 202-224-3121.

UPDATE: H. Res. 579, which criticizes "attempts to ban mention of Christmas" and "recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas", passed the House on December 15 by a vote of 401-22.

The War On Christmas

2005-12-08T16:44:00.000-08:00

Intolerant, unspiritual people have declared a “War On Christmas.” As a Christian, I feel a moral obligation to fight back.

It began last year with a series of Fox News reports called “Christmas Under Siege.” Earlier this year, Fox News host John Gibson gave the movement its name when he published The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. Fox News aired 58 segments covering the supposed “War” between November 28 and December 2. CNN and MSNBC have run stories on the “War,” a group backed by Jerry Falwell is offering legal representation to anyone “facing persecution for celebrating Christmas,” and ads have appeared promising that Samuel Alito will protect Christmas if his Supreme Court nomination is approved. Bill O'Reilly is leading the charge.

All of which might be great if anyone were actually attacking Christmas, but this “War,” like others I can think of, “defends” Christmas against a nonexistent threat.

Believe it or not, the main thing that has O’Reilly up in arms is the phrase “Happy Holidays,” which really is just good manners. Christmas is not the only December holiday: every culture and religion has a December or Solstice festival of some kind. Christians celebrate Christmas. Jews mark the year’s shortest, darkest days with a Festival of Lights. Hindus brighten the night with firecrackers and lamps on Diwali, Buddhists celebrate Buddha’s enlightenment on Rohatsu, and many African-Americans celebrate Kwanzaa. Wishing well to others who don’t share our faith is exactly what Jesus, who taught us to treat others as we wish to be treated, would expect. Not to mention Emily Post.

I’m especially open to acknowledging non-Christian holidays at this time of year because Christmas has many non-Christian roots. The Bible doesn’t say Jesus was born on December 25; Luke’s description of flocks in open fields suggest He was born during Spring lambing. The early Church neither knew nor cared what Jesus’ birthday was: Origen and Arnobius thought only pagans should celebrate the gods’ birthdays, and other Church Fathers thought Jesus was born on various dates in January, April, or May. The first Christmas masses were celebrated on January 8, but in 336 A.D. Christmas was moved to December 25, the Roman Winter Solstice, to coincide with the birthday festivals of the Phrygian, Persian and Roman sun-gods and the national Roman holiday, Saturnalis.

Likewise, non-Christian rituals underly most Christmas traditions. Evergreens and Christmas trees are rooted in Germanic solstice celebrations. The Viking god Odin left gifts of food on poor people’s hearths. Pre-Christian Scandinavians celebrated “Yule” by decorating their homes with prickly holly to snag evil spirits. Druids hung mistletoe over their doorways, and kissing under that mistletoe originated in Norse mythology.

Christmas was not an important Christian holiday until relatively recently. The Puritans discouraged Christmas celebrations as unbiblical; Cromwell and some New England colonies banned Christmas celebrations altogether. Scrooge, in expecting his employee to work on Christmas Day, was in the majority. In America, workplaces, schools and the U.S. Congress were open on Christmas Day until the 1800s, and in the South, Christmas was an adult drinking celebration – wassailing – similar to today’s New Years Eve. Christmas trees weren’t common in America until 1850, when a fad was started by a popular magazine showing Queen Victoria and her German-born husband decorating one. New York didn't erect its first community Christmas Tree until 1912.

According to the Christian liturgical calendar, we shouldn’t even be celebrating Christmas yet: it is Advent. Christmas carols aren't sung in liturgical churches until the 25th. Christmas, to a Christian, begins on Christmas Day. Until then, “Merry Christmas” makes little sense.

Knowing all this, I am glad to share the season with others. It’s both accurate and courteous, and not at all irreligious, to wish others “Happy Holy Days” rather than assume they celebrate “Christ’s Mass.”

All of which would be merely amusing, except that it’s turning mean-spirited. The “War On Christmas” has the potential to do real harm.

For one thing, O’Reilly is denigrating Jesus’ teachings by contributing to the commercialization of Christmas. The Bible says “every knee shall bend and every head shall bow” in honor of Jesus. O’Reilly turned that on its head by saying “[e]very company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable.” That’s blasphemy. (It’s also hypocrisy: O’Reilly publicized a blacklist of retailers whose advertisements say “Happy Holidays” while his own website advertised “Fox News Holiday Ornaments.”)

Buying and giving gifts isn’t itself bad. Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol to encourage charitable giftgiving during an economic depression. However, he was advocating buying a goose for a poor family, not a widescreen TV for your own child. Today, retailers’ profitability depends on a robust Christmas shopping season, and The Economist magazine estimates that emotionally-charged purchases lead Christmas shopper to pay $4 billion more each year than their purchases are actually worth. That’s unhealthy, both economically and spiritually. It would be better to abandon the pagan custom of giftgiving, or spend our money charitably, than allow Christmas to deteriorate into a secular Saturnalia.

As a Christian, I’m also astounded and bothered by O’Reilly’s own efforts to turn Christmas from a spiritual holiday into a secular one. Not only does he emphasize shopping above all else, but he describes Christmas as “a national public holiday... Federal holiday, everybody gets off, no mail delivered, everybody shuts down. Federal holiday.... To honor a philosopher, Jesus... A man was born, his name is Jesus, he had a philosophy, the philosophy was incorporated by the Founding Fathers to make up the United States of America, U.S. Grant signs into law the holiday, Christmas.”

Memorial Day is a “public holiday.” Christmas is something more. Even if Jesus wasn’t born on December 25, it is a “holy day” to us; President Grant had nothing to do with it. And to many Christians, Jesus was more than a philosopher, but a unique Savior whose existence changed the world. O’Reilly is entitled to believe in a watered-down, government-sponsored, Jesus-as-mere-philosopher "Christmas," but that's different than the Christmas I celebrate, and he should not pretend to speak for me.

Worst of all, the “War” is deteriorating into antisemitism. Burt Prelutsky, a columnist and writer on the conservative website TownHall.com who, remarkably, is himself Jewish, has taken O’Reilly’s side by framing “The War on Christmas” in blatantly antisemitic terms: “I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront.... [M]any Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.... This is a Christian nation, my friends... I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do.”

Our nation was founded on the principle of religious pluralism. Thomas Paine thought the word “tolerance” didn’t go far enough: he didn’t want any religion to be in a position to “tolerate” or judge another. Ben Franklin contributed money to every church in Philadelphia, including a synagogue, and even raised money to build a hall for itinerant preachers so that, in his words, "if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service." In the late 1700s George Washington, John Adams and a unanimous Senate negotiated and approved a treaty with a Muslim nation promising that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The Founders were men of faith, but not of one particular faith, and a narrow insistence on the primacy of one holiday or one religion over all others runs completely counter to the Founders’ spirit – is, in fact, unAmerican.

I don’t want Christmas banished from the public square, but I don’t believe there’s any chance of that happening. My non-Christian neighbors, on the other hand, risk having their faith ignored and diluted in the hoopla of “my” holiday. As the dominant religious group, Christians should be gracious enough to share the limelight with others who also offer messages of hope and grace. Such selflessness is what St. Paul meant when he wrote, “Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way....” We are at our best, as Christians and as Americans, when we do not insist on our own way; when we treat others, even others of different faiths, with generosity and love.

The greatest lesson of 9/11 was that religious intolerance is itself intolerable: those who insist that their religion is superior, and arrogate to themselves the right to judge or demean those who believe differently, understand neither us nor God. The best response to such intolerance is to demonstrate its opposite, by embracing those who are unlike us. Here in Eugene, for example, Christians responded to 9/11 by joining with a startling array of Muslims, Jews, Sufis, Buddhists, and others in monthly interfaith prayer services that are still taking place, over four years later. That’s faith. The Register-Guard newspaper supported this interfaith dialogue with a regular feature showcasing the faith stories of diverse people. Heartfelt religion in a fairly liberal daily newspaper: that’s courage. Readers, in turn, open their hearts and minds to those different faith perspectives without judgment or prejudice. That’s love. There is no war against anyone’s religion here, just sincere and pluralistic and emotionally brave responses to a terrible and misguided act of anger and intolerance. How wrong it seems, in comparison, to see faith as a war to be won against the other, and how silly to waste our lives worrying about the way we are greeted in stores.

Of course, there always have been demagogues who pretend to be holy men; the Bible particularly warns Christians to be on guard against such charlatans. “The War On Christmas” is one such deception. It’s O’Reilly and his friends, not an imaginary, faithless, liberal cabal, who are undermining Christmas. People of sense and goodwill, of all faiths and no faith, need to resist that disingenuity. We can start by simply listening to those who believe differently than we do, and learning what this season means to them.

