If you are anything like me, you read and re-read and sometimes still read the Chronicles of Narnia. I have always especially loved The Last Battle, with its nefarious plots, darkness, and heroics. It is perhaps the most obvious in its Christian allegorical implications, but any reader can create meaning and draw parallels, and as a nonbeliever, the most striking and current parallel I have is pulled from Chapter 13: "How the Dwarfs Refuse to be Taken In:"
"Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a
good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and
enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not
only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed
intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in
2008.
They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll
after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats -
and that would translate into votes for Romney.
As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they
thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican
enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more
favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on
election night."
Wait, that's an article about the Romney campaign on November 6.
Let's try this:
Tirian had thought... that they were inside a little thatched stable,
about twelve feet long and six feet wide. In reality they stood on
grass, the deep blue sky was overhead, and the air which blew gently on
their faces was that of a day in early summer... Lucy led the way and
soon they could all see the Dwarfs. They had a very odd look. They
weren't strolling about or enjoying themselves (although the cords with
which they had been tied seemed to have vanished) nor were they lying
down and having a rest. They were sitting very close together in a
little circle facing one another. They never looked round nor took any
notice of the humans till Lucy and Tirian were almost near enough to
touch them. then the Dwarfs all cocked their heads as if they couldn't
see anyone but were listening hard and trying to guess by the sound what
was happening.
You remember it, right? Everyone emerges through the door into a bright,
sunny paradise, but the Dwarfs sit huddled in a circle, only able to
see the dark, dirty stable. They close ranks and refuse to listen to
anyone:
"Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually
have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of
Representatives and a closely divided Senate, step up to the plate on
the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in
his first four years in office.
"To the extent he wants to move to the political center, which is
where the work gets done in a divided government, we'll be there to meet
him half way."
They don't want yammering about a republican mandate when House republicans, while still in charge, had fewer votes than House democrats. They don't want continued obstructionism from a Congress with historically low approval ratings.
All the "modern" GOP has to offer is denialism and the inability to prepare for all outcomes if those outcomes do not fit with their created reality. Karl Rove going live on Fox News to tell them they had it wrong when they called Ohio for Obama. Running an entire end-of-campaign strategy on the belief that polls are skewed and that your anecdotal observations and internal polling tell the Real Story because the other one doesn't look good. Choosing to believe that the Obama ground game was all just smoke and mirrors, and that their own ground game was superior and would carry the day when they had not even truly tested their big, expensive GOTV apparatus. Ignoring any data showing Obama in the lead in both electoral and popular counts. Thinking that we still live in an America where all that counts is GOTWV: Get Out The White Vote.
And closing ranks on November 7, vowing to stick to their dark, fantasy-based belief in cutting taxes and obstructing the President, all in the name of party and politics.
“Well, at any rate there’s no Humbug here. We haven’t let anyone take us in. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs."
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
B Not So Much
Stands on her own! Literally!
I see what you're trying to do here, Mattel. I really do. But why did you have to go all Fox News, Million Mom on it? What's wrong with a smart pantsuit in a vibrant blue? Or a sassy, shorter cut?*
A sensible pair of flats and a casual cardi?I know. It's Barbie. She started out as a fashion model, and now, she can B President, right? That's progress! She has B-liefs! She can B Aggressive! B B Aggressive!
And you, little (white) girl, playing with Barbie, can B anything!
I know you can't make everything in a version that looks like everyone, but instead of white brunette President Barbie AND a white blonde President Barbie (such diversity!), how about black President Barbie? And I know pink is your signature color, and certainly the women pictured above have appeared in it, but for President Barbie of the B-certainly-does-not-stand-for-Bitch Party, couldn't you have knocked down the Studio 54 disco-ball glitter just a tad?
At the very least, you are not teaching the art of smart campaigning, as no one, male or female, is going to win the presidency with a sunglasses-wearing micro dog in their purse and cutesy not-spelling and supremely weird phrases on their campaign literature.
I think the elections of 2008 & 2012 showed us what happens when certain parties don't choose serious people to run for higher office, and I will not be expecting "Lastly, I have to thank Barbie" in Paris Hilton's 2050 acceptance speech.
But I do think we can do better than this for our girls.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Vote No. Twice.
Here in Minnesota, November 6, 2012 is not just about voting for president, senator, congresspeople, it's about just saying "No." No to two costly, hateful, and unnecessary amendments that seek to enshrine disenfranchisement and discrimination into the constitution of the state of Minnesota.
So I did what any citizen would do. I drew.
Feel free to save, share, print, whatever. Just give credit.
And be a Supervoter. Vote No Twice.
So I did what any citizen would do. I drew.
Feel free to save, share, print, whatever. Just give credit.
And be a Supervoter. Vote No Twice.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Earmarks built my...
earmark: a provision in Congressional legislation that allocates a specified amount of money for a specific project, program, or organization.
