Thursday, December 29, 2005
Randomizing
There are tons of things that I think about passing along. Now I’ll start doing a random amount of randomizing here on the blog to list a few of the interesting and – well – random bits to share with my 5 loyal readers!
New Hampshire & Iowa
Anybody even slightly interested in politics must read this article about the Presidential selection process. The bigger sociological delimma isn't diversity, but the fact that the candidate who runs the best primary may not run the best general election strategy. Having worked in both states, it would be bad for this tradition to go away, but not simply to maintain a tradition. The good people of both states have examination of candidates down to a science. Both states bring a qualitatively different process assessing candidates that helps define the primary process for the better. While diversity should be considered, the bigger sociological complaints shouldn't be IA & NH, as they successfully choose the candidate who runs the best primary. Gore and Kerry ran tremendous primaries. Clinton pulled out a great second place in NH, and was deemed the winner because of a superior primary campaign strategy. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't the problem, they choose the best primary strategist. The solution: Democrats should keep IA & NH as is and do better general election strategery. Rather than hold this national DNC commission to review the primary process, do one to review the general election process. Fix what is broken.
Movies
Five movies I highly recommend are Munich, Brokeback Mountain, Syriana, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Capote. I could write full blog postings on each, but gosh, if only I were paid full time to be a blogger, I would. But I digress. Oh, heck, more digressions… can I just tell you guys? I am so frustrated with movie-going, in general. There is a lot of pressure now to catch movies on their opening weekend to help support the indies, with the ways corporate cinema gauge a movie's success and failure by quickly ousting the low performing films. Or, feeling pressure to catch a film before you get tainted by too much information about it. This creates a delimma for me, as one of my biggest pet peeves in life is to be in a movie theater with people who talk during a film. People talking ruined Crash for me (another film I recommend, now out on DVD), and caused me to miss the last minute of Syriana, and created anxiety during Brokeback Mountain, too. If Entertainment Weekly wants to know why regular cinema-goers are not going to the cinema, I think the number two reason is because of poor cinema etiquette (reason #1 is $/inflation). I know! Me, you say? Give an etiquette lesson? But seriously, the last thing I want to hear when I’ve paid my hard-earned $10 to see Brokeback Mountain is some prissy person behind me gasp in awe when two guys kiss. I don’t care that she’s shocked. I just want to watch my movie. Note to you who talk during a film: the people in front of you can hear every word you say, even when you whisper. Your voice carries forward, you goobers.
Vitamin D
This Washington Post article (see the bottom) made me want to start taking Vitamin D beyond my daily multiple. If the research cited is true, using Vitamin D for cancer prevention will be the new aspirin for heart disease prevention. I love following health news, was a vegetarian for 13 years, am dedicated to improving my health, and have worked at health food stores twice. I don’t focus enough of my blogging attention to it, but after considering this article, I vow to do more.
Anna Nicole Smith
I love it that CNN had this piece about her court case and I love it that the White House, for all their troubles (war, indictments, bad economy, and tanking polls) has time to support her case. I don’t know why, but I love her. Not at all the same way have I loved George Clooney, who I look up to, but as a guilty pleasure. She really IS so outrageous. And I love it that I was at Live 8 to see her crazy appearance crashing the stage that pretty much went under the radar, until this. I think she’s a hoot. I just wish her a visit to rehab and deep happiness, and hope she gets some of Hughes’ money – that’s what he wanted, it seems. Go Anna! Even the President supports you – and doesn’t that just seem fitting?
Wishes & Gratitude
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, & Happy New Year. I am a sentimental person, and use this time of the year to look back on all that has passed, doing an assessment of how the year went and how I can do better next year. For all the crud that happened in 2005, I am happy. I am deeply blessed with great friends and family who make me laugh hard and feel love, worked with a wonderful group of warm-hearted Democrats who’ve inspired me to work harder, and have the best doggie in the whole world. A toast to 2006! May it get even better for us all – and may we have lots of victories in November, world peace, single-payer health care, and a better economy for all. And, what the heck, an Oscar for George Clooney too.
New Hampshire & Iowa
Anybody even slightly interested in politics must read this article about the Presidential selection process. The bigger sociological delimma isn't diversity, but the fact that the candidate who runs the best primary may not run the best general election strategy. Having worked in both states, it would be bad for this tradition to go away, but not simply to maintain a tradition. The good people of both states have examination of candidates down to a science. Both states bring a qualitatively different process assessing candidates that helps define the primary process for the better. While diversity should be considered, the bigger sociological complaints shouldn't be IA & NH, as they successfully choose the candidate who runs the best primary. Gore and Kerry ran tremendous primaries. Clinton pulled out a great second place in NH, and was deemed the winner because of a superior primary campaign strategy. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't the problem, they choose the best primary strategist. The solution: Democrats should keep IA & NH as is and do better general election strategery. Rather than hold this national DNC commission to review the primary process, do one to review the general election process. Fix what is broken.