SUPPLEMENT, DEC. 12, 2005: Well, President Bush and the G.O.P. have taken sides in the “War On Christmas,” and at least on the surface, it looks like the right side. As he does every year, the President has sent greeting cards to supporters – 1.4 million of them this year, paid for by the Republican Party. And they wish people... drum roll please...

A “Happy Holiday Season.”

”This month, as in every December since he took office, President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy "holiday season."”

Of course, those cards were ordered and printed long before Bill O’Reilly unleashed the Reindeer of War, but even so, can our diligent and highly professional “serious” television media stop running stories about the nonexistent “War” yet, so it can focus on the issues that really affect America?

"Must Reads," December 2005

2005-12-03T10:41:00.000-08:00

To get the ball rolling this month, I'm happy to note that the embattled Christian minority in America is finally getting a little help as they struggle to defend their little-known, little-celebrated holiday, "Christmas." Soon I'll do a post outlining a neoprogressive framework for honestly and sincerely discussing religious issues, but until then here's grist for the mill: a story about what goes wrong when spirituality is distorted by politics, propaganda and just plain ignorance.

JEWS AGAINST ANTI-CHRISTIAN DEFAMATION

“Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation was organized because we recognize that Christians are the last remaining obstacle to the moral deconstruction of America.” – Don Feder

[I]f the Ku Klux Klan was marching with a symbol that said 'Merry Christmas,' it certainly wouldn’t be allowed.” – Comedian Jackie Mason

*****************

Flipping channels last night, I landed on a Christian Broadcasting Network News story on how the "war over Christmas" is heating up and introducing a group called Jews Against Anti Christian Defamation that came out on December 1 "defending" Christmas against liberal attack.

So, I googled, and here's what I found:

The founder is former Boston Herald columnist Don Feder, author of A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America and Who's Afraid of the Religious Right?, who describes himself as follows:

“I’m to the right of Sharon on Zionism, to the right of Pat Buchanan on immigration and Americanism, to the right of Mother Angelica on abortion, to the right of Chuck Heston on Second-Amendment rights, and generally make the legendary Atilla look like a limousine liberal.”

The same article notes a strong anti-Islamic tilt to the organization.

Others involved with the group include “popular talk-show host Barry Farber,” David Horowitz (Center for the Study of Popular Culture), Morton Klein (Zionist Organization of America), “syndicated talk-show host Michael Medved”; and Ted Baehr, who runs a site called Movieguide ("a ministry dedicated to redeeming the values of the mass media according to biblical principles").

Other great quotes:

Feder: "Particularly pernicious is the leftist idea that it's legitimate to base your politics on anything EXCEPT religion. You can say that my politics are based on the views of Marx or Jan [sic] Fonda, but as soon as you say your worldview is based on the Bible, that's considered an illegitimate basis for embracing certain political views. Part of America's future hinges on whether or not Christians - and I mean authentic Christians (in other words, not the Religious Left) succeed in the political arena."

(So a non-Christian is judging which Christians are "authentic" and which aren't. Hint: Pat Robertson is; I'm not, at least according to Feder. Funny: I've never had the gall to decide whether Conservative, Reformed, or Orthodox Judaism is better... but I suppose Feder is wiser than I.)

Feder: “[B]y and large, Israel today is getting more support from Christians than from the Jewish community in this country. Now, I want to make it clear that we're not doing this as a quid pro quo. This is not our way of thanking Christians for supporting Israel, although we do appreciate Christian support for Israel. If evangelical Christians weren't pro-Israel, then the Jewish state would really be in a perilous positioneven more than it is. We're appreciative of Christians' support for Israel on a scriptural basis.”

(So a man who describes himself as "to the right of [Ariel] Sharon" on Zionism is not trying to reward or encourage conservative Christians' support for Israel, but is acting simply to show the extent to which conservative Jews appreciate conservative Christians theologically. Um hmm...)

From a blog about the group: "Jews can now understand that there actually ARE two kinds of Christians--those who love them and those who do not. To reach this point has taken hundreds of years."

(Don't even know where to begin on the substance of this one, so I'll settle for a passing, snarky question: isn't it thousands of years?)

And the full Jackie Mason quote, from above:

“Mason is also perplexed by the different treatment afforded to patently offensive forms of speech and religious expression. He noted that the First Amendment protects the right of the Ku Klux Klan to march. ‘But,’ Mason observed, ‘if the Ku Klux Klan was marching with a symbol that said 'Merry Christmas,' it certainly wouldn’t be allowed.’

(Legal note: wrong. Just plain, first-year-law-students-know-this wrong. We need to get a pro-Christmas Klan parade organized to prove it. Email me if you have the connections...)

Further resources:

Article about the group's "defense of Christmas" press conference on Dec. 1

Anti-Defamation League response (opposition) to this group

SUPPLEMENT, DECEMBER 9, 2005: Both above and in a subsequent post on the so-called "War On Christmas," I've passingly noted the fact that some Zionist Jews are articulating support for conservative Christianity, not, imho, out of sincere love for Jesus' followers, but to curry favor with a politically powerful group that strongly supports Israel. Don Feder's denial of any connection between Jews Against Anti Christian Defamation and his desire for continued conservative Christian support for his pro-Israel agenda is particularly laughable.

It's merely human for people to curry favor with those who are politically more powerful than they are; a little sad, but understandable. It's not OK, though, for those with power to demand subservience. That crosses the line from toadyism to oppression, and neither conservatives nor liberals, not Christians nor Jews nor atheists, can morally stand by and do nothing while it happens.

But intolerance and oppression are exactly what are starting to happen (which, of course, is why toadyism like Feder's and Prelutsky's tends to be self-defeating: people who demean themselves are more readily demeaned by others):

Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association (AFA), used the occasion of the December 5 broadcast of AFA Report, his daily program on AFA-operated American Family Radio (AFR), to suggest that some members of the religious right would withdraw support for Israel if a prominent activist against anti-Semitism did not cease his criticism of it.

During the broadcast, Wildmon stated that Anti-Defamation League (ADL) President Abraham H. Foxman "got himself kind of in a bind" by criticizing the religious right. "[T]he strongest supporters Israel has are members of the religious right -- the people he's fighting," Wildmon said. "[T]he more he says that 'you people are destroying this country,' you know, some people are going to begin to get fed up with this and say, 'Well, all right then. If that's the way you feel, then we just won't support Israel anymore.'"

Shame on Wildmon. Is his support for Israel based on his faith and his reading of the Bible? Then it should be unmovable. If it can be altered, then it's just a ploy to increase his political base and suppress those who disagree with him. Either way, Wildmon is a hypocrite. And people who truly believe that Jews want to be wished a Merry Christmas, or that people like Wildmon hold sincere beliefs, need to wake up.

A Neoprog Approach to the Abortion Debate

2005-11-29T06:54:00.000-08:00

Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times reports today that the new Roberts court will hear two important abortion cases this term. She writes:

When the Supreme Court meets on Wednesday to hear its first abortion case in five years, the topic will be familiar: a requirement that doctors notify a pregnant teenager's parent before performing an abortion.

The court has upheld such laws for years, even in its more liberal days, and nearly all states now have them. But in the current climate, with the court in transition and the abortion debate as raucous as it has ever been, there is no such thing as just another abortion case. As reflected in dozens of briefs filed on both sides, interest in this new case, from New Hampshire, is extremely high.

And in fact, the case raises two questions with broader implications for the future of abortion.

One is how flexible a restriction on access to abortion must be when a woman's pregnancy poses a threat to her health. New Hampshire imposes a 48-hour waiting period after the required notice to at least one parent. Like all states, it provides an exception for conditions that present an immediate threat to a pregnant teenager's life.

But of the 43 states with parental-involvement statutes, New Hampshire is one of only five that do not also provide an exception for non-life-threatening medical emergencies, and it was on this basis that two lower federal courts declared the law unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's decision in the case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, may therefore shed light on the contours of the "health exception" that the court's abortion precedents have required since Roe v. Wade in 1973. ***

Waiting in the wings, as the justices surely know, is another, perhaps even more highly charged abortion case. The Bush administration recently filed an appeal in defense of the federal ban on the procedure that abortion opponents have labeled "partial birth abortion," and the court must decide shortly whether to hear it.

That law, passed in 2003, has never taken effect. Federal courts around the country have declared it unconstitutional for lack of the health exception that the Supreme Court said was essential when it struck down a nearly identical Nebraska law in 2000. In passing the federal ban, Congress took account of that ruling by declaring that a health exception was superfluous because the procedure was, in its view, never medically necessary.