National Writing Project, Reading is Fundamental Program, Center for Civic Education Programs, MN National Guard Counter-Drug Support program, Central Corridor Light Rail Program, Camp Riley Combined Arms Collective Training Facility, Upper Mississippi River System Program, National Rural Water Association, Northstar Commuter Rail Line, breast cancer research program, Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, Ultra Light Utility Vehicles for the National Guard, MN National Guard Reintegration Program, Highway 14 construction projects, Hastings Bridge over the Mississippi, Aircraft deicing apron, Wind energy, waste water treatment, City of St. Paul to provide tutoring, mentoring and other educational programs and resources for after-school programs, Minnesota Humanities Center, St. Paul, MN for teacher professional development, which may include honoraria, Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota to expand SYP's program for at-risk youth, Metropolitan State University, St Paul, MN, to expand nursing education, Olmsted County Community Services, to implement and sustain a performance based child protection system preventing child abuse and neglect, Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, Credit Counseling Capacity Building, St. Paul, MN, fire trucks in Eagan, Children's Hospitals & Clinics, for equipment, City of St. Paul to replace the warning siren system that is used to warn the public about tornadoes, terrorism, and hazardous material emergencies...
To name just a few things, in the state of Minnesota, in the past three years. Every state has them; every state gets them; they are sponsored by republicans and democrats, and they are often how we pay for things as a government and a people. Are there bad earmarks? Probably. Just like how the majority of people are good, with a few bad ones. Stuff that's bad stands out. Good stuff doesn't. Good stuff just is, and we rely on it. It does not make news when a bridge doesn't fall down, every day, all over the country.
Mostly, earmarks are only bad when the other guy gets them or when they don't make sense to us, on the surface. That fruit fly research sounded ridiculous, until we found out that it could lead to new understanding in the root of autism spectrum disorders.
This seems like another non-issue, like voter fraud. It certainly is not going to make or break the budget or the deficit. After all, earmarks don't change the amount of money spent or appropriated, they direct it to certain projects, institutions, or organizations. But like every other non-issue, it will get people whipped up into a frenzy, even as they cut themselves off at the ankles.
Famously, the republicans in the Minnesota Congressional Delegation undertook a moratorium on earmarks last year, leaving the democrats to request funds for the republican districts, as was the case when Congresswoman McCollum submitted requests for Congressman John Kline's district. Did you know that, 2nd District?
This is what people don't get: earmarks do things. They build things. They put people to work. They retrain people. They help soldiers re-enter society. They support our teachers, our firemen and women, our police. When a representative declines an earmark or does not request one, in the name of political grandstanding, that individual is doing no harm to him or herself, but does harm constituents. The brilliant thing in the rhetoric is that the constituents don't even have to know.
Now, Congresswoman Bachmann wants to redefine earmarks to not include transportation projects, so she can ask for funding for her district, and not be asking for earmarks.
I see.
Now that you have the ball, the goalposts are over there.
National Writing Project, Reading is Fundamental Program, Center for Civic Education Programs, MN National Guard Counter-Drug Support program, Central Corridor Light Rail Program, Camp Riley Combined Arms Collective Training Facility, Upper Mississippi River System Program, National Rural Water Association, Northstar Commuter Rail Line, breast cancer research program, Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, Ultra Light Utility Vehicles for the National Guard, MN National Guard Reintegration Program, Highway 14 construction projects, Hastings Bridge over the Mississippi, Aircraft deicing apron, Wind energy, waste water treatment, City of St. Paul to provide tutoring, mentoring and other educational programs and resources for after-school programs, Minnesota Humanities Center, St. Paul, MN for teacher professional development, which may include honoraria, Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota to expand SYP's program for at-risk youth, Metropolitan State University, St Paul, MN, to expand nursing education, Olmsted County Community Services, to implement and sustain a performance based child protection system preventing child abuse and neglect, Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, Credit Counseling Capacity Building, St. Paul, MN, fire trucks in Eagan, Children's Hospitals & Clinics, for equipment, City of St. Paul to replace the warning siren system that is used to warn the public about tornadoes, terrorism, and hazardous material emergencies...
To name just a few things, in the state of Minnesota, in the past three years. Every state has them; every state gets them; they are sponsored by republicans and democrats, and they are often how we pay for things as a government and a people. Are there bad earmarks? Probably. Just like how the majority of people are good, with a few bad ones. Stuff that's bad stands out. Good stuff doesn't. Good stuff just is, and we rely on it. It does not make news when a bridge doesn't fall down, every day, all over the country.
Mostly, earmarks are only bad when the other guy gets them or when they don't make sense to us, on the surface. That fruit fly research sounded ridiculous, until we found out that it could lead to new understanding in the root of autism spectrum disorders.
This seems like another non-issue, like voter fraud. It certainly is not going to make or break the budget or the deficit. After all, earmarks don't change the amount of money spent or appropriated, they direct it to certain projects, institutions, or organizations. But like every other non-issue, it will get people whipped up into a frenzy, even as they cut themselves off at the ankles.
Famously, the republicans in the Minnesota Congressional Delegation undertook a moratorium on earmarks last year, leaving the democrats to request funds for the republican districts, as was the case when Congresswoman McCollum submitted requests for Congressman John Kline's district. Did you know that, 2nd District?
This is what people don't get: earmarks do things. They build things. They put people to work. They retrain people. They help soldiers re-enter society. They support our teachers, our firemen and women, our police. When a representative declines an earmark or does not request one, in the name of political grandstanding, that individual is doing no harm to him or herself, but does harm constituents. The brilliant thing in the rhetoric is that the constituents don't even have to know.
Now, Congresswoman Bachmann wants to redefine earmarks to not include transportation projects, so she can ask for funding for her district, and not be asking for earmarks.
I see.
Now that you have the ball, the goalposts are over there.
Friday, February 8, 2008
That Tax "Rebate"
Just to be clear, so you don’t think you are getting something for nothing when that “rebate” check comes in May.