Movies
Five movies I highly recommend are Munich, Brokeback Mountain, Syriana, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Capote. I could write full blog postings on each, but gosh, if only I were paid full time to be a blogger, I would. But I digress. Oh, heck, more digressions… can I just tell you guys? I am so frustrated with movie-going, in general. There is a lot of pressure now to catch movies on their opening weekend to help support the indies, with the ways corporate cinema gauge a movie's success and failure by quickly ousting the low performing films. Or, feeling pressure to catch a film before you get tainted by too much information about it. This creates a delimma for me, as one of my biggest pet peeves in life is to be in a movie theater with people who talk during a film. People talking ruined Crash for me (another film I recommend, now out on DVD), and caused me to miss the last minute of Syriana, and created anxiety during Brokeback Mountain, too. If Entertainment Weekly wants to know why regular cinema-goers are not going to the cinema, I think the number two reason is because of poor cinema etiquette (reason #1 is $/inflation). I know! Me, you say? Give an etiquette lesson? But seriously, the last thing I want to hear when I’ve paid my hard-earned $10 to see Brokeback Mountain is some prissy person behind me gasp in awe when two guys kiss. I don’t care that she’s shocked. I just want to watch my movie. Note to you who talk during a film: the people in front of you can hear every word you say, even when you whisper. Your voice carries forward, you goobers.
Vitamin D
This Washington Post article (see the bottom) made me want to start taking Vitamin D beyond my daily multiple. If the research cited is true, using Vitamin D for cancer prevention will be the new aspirin for heart disease prevention. I love following health news, was a vegetarian for 13 years, am dedicated to improving my health, and have worked at health food stores twice. I don’t focus enough of my blogging attention to it, but after considering this article, I vow to do more.
Anna Nicole Smith
I love it that CNN had this piece about her court case and I love it that the White House, for all their troubles (war, indictments, bad economy, and tanking polls) has time to support her case. I don’t know why, but I love her. Not at all the same way have I loved George Clooney, who I look up to, but as a guilty pleasure. She really IS so outrageous. And I love it that I was at Live 8 to see her crazy appearance crashing the stage that pretty much went under the radar, until this. I think she’s a hoot. I just wish her a visit to rehab and deep happiness, and hope she gets some of Hughes’ money – that’s what he wanted, it seems. Go Anna! Even the President supports you – and doesn’t that just seem fitting?
Wishes & Gratitude
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, & Happy New Year. I am a sentimental person, and use this time of the year to look back on all that has passed, doing an assessment of how the year went and how I can do better next year. For all the crud that happened in 2005, I am happy. I am deeply blessed with great friends and family who make me laugh hard and feel love, worked with a wonderful group of warm-hearted Democrats who’ve inspired me to work harder, and have the best doggie in the whole world. A toast to 2006! May it get even better for us all – and may we have lots of victories in November, world peace, single-payer health care, and a better economy for all. And, what the heck, an Oscar for George Clooney too.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Paul Krugman: Tax Cut Zombies
The Tax-Cut Zombies
By Paul Krugman
New York Times
December 23, 2005
If you want someone to play Scrooge just before Christmas, Dick Cheney is your man. On Wednesday Mr. Cheney, acting as president of the Senate, cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of legislation that increases the fees charged to Medicaid recipients, lets states cut Medicaid benefits, reduces enforcement funds for child support, and more.
For all its cruelty, however, the legislation will make only a tiny dent in the budget deficit: the cuts total about $8 billion a year, or one-third of 1 percent of total federal spending.
So ended 2005, the year that killed any remaining rationale for continuing tax cuts. But the hunger for tax cuts refuses to die.
Since the 1970's, conservatives have used two theories to justify cutting taxes. One theory, supply-side economics, has always been hokum for the yokels. Conservative insiders adopted the supply-siders as mascots because they were useful to the cause, but never took them seriously.
The insiders' theory - what we might call the true tax-cut theory - was memorably described by David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, as "starving the beast." Proponents of this theory argue that conservatives should seek tax cuts not because they won't create budget deficits, but because they will. Starve-the-beasters believe that budget deficits will lead to spending cuts that will eventually achieve their true aim: shrinking the government's role back to what it was under Calvin Coolidge.
True to form, the insiders aren't buying the supply-siders' claim that a partial recovery in federal tax receipts from their plunge between 2000 and 2003 shows that all's well on the fiscal front. (Revenue remains lower, and the federal budget deeper in deficit, than anyone expected a few years ago.) Instead, conservative heavyweights are using the budget deficit to call for cuts in key government programs.
For example, in 2001 Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes to avoid running an excessively large budget surplus. Now he issues dire warnings about "fiscal instability." But rather than urging Congress to reverse the tax cuts he helped sell, he talks of the need to cut future Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Yet at this point starve-the-beast theory looks as silly as supply-side economics. Although a disciplined conservative movement has controlled Congress and the White House for five years - and presided over record deficits - public opposition has prevented any significant cuts in the big social-insurance programs that dominate domestic spending.
