Infinite Hope

Challenges have the uncanny ability to sharpen our focus. A knee injury will make you more mindful of walking than ever before. Bad food introduces you to taste buds you never knew existed. Adrenaline enables amazing physical feats.

The same is true for political movements. Progressives are smarting now. Many on the left are disenchanted with the President, disappointed in the pending health care legislation and disillusioned about the 2010 mid-term elections. What’s a movement to do?

Real progress

We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope. – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Our renewed focus is an opportunity to build a foundation for future success, resilience and empowerment. This means taking stock of the real progress being made in this moment while simultaneously fighting to transition society from its peppered past to a progressive future.

President Obama was mindful of this when he said in his Martin Luther King, Jr. address that:

…our predecessors were never so consumed with theoretical debates that they couldn’t see progress when it came…Let’s take a victory, he said, and then keep on marching. Forward steps, large and small, were recognized for what they were — which was progress.

What victories have we won? A few include:

• Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, bringing us a step closer to fully realizing equal pay for equal work.
• Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, an important step in providing health care for all of our nation’s children.
• Softened Federal restrictions on stem cell research, opening the door for potential cures to innumerable diseases.

Where do we go from here

Martha Coakley and others’ recent electoral defeats echo the sentiment of the 2008 Presidential election: candidates who proactively or passively represent a broken status quo will fail. Insiders can no longer combine tepid emotions and bland appeals with party machines and expect victory. They instead must take the hope demonstrated by the 2008 election and marry it to action.

The infinite hope that Dr. King spoke of us present within the progressive movement. Young people are organizing like never before in favor of comprehensive immigration reform reflective of America’s ideals, not its demons. Their hope is moving them to action.

That infinite hope is present in the hearts of millions of ambitious yet unemployed Americans. People are coming together to petition their government to work on their behalf to create jobs rather than give handouts to industries that have turned their backs on their employees. The hope of these workers is moving them to action.

That hope still exists in health care. Amidst the angst of the centrists, the exasperation of many Progressives and the perverse cynicism of corporate and conservative interests, the American people remain thirsty for quality, affordable health care. The current proposals have their differences and flaws, but our communities are speaking up in unison when they demand a health care system that works for them. Listening to the practical, conscientious voice of constituents would have led to a substantive debate that disregarded idiocy while embracing the courageous optimism of the American spirit.

Stop Fake Fundraising Reform

Fake version of Obama

Being fake is like driving the wrong way on the freeway: dumb, dangerous, and destructive. This is true in life, relationships, and public policy.

Stop Fake Reform

Last week I signed a letterto the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) calling each out for stopping the acceptance of PAC & lobbyist money for one day — the day President Obama comes to fund-raise for them.

Why this is a problem

Private money perverts politics. It destroys electoral integrity by weighting the outcome in favor of moneyed interests. The DSCC & DCCC are perfectly fine with this. President Obama is not. I’m not either.

Campaigns & elections should be publicly financed. Our taxes pay the salaries of elected officials already, so why don’t we pay for their selection too? That way, things won’t get too out of control (we won’t waste money), and we’ll be more likely to hold people accountable (because we literally paid for them to be there).

Join me, several other prominent Black & progressive bloggers, and 2,400+ other people  in signing this letter and stopping this madness.

Stop Fake Reform now.

Remember: nothing changes until something changes.

One Love. One II.

Photo Credit: tideswimmer on Flickr

The WRONG Way to Pass Legislation

The Senate broke my heart by passing the bailout Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (note the re-framing) overwhelmingly.

What’s really eating at me though is the way that it passed. In an attempt to make the bill more palatable to members of  Republicans in the House, they packed the bill with pork. Sure, this is how business gets done in Washington, but in this case it’s really, really, really sick. See some examples of the garbage in this bill here.

With all of the quasi-economic-populist rhetoric going on as this election draws nearer, why not throw in substantive measures to make this bill more palatable to homeowners, consumers, and everyday citizens? Isn’t that what economic populism is all about?

We need a change in Washington. Yes, I agree that we need a new President, and I think that new President should be Barack Obama. But what we really need is a change in how Washington works. This bill passed the way most bills pass in Washington: too quickly, without enough scrutiny, packed with “sweeteners” for politicians instead of people.

I wish my candidate & his VP (and, frankly, their opponent) hadn’t supported this. When a Democratic Senator who’s name is not on this list tells you they put regular people first, do a double-take.

Democratic Senators that Voted ‘No’ on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

• Maria Cantwell (WA)
• Byron Dorgan (ND)
• Russ Feingold (WI)
• Tim Johnson (SD)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)
• Bill Nelson (FL)
• Bernie Sanders (VT)
• Debbie Stabenow (MI)
• John Tester (MT)
• Ron Wyden (OR)

One Love. One II.