That check will be a credit based on the 2008 tax year—-the one we have just begun. Basically, it will be an advance on the refund that you will get for 2008. If you are used to sitting down with your tax guy in February and getting a hefty refund, don’t get your hopes up. The money you get this spring will come out of the money you would have gotten next spring. Plan accordingly.
What the government apparently thinks is that we are going to spend that money on consumer goods. Instead, like most people, we are going to use it to pay off debt. If we did not have debt to pay off, we would put it into savings. It’s clear to me that this is merely an election year ploy; a measure it would be politically perilous to oppose. It does not get at the type of reform, investment, or stimulus that the economy (and the country) really needs. It's a chance to look and sound good while not really doing anything to help.
By the way, if you often owe taxes in April, this “rebate” amount will be added to your bill.
I have never felt so stimulated in my life.
That check will be a credit based on the 2008 tax year—-the one we have just begun. Basically, it will be an advance on the refund that you will get for 2008. If you are used to sitting down with your tax guy in February and getting a hefty refund, don’t get your hopes up. The money you get this spring will come out of the money you would have gotten next spring. Plan accordingly.
What the government apparently thinks is that we are going to spend that money on consumer goods. Instead, like most people, we are going to use it to pay off debt. If we did not have debt to pay off, we would put it into savings. It’s clear to me that this is merely an election year ploy; a measure it would be politically perilous to oppose. It does not get at the type of reform, investment, or stimulus that the economy (and the country) really needs. It's a chance to look and sound good while not really doing anything to help.
By the way, if you often owe taxes in April, this “rebate” amount will be added to your bill.
I have never felt so stimulated in my life.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Obama didn’t vote for the war; I can't fly
As I listened to the analysis of the returns from “Super Tuesday,” I heard one Obama voter say “I like him because he did not vote for the war.”
It may sound like nitpicking, but of course he did not “vote for the war.” He was not a United States Senator, and any votes he cast in the privacy of his own home had no bearing on the outcome of the Resolution to Authorize Force, which took place on October 11, 2002. Senator Obama was sworn in on January 5, 2005. I know that in this instance, Senator Obama did not make that statement himself, but it got me thinking.
I was against the resolution, and I did not vote for it either. I don’t know if this will help my in my upcoming bid for Supreme Ruler of the Universe; that remains to be seen. I was not pleased that it passed so easily, and I take issue with the decision that many Democrats made at the time, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Harkin, Feinstein, and Edwards, when they cast their “Yea” votes.
Only 23 senators voted “Nay,” in fact, and I was happy that both my elected officials, Senators Dayton and Wellstone, were among them.
I don’t know if anyone else remembers, but the legislation was timed in the hopes that it would derail the reelection efforts of senators such as Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, and Dick Durbin. It was thought that voting against the resolution would make democratic incumbents seem unpatriotic and soft on terrorism, and they would therefore lose their elections. If they voted for it and went against their perceived principles, it could hurt them as well.
It was a good plan, only a month after the one-year anniversary of September 11th. In the case of Paul Wellstone, I believe he put a lot of thought into the decision and in the end went with his principles, and it paid off. People respected him, even if they did not agree with him, and his polling numbers went up. He most likely would have won his election had he not been killed in a plane crash two weeks later.
It’s easy to say “I did not support this war” and to declare that you would not have voted for it, but it’s another thing to have been in the situation, experiencing the climate of the times and the pressures brought to bear. Ms. Clinton has not done the best job of explaining or justifying her decision, but I argue that there is almost nothing that she can say about it that will not anger many Democrats. She has stated that she regrets her decision and that it was the wrong decision. Mr. Obama has the luxury of not being in the Senate when the resolution came up for a vote, and it's easy to say what one would have done, were one there.
It may sound like nitpicking, but of course he did not “vote for the war.” He was not a United States Senator, and any votes he cast in the privacy of his own home had no bearing on the outcome of the Resolution to Authorize Force, which took place on October 11, 2002. Senator Obama was sworn in on January 5, 2005. I know that in this instance, Senator Obama did not make that statement himself, but it got me thinking.
I was against the resolution, and I did not vote for it either. I don’t know if this will help my in my upcoming bid for Supreme Ruler of the Universe; that remains to be seen. I was not pleased that it passed so easily, and I take issue with the decision that many Democrats made at the time, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Harkin, Feinstein, and Edwards, when they cast their “Yea” votes.
Only 23 senators voted “Nay,” in fact, and I was happy that both my elected officials, Senators Dayton and Wellstone, were among them.
I don’t know if anyone else remembers, but the legislation was timed in the hopes that it would derail the reelection efforts of senators such as Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, and Dick Durbin. It was thought that voting against the resolution would make democratic incumbents seem unpatriotic and soft on terrorism, and they would therefore lose their elections. If they voted for it and went against their perceived principles, it could hurt them as well.
It was a good plan, only a month after the one-year anniversary of September 11th. In the case of Paul Wellstone, I believe he put a lot of thought into the decision and in the end went with his principles, and it paid off. People respected him, even if they did not agree with him, and his polling numbers went up. He most likely would have won his election had he not been killed in a plane crash two weeks later.