In fact, two years ago the Bush administration actually pushed through a major expansion in Medicare. True, the prescription drug bill clearly wasn't written by liberals. To a significant extent it's a giveaway to drug companies rather than a benefit for retirees. But all that corporate welfare makes the program more expensive, not less.
Conservative intellectuals had high hopes that this year President Bush would make up for this betrayal of their doctrine by dealing a death blow to Social Security as we know it. Indeed, he tried. His proposed "reform" would, over time, have essentially phased out the program. And he seemed to have everything going for him: momentum from an election victory, control of Congress and a highly sympathetic punditocracy. Yet the drive for privatization quickly degenerated from a juggernaut into a farce.
Medicaid, whose recipients are less likely to vote than the average person getting Social Security or Medicare, is the softest target among major federal social-insurance programs. But even members of Congress, it seems, have consciences. (Well, some of them.) It took intense arm-twisting from the Republican leadership, and that tie-breaking vote by Mr. Cheney, to ram through even modest cuts in aid to the neediest.
In other words, the starve-the-beast theory - like missile defense - has been tested under the most favorable possible circumstances, and failed. So there is no longer any coherent justification for further tax cuts.
Yet the cuts go on. In fact, even as Congressional leaders struggled to pass a tiny package of mean-spirited spending cuts, they pushed forward with a much larger package of tax cuts. The benefits of those cuts, as always, will go disproportionately to the wealthy.
Here's how I see it: Republicans have turned into tax-cut zombies. They can't remember why they originally wanted to cut taxes, they can't explain how they plan to make up for the lost revenue, and they don't care. Instead, they just keep shambling forward, always hungry for more.
special thanks to Dr. Bill Siroty of New Hampshire for his wonderful daily newslinks, enabling me to bypass the cheesey "Times Select" and get back to Krugman reading!
By Paul Krugman
New York Times
December 23, 2005
If you want someone to play Scrooge just before Christmas, Dick Cheney is your man. On Wednesday Mr. Cheney, acting as president of the Senate, cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of legislation that increases the fees charged to Medicaid recipients, lets states cut Medicaid benefits, reduces enforcement funds for child support, and more.
For all its cruelty, however, the legislation will make only a tiny dent in the budget deficit: the cuts total about $8 billion a year, or one-third of 1 percent of total federal spending.
So ended 2005, the year that killed any remaining rationale for continuing tax cuts. But the hunger for tax cuts refuses to die.
Since the 1970's, conservatives have used two theories to justify cutting taxes. One theory, supply-side economics, has always been hokum for the yokels. Conservative insiders adopted the supply-siders as mascots because they were useful to the cause, but never took them seriously.
The insiders' theory - what we might call the true tax-cut theory - was memorably described by David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, as "starving the beast." Proponents of this theory argue that conservatives should seek tax cuts not because they won't create budget deficits, but because they will. Starve-the-beasters believe that budget deficits will lead to spending cuts that will eventually achieve their true aim: shrinking the government's role back to what it was under Calvin Coolidge.
True to form, the insiders aren't buying the supply-siders' claim that a partial recovery in federal tax receipts from their plunge between 2000 and 2003 shows that all's well on the fiscal front. (Revenue remains lower, and the federal budget deeper in deficit, than anyone expected a few years ago.) Instead, conservative heavyweights are using the budget deficit to call for cuts in key government programs.
For example, in 2001 Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes to avoid running an excessively large budget surplus. Now he issues dire warnings about "fiscal instability." But rather than urging Congress to reverse the tax cuts he helped sell, he talks of the need to cut future Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Yet at this point starve-the-beast theory looks as silly as supply-side economics. Although a disciplined conservative movement has controlled Congress and the White House for five years - and presided over record deficits - public opposition has prevented any significant cuts in the big social-insurance programs that dominate domestic spending.
In fact, two years ago the Bush administration actually pushed through a major expansion in Medicare. True, the prescription drug bill clearly wasn't written by liberals. To a significant extent it's a giveaway to drug companies rather than a benefit for retirees. But all that corporate welfare makes the program more expensive, not less.
Conservative intellectuals had high hopes that this year President Bush would make up for this betrayal of their doctrine by dealing a death blow to Social Security as we know it. Indeed, he tried. His proposed "reform" would, over time, have essentially phased out the program. And he seemed to have everything going for him: momentum from an election victory, control of Congress and a highly sympathetic punditocracy. Yet the drive for privatization quickly degenerated from a juggernaut into a farce.
Medicaid, whose recipients are less likely to vote than the average person getting Social Security or Medicare, is the softest target among major federal social-insurance programs. But even members of Congress, it seems, have consciences. (Well, some of them.) It took intense arm-twisting from the Republican leadership, and that tie-breaking vote by Mr. Cheney, to ram through even modest cuts in aid to the neediest.