P.S. When was the last time that opposing candidates voted the same way on a such controversial legislation this close to an election?

To Attack Community Organizers is to Attack Black Political Thought

This piece is part of Day of Blogging for Community Organizing Justice: “I Am a Community Organizer”.

Republicans don’t like Community Organizers. Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin ridiculed them specifically in their speeches last Wednesday at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. This modern crop of Republicans has demonstrated how much they hate grassroots organizing in many ways with their hatred or unionization, their damnation of dissenters inside and outside of the government, and their willingness to ignore the rights, thoughts, and actions of the people of foreign nations that they decide to invade destroy occupy “help”.

While these positions on their own are outrageous and not in line with the ideals of the America that Republicans claim to love so much, it is consistent with another thread of modern-day Republican rhetoric and practice: racism.

For every generation leading up to [and including] the current one, the only foray for Black people to better their lives collectively has been through community organizing. When I say community organizing, I don’t just mean the highly visible ones like Malcolm & Martin, I mean the invisible ones that most of us will never hear or speak of that sacrifice their time, treasure, and talents so that people’s day-to-day lives are better and that their voices are heard. This is the path that nearly all Black politicians have taken to attain the capital needed to even run for office, let alone win. For one to minimize the work of organizers is to minimize the thoughts, actions, and efforts of all minorities and underrepresented groups who wish to uplift themselves individually and as a whole.

Michelle Obama Tries to Create an Era of Understanding

Michelle Obama gave a phenomenal speech on Monday night. I have no idea how her husband is going to top her.

I found it fitting that both Obama & Clinton, archetypes for women’s rights and advancement, set the stage for the future of this country’s Democratic agenda. Specifically, both women will be re-defining what their next positions as First Lady and Senator/Former Presidential Candidate mean and how they are managed. Both Mrs. Obama and Sen. Clinton were tasked with re-presenting themselves to the people, for different reasons. Obama had to give us a new image because hers is being assaulted by the conservative press. 

Creating an Era of Understanding

Michelle Obama’s speech (full text & video) was one of the most tactically written, beautifully executed addresses in this generation, and she isn’t even a politician. Her and her speech writers successfully reframed both her and Sen. Obama as family people, as Americans, as people who have a Black version of white America’s experience. The reason that she even had to give that speech is because there is a fundamental misunderstanding between Black people and other people about the similarities and differences between one another’s life experiences. One would think that in a society where Black and white have been juxtaposed for approaching 400 years, white people’s pre-conceived notions about Black women would bear some semblance of accuracy. This is not the case, and it is up to the future First Lady to do what Black men & women have to do all too often: carry the image of their entire race on their shoulders in everything that they say and do.

This unfortunate reality will persist as long as there is misunderstanding. There can be no “post-racial” society (sidebar: I hate the term post-racial) or “post-anything” society without first building bridges of understanding and empathy between races, sexes, genders, cultures, sexual orientations, etc. The understanding is something that must be both actively pursued and actively distributed, meaning that we can’t just close our eyes and snap our fingers and have everyone magically move beyond racial tensions. Michelle and Barack Obama have the largest megaphone with which they can usher in this Era of Understanding, and I’m looking to them to set an example for others to emulate.

This is the type of change that we need.

One Love. One II.

Live at the DNC – I survived a PUMA

I’m finally at a place where I can write a full on post about what I’ve seen thus far at the Convention. It’s been interesting. In order to stay up to the minute on what I’m seeing, follow The SuperSpade on Twitter at http://twitter.com/superspade, where I’ll be sending updates from my phone on various events.

The PUMAs are coming

My shuttle ride in from the airport was 2.5 hours long. I shared that shuttle with an Obama volunteer, 2 Hillary Clinton delegates from Virginia, and a woman from Real Democrats in DC. What I found in them all were women that were ostensibly passionate about democratic and the Democratic Party, but who underneath were actually angry and disappointed in their party’s treatment of Hillary Clinton and how the party selects its nominee.

Some of the arguments made sense, but others had a strange hint of ‘my discrimination is better than yours’, even if it wasn’t intentional. For example, the Hillary folks never liked the caucus process, and I never really understood why. Now I do. They felt like caucuses gave some voters the chance to intimidate other voters in certain districts. Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be confused: that is code for Black voters scared away white voters in Black districts. It’s just like calling Barack Obama arrogant: the “pc” way of saying that he is out of place.