It’s easy to say “I did not support this war” and to declare that you would not have voted for it, but it’s another thing to have been in the situation, experiencing the climate of the times and the pressures brought to bear. Ms. Clinton has not done the best job of explaining or justifying her decision, but I argue that there is almost nothing that she can say about it that will not anger many Democrats. She has stated that she regrets her decision and that it was the wrong decision. Mr. Obama has the luxury of not being in the Senate when the resolution came up for a vote, and it's easy to say what one would have done, were one there.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Caucus Night
I walked up through the crowded hallway at 7:42 with my little square of neon red paper in my hand. It listed all the democratic presidential candidates. I had not checked a box, but the ballots were due at 8:00, and it was time. As I came to the table, I chose, and handed it to the woman sitting there.
I don’t feel great about it. I don’t think I would have felt great about it either way.
But what I do feel great about is that 348 people cast presidential preference ballots at my precinct caucus. I don’t know how many the other precincts had, but we packed the Hancock School, and it was excellent. I don’t have any memory of the 2004 caucus, though I went, and I continued as a delegate to the district convention, but I will remember this one.
Our presidential preference results looked like this:
82 Clinton
260 Obama
6 Undecided
The greater results from the state reflect the same thing. People turned out in record amounts, and I think it had a lot to do with Senator Obama, judging by the numbers, though Hillary Clinton received more votes than any Republican candidate by a substantial margin.
In Minnesota, you attend your party’s caucus at separate locations. On the Democratic Farmer-Labor side (DFL, Minnesota’s Democratic Party), you can come and cast a preference ballot and leave, or you can stay and participate in the resolutions and delegate selection section of the night. The great thing is that your preference ballot actually relates to the number of delegates awarded to a candidate, it’s not just a straw poll. I am not sure how many people stayed around, but the hallways were full of people sitting and standing, and numerous people brought resolutions, only one of which was not passed. All the resolutions will be compiled and brought to the District convention on March 8. I signed up to be a delegate, which is another bustling event that I enjoy. That will be more concentrated for our Senate race, where we are trying to win back Paul Wellstone’s seat from Norm Coleman.
We got home at around 9:00, and I turned on Jim Lehrer. Governor Huckabee was the first to speak, and it seems that he wants to abolish the IRS. Popular with people who don’t think things through, no doubt, but... does Governor Huckabee want to get paid if he is president? Next up was Governor Romney, who I privately refer to as “Chompers” because of his remarkable teeth and newscaster aura. He seemed to think he was still going to be in the race. Senator Clinton gave a good speech, from notes, and I thought she was very personable. She was the first to mention that there had been a tragic weather occurrence in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and it surprised me that Governor Huckabee had not brought this up. Senator McCain read from a teleprompter and reiterated how conservative he is, while praising his two opponents. Senator Obama, surrounded by his red and blue Change signs, gave what I guess is his regular speech and did it very well. He also mentioned the disaster in the south (the weather, not Huckabee). I did not hear Ron Paul speak.
The most startling thing that I discovered before I went to bed, aside from states being called with 1% of precincts reporting, which I will always find appalling, was that Governor Romney had won Minnesota. People here are just so... lutefisk. I did not think a flashy Mormon would win, but I guess the caucus system tends to favor the more conservative candidates on the Republican side (sorry, Mr. McCain), and it turns out that Governor Huckabee’s results were close to Senator McCain’s. Neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Huckabee campaigned in Minnesota; Mr. Romney came here on Saturday, which was dwarfed by Mr. Obama’s rally.
By the time I walked up that hallway, my ballot was curled and rather damp. John Edwards’ name glared out at me, confusing me. I checked the box next to Hillary Clinton, and handed it in. I cannot get over the possible problems with Barack Obama’s healthcare plan.
30 minutes later, I was wishing I had just checked John Edwards.
A few notes:
So far, with 89.18% of precincts reporting, there are 212,287 votes. It is estimated that the final count will be near 250 thousand (DFL only). My brother and sister-in-law went home without voting or even parking because the crowds were so large, and I imagine that plenty of people did the same thing.
The 2004 caucus number was 56 thousand. No wonder I was a delegate. The all-time record was around 80 thousand, during the Viet Nam war.
Our precinct and many others ran out of preference ballots, and people had to write on scraps of paper.
The caucus system was reinstituted in Minnesota in the 1950’s because the party bosses thought that they had lost control over the nominating process to the masses. They thought that a caucus would restrict the number of people participating in the process. They were right, but this year may cause some people to revisit that decision. And in fact, it has. The DFL is considering a change; the GOP is not. I would be in favor of a process that includes a primary vote throughout the day with a 7:00 caucus for resolutions and delegates, for those who want to be personally involved. It is a great way to see and meet neighbors and make your voice heard.
I don’t feel great about it. I don’t think I would have felt great about it either way.
But what I do feel great about is that 348 people cast presidential preference ballots at my precinct caucus. I don’t know how many the other precincts had, but we packed the Hancock School, and it was excellent. I don’t have any memory of the 2004 caucus, though I went, and I continued as a delegate to the district convention, but I will remember this one.
Our presidential preference results looked like this:
82 Clinton
260 Obama
6 Undecided
The greater results from the state reflect the same thing. People turned out in record amounts, and I think it had a lot to do with Senator Obama, judging by the numbers, though Hillary Clinton received more votes than any Republican candidate by a substantial margin.