In other words: if a girl’s fertility is endangered by her pregnancy unless it is terminated immediately, but not her life, she still must notify one parent and wait 48 hours for her abortion (unless, presumably, that parent expressly consents sooner than that).

The New Hampshire law’s legislative and legal history is fraught with politics:

When the New Hampshire legislature was debating whether to enact a parental notification law in 2003, some legislators ... [argued] that the measure needed a health exception. But the bill's sponsors resisted... on the ground that it would offer doctors too big a loophole for avoiding parental involvement.

Without the health exception, the bill passed the State Senate by a vote of 12 to 11 and the House by a vote of 187 to 181. It was signed into law by the state's Republican governor, Craig Benson. John H. Lynch, the Democrat who defeated him in last November's election, opposes the law and has filed a brief in the Supreme Court urging the justices to declare it unconstitutional. The state's attorney general, Kelly A. Ayotte, a Republican, has pursued the appeal under her office's independent litigating authority and will argue the case herself.

So it’s not like the People of New Hampshire, or their elected representatives, are solidly united behind this bill; the New Hampshire government is divided as to whether it has significant, let alone compelling, interest in overriding a pregnant girl’s right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy. This is important, because when the government chooses to infringe on someone's personal liberty, it ought to be for a reason compelling enough to create something like consensus. Ties go to the runner, and political ties should be resolved in favor of individual freedoms. But that's a digression from my main point.

Finally, the ability of women to challenge abortion laws at all is being attacked:

The second ... issue is under what circumstances federal courts can continue to do what they did in this case and in many other abortion cases: bar the enforcement of abortion restrictions that have not yet gone into effect, and so cannot be said to have injured any specific plaintiff. ***

[T]he Bush administration, which entered the case as a "friend of the court" to defend the statute, are arguing that the lower courts should never have entertained an attack on the law "on its face" in the first place. *** The Bush administration argues that with the exception of spousal notice, all other abortion issues should await as-applied challenges, a position the plaintiffs in the New Hampshire case describe as "callous." Their brief says "it would preclude courts from granting any relief at all until faced with a woman in crisis."

With the exception of Roe v. Wade itself - "Jane Roe" was actually pregnant when she challenged the longstanding Texas law that made abortion a crime - most abortion precedents on the books began as facial challenges. A rule that women must wait until new restrictions actually take effect would be a substantial change in the way abortion cases are litigated.

As lawyers are trained to do, I want to set aside the general questions, even if they are compelling (e.g., should abortions be legal always, or ever? Is parental consent always, or ever, a legitimate restriction on the right to abortion?) This Court is not going to declare parental consent laws unconstitutional in general or otherwise increase the scope of women’s abortion rights.

Instead, I want to focus on the key issues in these cases:

1. Whether it’s reasonable for a state to require parental consent even when the mother’s health is endangered by delay, so long as her life is not in danger;

2. Whether it’s right for courts to wait for particular cases before deciding how a law that delays abortions should apply; and

3. Consistent with the theme of this blog, how a Neoprogressive approach to this problem might look.

Contrary to many people’s belief, Roe v. Wade did not make a woman’s right to an abortion absolute, nor did it deny that fetuses have interests that may need protection. Read it; it might surprise you. The Roe Court did find that women, in consultation with their physicians, have the right to make their own choices about whether to carry a pregnancy to term. But it carefully balanced that right against the interests of the fetus, as protected by state laws, in being carried to term.

That’s where the “viability” system – an updated version of the “quickening” test used in the first American antiabortion statutes, enacted in the 1800s -- came into play. The Court ruled that before the fetus is viable – i.e., capable of independent life – abortion is entirely the mother’s choice. After the fetus becomes viable and might be capable of living outside the mother, then a state can ban abortions altogether unless the mother’s life or health are endangered.

The Roe court rejected the proposition that a fetus was a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but it did say this:

[I]t is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of ... potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

A little further on, the Court reiterated:

We repeat ... that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... and ... another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

The Court also very strongly emphasized the physician’s role in the decisionmaking process, at one point even using language that puts the physician’s judgment before the mother’s. For abortions prior to fetal viability, it ruled that

the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated.

Roe thus was a carefully-wrought balancing act, one that acknowledged both the mother’s and the fetus’ “right to life” (the latter, more accurately, expressed as the state’s interest in protecting fetal life); respected the ability of physicians rather than judges or legislators to make proper decisions (anyone remember Terry Schiavo?); and tried to work a compromise between the various legitimate interests. One may disagree whether it balanced them properly, but its impulse to balance and accommodate the mother’s and fetus’ interests, while simultaneously negotiating the sliding scale of fetal development, was laudable.

So what is at stake before the Court this term?

First, the concept of protection of the mother’s health. Most people agree that when given a choice between the mother’s life or the fetus’, the mother’s life may come first. But health is a trickier question. Maternal health can be a minor issue (e.g., lower back pain, even when severe, is a common experience in the third trimester and wouldn’t warrant a late-term abortion), or it can be extremely critical: kidney or liver failure, stroke, vision loss. When a problematic pregnancy endangers a young woman’s fertility, as often occurs, then the problem loops back onto itself: does her right to reproductive choice include the right to decide to remain fertile? One would hope yes. More generally, following the Schiavo fiasco, one would hope that the Roe Court’s approach of respecting physicians’ judgment on health matters would prevail.

Yet the New Hampshire legislature – by a one vote margin – and its former governor – opposed by its current governor – have decided that a mother’s health is not important enough to waive the 48-hour waiting period when the mother is a minor. And the U.S. Congress and the current President, in the misnamed “partial birth abortion” law, have decreed, a la Schiavo, that they know better than women’s physicians do and a particular kind of third-trimester abortion never, ever is needed to protect the mother’s health.

The second issue, and potentially the larger one, concerns the legal concepts of “standing” and “ripeness”. Standing asks whether a particular plaintiff has enough involvement in a case to warrant bringing suit. Ripeness asks whether a legal controversy has matured sufficiently to allow a logical and complete resolution. Here, the questions appear to be whether a woman who is not pregnant, and not seeking an abortion, has standing to sue to invalidate an abortion law that might someday impact her, and whether an abortion law that has not yet been applied to a particular woman can be ripe for review.

Normally these are excellent rules. The common law relies upon particular cases to evolve, which gives it a grounding in the “real world” that lofty-worded statutes alone can never have. But sometimes, waiting for a real case to arise is impossible. When the real case arises – a 17 year old girl’s health is immediately endangered by a pregnancy that her parents insist she carry to term – the court will not be able to make a competent ruling in only two days. She’ll be lucky if it’s sooner than two years. Forget two minutes, which sometimes is the window an emergency room physician may have in which to make a life-altering decision. If they want time to make a carefully-considered decision, courts must review some laws “on their face” instead of waiting for particular cases to arise.

What’s more, the law also declines to address cases that are no longer relevant – that are moot. If the courts refuse to consider cases until they are presented with an actual, pregnant plaintiff, will they then dismiss those cases as soon as the child is born? Under that rule, the Supreme Court would never consider another abortion case. So the question really is, at which end of the pregnancy do we want to bend the rules: before it begins, so women, their doctors, and law enforcement officials all know what law to apply; or at the end, by continuing to consider abortion cases after the particular plaintiff has carried her unwanted pregnancy to term, delivered her baby, and suffered any adverse health effects that pregnancy caused? The current rule – that abortion laws may be reviewed on their face rather than waiting for actual cases to arise – is the only logical approach. Yet both New Hampshire’s maverick attorney general, and the Bush administration, are arguing for the illogical approach, simply to monkeywrench the process.

A Neoprogressive Approach As I’ve said before, if neoprogressives follow in the footsteps of the original progressives, they will be able to agree on “ground rules” for disagreement. I don’t expect all Americans ever to agree on whether abortion should be legal. But we should be able to agree on “first principles” to frame that debate. From a Neoprogressive perspective, those principles would include:

1. The right to privacy exists. Accordingly, women, in consultation with their physicians, have a fundamental Constitutional right to reproductive choice. It’s hard to believe, and most don’t remember, that as late as 1965 some states forbade married couples from using condoms. Griswold v. Connecticut found such law to be an unconstitutional infringement on married people’s right to reproductive choice. When judicial nominees are asked whether they believe the Constitution contains an implied right to privacy, they are being asked whether they believe Griswold was rightly decided. When so-called “originalists” claim there is no constitutional right to privacy, they are asking that not just Roe, but even Griswold, be overturned. Americans should put this part of the debate to rest: Griswold was rightly decided, we have a right to privacy from unwarranted government intrusion, and our reproductive and sexual choices are included in that right. We can still disagree about abortion even within that framework.