They did have a different take on why her time as First Lady should count as experience: the analogy was a family-owned business. In many cases, the husband’s name is on everything (loans, bills, etc.) and the wife may not even be on the official payroll. Nevertheless, she contributes to the business operations (management of paperwork, employees, travel planning, etc.) and also is effectively a consultant on business strategy and decisions (e.g. Should we open another store across town? Should I hire an intern? etc.). This I think has merit, since I KNOW that I consult significant other when making business decisions. The nuance of this though was probably lost in the election mayhem.

Another thing they said was that a lot of older women in the Northeast were withholding their money from the DNC, which is dangerous considering the amount of money that the Republican Party has been raising ($75 million compared to the Democrats’ $28 million).

What do they want?

Something has to be done to bring these women to the table. When I asked the woman from Real Democrats who she wanted held accountable, her answers were:

• The Democratic National Committee for ignoring their complaints on caucus practices
• The Obama Campaign for doing that and taking these upset voters for granted

None of these women had plans to vote for John McCain. They said that most of these women in their movement were hardcore Democrats that wouldn’t cross over; they’d rather stay home than do that. The problem is, crossing over and staying home have the same effect. I pushed her on this point and here response was “no stance, no respect.” Truer words were never spoken, even if I don’t like this particular context.

The really scary part: Hillary doesn’t control them

The press and the Obama campaign keeps saying that Hillary Clinton needs to “get her supporters in line.” These women were very clear when they said to me that there was nothing that Hillary Clinton could do or say to change their position. Nothing. What that means is that this thing has legs all its own, and their going to keep kicking and screaming.

Hopefully though, it’ll somehow die this week.

One Love. One II.

Integrity, Impeachment, and Movement-based Politics

I received an email today from Dennis Kucinich (remember him?) regarding his introduction of an Article of Impeachment on the House floor, which is scheduled to take place today. In the message was a link to a petition that people can sign to show support.

From the email:

The article of Impeachment will deal directly with President Bush fraudulently obtaining support for an attack on Iraq by creating a false case for war. Full details of the Article of Impeachment will be available after they are read on the floor of the House by Congressman Kucinich.

I have written on this site that I support impeachment. Further, I conducted an online survey in which 54% of people said that they too supported impeachment. Sign the petition and show your support too!

Movements are based on principles

Kucinich is taking a principled stance on impeachment, and I believe it is not only an important stance, but it also sets an excellent example of how politics should be conducted.

Election-based politics are not based on principle, they instead are based on convenience, expediency, and the electability myth. On the other hand, movement-based politics are based on agreement on ideology, on goals, on a way of doing things.

Let’s strongly support politicians who do not compromise their integrity and principles in search of a mythical middle ground. If you agree with someone in principle, you can work through differences in implementation. But the foundation of meaningful conversation must be a common goal. By being open, asking the right questions, and talking honestly, we can find the commonality we need to move forward.

One Love. One II.

What Middle Ground?

There is a disturbing trend happening in politics & political discussion today. In the name of compromise or searching for the “middle ground,” people doing nothing more than diluting their positions to the point where they are actually not positions at all.

What I’m saying is this: for the larger issues we face, there is no middle ground. That’s right. Most issues in today’s political discourse are simple binary, yes or no, support or no support questions.

Barack Obama: Nominee

Yes, The SuperSpade is brand new again. I’ll write about that specifically later, but I am elated that the first post on this new website is about a genuine Black History, American History moment.

[After giving his wife dap,] Barack Obama stepped to the podium and declared himself the undisputed [by everyone except Hillary Clinton] Democratic nominee for the President of the United States. In the same moment, he made broad statements about who he is, what he wants, and what he believes, and coupled those with thanks to Hillary Clinton and harsh words for hs Republican opponent, John McCain. I actually don’t think it was his best speech of the campaign thus far. But nevertheless, on the biggest night of his political life, he did not disappoint.

Barack Obama’s Democratic Nomination Acceptance Speech

5 things you should be talking about

What’s up fam,

I wanted to hit a variety of topics today.

1) First off, why is there not more coverage of the relief efforts of people impacted by the earthquakes in China and Myanmar? In case you hadn’t read, nearly 70,000 people died in this earthquake and millions more are now homeless. To help put it in context, imagine instantly losing 7 people in your life without being able to say goodbye and multiply that grief by 100,000. I guess coverage of the earthquake is worth far less than what the DNC RBC planned to do with the Michigan and Florida delegates.

Obama should drop out

No I don’t think this should be the case. However, a recent development has occurred whereby a woman that posts regularly posts on dailykos has resigned for what she deemed as unfair bias against her preferred candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton. Here is an excerpt from her open letter to the blogosphere.