In other words, the starve-the-beast theory - like missile defense - has been tested under the most favorable possible circumstances, and failed. So there is no longer any coherent justification for further tax cuts.
Yet the cuts go on. In fact, even as Congressional leaders struggled to pass a tiny package of mean-spirited spending cuts, they pushed forward with a much larger package of tax cuts. The benefits of those cuts, as always, will go disproportionately to the wealthy.
Here's how I see it: Republicans have turned into tax-cut zombies. They can't remember why they originally wanted to cut taxes, they can't explain how they plan to make up for the lost revenue, and they don't care. Instead, they just keep shambling forward, always hungry for more.
special thanks to Dr. Bill Siroty of New Hampshire for his wonderful daily newslinks, enabling me to bypass the cheesey "Times Select" and get back to Krugman reading!
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Almost One Out Of Four Senate Chiefs of Staff is Female
With a Congressional directory sitting on my desk, I started flipping through the pages. Looking at the names of the U. S. Senate Chiefs of Staff (CoS), I simply counted how many are women. My directory perusal yielded 23 out of 100.
Of the 14 female U.S. Senators, 6 have a female CoS. Of the 5 Republican female Senators, only 1 has a female CoS, and of 9 Democratic female Senators, 5 have a female CoS.
Though the 2006 elections are a year away, many already prepare for the 2008 Presidential Elections by throwing names like Clinton and Rice around. The White House Project and the TV show Commander In Chief ignite more discussions of gender and political leadership. But as a behind the scenes person, I’m equally interested in the numbers of females serving as campaign managers, press secretaries, and chiefs of staff. I mean, Karl Rove is doing something over there in that White House, isnt’t he?
Though we’ve come far in a generation, gender matters still have some evolving to do, especially when it comes to men balancing family life and work. Gender issues in the workplace are a frequent topic of conversation amongst my friends – as in “are female bosses tougher to work for?” to “with all our advances as women, guys still have an easier time in the workplace!” to “gosh, why is it in politics that many straight guys are married with kids, and by and large many straight gals seem to have no social life at all?”
At recent soirees, I ran into old campaign trail friends - men - who are now serving as U.S. Senate Chiefs of Staff. I look up to both men, but was curious to know how many women shared their role. At another soiree, my friends and I were trying to name all 14 women serving as U.S. Senators, a number to us that seems far too low. We kept forgetting Senator Murkowski of Alaska, as we liberals pulling for Knowles blocked her from our brains… but I digress.
DISCLAIMERS: The directory I used is probably out of date. Regard this as a snapshot in time, probably printed in the late spring of 2005. As a “Kris,” I also understand that names should be construed as gender neutral. Using my best albeit subjective judgment, I googled and yahooed my way through references to the CoS in news articles or press releases to best establish CoS gender. I did not call one single Senate office to confirm the names or the genders of the current CoS. Also, regarding NJ, I kept Governor-Elect Corzine on the list and Senator-to-Be Menendez out. If you know the name and gender of Senator Menendez’s CoS, feel free to update me. Heck, feel free to update me on any of my mistakes. I would like to reflect the true genders of all CoS in the U.S. Senate.
Here is my (surely not 100% up to date) analysis from a Congressional directory from the 109th Congress, 1st Session, in no typically organized fashion:
Party/Senator's Name/Gender of CoS:
1. R Chambliss M
2. D Stabenow M
3. R Thomas M
4. R Shelby M
5. R Sessions M
6. R Stevens M
7. R Murkowski M
8. R McCain M
9. R Kyl M
10. D Pryor M
11. D Feinstein M
12. R Allard M
13. D Salazar M
14. D Biden M
15. D Carper M
16. D Nelson M
17. R Martinez M
18. R Isakson M
19. D Inouye M
20. D Akaka M
21. R Craig M
22. R Crapo M
23. D Durbin M
24. D Obama M
25. R Lugar M
26. D Bayh M
27. R Grassley M
28. D Harkin M
29. R Brownback M
30. R McConnell M
31. R Bunning M
32. R Vitter M
33. R Snowe M
34. R Collins M
35. D Kerry M
36. D Levin M
37. D Dayton M
38. R Coleman M
39. R Cochran M
40. R Lott M
41. R Talent M
42. D Baucus M
43. R Burns M
44. R Hagel M
45. D Nelson M
46. R Ensign M
47. R Gregg M
48. R Sununu M
49. D Lautenberg M
50. R Domenici M
51. D Bingaman M
52. D Schumer M
53. R Dole M
54. D Conrad M
55. R Voinovich M
56. R Inhofe M
57. R Coburn M
58. D Wyden M
59. R Smith M
60. R Specter M
61. R Santorum M
62. D Reed M
63. R Chafee M
64. R Graham M
65. R DeMint M
66. D Johnson M
67. R Thune M
68. R Alexander M
69. R Cornyn M
70. R Bennett M
71. D Leahy M
72. I Jeffords M
73. R Allen M
74. D Murray M
75. D Cantwell M
76. D Kohl M
77. R Enzi M
78. D Corzine F
79. D Sarbaines F
80. D Kennedy F
81. D Dodd F
82. D Lieberman F
83. R Burr F
84. R Hatch F
85. R Warner F
86. R Frist F
87. D Dorgan F
88. D Reid F
89. D Byrd F
90. R DeWine F
91. D Rockefeller F
92. R Roberts F
93. R Bond F
94. D Feingold F
95. D Clinton F
96. R Hutchison F
97. D Boxer F
98. D Mikulski F
99. D Landrieu F
100. D Lincoln F
RAISING MORE QUESTIONS:
How many CoS are African American, Asian American, or Latino? How many U. S. Representatives have female CoS? How about targeted campaigns’ Campaign Managers? District directors, schedulers, receptionists, Press Secretaries? How many total hill staffers are female compared to male? Campaign staff? What about race and class composition of hill and campaign staff? My inner sociologist is stirring…
Of the 14 female U.S. Senators, 6 have a female CoS. Of the 5 Republican female Senators, only 1 has a female CoS, and of 9 Democratic female Senators, 5 have a female CoS.