2. When a statute could prevent someone from obtaining an abortion before a court has time to rule otherwise, it is appropriate for courts to review that statute on its face, instead of waiting for someone’s right to be violated before acting. I won’t even waste words supporting this one. If the proposition isn’t self-evident, you’re not a Neoprogressive and likely won't ever become one.

3. Abortions suck. Abortions may be necessary, but they are not good. Every abortion is an unfortunate thing. Our goal should be to have no unwanted pregnancies, ever; no unhealthy pregnancies, ever; and no abortions, ever. Since there will always be unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies, there will always be good reasons for women to have abortions. But that doesn’t mean we have to be happy about it. Pro-choice advocates agreeing with their opponents on this issue will take a lot of heat out of the debate.

4. Some abortions should be legal, and some shouldn’t. This is what Roe said, and it’s the only humane way to proceed. Abortion is not an all-or-nothing question, and it cannot be made one.

Assume an 11 year old girl is raped, becomes pregnant, and while the baby will live, the mother probably will die during childbirth if the pregnancy is carried to term. Should her life be saved by aborting the pregnancy in the first trimester? If your answer is yes, then you are not absolutely anti-abortion. The fetus aborted in that scenario is no more or less "human" than any other.

Now assume a 30 year old woman decides to become pregnant, carries the pregnancy for nearly nine months, then changes her mind because she’s been offered a promotion and a baby suddenly is inconvenient to her career. Should she be allowed to abort the pregnancy even though the fetus would be perfectly capable of living outside her body if it were born normally the same day? If your answer is no, then you are not absolutely pro-choice, because you agree that in some circumstances a fetus has a right to be carried to term that overrides the mother's contrary choice.

Setting these four parameters, especially the last one, should eliminate most of the screaming and fanaticism from the debate. Within these four parameters, there is still plenty of room for heated discussion about sociology, religion, science, civil rights, and ethics.

Neoprogressives who believe human life begins at conception will tilt the balance in favor of protecting the fetus’ interests as much as possible, without denying that women have some say in the matter and without pretending that abortion can never occur. Neoprogressive feminists may lean strongly the other way, emphasizing the mother’s civil rights, without pretending that the fetus is never, at any stage, unworthy of protection. Neoprogressive libertarians, as always, will be all over the charts, depending on whether they are looking at the mother’s freedoms or the fetus’.

But we should all be able to agree on the basic American values and respect one another’s opinions, and work our way to a nuanced and practical compromise.

SUPPLEMENT, NOV. 30, 2005: Today, there's news that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito not only has expressed a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade, but also, while working for the Solicitor General's Office under Ronald Reagan, outlined a strategy for gradually whittling it back, undercutting it over time with the goal of eventually overturning it altogether.

If he remains consistent to those views -- and there is no reason to think he isn't -- then he would, if confirmed, vote to bar courts from considering the constitutionality of abortion laws until faced with actual pregnant women, dismiss those women's appeals once their babies are born, and uphold obstacles to women obtaining abortions such as notice requirements, waiting periods, mandatory 'abortion alternative' education, etc. He would vote this way, not because he believes such rulings correctly interpret the Constitution, but because such rulings will chip away at Roe v. Wade itself.

From a neoprogressive perspective, the most troubling thing about Alito's views is not his distaste for abortion, which I am sure is sincere, but his deceptive approach. Matters of important public policy deserve to be addressed on their face, not undermined little by little. Rights should not be whittled away; they should either be affirmed or rejected. If Judge Alito thinks Roe is good law, he should say so. If he thinks it was wrongly decided and should be overturned, he should say so. But chipping away at it, little by little, is dishonest and dishonorable.

I have been withholding judgment on Judge Alito. No longer. The American people deserve honest judges, not ones with secret agendas and strategies for undermining civil rights. If Alito breaks with the usual gameplaying and straightforwardly declares his position on abortion, then he might be honest and honorable enough to be confirmed. But if he declines to answer that question, then, for advocating sneakiness instead of open debate, he is not worthy to serve, and should be rejected.

Bush Administration Claims Credit for Troop Reduction Plans

2005-11-27T09:14:00.000-08:00

And so it begins: the rush of fervent hawks -- the same ones who promised to "stay the course," constantly moved the goalposts for declaring success, accused Jack Murtha of getting his ideas from Michael Moore, and attacked antiwar critics as unpatriotic -- to disingenuously claim that they always were reluctant about the war and that substantial troop reductions in 2006 were their idea all along.

This sort of revisionism is not new. Once WWII was over, no German ever admitted supporting Adolf Hitler or the war, even though he won a popular election to take power initially and support for the war was high at the beginning (thanks largely to the propoganda genius of Hermann Goering).

The neocon talking point for today, and probably for the next eleven months, is: "Jack Murtha didn't say anything we haven't already been saying." The talking point is: "the President always said we'd leave Iraq soon." The talking point is: "Don't let the Democrats take back the House in 2006 now that the American public has awakened to the reality that they were manipulated into supporting this war, and it's not going well, and it's precisely the neocons in the Administration and Congress who engineered this disaster."

Oops. That's not a talking point. They won't say it, and none of the Woodward-style "access reporters" in the mainstream media will ask the question that elicits it -- or, if they do, they won't ask the follow-up insisting that it be answered rather than evaded.

But let's be clear about two things:

1) None of the Republicans in the Administration or in the Congressional leadership showed any inclination to enunciate a clear plan, let alone take solid steps, to withdraw troops from Iraq before a handful of progressives, most notably Jack Murtha, finally caught the public's attention with a stand really supporting the troops. To pretend otherwise is sheer mendacity, calculated to minimize losses in the 2006 midterms.

2) This Administration, in particular, had no and still has no intention of withdrawing substantial numbers of troops from Iraq. They are still building 14 permanent bases on Iraq's sandy soil, and a permanent presence in Iraq -- to replace the airmen and other soldiers we pulled out of Saudi Arabia in capitulation to Osama bin Laden's demands and to secure a backup oil source in the event the Saudi royal family is overthrown -- is a key part of the neocon foreign policy and energy strategy. They will, of necessity, rotate exhausted, three-tour units home, but they will not willingly do more. If they do do more, it will be a capitulation to Congressional Republicans worried about their seats, and is not likely to last past next November.

Once again, this is not a partisan issue. There are Republicans on the same side as Murtha, and an embarassing number of Vichy Democrats, too cowardly to take a stand that might get them labeled cowards, who have waffled on the war. Overall, Congressional Republicans cannot be faulted much for supporting their President's policy, while Congressional Democrats should be blamed for failing, individually and as a party, to take a clear antiwar stance and articulate a lucid alternative to the Administration's Iraq war policy.

The Democrats' "neocon light" waffling may cost them dearly, because voter dissatisfaction with Republicans won't translate into Democratic gains next November if voters don't perceive a difference between the two. The Democrats have missed a rare opportunity to benefit from simply doing the right thing, and the tiny shred of truth contained in the Administration's new misdirection tactic -- that they and the Vichy Democrats have the same plan -- may blunt Republican losses next year.

But that is to the Democrats' shame, not to the Administration's credit. This Administration, which is not focused on the risk terrorists present to us at home and which "supports the troops" in rhetoric only, deserves no credit whatsoever for any troop reductions that political or practical necessity forces them to accept, and we should not be fooled when some troops are withdrawn just for show in the runup to the Congressional midterms.

Giving Sincere Thanks

2005-11-24T08:46:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving, Friends.

I'm thankful to live in a nation where free speech is still protected almost all the time -- and when it isn't, there are people brave enough to speak out against the suppression.

I'm thankful to live in a nation whose people, despite too often being self-absorbed and politically dormant, have always awoken to defend American ideals when confronted with sufficient injustice -- and in a nation where the people's voice, in the end, always prevails.

I'm thankful to live in a nation with plenty of food, clean water, health care, good teachers, and competent health care -- and to be one of those who receives them.

I'm thankful to live in a land that still fights its civil wars with words, not with guns, where "the other side" can be found on the Letters to the Editor page and our children need not fear the janjaweed.

I'm thankful for technologies, from the hand-cranked presses of Ben Franklin to the hand-typed blogs of today, that let us share ideas and outrages and empower the intangible ideas our Constitution proposed.

We all know that every one of the things I give thanks for falls short. Sometimes there is suppression of dissenting voices; the blessings that God gave America are not shared by everyone, let alone shared equally; there are children today in America and around the world who will be hungry, who will be sick, who will be afraid. There are people still fighting to find a voice.

But while we pledge to struggle to correct these things, let's be thankful for what we do have, and for the certain knowledge that we still live in a nation where the possibility of remedy exists. In toto, there IS ENOUGH food here to go around; there are enough doctors; people still value free speech and democratic government. Not every place has enough. The fact that we do makes our job easy.