Democratic party realignment?

So I should definitely should have been packing and sleeping by now but hey, life is life. I think this election has the potential to end up serving as a catalyst for a major political realignment whereby Black people largely disassociate themselves from the Democratic Party. I believe this of course provided that it appears the powers that be Clinton “stole” the nomination from Obama. One simple fact in politics is that you dance with the person who brought you to the ball.

In this respect, Black voters have shown overwhelming support for Obama while Clinton has focused heavily on Latinos. I am sure some of Clinton’s advisers are trying to devise a general election strategy where they can get Latinos to pick up the slack that Black folk used to be reliable for. If enacted, this plan would hopefully generate a sustainable grassroots movement where Black people start to seek solutions from each other and not the Party. What do you think?

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

Senator Obama wins!!!

I am excited that Obama won although to be honest, I never expected him to lose. Regardless, this is a historic time and I am happy to be a part of the process. (full disclosure: I have donated money to the Obama campaign) I think the real story from Iowa is the coveted No. 2 spot and I think this bodes well for Edwards and my prediction is that Clinton comes out of Iowa but Obama pulls out of South Carolina because hopefully the Black folks in SC will feel safer voting for Obama.

Regardless of who gets the nomination, real change starts with you.

Stay up fam,
Brandon

Kucinich asks Iowa supporters to caucus for Obama

From dailykos

Kucinich asks IA supporters to caucus for Obama
by kos
Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:57:21 PM PST

in 2004, Kucinich instructed his caucus supporters to cast their lot with Edwards, playing a role in killing Howard Dean’s presidential ambitions. This year, he’s abandoning Edwards for Obama.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.”

Funny that Kucinich endorsed the war-supporting conservative Edwards in 2004, but has now ditched the far more progressive 2008 edition. I’ll never understand that guy.

Now in 2004, Kucinich clocked in at 4 percent in the entrance poll, while he’s polling around 1 percent this time around. Then again, he polled at around 2 percent last time and doubled that in actual results. So if history repeats itself, that’s two percentage points at stake. Not exactly decisive, but definitely helpful. This thing is so tight, that every percentage point will matter.

More important will be the five percent Biden seems to be getting, and the seven percent Richardson is polling.

I have a feeling that Biden’s supporters are more the Hillary type, so maybe Richardson will get to play kingmaker.

Barack Obama makes statement in support of Jena 6

Cross-posted from Brave New Films Blog.

Barack Obama has become the first presidential hopeful to make a statement regarding the Jena 6. I applaud him for giving this crisis of American "justice" the attention it deserves.

Here's an excerpt:

Going forward, we have to fix our criminal justice system. Whether it’s Jena 6 or Genarlow Wilson, it’s long past time for us to admit that we have more work to do to ensure that our criminal justice system is fair. We must ensure that both victims and defendants can receive equal justice under the law, regardless of race, wealth, or other circumstances.

I have called for other candidates to do the same. Maybe then actual justice can be served. I wonder if the other Dems will talk about this now?

One Love. One II

The Congressional Business Caucus

Jonathan Chait of The New Republic says that the Congressional Black Caucus is trying hard to get into bed with big business and lobbyists.

Why would they want to do that? Probably because instead of being better than the Republicans, some members would secretly rather be just like the Republicans, at least in the way they handle the political process. What these members fail to realize is that it’s pretty hard to find Washington Republicans that have Black folks’ best interests at heart, and even harder to find a major US Corporation that has Black folks’ best interests at heart.

Just as before, we ask that you contact members of the CBC and ask that they turn this trend around and get back to the vision and goals of the original members of the caucus:

to promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens

You thought we were done with the CBC, didn’t you?

One Love. One II.

Free the Jena 6!!!

I typically don’t listen to talk radio outside of NPR, but thankfully I came across the Michael Baisden show today and he was focusing on the Jena 6. I know his show is broadcast across the country and I hope that his show raises the consciousness of his listeners as he lent huge support to the rally taking place on September 20^th.

Black bloggers have been on top of this from Jack and Jill, Too Sense, Afrospear, and many others. Nevertheless, if you don’t know about the Jena 6 here is the basic run down.

In a small still mostly segregated section of rural Louisiana, an all-white jury heard a series of white witnesses called by a white prosecutor testify in a courtroom overseen by a white judge in a trial about a fight at the local high school where a white student who had been making racial taunts was hit by Black students.

One-on-One Presidential Debates

A lot of people think that Presidential debates don’t really mean a lot. They see them as a bunch of people making meaningless, empty, rhetorical statements.