Though the 2006 elections are a year away, many already prepare for the 2008 Presidential Elections by throwing names like Clinton and Rice around. The White House Project and the TV show Commander In Chief ignite more discussions of gender and political leadership. But as a behind the scenes person, I’m equally interested in the numbers of females serving as campaign managers, press secretaries, and chiefs of staff. I mean, Karl Rove is doing something over there in that White House, isnt’t he?
Though we’ve come far in a generation, gender matters still have some evolving to do, especially when it comes to men balancing family life and work. Gender issues in the workplace are a frequent topic of conversation amongst my friends – as in “are female bosses tougher to work for?” to “with all our advances as women, guys still have an easier time in the workplace!” to “gosh, why is it in politics that many straight guys are married with kids, and by and large many straight gals seem to have no social life at all?”
At recent soirees, I ran into old campaign trail friends - men - who are now serving as U.S. Senate Chiefs of Staff. I look up to both men, but was curious to know how many women shared their role. At another soiree, my friends and I were trying to name all 14 women serving as U.S. Senators, a number to us that seems far too low. We kept forgetting Senator Murkowski of Alaska, as we liberals pulling for Knowles blocked her from our brains… but I digress.
DISCLAIMERS: The directory I used is probably out of date. Regard this as a snapshot in time, probably printed in the late spring of 2005. As a “Kris,” I also understand that names should be construed as gender neutral. Using my best albeit subjective judgment, I googled and yahooed my way through references to the CoS in news articles or press releases to best establish CoS gender. I did not call one single Senate office to confirm the names or the genders of the current CoS. Also, regarding NJ, I kept Governor-Elect Corzine on the list and Senator-to-Be Menendez out. If you know the name and gender of Senator Menendez’s CoS, feel free to update me. Heck, feel free to update me on any of my mistakes. I would like to reflect the true genders of all CoS in the U.S. Senate.
Here is my (surely not 100% up to date) analysis from a Congressional directory from the 109th Congress, 1st Session, in no typically organized fashion:
Party/Senator's Name/Gender of CoS:
1. R Chambliss M
2. D Stabenow M
3. R Thomas M
4. R Shelby M
5. R Sessions M
6. R Stevens M
7. R Murkowski M
8. R McCain M
9. R Kyl M
10. D Pryor M
11. D Feinstein M
12. R Allard M
13. D Salazar M
14. D Biden M
15. D Carper M
16. D Nelson M
17. R Martinez M
18. R Isakson M
19. D Inouye M
20. D Akaka M
21. R Craig M
22. R Crapo M
23. D Durbin M
24. D Obama M
25. R Lugar M
26. D Bayh M
27. R Grassley M
28. D Harkin M
29. R Brownback M
30. R McConnell M
31. R Bunning M
32. R Vitter M
33. R Snowe M
34. R Collins M
35. D Kerry M
36. D Levin M
37. D Dayton M
38. R Coleman M
39. R Cochran M
40. R Lott M
41. R Talent M
42. D Baucus M
43. R Burns M
44. R Hagel M
45. D Nelson M
46. R Ensign M
47. R Gregg M
48. R Sununu M
49. D Lautenberg M
50. R Domenici M
51. D Bingaman M
52. D Schumer M
53. R Dole M
54. D Conrad M
55. R Voinovich M
56. R Inhofe M
57. R Coburn M
58. D Wyden M
59. R Smith M
60. R Specter M
61. R Santorum M
62. D Reed M
63. R Chafee M
64. R Graham M
65. R DeMint M
66. D Johnson M
67. R Thune M
68. R Alexander M
69. R Cornyn M
70. R Bennett M
71. D Leahy M
72. I Jeffords M
73. R Allen M
74. D Murray M
75. D Cantwell M
76. D Kohl M
77. R Enzi M
78. D Corzine F
79. D Sarbaines F
80. D Kennedy F
81. D Dodd F
82. D Lieberman F
83. R Burr F
84. R Hatch F
85. R Warner F
86. R Frist F
87. D Dorgan F
88. D Reid F
89. D Byrd F
90. R DeWine F
91. D Rockefeller F
92. R Roberts F
93. R Bond F
94. D Feingold F
95. D Clinton F
96. R Hutchison F
97. D Boxer F
98. D Mikulski F
99. D Landrieu F
100. D Lincoln F
RAISING MORE QUESTIONS:
How many CoS are African American, Asian American, or Latino? How many U. S. Representatives have female CoS? How about targeted campaigns’ Campaign Managers? District directors, schedulers, receptionists, Press Secretaries? How many total hill staffers are female compared to male? Campaign staff? What about race and class composition of hill and campaign staff? My inner sociologist is stirring…
Russ Spinegold
Senator Russ Feingold had a spine when we desperately needed more folks in Washington to have one. He was the first U.S. Senator to consider troop withdrawals from Iraq, and his lone originating Patriot Act "no" vote seems prophetic now. I am glad to see Senate Democrats standing strong together on so many issues now, and admire the work they are doing, but Feingold was first.