So: thank God we live in America. Thank God we have good work to do. God Bless America. And God bless everyone -- here and elsewhere -- who does not have enough today, and help us make that better.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Thersites

The Cost of War

2005-11-21T16:42:00.000-08:00

If war is to be conducted in our names, then we must be able to face the realities of that war. It's not patriotic to pretend it's clean. So, for a reality check, I offer the following, courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine:

NEJM Caring for the Wounded In Iraq, A Photoessay

Woodward, Miller, and the Fall of the Fourth Estate

2005-11-21T10:36:00.001-08:00

Joe Conason has posted a good piece about Bob Woodward, the reporter who was lionized for helping break the Watergate story but who since then has spent most of his time kissing up to important people then writing laudatory (and lucrative) books about them. Conason points out:

***
"Forced to reveal his strange secret about the Valerie Plame case, Bob Woodward has humiliated his trusting bosses at the Washington Post and exposed something rotten at the center of journalism's national elite. By withholding critical information from the Post's editors and pretending to be a neutral observer, Woodward badly compromised the values that he and his newspaper once embodied. A living symbol of the great constitutional role of a free press -- to hold government accountable -- has evidently degenerated into another obedient appendage of rogue officialdom.

"With his relentless pursuit of "access," the literary formula that has brought him so much money and fame, Woodward placed book sales above journalism. Boasting of his friendly relationship with the president who facilitated his interviews with administration officials, he now behaves like the journalistic courtiers of the Nixon era.

"To those who have observed Woodward's career since the glory of Watergate, including readers of his many bestselling books, the change in his role and outlook have long been obvious. For him, the cultivation of high-ranking sources is the very essence of journalism."
***

The "muckrakers" -- investigative journalists motivated by a sense of moral justice -- were a key component of last century's Progressive movement. Without them, the ordinary, middle-class citizens who formed the backbone of the movement would not have known about the abuses that the Progressives rose to rectify. The muckrakers were accurate, but they were not purely objective. They knew right from wrong, and the urge to rectify wrongs is what drove them. (How different, nowadays, when on the one hand schools of journalism are combined with schools of communication and public relations, and on the other hand reporters consider it "editorializing" to engage in analysis or truth-testing of government press releases.)

In the 1970s Woodward & Bernstein appeared to be the heirs apparent of the muckraker legacy. Not only was their work uncovering the corruption of the Nixon White House akin to some of the muckrakers' exposes, but the resultant public outcry and Nixon's ultimate resignation echo the Progressives' belief that government power does indeed come from the People, and that the People consequently had the power to counter corruption.

In hindsight, though, I realize that Woodward's career never was premised on investigative skills, but on the accident that he was contacted by the no. 2 man in the FBI (Mark Felt, aka "Deep Throat"). In other words, the Woodward-Bernstein team we associate with earthshaking investigative reporting actually relied on ... wait for it ... having access to a friendly high administration official. Exactly what Conason says Woodward banks on today. Which, of course, isn't surprising given the times (no pun intended): the greatest political journalist of that day, Scotty Reston of the NY Times, depended absolutely on his access to power, which in turn depended on ability to keep secrets and his willingness to disseminate good stories even when they were handed to him to advance someone's political goals. Woodward was just another Restonite "access journalist" -- but without Reston's sound judment or ethics.

So now I'm not surprised that Woodward is such an administration lackey. A good journalist would have understood Watergate as a vindication of the Fourth Estate's role in “checking and balancing” government. But a second-rate local crime beat reporter -- which is what Woodward was when Watergate fell into his lap -- only learned the lesson that having access to top people is how you get stories.

It's sad for Woodward, the Post, and all of us who used to hold him in high regard. He should not only be fired, but shunned -- in the old, literal sense of the word -- by all legitimate journalists. (He's free to catch a beer with Judy Miller and Jeff Gannon now and then.)

The good news is that we still have a muckraking press. However, it’s not found in big-city newspapers anymore. It’s more like Ben Franklin and Tom Paine: folks who combine investigation with comment, publish in small, competetive, opinionated journals and pamphlets, and distribute as directly as possible to the public. They're called bloggers.

OK, the idea that the blogosphere is taking over the politically-corrective functions of the "press" as that term is used in the First Amendment is not deep insight. In fact, it’s been recognized by the court. In his concurring opinion (caution: pdf) in the Judith Miller case, Judge David Sentelle (quoting a 1938 Supreme Court case) said this (internal citations and quotes omitted):

***
“[F]reedom of the press is a fundamental personal right not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. The press in its historic connotation
comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. Are we then to create a privilege that protects only those reporters employed by Time Magazine, the New York Times, and other media giants, or do we extend that protection as well to the owner of a desktop printer producing a weekly newsletter to inform his neighbors, lodge brothers, co-religionists, or co-conspirators?

Perhaps more to the point today, does the privilege also protect the proprietor of a web log: the stereotypical “blogger” sitting in his pajamas at his personal computer posting on the World Wide Web his best product to inform whoever happens to browse his way? If not, why not? How could one draw a distinction consistent with the court’s vision of a broadly granted personal right? If so, then would it not be possible for a government official wishing to engage in the sort of unlawful leaking under investigation in the present controversy to call a trusted friend or a political ally, advise him to set up a web log (which I understand takes about three minutes) and then leak to him under a promise of confidentiality the information which the law forbids the official to disclose?”
***

In other words, if a “confidential source” privilege is given to Judy Miller, then it would also have to be given to me, Thersites.

That opinion offended reporters from the mainstream outlets – who disliked being equated with “mere” bloggers – when it should have chastened them. If we're doing their job, what the hell are they doing?

OK, so what does this mean in terms of building a new progressive movement?

From 1776 to about 1920, the press matured from pamphlets and hand-cranked rags to powerful, widely-distributed and well-respected newspapers, without losing its essential "Fourth Estate" character: probing, analytic, oppositional to entrenched power. Watergate falsely made us think that this tradition had survived, at least into the 1970s. But Judith Miller and Bob Woodward now make it painfully clear that the Fourth Estate, as embodied in mainstream outlets, is not merely moribund, but dead. We’re back to pamphlets and rags again, in digital form.

Unfortunately, that’s not good enough. We need a vibrant mainstream media, because middle America will never cast ballots based on information that's only available in blogs. Bloggers can do a lot of good, uncovering obscure facts (like the Artillery News article describing the use of white phosphorus as a direct antipersonnel weapon in Iraq, as I blogged about a few days ago; scroll down to Must Read No. 3), and bloggers can goad a complacent mainstream press into moving on stories that their corporate masters don't want them to pursue, but we can't win back Ohio without good analytical journalism in mainline newspapers and on the single-digit-channel TV stations’ evening news.

So the Neoprogressive challenge is this: to move real journalism from the blogosphere back to the mainstream, where it was when the original Progressives flourished, and where it belongs.

SUPPLEMENT, NOV. 27, 2005: Well, sometimes it's nice to get affirmation that you're on track. Today on washingtonpost.com, Howard Kurtz came up with not only the same conclusion I did -- that Woodward is an 'access journalist' in part because the journalistic heroes of his youth were the same -- but even the same comparison to James "Scotty" Reston, the NY Times reporter who was the dean of Washington reporters in the 1960s. Howard Kurtz, WaPost.com Nice to scoop a well-thought-of, mainstream journalist by nearly a week!! --Thersites

SUPPLEMENT, DEC. 1, 2005: The mainstream press' failure to do its job with sufficient rigor and integrity, and to distinguish itself from demagogues and pundits who pretend to be "journalists" but really are partisan operatives, is a fungus that’s starting to spread. (Thanks to Atrios and Jeff Mazur for the tip.)

Now, the press' abdication of its important role in our democracy is undercutting whatever integrity is still left in the campaign finance system. So: as I outlined above, the courts are recognizing that "journalists" aren't independent enough to be distinguished from bloggers and pundits; now they're not even independent enough to be distinguished from lobbyists! The Main Stream Media ("MSM") may feebly protest this ruling, but until it starts showing some backbone, no one will think it's worth protecting.

Once journalists starts angling for access and money, they glissade down an easy and slippery slope: they start emulating Judy Miller and Bob Woodward, start acting like Bob Novak and Ann Coulter, and wind up being Jeff Gannon or a K Street lobbyist. Many "journalists" even take a shortcut, moving from large papers to lobbying and PR firms (and, worse, back again) with relative ease.

If the MSM wants to be treated as something special -- with legal confidentiality and campaign finance exemptions and other perks -- then they have to stop chasing money and access, and start acting like independent journalists again. Our country needs them, and they're not rising to the call.