In Minnesota, you attend your party’s caucus at separate locations. On the Democratic Farmer-Labor side (DFL, Minnesota’s Democratic Party), you can come and cast a preference ballot and leave, or you can stay and participate in the resolutions and delegate selection section of the night. The great thing is that your preference ballot actually relates to the number of delegates awarded to a candidate, it’s not just a straw poll. I am not sure how many people stayed around, but the hallways were full of people sitting and standing, and numerous people brought resolutions, only one of which was not passed. All the resolutions will be compiled and brought to the District convention on March 8. I signed up to be a delegate, which is another bustling event that I enjoy. That will be more concentrated for our Senate race, where we are trying to win back Paul Wellstone’s seat from Norm Coleman.
We got home at around 9:00, and I turned on Jim Lehrer. Governor Huckabee was the first to speak, and it seems that he wants to abolish the IRS. Popular with people who don’t think things through, no doubt, but... does Governor Huckabee want to get paid if he is president? Next up was Governor Romney, who I privately refer to as “Chompers” because of his remarkable teeth and newscaster aura. He seemed to think he was still going to be in the race. Senator Clinton gave a good speech, from notes, and I thought she was very personable. She was the first to mention that there had been a tragic weather occurrence in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and it surprised me that Governor Huckabee had not brought this up. Senator McCain read from a teleprompter and reiterated how conservative he is, while praising his two opponents. Senator Obama, surrounded by his red and blue Change signs, gave what I guess is his regular speech and did it very well. He also mentioned the disaster in the south (the weather, not Huckabee). I did not hear Ron Paul speak.
The most startling thing that I discovered before I went to bed, aside from states being called with 1% of precincts reporting, which I will always find appalling, was that Governor Romney had won Minnesota. People here are just so... lutefisk. I did not think a flashy Mormon would win, but I guess the caucus system tends to favor the more conservative candidates on the Republican side (sorry, Mr. McCain), and it turns out that Governor Huckabee’s results were close to Senator McCain’s. Neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Huckabee campaigned in Minnesota; Mr. Romney came here on Saturday, which was dwarfed by Mr. Obama’s rally.
By the time I walked up that hallway, my ballot was curled and rather damp. John Edwards’ name glared out at me, confusing me. I checked the box next to Hillary Clinton, and handed it in. I cannot get over the possible problems with Barack Obama’s healthcare plan.
30 minutes later, I was wishing I had just checked John Edwards.
A few notes:
So far, with 89.18% of precincts reporting, there are 212,287 votes. It is estimated that the final count will be near 250 thousand (DFL only). My brother and sister-in-law went home without voting or even parking because the crowds were so large, and I imagine that plenty of people did the same thing.
The 2004 caucus number was 56 thousand. No wonder I was a delegate. The all-time record was around 80 thousand, during the Viet Nam war.
Our precinct and many others ran out of preference ballots, and people had to write on scraps of paper.
The caucus system was reinstituted in Minnesota in the 1950’s because the party bosses thought that they had lost control over the nominating process to the masses. They thought that a caucus would restrict the number of people participating in the process. They were right, but this year may cause some people to revisit that decision. And in fact, it has. The DFL is considering a change; the GOP is not. I would be in favor of a process that includes a primary vote throughout the day with a 7:00 caucus for resolutions and delegates, for those who want to be personally involved. It is a great way to see and meet neighbors and make your voice heard.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Super Undecided
There was a four-person wide line snaking around the venue, across a bridge spanning a four-lane highway, and down a few more city blocks. People were standing in that line for two hours or more on a 27 degree early February day. Were they giving away front loading washers? Free tickets for the Superbowl? Naked ladies?
The crowd was racially diverse and varied in age. They were all waiting for the same thing, outside of the arena that normally houses our losing professional basketball team as well as national musical acts. They were waiting for Senator Barack Obama.
My friend Christine and I went downtown for the purpose of attending what I thought would be a rally. We arrived at the door time, which was 1:30, the line was already blocks long, as I described above, and it was not moving.
I was already in a bad mood about it. My candidate had dropped out of the race, leaving me with no idea of what to do in the caucus. You needed tickets for this event, you could not bring a bag, and you could not bring your own signs.
I was thinking that these were all security and organizational issues, being that both of the democratic candidates are probably in significant danger because of who they are, and what America is, but once I arrived at the venue, I could see that it was definitely not organizational because there was a pungent lack of organization or thought put into the matter.
It was exciting; I understood that from a rational place in my head. It is rare to see 20,000 people moved to attend political event in the nominating portion of a presidential campaign. Normally, I would have been elated. Practically weepy with delight.
I wasn’t.
I was appalled at the fact that this event was so poorly organized as to leave people standing outside for two hours in the cold. Granted, 27 degrees is warm compared to what we have been enduring, but it's not the best conditions for, say, the old or the very young or the disabled. The choice of venue bothered me, too. I guess I am just used to my union hall or campus rallies, and I should get with the 21st century. But something about using a venue like the Target Center and then not using the security and organization that is, I am sure, easily available for such an event is either a gross oversight or was done on purpose to get into the papers.
I think it was the latter. It makes good film to have 20,000 people snaking through the streets of a major metropolitan area to cheer on your candidate.
Christine and I started to walk to the back of the line, but we did not make it over the bridge before we decided that we did not care enough to be out there for hours to hear a stump speech that I could hear on the radio or online later. After all, I was just browsing, not buying, and it’s my weekend.
Granted, I am bitter that candidates like Dennis Kucinich do not stand a chance in America and that John Edwards dropped out just six days before my caucus. I understand that Dennis Kucinich is fringe, like candidates on the right who would not stand a chance with their radical conservatism. I resent that a candidate like John Edwards did not stand a chance because of media and money.
