May 28, 2006
Oakdale, MN
Backyard BBQ

Nothing feeds my need to debate and argue politics like a gathering of people, a few beers and 90+ degree temperatures. Conditions were right over the recent Memorial Day weekend at an annual event hosted by a friend of mine. I never intend to go off the deep end (well maybe not) but I often cannot help myself.

A discussion of college education led to a discussion of education in general. A couple I did not know (one Dem and one "liberal Rebublican" what ever that means) were discussing what they were going to do with their child's education. The Democratic mother wanted to put the kid in private school and the Republican father disagreed saying public school was the way to go. While discussing the reasons with them it became clear to me what my point was. There needs to be a buy in. People have to buy in to public education for it to work.

As I moved throught he crowd offending as many people as I could contact before their mate told them it was time to leave, I realized this principle applied to many other topics as well. Transportation, medical service, environmental concerns, welfare, human rights, foreign policy etc. etc. People have to buy in; they need to be invested.

Republicans have spent the last several decades driving people apart and individualizing everything. It is about me, not we. It is us versus them. When you take this approach it is easy to cast off any policy or position that may cost you something but does not directly benefit you. There is no buy in, no investment, no feeling that we should succeed.

Am I really the Socialist I always claimed to be (just to drive the stakes of the debate higher)? I was mentally taking stock of the arguments I could use to defend myself and found a few that come, not from liberal talking points but from corporate America.

Management classes tell us that you get more out of employees if they are invested in the success of the company. The idea is that people do not work for money as hard as they work for a goal. Workers would rather point with pride to a product they helped create that point to a pile of money they earned doing some menial job. Make them feel invested in the success of the business and they will work like a dog for you (and themselves).

What about the idea that the market should dictate everything and that Adam Smith was the second comming? The argument goes that if the market supports mass transit or parks or public schools then they are worthy of being. If not then, they have to go. The problem here is that for the freee market to function the playing field needs to be level. There needs to be a floor of security to help mitigate the risk of going in to business.

The basis for my 1st ring suburb manifesto is becomming clearer. We must agree that investing in basic social services like schools, and transport, and enviromental stewardship is the rising tide that lifts all boats. Once everyone is floating then we can begin the regatta.

The tone and logic and basis for the existance of government needs to change. Government is not the adversary of the people, it is the people. The people need to hear from leaders that public investmewnt is a good thing and it benefits them. Leaders need to get Americans to buy in, both figuratively and literally to our local, state and federal government and see the value of their efforts.

I would love to see a candidate stand up and voice a point of view that is hopeful and positive and not devisive BS.

I feel much better now. Thanks.

There is an interesting item on the BBC website today about the goals of government. The full text can be seen here. I have selected a few quotes and have a few observations.

"The best society is that where the people are happiest, and the best policy is the one that produces the greatest happiness. So argued the great 18th century thinkers like Jeremy Bentham, and their admirable views did much to inspire the social reforms of the century that followed. "

and

"In Britain and the US the number of people who believe that "most other people can be trusted" has halved in the last 50 years, and this reflects the growth of an individualism which makes personal success more important than almost anything else. "

This pinpoints something I have been thinking for some time now. Our country is misguided in its policies becuase we have mistaken wealth for well-being. Nearly all discuccion of public policy and government actions revolves around money. Christmas and Easter have become more about money than religion. We consume and work and consume and work in a vicious cycle, searching for happiness.

There is much talk on the right about the erosion of family values and loss of moral context in society. In the context of a rant from James Dobson or Rush Limbaugh I cannot disagree more. However in the context of an examination of moeny and life in America, i think this may be correct. We worship at the alter of the almighty dollar.

Look at a few issues in the abstract and then look at them in the context of American's lust for money.
- Environmental protection. In the abstract I cannot imagine many Americans would say we should pollute the air. If you change the question to include business (economic) concerns I think the answer changes dramatically.
- Social Safety Net. In the abstract American's would likely agree with the statement that all people deserve a safe place to live, safe water, access to food, medical care, and the opportunity to pursue their lives as they see fit (check the US Constitution). If you ask people if they want to help pay for these things there is a different result, I expect.
- Intellectual freedom. People deserve the right to an education and the right to read, write, and live by their personal beliefs. If you add in the cost of ideoligicall oriented education (private schools, college education, etc) Americans are reluctant to pony up any money.

American in the 21st Century is focused too much on the economy and too little on the citizenry. In the BBC report it is noted that Scandinavian countries always rank high on quality of life and hapiness. They also always rank high on taxes paid. The money is taken from individuals and given to the group to use on common goals. Here in America we like to believe there is no we, only a me. This drives indiviualism and distrust of others. The cycle continues; we distrust more and more and become more individually oriented.