I think that is sentiment is true for the most part. I do think that there is a solution: One-on-one debates. The reason is simple. It is much harder to get away with B.S. statements when you are giving them to one person than it is when giving it to a group.

Covenant, meet D-Presidential candidates

I know people really don’t watch TV during the summer but I need you to watch the Presidential Debate tonight on PBS, hosted by Tavis Smiley at 9 ET. If you will recall, Tavis Smiley announced these debates when The Covenant was released and the topics covered in the debate will focus on the key priorities outlined in the book. Tonight will feature Democratic candidates and Republicans will debate on September 27^th. If any of you have ever heard Tavis, give an interview, the brother is extremely adept at asking probing questions. I forgot to mention that both debates will be held at HBCUs with Howard hosting tonight and Morgan State hosting in September. We are giving a hat tip to Tavis and the great work he continues to do for the community. Check your local listings, and if you can’t be at home, you can watch the debate online. Expect follow-up coverage from The SuperSpade.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

The CBC is a trip

Check this out, “Twenty-six members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have signed letters to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) urging them to reconsider their decisions to skip a debate cosponsored by the CBC Institute and Fox News.”

Bush doesn’t like the troops, I don’t like Bush

I really, really don’t like this guy. Why do he and his political allies talk all this noise about “supporting the troops” when they treat them like the little green army men that small children play war with?

Case in point: Democrats today called for the President to support a compensation increase for the soldiers via The National Defense Authorization Act:

Obama and Clinton back Iraq Pullout Deadline

Wow.

It takes a lot for most politicians to be explicit about something. Anything. These two are definitely no exception. The strange similarities between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton’s stances on Iraq continue, but they took a turn for the better yesterday. Instead of dancing around the idea of having a firm date for US troop withdrawal like they did in the past, both of them voted yesterday to set a 31 March 2008 for US troops to be out of Iraq. While it is sad that these two candidates are some of the last to have some Iraq sense knocked into them, this is actually a good sign for anti-occupation efforts.

Want to watch the Presidential Debates Online?

Did you know that it is illegal to show clips of Presidential Debates on YouTube? That’s because TV networks have exclusive rights to the video. That’s ridiculous, don’t you think? If these people are running for public office, then the things they do to campaign should be publicly available, right?

We thought so too, which is why we signed this letter to the Democratic and Republican National Committees urging them to put the debates into the public domain. It is time for us to fight for access to the media and for access to information.

Obama: Logic and Excitement

And we loved him cause, in him we, saw some of us
He walked like ussss, talked like ussss – Jay Z

From the song, Meet the Parents

I think the excerpt above epitomizes the appeal of one, Senator and Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. It simultaneously, explains the vigor by which individuals will defend and support Senator Obama whenever he is attacked by mainstream media or leading political figures. So are people too sensitive when it comes to Obama that they can’t at the same time hold him accountable?

In some of my conversations with other Black folk, I have often heard that we must take care to be just as objective in our analysis of Obama as we are towards other candidates. And I agree with this logic up to a point. I think that it is unwise to bottle the excitement that the Obama campaign is generating. The only way that the Democrats will take the White House is if new voters are mobilized, young people, and so-called independents and right of center Republicans switch sides. But even if Obama does not win the nomination, who else do you think is capable of mobilizing these crucial groups?

Having said that, I know it seems like many people have drank the Obama Kool-Aid without knowing the flavor as it were. But that is OK. And here’s why. If we, (as activists who try to achieve positive change with as many people as possible) are really honest, we don’ think there are enough “conscious” folks who are willing to do the grassroots work that will inspire real change. In my opinion, we should think about Obama’s campaign as a way to pull people into the movement that would otherwise not be engaged.

So my fear is that in our quest to make sure that we hold Obama accountable, we miss out on tapping the groundswell of excitement that can be used for things that have nothing to do with politics. In so many ways, Presidential elections have very little to do with the actual candidate. While I agree that we should Obama accountable, we should first ask if we are holding each other accountable. When that happens, we can achieve greatness regardless of who holds the White House.

Stay up fam,

Categories:
Senator Obama

What Congress is Doing

Here are a couple examples of alarming things that were happening during the Bush Administration that we did not know or would never have found out about until we had Congressional Oversight:

FBI Abuses of Spying – This should send chilling reminders of COINTELPRO
Attorney General firing judges who pursued corruption investigations against Republicans

Here are a few things that could possibly have been prevented if there had been Congressional Oversight before this year:

Patriot Act
Warrantless wiretapping
Secret monitoring of Bank Accounts

The Democrats are now the Majority Party in the Senate and the House of Representatives, due to the result of the elections this past November. Now that they have been in for a couple of months (they were elected in November 2006 but not officially sworn in until 4 Jan 2007), you are beginning to see some differences in how things are working.