I am also disappointed in both the candidates who are left. I have been tired of their sniping for months. I wanted to hear policy ideas and plans for how they would be achieved, not a rhetorical cage match between two people who are supposed to be on the same side. I know that verbal sparring make for good press, so that is what the media chooses to report, but were there an absence of that, perhaps they would have to report on matters of substance.
Back in 2004 when Senator Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I was impressed with his poise, intelligence, and eloquence. I believed that I was watching our first president of African American descent; I still believe that. I was hoping that he would wait until 2012, but he had electability. I bought his book "The Audacity of Hope," in hardcover, even, and I thought that it was impressive in that it elucidated policy ideas, showed an understanding of American political history, as well as gave the reader some insight int the man writing the book. I got bogged down, however, in the "Faith" chapter, and I did not finish it.
His campaign, however, has devolved into a personality competition with a polished marketing edge, replete with buzz words. It turns out that they did have signs at the event, but they must have handed them out to people inside--they were all the same, emblazoned with the "change" message. All this talk about working together and creating change. Practically no one on the right has ever tried to legitimately work with the left or make concessions to us, and furthermore, I don’t see that change actually comes from conciliation. They seem to me to be anathema. It’s all lip service in any case. This country is partisan and has been since the federalists and democratic republicans were going at each other in the 18th century and early 19th century. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson may have died as warm and friendly correspondents, but they did not begin as such.
I heard afterwards that the was energizing and amazing; like a rock concert. The photos showed the homogeneous signs and a packed house with a tiny Senator Obama on the stage at the end of the arena. I don’t regret our decision to go home instead of waiting in line. I guess that at 37, I am a political dinosaur, and I am incapable of the change that Senator Obama is calling for.
I don't want to caucus tonight for someone I don't feel good about and, honestly, I feel better about Senator Clinton than I do Senator Obama, mainly because of her health care plan, which has been deemed the most comprehensive and workable by many analysts. But this is America, and Ms. Clinton cannot beat Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama may be able to accomplish that feat, though he is polling the same as Ms. Clinton against Mr. McCain at this point. But this country elects a black man before it elects a woman, no matter who the candidates are. Which puts me back in the same place I always seem to be: caucusing or voting for the person I think can win, not the person I wish would.
The crowd was racially diverse and varied in age. They were all waiting for the same thing, outside of the arena that normally houses our losing professional basketball team as well as national musical acts. They were waiting for Senator Barack Obama.
My friend Christine and I went downtown for the purpose of attending what I thought would be a rally. We arrived at the door time, which was 1:30, the line was already blocks long, as I described above, and it was not moving.
I was already in a bad mood about it. My candidate had dropped out of the race, leaving me with no idea of what to do in the caucus. You needed tickets for this event, you could not bring a bag, and you could not bring your own signs.
I was thinking that these were all security and organizational issues, being that both of the democratic candidates are probably in significant danger because of who they are, and what America is, but once I arrived at the venue, I could see that it was definitely not organizational because there was a pungent lack of organization or thought put into the matter.
It was exciting; I understood that from a rational place in my head. It is rare to see 20,000 people moved to attend political event in the nominating portion of a presidential campaign. Normally, I would have been elated. Practically weepy with delight.
I wasn’t.
I was appalled at the fact that this event was so poorly organized as to leave people standing outside for two hours in the cold. Granted, 27 degrees is warm compared to what we have been enduring, but it's not the best conditions for, say, the old or the very young or the disabled. The choice of venue bothered me, too. I guess I am just used to my union hall or campus rallies, and I should get with the 21st century. But something about using a venue like the Target Center and then not using the security and organization that is, I am sure, easily available for such an event is either a gross oversight or was done on purpose to get into the papers.
I think it was the latter. It makes good film to have 20,000 people snaking through the streets of a major metropolitan area to cheer on your candidate.
Christine and I started to walk to the back of the line, but we did not make it over the bridge before we decided that we did not care enough to be out there for hours to hear a stump speech that I could hear on the radio or online later. After all, I was just browsing, not buying, and it’s my weekend.
Granted, I am bitter that candidates like Dennis Kucinich do not stand a chance in America and that John Edwards dropped out just six days before my caucus. I understand that Dennis Kucinich is fringe, like candidates on the right who would not stand a chance with their radical conservatism. I resent that a candidate like John Edwards did not stand a chance because of media and money.
I am also disappointed in both the candidates who are left. I have been tired of their sniping for months. I wanted to hear policy ideas and plans for how they would be achieved, not a rhetorical cage match between two people who are supposed to be on the same side. I know that verbal sparring make for good press, so that is what the media chooses to report, but were there an absence of that, perhaps they would have to report on matters of substance.
Back in 2004 when Senator Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I was impressed with his poise, intelligence, and eloquence. I believed that I was watching our first president of African American descent; I still believe that. I was hoping that he would wait until 2012, but he had electability. I bought his book "The Audacity of Hope," in hardcover, even, and I thought that it was impressive in that it elucidated policy ideas, showed an understanding of American political history, as well as gave the reader some insight int the man writing the book. I got bogged down, however, in the "Faith" chapter, and I did not finish it.