This cultural reality fuels the conservitive agenda of hate, fear, and lower taxes. This approach can only move us toward more of the same. Americans need to be more invested in the America economy. Not in the financial economy but in the American Social Economy.

From CNN.Com 5/11/2006:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

So let me get this straight, the super secret spy agency (NSA) launches an illegal warentless wiretapping program to help fight terrorism (or so they say). The illegal program is exposed and Americans are shocked and awed at the audacity of the government to ignore the civil rights expressly granted in the Constitution. Congresional Democrats demand an investigation, briefings and answers. So far so good.

So the Justice Department (part of the executive branch) launches an investigation into the NSA program. For a G.W. Bush era government agency headed by a Bush croney this is pretty close to the way our government should operate.

Now CNN (AP) reports the Justice Department has been forced to end its investigation because the NSA has said they do not have appropriate security clearance to view the NSA records. How can this be? How corrupt and broken can our government get?

It is my understanding of the issue that Justice Department lawyers actually helped the NSA draft the legal reasoning explaining why the illegal wiretapping program was not really illegal. So the DOJ can help the NSA create a dubious program but they cannot perform any oversight of that program?

You do not need to hear my rantings on how fundamentally wrong this is as I am sure you are capable of inserting your own here.

I thought I was so jaded and cynical that I would never be shocked by the actions of Republican leaders. It all was supposed to be a matter of course. I was wrong. I continue to be surprised by the level of corruption and blatant flaunting of Constitutional principles that seem to occur on a daily basis.

No wonder Americans are turning away from Republicans on a scale not seen since Nixon. At least Nixon had the character to accept responsibility and resign.

I'm a little late to the party but I wanted to read this book before the movie ruins it for me. I am about 2/3 through and I have to say it is a really good book. It moves quick, the story line is intreguing and the characters are interesting. Prior to the book I knew nothing about Opus Dei, little about Da Vinici and this Pirory deal is news to me. I am reminded of thoes dudes in the boat chase from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade who are trying to protect teh secret of the grail.

I was thinking about this whining and bitching about the book/movie last night after wrapping up my reading. I understand this work points out uncomfortable aspects of the Cathoilic Church and raises doubts about the relationship between Christ and the Church. IMO the Church could release a statement claiming the book/movie is fiction and they appreciate it as a work of fiction. They can defend themselves by letting it go in passing.

Here is the interesting thing. In the book they are explaining the power of the Grail and that shaking the foundations of the church by casting doubt could cause a massive loss of faith in the lay community. The Church therefore wants to destroy the secrets. In reality, it appears the church is out to destroy the book/movie for the same reason. They are only adding weight to the idea that the content of the book/movie is valid.

Concidering the rhetorical noise about attacks on Christianity blah blah in recent years shouldn't the Church (and all Christians) be thrilled that a blockbuster movie staring Tom Hanks and Directed by Ron Howard is 100% about Christ and religion? Why don't Christians want the whole country to engage in discussing religion? Isn't that the idea?

I know Bush was only a "C" student, but the guy cannot be shis slow on the uptake. The 9/11 Commission and the official government line on the 9/11 attacks is that a series of failures in the intellligence community enabled the hijackers to execute their plan. George Tennant was removed (the closest thing to accountability we have seen in 5 years) and Porter Goss tasked to revamp the CIA. OK- Fine.

On Friday afternoon (the good stuff always happens on Friday) Porter Goss resigned. There was no explanation. Speculation is running wild. Everything from political departmental in fighting, to lobbist funded hookers, to a dismissal from John Negroponte due to a difference of opinion. OK, thanks for your service to your country Mr. Goss. I have a feeling the truth will be known eventually and have no interest in speculating.

My problem is with Gen. Michael Hayden (USAF Ret.), the newly appointed CIA Director. He may have the CV to do the job; his experience is not my problem. Hayden is John Negroponte's deputy and was the director of the NSA in 2001. Hayden may be neck deep in the NSA's warrentless domestic wiretapping scandal. At a time when we are having serious concerns about Bush and the law, General Hayden seems an odd choice for Director.

Also on my short list of problems is that this appointment continues a trend in the Bush Administration. These guys do not tolerate differing opinions. One theory floated aboit Goss' departure is that he and Negroponte did not get along. Apparently this Republican former Congressman was just too far a field from the administration's worldview. Hayden is buddy buddy with Negroponte. Apparently the plan is to increase cooperation between the intelligence agencies by installing roboticly loyal leaders in all the agencies.

Personally, I like a little adversarial competition between agencies. I also like a clear line between civilian (CIA) and military agencies. This move raises the chances of systemic groupthink exponentionally.

I hope Congressional Democrats (and gasp even some Republicans) will take a good hard look at Hayden and exactly what this appointment could do to our intelligence agencies.

The next administration is going to have one hell of a hairball to unravel on January 20th 2009.