Though liberals easily like Feingold, he remains politically viable because large numbers of swing-state Wisconsin independents voted for him and genuinely like him too.
Working in Wisconsin in 2004 enabled me to see what a man of character he is, so yesterday I added Senator Russ Feingold to my hero's list (see right-hand column.) I've been a strong John Edwards supporter, and remain so. But Chris Cillizza is right. Go, Russ, go.
Though liberals easily like Feingold, he remains politically viable because large numbers of swing-state Wisconsin independents voted for him and genuinely like him too.
Working in Wisconsin in 2004 enabled me to see what a man of character he is, so yesterday I added Senator Russ Feingold to my hero's list (see right-hand column.) I've been a strong John Edwards supporter, and remain so. But Chris Cillizza is right. Go, Russ, go.
I Wish Justice Were Blind
Reading this morning of Stanley Tookie Williams' funeral, and I can't help but think how wrong the death penalty is. Because of the redemption he had and the positive impact he made on so many, I feel putting him to death was simply the wrong thing to do.
My only hope is that something good will come out of his death. Perhaps more people will oppose the death penalty. Maybe more will mobilize to end it. Maybe it will become a cause for people like Snoop Dogg to take on. I hope Snoop uses his celebrity to raise public awareness of all the reasons the death penalty is wrong.
This is what I know for sure about the death penalty:
My only hope is that something good will come out of his death. Perhaps more people will oppose the death penalty. Maybe more will mobilize to end it. Maybe it will become a cause for people like Snoop Dogg to take on. I hope Snoop uses his celebrity to raise public awareness of all the reasons the death penalty is wrong.
This is what I know for sure about the death penalty:
- Innocent people have been put to death by the death penalty. Mr. Williams claimed to be innocent of his crimes. The mere questioning of his innocence alone makes me discount the death penalty’s necessity.
- I wish justice were blind, but more often than not a jury or judge's sentencing has more to do with the size of the defendant's pocketbook or the color of his skin than guilt or innocence.
- The death penalty isn't a crime deterrent. It does not bring back the dead. It isn't a solution to crime, but a poor punishment unworthy of an evolved society.
- If someone did a crime, punish them. I don't believe criminals should get off without punishment. They must pay their debts to society, yet the death penalty should not exist as an option to prosecutors.
- Study after study shows that no matter how much we wish to be unbiased and judge by the facts alone, certain subconscious factors - especially appearance - enter into our decision-making. This happens in all aspects of life, and I wish it weren't a part of human nature, but unfortunately it's a shortcoming most humans have. This bias impacts sentencing.
- There is nothing more final than death. The government is killing in our name as citizens, and it's the morally wrong thing to do.
- Many people around the world – including Amnesty International – declare our death penalty to be a human rights violation.
Hey everybody - if I am murdered, I do not want prosecutors to seek the death penalty for the murderer. I once signed a document saying so and put it with my will.
Coincidentally, this past weekend I saw the movie CAPOTE, and highly recommend it. It also depicts the death penalty. Philip Seymour Hoffman's talent shines in his portrayal of writer Truman Capote's way of getting the IN COLD BLOOD story. Go see this movie.
Monday, December 19, 2005
It's Not Paranoia If They Really Are Out To Get You
Bubble-boy Bush just isn't getting it yet, is he. Boldy admitting he authorized phone tapping without warrants. Well, calling all civil-libertarians! He is taping the phones of Americans without a warrant, and surely this isn't legal.
I was liking the bad press that Bush has been getting, as he's finally getting the scrutiny he's deserved for years. But now it's getting creepier and creepier. I am astounded that the Bush Administration still believes that if it says something strongly enough, and frequently enough, that they are going to get away with what they want and how they want it.