The act of exposing and acting as a check and balance within the government is called oversight (when done by Congress, it is Congressional Oversight). That is something we haven’t seen since 2000. What this means is that there is now one branch that can look over the shoulder of the other two. There is someone there to hit the brakes on crazy or dangerous governmental intentions. There is a way now for people to be able to see what is happening in our government and not be stonewalled in the name of national security or not needing to know.

A concept key to how our government works is called Checks and Balances. This basically means that each branch of government (in the U.S., the branches are: Executive (President), Legislative (Senate & House), Judicial (Supreme Court)) has a way to keep the other branches in check and keep power evenly balanced between the branches. If all three branches of government are operating checking and balancing one another, no one branch should dominate the other two. When this is not case, it can lead to terrible things.

Since 2000 when G. W. Bush took office, we have been experiencing governance without checks and balances. The Republican-led Congress laid down for whatever the Republican President said or demanded. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which installed Bush, also sat by idly. That changed with the 2006 election, and now we have a situation where there is a Republican President and a conservative Supreme Court, but there is a Democratic House and Senate, meaning that we are no longer effectively a one-party system.

This is important to understand because understanding how and why things happen the way they do is key to understanding how to make things happen in ways that we want. I believe that we are only scratching the surface when it comes to all of the shady stuff we may find out about that has been going on over the past 6 years. I am also afraid that it will take longer for the Democrats to undo what it only took the Republicans 6 years to do. Thank God they have started down this long road.

So the next time that you or someone asks, “What’s this Congress doing?” You can say, “Their Job.”

One Love. One II.

Categories
Politics
Democrats
Republicans
Congress

What the Democratic State of the Union Response Lacked

I think that the Democratic response was a decent speech. I think Jim Webb is setting himself up to be somebody’s Vice Presidential candidate next year, but who knows. I do believe that the speech lacked two key things:

1. Katrina Response
I will kick this horse until my foot falls off. This was a tremendous opportunity to talk about what needs to be done and what will be done. This was a great opportunity to differentiate the Democrats and the Republicans on this issue. This was a prime opportunity to help out poor people who are on the bottom end of the “two americas” rhetoric. Sadly, this did not happen. This hurts the Democrats ability to be able to say that they care about poor people [and Black people for that matter].

2. The Post-100 Hours Democratic Agenda
Democrats could have used this as a stage to lay out to everyone what their next steps will be to follow up their successful execution of their “100 Hours” plan. What are the priorities now? Will they turn towards foreign policy thru diplomacy? Impeachment? Health care? This would have been a chance to keep the attention on actions.

One Love. One II.

Categories:
Politics
State of the Union
Democrats
Hurricane Katrina

Democratic Response to the 2007 State of the Union

Newly-elected Senator Jim Webb from Virginia gave the official Democratic Response to the State of the Union last night. I’d like to break down what he said here.

First, a slight omission: Bush did not give Katrina one sentence; Webb gave it gave it one phrase. I guess that is better than nothing, but it still sucks.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and health care for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

This was a good opening statement, and I agree with all of it it except for the last phrase, which doesn’t make any sense. To say that the Democrats hope “that this administration is serious about…addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans” is not needed because it is clear that this is not a priority. It would have made more sense to phrase this part as a challenge followed by a Democratic plan for the Gulf Coast.

The fact that Webb said “it would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful” is good because it says “we don’t want to argue, we want to act.” I pray that that is more than just rhetoric.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries…In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

This was the strongest part of the speech. It focused on the need to remember that the Middle Class is critical to the success of our nation for both economic and emotional reasons. The economic reasons are relatively obvious in terms of the amount of money that these people can spend. The emotional reasons should be relatively obvious too because this gives those who are poorer something to aspire to. Unfortunately, as Webb points out, there are people in this country who want to eradicate the Middle Class by engaging in class warfare, using the weapons of high education and health care/insurance costs to push those who are currently middle class down to a lower level of economic vitality.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years…they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

Though obvious to some, this statement cannot be repeated enough: we made the wrong choice when deciding to invade Iraq, and we are continuing to make the wrong choice by staying there. The voters made this clear in November, and the government must pay attention. The Congress must do everything within its constitutional mandate to protect us from a heavy-handed, non-thinking executive. This was not happening when everyone was a Republican. Perhaps that will change now that a different party is running the House and Senate.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction…an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

Note the words “immediate” and “short order.” These can be translated to mean “Get out, and get out now! No ’surge.’ No ’staying until we achieve [the yet-to-be-defined-state-of] victory.” This is what voters told their government in November that they wanted. The government needs to respond to the will of the people.