His campaign, however, has devolved into a personality competition with a polished marketing edge, replete with buzz words. It turns out that they did have signs at the event, but they must have handed them out to people inside--they were all the same, emblazoned with the "change" message. All this talk about working together and creating change. Practically no one on the right has ever tried to legitimately work with the left or make concessions to us, and furthermore, I don’t see that change actually comes from conciliation. They seem to me to be anathema. It’s all lip service in any case. This country is partisan and has been since the federalists and democratic republicans were going at each other in the 18th century and early 19th century. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson may have died as warm and friendly correspondents, but they did not begin as such.
I heard afterwards that the was energizing and amazing; like a rock concert. The photos showed the homogeneous signs and a packed house with a tiny Senator Obama on the stage at the end of the arena. I don’t regret our decision to go home instead of waiting in line. I guess that at 37, I am a political dinosaur, and I am incapable of the change that Senator Obama is calling for.
I don't want to caucus tonight for someone I don't feel good about and, honestly, I feel better about Senator Clinton than I do Senator Obama, mainly because of her health care plan, which has been deemed the most comprehensive and workable by many analysts. But this is America, and Ms. Clinton cannot beat Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama may be able to accomplish that feat, though he is polling the same as Ms. Clinton against Mr. McCain at this point. But this country elects a black man before it elects a woman, no matter who the candidates are. Which puts me back in the same place I always seem to be: caucusing or voting for the person I think can win, not the person I wish would.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
An (Im)modest Proposal
In 1729, Dr. Jonathan Swift published his idea for how to keep the children of the poor off the public docket in Ireland. It was quite simple and well thought out: of the stock of some estimated 120,000 burdensome children, 20,000 would be “reserved for breed,” including 4,000 males or one to every 4 females, “which is more than we allow for sheep.” The remaining 100,000 would be sold to “persons of quality and fortune” to provide them with “good table.” A further benefit to this plan would be that the hides from the infants could be used to make gloves and shoes and the like, as well as the fact that many of these children would be “papists,” thus reducing the number of Catholics causing trouble.
Here in Minnesota, in 2008, our problems are still apparently caused by the poor and the sick. Instead of using eloquent satire to illustrate the fallacy of certain arguments, our illustrious governor uses what has become known in America as “common sense” to quietly lay blame on unfortunates in this country who need social services. In modern American “common sense,” you say a lot of words that sound good and get people’s heads nodding, in order to keep them from thinking about the actual meaning of the words.
For instance:
"The state is overemphasizing social services and welfare at the expense of some other key priorities, like K-12 education, like higher education, and like transportation."
Actually means:
“The reason your roads are bad and your bridges are falling and your kids’ educations are failing is because of poor people and sick people.”
It is not the lack of a sustainable transit plan, which invests in a long-term infrastructure or the continued hamstringing of our public school system by a federal government and satellite state governments who are against public education in general; it’s not any of the other budget lines that consume funds; it’s because all the money that could be going to roads and kids is going to the poor and sick who are sponging off the rest of us hardworking citizens. So let’s divert funds from social services into the roads so that if you are on welfare and can’t afford a car, you will be spurred to get a job and buy a car.
This statement:
"[These programs have] already consumed the federal government's budget to the point they're in debt, and I don't know how they're going to get out.”
Actually means:
“Poor and sick people have gotten the federal government into debt.”
That’s what has gotten the federal government into such trouble, from surplus to deficit in 8 years: poor and sick people. It’s not a second futile run at full-scale supply side economics. Furthermore, it’s not tax cuts and breaks for corporations and the wealthy; it’s not the defense department and the two wars. Neither is it massive bureaucratic reorganization for uncertain outcomes.
Poor people and sick people are nefarious. Business leaders told the governor all about people who are trying to earn less so that their kids can have health care. And he nodded in agreement, having heard of the very same plot. It’s not that health care is such an important and costly issue to Americans that they would rather have less money in pocket than risk losing public assistance; these people are freeloaders who are scamming the system. Who asked them to have all those kids, anyway?
Employers complain about the high cost of health care insurance for their employees, and the governor tries to think of ways to help the employer because too many of those people are winding up on subsidized care. If you are a member of the working poor, and you make too much to qualify for subsidized care, but your employer does not offer care, you are pretty much a nuisance and are on your own.
Then the governor headed to Florida to stump for John McCain, because we know what is really important to him as the co-chair of the candidate’s national presidential campaign.
Is cutting social services going to alleviate poverty? That is what many conservatives like to say; that it is only the crutch of government aid keeping these people from entirely supporting themselves. If you remove that crutch, they can learn to walk on their own. Never mind that no one has their crutches taken away without a plan for rehabilitation. Never mind that in order for one to have crutches, one must have been injured in some way. And if you are injured in some way in America, you had better either have good benefits or plenty of cash on hand.
Here in Minnesota, in 2008, our problems are still apparently caused by the poor and the sick. Instead of using eloquent satire to illustrate the fallacy of certain arguments, our illustrious governor uses what has become known in America as “common sense” to quietly lay blame on unfortunates in this country who need social services. In modern American “common sense,” you say a lot of words that sound good and get people’s heads nodding, in order to keep them from thinking about the actual meaning of the words.
For instance:
"The state is overemphasizing social services and welfare at the expense of some other key priorities, like K-12 education, like higher education, and like transportation."
Actually means:
“The reason your roads are bad and your bridges are falling and your kids’ educations are failing is because of poor people and sick people.”