Much of the "new press" coverage on Bush's failures isn't so new to me - like these sentiments: torture is bad; the war should be stopped; Bush ignores the poor (thanks, Hurricane Katrina debates); and, my favorite reverse Robbin Hood - the Bush economy favors the rich. But this phone-tapping thing? This is different, freaky and new!
Direct phone tapping WITHOUT A WARRANT admission by Bush isn't some bold PR move, or a populist showing of strength on terror, it's just plain creepy. Good ole Orwellian, neo-totalitarian, creepiness.
If the world were a cocktail party, our country has become that creepy guy in the corner that all the women avoid for fear of being hit on. I want an un-creepy country. Daggumit, I want my country back from this neo-totalitarian Bush regime!
But how much creepier is it going to get with this President of ours? Stolen elections - got away with it. War on lies - got away with it. Rob from the poor to give to the rich - got away with it. Living in a self-contained bubble and ignoring reality - seemingly getting away with it. Indictments of chief of staff, investigations of leaders, scandals - might not get away with it, if we ever learn what he knew and when he knew it. When is he finally going to not get away with this, and when are we going to start seeing some serious investigations on this guy?
Our previous President was investigated to the tune of millions of dollars, thousands of inches of print columns, and all for something that should have been a private personal matter between his family.
Somebody with power and the legal authority has to be bold and stop the creepiness before anything else un-American happens in this country because of the Bush regime!
I don't want to live in a country that is hated world-wide, seen as a human rights offender, and viewed as forcing poor values on others.
I am deeply patriotic. This vision George Bush has is not the country I love! I love an America with freedoms, with a moral leg to stand on when it comes to human rights and treating our own citizens well.
I was liking the bad press that Bush has been getting, as he's finally getting the scrutiny he's deserved for years. But now it's getting creepier and creepier. I am astounded that the Bush Administration still believes that if it says something strongly enough, and frequently enough, that they are going to get away with what they want and how they want it.
Much of the "new press" coverage on Bush's failures isn't so new to me - like these sentiments: torture is bad; the war should be stopped; Bush ignores the poor (thanks, Hurricane Katrina debates); and, my favorite reverse Robbin Hood - the Bush economy favors the rich. But this phone-tapping thing? This is different, freaky and new!
Direct phone tapping WITHOUT A WARRANT admission by Bush isn't some bold PR move, or a populist showing of strength on terror, it's just plain creepy. Good ole Orwellian, neo-totalitarian, creepiness.
If the world were a cocktail party, our country has become that creepy guy in the corner that all the women avoid for fear of being hit on. I want an un-creepy country. Daggumit, I want my country back from this neo-totalitarian Bush regime!
But how much creepier is it going to get with this President of ours? Stolen elections - got away with it. War on lies - got away with it. Rob from the poor to give to the rich - got away with it. Living in a self-contained bubble and ignoring reality - seemingly getting away with it. Indictments of chief of staff, investigations of leaders, scandals - might not get away with it, if we ever learn what he knew and when he knew it. When is he finally going to not get away with this, and when are we going to start seeing some serious investigations on this guy?
Our previous President was investigated to the tune of millions of dollars, thousands of inches of print columns, and all for something that should have been a private personal matter between his family.
Somebody with power and the legal authority has to be bold and stop the creepiness before anything else un-American happens in this country because of the Bush regime!
I don't want to live in a country that is hated world-wide, seen as a human rights offender, and viewed as forcing poor values on others.
I am deeply patriotic. This vision George Bush has is not the country I love! I love an America with freedoms, with a moral leg to stand on when it comes to human rights and treating our own citizens well.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Clooney: "I knew it then and I don’t have national security clearance."
I love George Clooney.
I love George Clooney because he's smart, he understands what's really going on in the world, and he's genuinely talented.
I love him because he's more clearly articulated what's frustrating me about U.S. Senate Democrats than I could myself.
Go see SYRIANA and GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK, if you haven't already. I saw both on their opening nights in DC. Both are tremendous in their own right, with interesting depictions of issues facing our nation today: freedom of speech vs. fear-filled demagoguing for the later and the connections within oil & corporate influence on world affairs for the former.
The quality of Clooney's performances, writing, directing, and overall career choices of late should garner him a statue or two this awards season. He's already received three Golden Globe nominations, one for acting in SYRIANA, and two for directing and writing GOOD NIGHT - much deserved. Sounds good too that he only made $2.00 for Good Night, and Good Luck, according to the London Times, and only $250,000 for Syriana. He boasts that money isn't the reason he makes decisions anymore - how endearing is that to my bleeding-heart?
Clooney never needed to do anything but be himself to win my support and accolades. His ability to bring lots of stars together to raise money for the 911 and tsunami victims, along with his championing the One Campaign alongside arch-Christian-Conservative Pat Robertson, prove he's a solid, quality man through and through. His appearance on Oprah was simply charming.