One Love. One II.

Categories:
Politics
State of the Union
Democrats

2007 State of the Union: A Translation

Here is my real-time analysis of G. W. Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address. This is a shortcut for anyone that did not watch the speech on TV or listen to it.

First, an omission. He did not say a word about Hurricane Katrina. That made me so upset that I nearly shed tears.

Madame Speaker…

This actually started well. Hearing this reminds me of how historic it is for Rep. Nancy Pelosi to be the Speaker of the House, the most powerful woman ever in the United States Congress. I wonder if Mr. Bush was sincere in his words to her during his opening remarks.

Decisions are hard, and courage is needed…The will to face difficult challenges…Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities…

These guarded statements are said to try and disarm his opposition within the Democratically-controlled Congress. What these statements basically mean is, “I will give lip service to working together, but expect nothing different out of me and my administration.”

3 Economic Reforms that deserve to be priorities…Balance the Federal Budget…We can do so without raising taxes…What we need is spending discipline in Washington…Earmarks…Entitlements…Commitments of Conscience…Fix Medicare and Medicaid, and save Social Security…

This was the first “meat” of the speech. He spit typical conservative banter about “fiscal responsibility,” and it is simply banter because this administration has been arguably the most fiscally irresponsible administrations in history. A key example of this irresponsibility: Iraq. The “we can do so without raising taxes” part is consistent with Bush’s insistence on cutting taxes while we are at “war,” something that has never happened before.

The stuff on “earmarks” is a joke because those will not go away any time soon since Republicans and Democrats use them all the time.

Conservatives use the term “entitlements” to deceive people. They need to do this so that they can make you feel bad about the government doing things for you. They play up this farce so that people feel bad taking things from the government that they select & elect. Funny how there was no mention of corporate entitlements in the form of war profiteering or the Bankruptcy Bill a.k.a. the worst piece of legislation since the Patriot Act (which a certain person voted for, and that really bothers me).

The future of opportunity requires that all of our citizens have affordable and available health care…For all other Americans, private health insurance provides the best option…Standard Health Insurance Tax Deduction…Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care available to all Americans

I don’t even know why this man fronts like he wants all Americans to have health insurance. If so, he would at least put a dent in the 40+ million people who don’t. He and his friends still think it is a bad idea to realize Universal Health Care through what’s called a Single-payer system. Basically, single-payer means that only one party negotiates for the price of health insurance and services: the government. Every citizen would then have their health costs covered through what they pay in taxes. This would result in higher taxes for the citizens, but those increased costs probably would not add up to the amount that people overpay for health services every day, month, and year. The idea of trying to get everyone to go private is as ridiculous as the privatize social security plan that he had a while back (and still has). This is also consistent with the way that the “war” in Iraq has been privatized. These pro-business, anti-citizen types always think private is the answer so that they can take money away from public institutions and services.

Extending hope and opportunity in this country requires an immigration policy that is worthy of America

I won’t say much on this. I think that Bush’s guest worker idea sounds a whole lot like new school indentured servitude. For those that don’t know, this was the precursor to slavery in this country. I do not think that the parallel is coincidental.

Reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the next 10 years…

How??? His mandatory fuel standard statement was weak at best, especially in the midst of his administration and its energy policy.

Global climate change…

He can’t say global warming because that does not exist. So rather than being a flip-flopper (we know how much he hates those), he has decided to use a different term: global climate change. This is his backwards way of admitting that there is a problem. I guess a small first step is better than no step at all. Is the next step for him to watch this?

To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy…

This was the opening statement to his surprisingly long section on Iraq, Iran, and foreign policy. There was too much B.S. here to sift through. Take a look at some of our analysis to get an idea of the truth. Suffice it to say that this strategy is questionable at best.

Darfur…Fight AIDS on the continent of Africa…Dikembe Mutumbo…

He really mentioned Darfur? That’s a surprise. Too bad he didn’t refer to it as a genocide. Again, I guess a small step is better than no step at all.

It is sad, but the “fighting AIDS in Africa” phrase is being rendered absolutely meaningless. It gets paid so much lip service that people forget that there are actually humans living on the continent of Africa who exist for reasons other than making someone feel good being a philanthropist.

One Love. One II.

Categories
Politics
Foreign Policy
State of the Union
Taxes
Darfur
So-called “War on Terror”

Vote Black, no matter what?