It is not the lack of a sustainable transit plan, which invests in a long-term infrastructure or the continued hamstringing of our public school system by a federal government and satellite state governments who are against public education in general; it’s not any of the other budget lines that consume funds; it’s because all the money that could be going to roads and kids is going to the poor and sick who are sponging off the rest of us hardworking citizens. So let’s divert funds from social services into the roads so that if you are on welfare and can’t afford a car, you will be spurred to get a job and buy a car.
This statement:
"[These programs have] already consumed the federal government's budget to the point they're in debt, and I don't know how they're going to get out.”
Actually means:
“Poor and sick people have gotten the federal government into debt.”
That’s what has gotten the federal government into such trouble, from surplus to deficit in 8 years: poor and sick people. It’s not a second futile run at full-scale supply side economics. Furthermore, it’s not tax cuts and breaks for corporations and the wealthy; it’s not the defense department and the two wars. Neither is it massive bureaucratic reorganization for uncertain outcomes.
Poor people and sick people are nefarious. Business leaders told the governor all about people who are trying to earn less so that their kids can have health care. And he nodded in agreement, having heard of the very same plot. It’s not that health care is such an important and costly issue to Americans that they would rather have less money in pocket than risk losing public assistance; these people are freeloaders who are scamming the system. Who asked them to have all those kids, anyway?
Employers complain about the high cost of health care insurance for their employees, and the governor tries to think of ways to help the employer because too many of those people are winding up on subsidized care. If you are a member of the working poor, and you make too much to qualify for subsidized care, but your employer does not offer care, you are pretty much a nuisance and are on your own.
Then the governor headed to Florida to stump for John McCain, because we know what is really important to him as the co-chair of the candidate’s national presidential campaign.
Is cutting social services going to alleviate poverty? That is what many conservatives like to say; that it is only the crutch of government aid keeping these people from entirely supporting themselves. If you remove that crutch, they can learn to walk on their own. Never mind that no one has their crutches taken away without a plan for rehabilitation. Never mind that in order for one to have crutches, one must have been injured in some way. And if you are injured in some way in America, you had better either have good benefits or plenty of cash on hand.
Hot Chocolate
Sometimes, the simplest things can make me feel so shallow.
Last night, we decided to watch the movie “The Wind That Shakes the Barley.” It’s an Irish movie that was recommended to us before we went to Ireland. I guess that I was hoping for an upbeat, pastoral, pub movie filled with pints of Guinness because the emotionally draining, political dirge that rolled out in front of me was not quite what I was up for as an ending to my weekend.
That is not to say it was not a good movie. It just made me feel shallow, as I kept wishing for a song or two to appear. It follows the course of two brothers through their engagement with the cause for Irish independence in the 1920’s, and it’s not a chipper narrative. If you had any doubts about the brutality of occupied Ireland, this film will take them away. If you wondered how close humans are to becoming that which we most despise, this will show you. If you crave a cup of hot chocolate, made with real milk, cocoa, cinnamon, vanilla, and fresh spearmint, put this movie on, and I’ll probably make it.
I guess I am glad that I saw it. It must be an effective piece because I am still thinking about it and the issues that it raised. When does a cause take over our lives, including our rational thought? How truly different are we from those who we oppose? Is it only power that differentiates us, and were we to obtain that power, would we act in the same way? Is one quarter cup of cocoa enough for three cups of milk?
I would say that the cause has taken over rational thought when it causes us to no longer see our fellow humans as individuals with feelings as acute as our own; deep down, we are probably not all that different from those we oppose—they feel as deeply about their issues as we do; absolute power corrupts absolutely, and even the most benign of people will find themselves changed by wielding it; and one quarter cup of cocoa is the minimum. Start with organic, locally produced milk from cows who get to wander pastures, use honey instead of sugar, add a little cinnamon, vanilla, and a pinch of salt, and remember that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Last night, we decided to watch the movie “The Wind That Shakes the Barley.” It’s an Irish movie that was recommended to us before we went to Ireland. I guess that I was hoping for an upbeat, pastoral, pub movie filled with pints of Guinness because the emotionally draining, political dirge that rolled out in front of me was not quite what I was up for as an ending to my weekend.
That is not to say it was not a good movie. It just made me feel shallow, as I kept wishing for a song or two to appear. It follows the course of two brothers through their engagement with the cause for Irish independence in the 1920’s, and it’s not a chipper narrative. If you had any doubts about the brutality of occupied Ireland, this film will take them away. If you wondered how close humans are to becoming that which we most despise, this will show you. If you crave a cup of hot chocolate, made with real milk, cocoa, cinnamon, vanilla, and fresh spearmint, put this movie on, and I’ll probably make it.
I guess I am glad that I saw it. It must be an effective piece because I am still thinking about it and the issues that it raised. When does a cause take over our lives, including our rational thought? How truly different are we from those who we oppose? Is it only power that differentiates us, and were we to obtain that power, would we act in the same way? Is one quarter cup of cocoa enough for three cups of milk?
I would say that the cause has taken over rational thought when it causes us to no longer see our fellow humans as individuals with feelings as acute as our own; deep down, we are probably not all that different from those we oppose—they feel as deeply about their issues as we do; absolute power corrupts absolutely, and even the most benign of people will find themselves changed by wielding it; and one quarter cup of cocoa is the minimum. Start with organic, locally produced milk from cows who get to wander pastures, use honey instead of sugar, add a little cinnamon, vanilla, and a pinch of salt, and remember that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)