There is a right way and a wrong way to react to ethics breaches in Congress. We have all seen the Denny Hastert/Bill Frist method in action over the last several years. Democrats adopted a position denouncing ethics violations and asking for Congressional investigations and appropriate actions. But what happens if it is a Democrat and not a Republican implicated?

Rep. William Jefferson (D) LA. has been charged with receiving bribes from a Kentucky business leader. Jefferson allegedly accepted $367,500 from Vernon L. Jackson, CEO of iGate Inc. over a three year period.

This appears to be evidence supporting the Republican position that it is not all Republicans who are on the take. It pains me to admit it but they are correct. However, the argument that it is not wrong because both sides do it doesn't hold much water, IMO.

So how did Democratic leaders react to the charges against Rep. Jefferson? House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi led the way yesterday. You can watch her remarks here.

The Carpetbagger Report has a good post up summarizing the conversation here.

Basically, Pelosi said if the allegations are true Rep. Jefferson should resign and regardless of the legal outcome the House Ethics Committee should launch a full investigation. Pelosi said she has not discussed the charges with Jefferson and has intentionally avoided talking to Jefferson specifically because he is accused of wrong doing. Way to go Rep. Pelosi!

This is the perfect response to illegal and un-ethical behavior (if you want to clean up Congress).

If Democrats want to take back the Congress this is exactly what they need to do. Lead by example and do not approach everything from a politically partisan position.

The BBC reports a study by two English Universities and The Rand Corporation indicating that "Americans aged 55 to 64 are up to twice as likely to suffer from diabetes, lung cancer and high blood pressure as English people of the same age."

The 8,000 person sample was divided by socio-economic class and compared. First the expected news; the poorer you are the more likely you are to suffer one of these diseases. However this disparity between rich and poor was larger in the US than in the UK.

My first reaction to the headline was that the English are more likely to walk and use public transportation and therefore got more exercise, resulting in a healthier population. When they removed obesity as a factor from the results the UK still came out on top.

Here is one element that no good progressive American should be shocked by:

One of the researchers Professor Sir Michael Marmot, of the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London, said people would automatically presume the differences were caused by the variance in healthcare systems.

US healthcare is funded through an insurance system while England's NHS is funded by taxation and is free at the point of use.

But he pointed out that Americans spent almost double per head on health care than the English do, even though the system was organised in a different way. One of the researchers Professor Sir Michael Marmot, of the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London, said people would automatically presume the differences were caused by the variance in healthcare systems.

Emphasis added.

The results are inconclusive. There is a definite disparity between US and UK citizens but they cannot pin it directly on diet, exercise, or the healthcare system. There must be a broader reason for the difference.

One conclusion I can draw is that a nationalized healthcare system does not decrease quality of care or level of health. It does save people a lot of money, and it seems to improve the health of lower income citizens.

I don't propose to know thew answer but I am interesed in the results. I see this as a foundation block on which we should build a case for single payer or nationalized healthcare.

Healthcare is in crisis in America. Costs are out of hand. HSA's do nothing but put more money in the pockets of the insurance companies. I am not a fan of the plan passed in Massachusetts because we do not remove the insurance companies or lower the costs. I do like the idea of a state taking the initiative on this issue. The states are the labratories of government and it is time to show some leadership on the state government level. We need to find a solution now.

I am very excited to have found MidwestVlauesPAC. I have been obsessed with politics since the 2000 election. I read 5 or 6 political blogs daily and love the discussions and insight from the readers and bloggers. I have been interested in blogging myself for a year or so and this seems to be a great place to dip a toe in the pond.

I hope to post daily and touch on general topics as well as items of note in the news. I hope members of MVPAC will read, discuss, engage and enjoy.

Let's start with a topic where I have not solidified an opinion (it may be the only one!) - Immigration Policy

Estimates vary but in general the USA has around 10 million illegal immigrants. They work in our hotels, factories, farm fields and resturants. They collect low wages, work long hard hours, and often send money home across the border. Even our poor wages for these jobs are worth breakng the law for, compared to life in Mexico and Central America.

This issue touches many many other issues and like all good discussion topics cannot be viewed in isolation. I would like to focus on the presence of these illegal workers in this post. Who has some thoughs on the following:

1) Who is hurt by the presence of these workers?
2) How did 10MM people get here and why are we just addressing this now?
3) What are your solutions to the problem? Do you like the proposed guest worker idea? Deportation? Do nothing?
4) Should businesses who employee these workers be held accountable or the immigrants or both?

Republicans like to suggest the answer to every problem is to provide an incentive for the desired behavior. I am leaning towards this as a potential solution. Deportation and criminalization are dis-incentives (not the same thing). To stop the flow of immigrant labor we need to make it more advantageous for them to stay home than to come here. How can we do that????