SUPPLEMENT, DEC. 12, 2005: Yeah, What I Said: Yesterday, Vanity Fair contributing editor James Wolcott had this to say about the fall of mainline journalism:

”So-called reputable journalists have completely forfeited their high horse when it comes to complaining about bloggers as a species of riffraff--they no longer have the right to lament bloggers' slapdash sourcing, to deplore their invective and lack of couth, to act as if they're civilized reporters forced to fend off laptop barbarians. No blogger has comported him or herself with the lazy arrogance and sloppy ethics of some of the Big Names in journalism (Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, Bob Novak), nor has done as much damage to the public's right to know and their own profession.”

SUPPLEMENT, FEB. 9, 2007: What's True, Stays True: Over a year later, and Dan Froomkin does a good job pointing out that mainline journalism remains based on access and collegiality rather than inquisitiveness and holding-to-account. Exhibit A: the Tim Russert's testimony at the Scooter Libby trial, where Russert admitted that all conversations he has with politicians are presumptively OFF the record unless agreed otherwise, instead of (as the law provides, and as is traditional) the other way around. This does, indeed, turn "journalists" into administration stenographers. Or, as Froomkin writes, "According to Russert's testimony yesterday at Libby's trial, when any senior government official calls him, they are presumptively off the record. That's not reporting, that's enabling.That's how you treat your friends when you're having an innocent chat, not the people you're supposed to be holding accountable."

Is it any wonder that the best reporting on the Libby trial comes from a blogger, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake?

Administration Swung & Missed At A Sneaky Curveball

2005-11-20T12:14:00.000-08:00

Now German intelligence sources are repeating what's documented in the British Downing Street minutes and told by various midlevel U.S. whistleblowers: that the U.S. knowingly cited unreliable intelligence to bolster the case for war in Iraq.

How US Fell Under Curveball’s Spell

Take, Twist & Run

Why is this relevant to a blog on constructing a neoprogressive movement? Isn't it just more liberal doveishness?

I don't think so. The original Progressives were very concerned about the (un)wisdom of extending American power overseas -- about the desire of some powerful people to build an American empire. The Progressive movement 100 years ago fought to keep America's focus closer to home, and to ensure that when we did intervene in foreign affairs, it was constructive. They did not, in a word, favor adventurism.

The worldview that's driving this Administration's war in Iraq, like the rest of its foreign policy agenda, is one that wishes to establish America as aglobal imperial power -- primarily economically, but with the military if necessary. That view is not different than the policies the original Progressives fought against.

So if there is an anti-Bush-administration slant to this site, it's for good reason. Karl Rove, the man Bush called the "architect" of his presidency, has said that Mark Hanna, the political genius behind the McKinley presidency, is his role model. McKinley presided over the Gilded Age of robber barons and disproportionate wealth in what previously had been a largely egalitarian nation, and the original Progressives rose to combat his policies. So, yes, to the extent Rove is the neoHanna, and Bush is the neoMcKinley, the Neoprogressives will oppose their policies.

This view shouldn't drive true conservatives away. Neither McKinley nor Bush was truly conservative. The Neoprogressive values of democracy, flat-field capitalism, and a blend of optimism and caution aren't partisan, and the Neoprogressive Movement must have -- does have -- room for traditional conservative values, including the desire for a strong, and properly used, military. War hero, hunter, and Republican Teddy Roosevelt was one of the great original Progressives. He would have supported the troops, supported the war in Afghanistan, and opposed the war in Iraq. We need conservatives like him in our movement today.

Back to the news story: This new information is just one more stone on the growing pile of evidence that the U.S. was misled into this war. It's not deep wisdom to note that governments misleading nations into war are a bad thing. If the real reasons for war are good, they should be aired, debated, and substantially agreed upon before the war starts. If they're not good enough to share publicly, then they're not good enough to expend American lives advancing.

Demanding truth and accountability from our government, especially in matters of war and peace and American lives, is a Neoprogressive value that cuts across the usual political labels. It's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's simply American.

A Senator Who Actually Knows His Rump From a Foxhole Tells The Truth About The War

2005-11-18T17:09:00.000-08:00

John Murtha (D-Pa) may be a Democrat, but he's tremendously well-respected on both sides of the aisle on military issues. No dove -- he voted for the Iraq resolution, always supports pro-military legislation, and represents a conservative district in central Pennsylvania's deer-hunting country.

He's also a combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the Marine Corps, during which he earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. Because of his expert and firsthand understanding of military issues, he's particularly well-respected by the military brass themselves.

Here's what he recently -- literally with tears in his eyes -- said about Iraq:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...

For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ...

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support."

Neoprogressivism should have a platform plank identical to that advocated by George Washington and by old-school conservatives and the original Progressives: that we maintain an overwhelmingly strong military capacity, and do everything in our power not to use it.

Support the troops? Not by cutting the per-troop funding of the VA. Not by stretching them too thin and sending them back for second, third, fourth, even fifth tours of duty. Not by abandoning their families at home. And never, not ever, sending them to war based on false pretenses, or without a clearly defined mission and exit strategy.

(In a comment to an earlier post, OsakaJack asks where Colin Powell is. The last sentence above is the Powell Doctrine. No one in this administration can articulate what our mission and exit strategy are. Powell wasted his tremendous credibility making a false case for war before the U.N., then was driven out of an administration that chose not to follow his advice on how wars should be conducted. He's embarrassedly licking his wounds, wondering how he went from being the potential first black President, to being the goat. That's where he is, and it's his own damned fault.)

I'd love for someone to disagree with me, and clearly state our mission and exit strategy, but I don't think we have one. Under Comments, I'll post more discussion of why I think we've failed to meet Powell's stipulations, and why unfortunately we do need to leave Iraq pursuant to the First Rule of Holes.

SUPPLEMENTAL, MON. NOV. 21: Remember the furor when the most junior Republican Congresswoman read a letter from an officer in Iraq, basically calling Murtha a coward? Well, I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that the officer in question is a longstanding religious-conservative-lawyer-wacko. At long last, Congresswoman Schmidt, have you no shame?

"Must-Reads", November 2005

2005-11-15T07:45:00.000-08:00

Political ideology shouldn't happen in a vacuum; it should be a response to real-world problems, and tested by real-world results.

To that end, and to stimulate discussion, The Neoprogressive will post occasional stories and links to stir the pot -- showing problems that need to be addressed, examples of political courage and ideological failure, and hard facts that must be faced if we are to create a better real world and not just dig deeper holes in hopes of reaching fairyland. These stories will be posted as comments under this heading, with a new heading every month.

Unfortunately, many posts, these days, will concern the war in Iraq. We are a nation at war, and our troops deserve for that to be foremost on our minds.

Thersites

On the Proper Role of Government in a Democratic Society

2005-11-14T15:04:00.000-08:00

HL’s comments to my last post about the proper role of government in a progressive society are good kindling for dialogue. They also help explain why, in my view, a Neoprogressive movement will result not in a third “Progressive Party” but rather in a revival and renewed dialogue between the two primary parties, with different views but both operating under progressive principles.

I previously proposed that Neoprogressives are “libertarian in our personal affairs, but committed to community and convinced that government can and should act (and act competently) in the community's interest whenever it can do so effectively.” HL responded: “Sorry, I regard government as similar to fire, it is useful in its place but terribly dangerous if not banked and controlled. Such a stance as you've described is an invitation to more government power and intervention. I believe government should do only those things people cannot reasonably do for themselves. The more power we give it, the more opportunities for abuse there are. And contrary to private efforts, we have no choice with government, it dictates the terms and takes our money and freedom regardless of how well spent the money or how effective and reasonable the regulations.”

My original proposition was intended to rebut those neoconservatives who paint all government as a bad thing. Ronald Reagan set the tone when he stated famously, “government isn’t the solution to the problem, it is the problem.” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist, has said that cutting taxes is only a stepping stone to the greater goal of starving government until it’s “small enough to drown in the bathtub.” NeoProgressivism is opposed to those views.

HL correctly describes government as being like fire, harmful unless it is “banked or controlled.” He errs, however, in failing to give fire its due. It is more than “useful in its place.” It is tremendously useful; much, much more useful than it is harmful; indispensable to human existence, even. In households around the world, much more time is spent kindling useful fires than extinguishing dangerous ones.

If government is like fire, then Reagan’s and Norquist’s statements are silly on their face. No one would say that all fires are problems, not solutions. No one would say that all fires should be drowned. Certainly fire and government both need to be “banked and controlled,” but the truth is that they usually already are. When a government simultaneously is democratically elected and protects certain individual rights against the tyranny of the majority, then the “fire” of that government is nicely banked and controlled, and – so long as democracy and civil rights are maintained – the “fire” of such a government almost always does immeasurably more good than harm. To say that government should only act when there is no other option is akin to saying that, because fire can be dangerous, food should be eaten raw and cold whenever possible.