I love George Clooney because he's smart, he understands what's really going on in the world, and he's genuinely talented.
I love him because he's more clearly articulated what's frustrating me about U.S. Senate Democrats than I could myself.
Go see SYRIANA and GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK, if you haven't already. I saw both on their opening nights in DC. Both are tremendous in their own right, with interesting depictions of issues facing our nation today: freedom of speech vs. fear-filled demagoguing for the later and the connections within oil & corporate influence on world affairs for the former.
The quality of Clooney's performances, writing, directing, and overall career choices of late should garner him a statue or two this awards season. He's already received three Golden Globe nominations, one for acting in SYRIANA, and two for directing and writing GOOD NIGHT - much deserved. Sounds good too that he only made $2.00 for Good Night, and Good Luck, according to the London Times, and only $250,000 for Syriana. He boasts that money isn't the reason he makes decisions anymore - how endearing is that to my bleeding-heart?
Clooney never needed to do anything but be himself to win my support and accolades. His ability to bring lots of stars together to raise money for the 911 and tsunami victims, along with his championing the One Campaign alongside arch-Christian-Conservative Pat Robertson, prove he's a solid, quality man through and through. His appearance on Oprah was simply charming.
I love it that Clooney wears his liberalism as if it's a bumper-sticker across his forehead. As someone personally attacked as a "liberal" - as if it's negative! - by various politicos over my years on the campaign trail, I am glad he helps us reclaim the honor in the title.
Some may question why actors get media coverage for political commentary. They are Americans, and questioning their right to speak out is pure crap.
Some may question why actors get media coverage for political commentary. They are Americans, and questioning their right to speak out is pure crap.
Clooney's message is proof that he can articulate his liberal agenda better than anybody here in DC. The Advocate, one of the nation's leading gay publications, features Clooney in a fascinating cover story, as another example.
I hope he gets to make many acceptance speeches this coming awards season, because he deserves the honors and what he'll say is worthyof a listen.
Total digression: I love him because he's a fellow Kentuckian, Cincy Reds fan, and his father, Nick, should have been elected the Congressman from the 4th District (he got my largest donation ever) to succeed my former boss, Ken Lucas.
I hope he gets to make many acceptance speeches this coming awards season, because he deserves the honors and what he'll say is worthyof a listen.
Total digression: I love him because he's a fellow Kentuckian, Cincy Reds fan, and his father, Nick, should have been elected the Congressman from the 4th District (he got my largest donation ever) to succeed my former boss, Ken Lucas.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Another Reason I Believe In Miracles...and the #1 Reason I'll Never Skydive
CNN gives the AP story of Shayna Richardson, a woman who survives a skydiving accident then, when in the hospital recovering, discovers she is pregnant. This story indeed is stunning. When I read about it on the metro this morning, I gasped.
Wolf Blitzer gets a Shayna interview in "THE SITUATION ROOM!"
I am facinated to hear this story once, and really glad she survived, but I feel badly for the baby who is going to have to hear this story her or his whole life... "Great, Mom! PLEASE! Tell me the 'my parachute gave out and we almost died, but that's how I found out I was pregnant with you, and you should be greatful we feed and clothe you' story for the 12-millionth time! I forgot about the first 11,999,999 times. Now can I please have the keys?"
Dear regular readers - sorry I've been lazy with my blog lately. As usual, I have plenty I could post - plenty that peeks my brain... but now with two jobs and no home internet, I'll have to temporarily hold off on my longer, more political postings and relegate my dear readers to the stunning or brief.
By the way, Shayna wants to skydive again!
WHAT IS SHE THINKING?
Chalk it up to miracle, have that baby, and take up another hobby... one that doesn't so directly endanger your life. Say... nitting? SuDoKu? Heck, even mountain biking, like the President. You're a baby-mamma now, girl!
Wolf Blitzer gets a Shayna interview in "THE SITUATION ROOM!"
I am facinated to hear this story once, and really glad she survived, but I feel badly for the baby who is going to have to hear this story her or his whole life... "Great, Mom! PLEASE! Tell me the 'my parachute gave out and we almost died, but that's how I found out I was pregnant with you, and you should be greatful we feed and clothe you' story for the 12-millionth time! I forgot about the first 11,999,999 times. Now can I please have the keys?"
Dear regular readers - sorry I've been lazy with my blog lately. As usual, I have plenty I could post - plenty that peeks my brain... but now with two jobs and no home internet, I'll have to temporarily hold off on my longer, more political postings and relegate my dear readers to the stunning or brief.
By the way, Shayna wants to skydive again!
WHAT IS SHE THINKING?
Chalk it up to miracle, have that baby, and take up another hobby... one that doesn't so directly endanger your life. Say... nitting? SuDoKu? Heck, even mountain biking, like the President. You're a baby-mamma now, girl!
Monday, December 05, 2005
Check Out Wonkette
For the President's evolving vision. So much for that whole "mission accomplished" thing a few years ago...