Nor do I agree with HL’s statement that “contrary to private efforts, we have no choice with government, it dictates the terms and takes our money and freedom regardless of how well spent the money or how effective and reasonable the regulations.” Quite the opposite. I have no control over how private individuals or industries conduct their affairs. If a landowner upstream from me clearcuts the riverbank, then my land will silt up. Microsoft and Halliburton do as they please with little regard for the concerns of their minority shareholders, let alone non-shareholder citizens. On the other hand, I am an owner of my government. If I believe my government is misspending my money or infringing my freedoms or enacting ineffective and unreasonable regulations, I have recourse at the ballot box, in the press, in the courts, and in my ability to run for office myself. What’s more, government and business have different responsibilities. Businesses exist to generate profit for their owners, even if that means externalizing costs by polluting the air we all breathe or omitting safety devices. Government, on the other hand, exists to serve the public interest; harming its citizens runs contrary to its reason for being. Given the choice, I’ll trust the government to protect my interests, not private industry.

The original Progressives called on government quite often. Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt used government to create what he called a “square deal” – i.e., to ensure that every player in the capitalist game was dealt a fair hand, as against the robber barons who had amassed such huge fortunes, and such legally watertight monopolies, that they effectively “held all the cards.” When factory owners asserted their “property right” to keep their factory doors locked to prevent theft and work-dodging – a “right” that resulted in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, when hundred of workers locked into a garment factory burned or jumped to their deaths when it caught fire – the original Progressives called on government to regulate working conditions. TR established the first National Parks, using taxpayer money to buy land that could have been developed to generate profit for individuals and instead placing it under public ownership for the benefit of all. Richard Nixon, who despite his faults was in some ways the last populist Progressive, signed the Endangered Species Act, which simply says that property rights do not include the right to act in a way that extincts a species that has existed on that property for thousands of years longer than the property owner has.

Norquist and his ilk have expressly stated that government overreaches every time it regulates private commerce, protects worker safety, or regulates private property to protect species from extinction. Janice Rogers Brown, a federal judicial nominee over whom there was much acrimony in the Senate, has stated that she would overturn substantially all federal environmental, child labor, workplace safety, and civil rights legislation enacted since 1937. In her view, all laws that restrict people’s freedom of contract – including children’s freedom to choose whether to work in factories, workers’ freedom to choose whether or not to take a job in a factory that keeps all the fire exits locked, and a property owner’s freedom to open a slaughterhouse next door to a hospital – are unconstitutional.

Such ideologues are not just debating the proper balance between the needs of the community and the rights of the individual. Like obsessive firefighters throwing water on every hearth, they oppose all government action in these areas. Their views are outside the mainstream of American thought, and Neoprogressives (both “liberal” and “conservative”) would reject them.

The American way – the Neoprogressive way – could disagree about the best balance while still acknowledging the legitimacy of both the community (acting through democratic government) and the individual (asserting his or her civil liberties and related rights). Neoprogressives, unlike neoconservatives, would agree on the following:

1. We Have Met The Government, And It Is Us.

Unlike totalitarian societies, the community’s needs are actually represented by our democratically-elected government. In other words, the government is not “them”; it’s “us.” When a demagogue states that “government is the problem,” he is stating that we the people are the problem. When a zealot tries to “drown government in the bathtub,” he’s trying to drown community values so that nothing but individual rights are left. That’s un-American.

2. Sometimes It’s OK If the Community Wins.

The needs of the community sometimes come into conflict with the individual’s right to freedom. In those cases, some people recite that we’re a “free country” and insist that the community’s needs step aside. However, that has never been the American system. Sometimes the community’s needs – which are, after all, just the sum total of individual needs – predominate. As long as the community’s decisions are made democratically and critical individual rights are protected, then acting in a way that benefits the community at large is the right thing to do.

3. Democratically Elected Governments May and Should Act Assertively In the Community’s Interest.

Since a democratically-elected government is simply the collective agent of the community, it has tremendous legitimacy and right to act, and should not be shy about doing so. That is why I stated, “government can and should act ... in the community's interest whenever it can do so effectively.”

4. The Proper Place to Restrict Government Power Is Not by De-legitimizing Government Itself, but by Clearly Defining the Limits of its Power as Against the Individual.

I do not favor unlimited government or the “tyranny of the majority.” The needs of the community do not always predominate; individual rights need to be protected. However, the American system of government provides for such protections by establishing limited government and by establishing certain citizen rights, such as the right to free speech, freedom of worship, freedom from unreasonable search, the right to jury trial as a counterweight to the government’s power to prosecute, and the right to fair compensation (determined by a jury) when the community takes an individual’s property for public use. Those rights – and corollary rights like people’s right to decide whether to use birth control or to marry a person of a different race, neither of which is expressly stated in the Constitution but which Progressive judges of both parties, consistent with the Ninth Amendment, have found to be implied by the other rights which are enumerated – should be vigorously defended. But if they are being protected, there is no reason for government to be unnecessarily hampered or restrained.

5. These Propositions Lead Not to a “Liberal” or “Socialist” Society, but to a Healthy Tension and Dialogue among Competing Interests.

Neoprogressivism accepts that neither the community’s interests nor the individual’s rights will always prevail. Rather, there is a proper tension between the need for government to act in order to advance the community’s interests, and the right of individual citizens to possess certain freedoms even when it’s against the majority’s will. Neoprogressives reject Norquist’s and Brown’s view, that government is inherently bad, just as strongly as they reject Mao’s and Stalin’s view, that government is inherently good. It’s a false dichotomy, and citizens shouldn’t fall for it.

6. The Neoprogressive Model, and the American Experiment Itself, Depend Absolutely on the Integrity of the Democratic Process.

Neoprogressivism’s wholehearted support for government action depends entirely on the legitimacy of that government – which in turn depends on the integrity of the democratic process. To the extent government represents something less than the whole community, its actions lose legitimacy.

For example, many people are upset about the New London case, which allows local governments to condemn private property (paying the owners, however), then giving the property to private developers. But the outcry against such action depends largely on the government’s motivation. Imagine this: the citizens of a community hold a referendum on whether to redevelop a blighted area with shops, housing, and a school and park. The plan is to provide tax incentives and a streamlined permit process, but otherwise to let a private developer, rather than the government, buy the properties and do the redevelopment itself. The referendum passes overwhelmingly. Everything goes swimmingly -- but then the owner of the last, key parcel changes his mind about selling and decides to hold out for an extortionate price, 100 times what his property's actually worth. Would people be incensed if the government condemned that last property, paying the owner the market price? Probably not.

So the concern isn't really with whether the government is allowed to turn condemned property over to a private developer. Rather, the problem is people’s distrust of their government; the scenario people are afraid of is one in which a city council, bolstered by the developer’s campaign contributions, condemns property for a development that’s not in the community’s best interests, forcing their neighbors to move so the developer can make a buck. In that situation, democracy has failed, the government’s action lacks legitimacy, and a Neoprogressive might well fight against the government and for the “holdout” landowner. The greater evil in that situation, however, is not the loss to the individual landowner who is forced to sell and move, but the death of democracy, the loss of the people’s government’s legitimacy and their faith in it.

Since Neoprogressivism seeks to re-legitimize the concept of government action to benefit the community, and since government has no legitimacy at all unless it truly represents the will of the community, Neoprogressives should work vigorously to foster true democracy by supporting campaign finance reform, demanding transparency and accountability in our voting technology, supporting a Constitutional right to vote (believe it or not, there is none at present!), removing as many barriers to voting as possible, seeking to overturn the Supreme Court cases equating corporate campaign contributions with protected free speech, and opposing judicial intervention in electoral outcomes. Ideally, Neoprogressives would work to enact public election financing: the cost would be pennies on the dollar compared to the boondoggles and earmarks we taxpayers currently pay for, and the phenomenon of every voter having more power than any corporation would drastically restructure, and improve, our government and our society.

7. Within the Neoprogressive Framework, There Is Plenty of Room for Debate and Dialogue.

The proposition that government, like fire, is generally a good thing, and should not be shy about acting in the public interest, does not mean that traditional liberalism “wins.” The question of what actually is “the community’s best interest” will always be hotly debated. Conservative Neoprogressives will argue for smaller government and lower taxes; liberal Neoprogressives will support more expansive programs and consider higher taxes a reasonable price to obtain them. NeoProgressivism asserts that democratic governments are generally good, not merely necessary evils, and therefore may legitimately and without embarrassment act in the community interest. But it does not say how far the balance should tip.

If anything, acknowledging the legitimacy of government action should enliven the debate over the proper role of government, and could help break up some political logjams. For example, all Neoprogressives, no matter their stance on abortion rights, could agree that the federal government has the power to take measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies, promote adoption, and reduce abortions by non-coercive means. So-called “conservatives” like Grover Norquist and Janet Rogers Brown, if they remain true to their theory of government, would consider such steps to be beyond the federal government’s power.

7. What Government Does, It Should Do Well – Which Imposes Obligations On We Citizens To Help It Do So.

We can debate what it is we want our government to do, but we should all agree that what it does, it should do well.

This seems like a facile proposition, but it has important ramifications. There is a direct connection between a government’s ideology and its effectiveness. When the government is run by people who ideologically are opposed to government action and who doubt the government’s ability to act competently, then any action it does take will be slow, hesitant, incomplete and inadequate. Hurricane Katrina showed this kind of government at its worst. There is a direct connection between the ideology that wants to suppress the federal government in favor of states rights and personal responsibility, and Michael Brown’s Congressional testimony blaming Louisiana and its citizens for the failures of FEMA.

We should have made up our minds. If FEMA was not going to act, it should have said so early and loudly, so that the states and their citizens knew what to expect. If FEMA was going to act, it should have done so rapidly and effectively. The tepid compromise that actually occurred cost lives, hurt our nation’s morale, and undermined our faith in our government – which means it undermined our faith in ourselves. The Neoprogressive assertion that there are proper times and places for government involvement in the civil affairs of our nation carries with it the assertion that, when the government acts, it should do so boldly and well. A Neoprogressive FEMA would have stepped up to the plate and gotten the job done.

However, our expectation that our government work well obligates we citizens to help it do so. First, we must insist that government agencies be staffed by people who believe in the mission of those agencies, not (as is often the case) by people who, prior to taking office, lobbied against the very agencies they now head. There is no place, in a Neoprogressive nation, for a Michael Brown, overseeing the hobbling of FEMA, or a John Bolton, recess-appointed ambassador to an organization he believes should not even exist. Effective government cannot be accomplished by people who question the legitimacy of the very agencies we citizens have hired them to administer.

Practically, this means that we must continually lobby our President to appoint competent and committed administrators, and we must support the right and obligation of the Senate to exercise oversight over Presidential appointees. As James Madison made clear, the Senate’s right of advice and consent and the minority’s right of filibuster exist, not to frustrate the President’s right to choose his executives, or to allow the minority party to unfairly advance an ideology that failed at the polls, but to shine sufficient light on the President’s choices that he will be embarrassed to appoint anyone who is not competent and committed to the task. Neoprogressives should refuse to be drawn into debates over party ideology in executive agency appointments, but focus on competency. We should make ourselves aware of these obscure appointments, and write our editors and Senators to register our opinions about them. We should act like employers conducting a job interview -- which is what we are.

Second: if we ask our government to undertake a job, we should give it the tools to accomplish that job. No National Guardsman should have been deployed to Iraq with Vietnam-era body armor. No teacher should have to buy classroom supplies from her own paycheck. To ask government to act, then inadequately fund it, creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that government is incompetent. It betrays our citizens, it betrays the soldiers, sailors, teachers, and others who work on our behalf, and it betrays our integrity.

8. Under a Neoprogressive Framework, the Size of Government Will Not Be Limited by Ideological Debates or Sneak Attacks, but by the People’s Will (And Willingness to Pay).

In calling for the re-legitimization of government action, I am not calling for free-spending liberalism, but mature, mutual accountability. I expect my daughters to get good grades. But along with that expectation comes my responsibility to provide them with adequate nutrition, a quiet place to study, a good desk lamp, and adequate school supplies. Similarly, when we empower government to act and demand that it act competently, we also incur the responsibility to provide funding adequate to enable it to meet those expectations. Neither side of the equation can be omitted.

Anti-tax advocates simultaneously try to starve the government then blame it for its weakness. Libertarians and anarchists want no government and no taxes. Seventies liberals and the current President and Congress alike funded ever-larger government with ever-increasing debt. A Neoprogressive nation, on the other hand, would vigorously debate the desirability, costs and benefits of different government functions, but when that debate was over (at least for that budget cycle), we would clearly identify the functions we expect our government to accomplish, fully fund those programs, and (barring exceptional circumstances like a global depression or world war) pay for those programs from current revenue, even if that meant eliminating other programs, revoking tax cuts, or raising new taxes. Neoprogressives would insist that America grow up – that it be willing to pay for the services it demands, and pay from current revenue, not on our children’s charge card.

Again, “conservative” and “liberal” Neoprogressives will debate how much government there should be, and what level of taxes are tolerable or healthy, but we all would agree to adequately fund every function we ask our government to perform, and we all would acknowledge that the taxes we pay to fund those functions are a fair and reasonable price for living in a civil society.

Thersites

Welcome to the NeoProgBlog.com

2005-11-10T10:22:00.000-08:00

What the heck are Neoprogressives?

We're not "liberal" (a good word that's been turned into an expletive -- and who wants to nationalize the steel industry anymore anyway?) or "conservative" (another good word stolen by people who are not conservative at all). Nor are we necessarily "centrist" or "moderate" (which implies centrism or compromise on every issue; most issues require moderation and compromise but some demand unbending commitment to the moral position, and a wise person understands which are which).

Or, more accurately, we're all of those things, and more: liberal on human rights, the march of progress, the rule of law, the soundness of science, and the preservation of representative democracy; conservative about the public fisc, resource conservation, and the dangers of foreign military adventurism and the extension of imperial power; libertarian in our personal affairs, but committed to community and convinced that government can and should act (and act competently) in the community's interest whenever it can do so effectively; tolerant of others, appreciative of balance, centrist when centrism is wise, but unstinting and even extreme in the defense of basic democratic and human values when those values are under attack; idealistic without being naive.

A hundred years ago, we would have been called "progressives." But that word's been bastardized beyond recognition, used as a synonym for "liberal" (which is a fine word and should be able to stand on its own). Only political historians would really understand what we meant if we called ourselves simply "progressives."

So today I'm taking ownership, if not inventing, a new term: NeoProgressive. NeoProg.

Yes, neoprog already is a kind of music. It's also been used to describe a school of education theory in the 1960s and 1970s, and occasionally pops up as a derogatory on some neoconservative websites. But what I'm staking claim to, under this name, is a specific vision of postmodern political thought rooted ideologically and intellectually in the progressivism of the early 1900s, informed by humanity's subsequent experience and knowledge, expressly bipartisan (though it may realistically use party alliances to advance its nonpartisan agenda), and committed to resisting any efforts either to define it down as merely a kind of liberalism or to co-opt it for partisan purposes by partisan hacks. The word "neoprogressive" has been used before, just as the words "democrat" and "republican" were used long before those parties existed. But NeoProgressivism, so far as I can tell, is a new thing, as much as any new thing can be. What I hope we start building here isn't just neoprogressivism, but NeoProgressivism, an American NeoProgressive Movement, its platform and ideology.

The NeoProgressive Movement. Remember, you heard it here first.

As the blog unfolds, I hope to accomplish three things:

1. Develop a "neoprogressive manifesto" that explains systematically what neoprogressives believe;

2. Apply those principles to current events by linking to relevant news stories and discussing them from a neoprogressive perspective; and

3. Hopefully, ignite a new progressive movement in America that helps regular citizens recapture both parties from the wingnuts, Macchiavels, demagogues and cowards who currently lead them.

Let me amplify that last point. America doesn't need a third political party. Third parties never succeed; in fact, last century's progressive movement died precisely because Teddy Roosevelt sidetracked it into the Bull Moose party, which was soundly trounced at the polls and left the field open to one-sided liberals and conservatives who turned discourse into duality, with disastrous results.

Instead, we need to reestablish a progressive movement that includes both parties and leads them back into a constructive dialectic. If it works, we'll have two, ideologically distinct, political parties, in constructive tension with each other, in constant dialogue and even contentious dispute, but both respectful of the other, committed to fundamental American values, and focused on addressing the problems of the American people instead of simply winning against the other.

I'll grab my hammer and pound nails as often as I can to erect the framework of this site and this movement and give you things to chew on. The rest will be up to you, the readers who comment, challenge, amplify, brainstorm, etc. I'm hoping that, collaboratively, we can build a movement that redefines political discourse in America. And you're in at the beginning. Fun, huh?

And important.

Let's roll up our sleeves.

Thersites
Nov. 10, 2005