I do not believe that Black voters should vote for someone just because they are Black. The danger with doing this is that it will [and does] encourage those who do not have any interest in benefiting Black people to use figureheads to bait Black voters into voting against their personal/collective best interests. I do not want to see such a thing happen.

Some Black Maryland Democrats are coming out in support of Republican Senate Candidate Michael Steele. This is the latest installment in the ongoing debate over which party best represents Black voters (not people, voters. If you don’t vote, you get ignored).

Republicans, over the last 4 years especially, have been courting Black voters, saying, “what have the Democrats really done for you? Don’t you feel like they take our vote(s) for granted?” These are valid questions that must be asked of every individual voter and every ‘block’ of voters (Latino, female, homosexual, single parents, entrepreneurs, etc.). The answers to these questions and other related ones are important points of introspection for individuals and collective bodies. What is interesting here is that is that these questions are posed by Republicans with the implicit assumption that “if you vote Republican, we won’t take you for granted.” I see little evidence to support such a notion.

Black voters have been relatively consistent supporters of the Democratic voters for the last 50 or so years. Why is that? I’d argue that the phenomenon started with Democratic Party actions such as Franklin Roosevelt and The New Deal, Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Movement, Affirmative Action, and other things.

I think that the debate on who to vote for should be based on an issue-by-issue, candidate-by-candidate, track-record-by-track-record comparison. A person the same race as you, the same gender as you, the same age as you, or the same sexual orientation as you does not mean that the person will best represent you or have your best interest in mind when they represent you as your governmental spokesperson.

Here’s a quote from the end of the article (my emphasis added):
–
“[Prince George's council member David Harrington (D-Cheverly)] Harrington said race is a factor for him. ‘It’s not the factor,’ he said, ‘but it is a factor. There needs to be a diversity of voices in the room.’”
–

I agree that a “diversity of voices” needs to be present in all situations. However, we need to be clear that race is not the only axis that diversity spins on. There are a whole lot of other things that mark diversity:
- Race
- Age
- Gender
- Religion
- Ethnicity
- Country of Origin
- Class
- etc.

When we think of diversity, we need to look beyond physical appearances. We need to be careful about who we trust, and not give people “like us” a free pass. I think Michael Steele is a nice enough guy, but I would not support or vote for him if he was running in my state.

I encourage people to look at candidates as individuals, their track records, and their plans for the future when deciding who to vote for. Take into account more than one issue, be it race, abortion, or what ever, when deciding who should represent you. Don’t vote for someone just because they are Black.

Perhaps a way to judge if someone will represent Black people well could be to get their take on these?

One Love. One II.

Categories
Politics
Black Issues
Voting
Democrat
Republican

A Proposed Black Agenda for Democrats

BlackCommentator.com has a great list of items that the Democrats should focus on should they take control of the House of Representatives. These items, in their view, would be the most beneficial things that they could do for Black people in this country.

Here are the plan’s 10 proposals:

1. Introduce and pass comprehensive Katrina legislation that includes a victim’s compensation fund akin to that awarded the 911 families
2. Introduce and pass legislation to fix and expand the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system
3. Equalize education funding in the states by introducing and passing legislation authorizing a federal education incentive fund that induces states to eradicate unequal school financing schemes
4. Improve the quality and effectiveness of primary and secondary schools by introducing and passing legislation that encourages comprehensive school reform in the states
5. Authorize and appropriate resource support for African Union peacekeeping forces in the Darfur region of Sudan
6. Combat the spread of HIV/AIDS in African American communities by introducing and passing comprehensive HIV/AIDS legislation
7. Spur economic development by passing legislation implementing federally funded business training programs in high schools, community colleges, HBCU’s and other minority-serving education institutions
8. Introduce and pass legislation to guarantee universal access to health insurance
9. Introduce and pass federal legislation standardizing state voting requirements and mandating paper verification voting systems
10. Respect the traditional seniority system in the House of Representatives that would allow ranking African American committee members to ascend to their rightful place as chairs of powerful House committees

The most interesting points on this list in my mind are numbers 3 & 9.

#3 is interesting because if we do real work to equalize funding, then maybe we can actually have a real merit-based process for evaluating school performance instead of the sham that is No Child Left Behind. Having school funding being tied almost solely to property taxes leads to a vicious cycle in the presence of urban sprawl, brain drain, and other migration phenomena. Perhaps we can come up with a better system that works in spite of these sorts of things.

#9 is important because voting is important. Because voting is so important, anything that can be done to protect the system for counting votes is equally as important. If people were completely confident in said system, I wouldn’t have to beg so hard.

Would you add more to this list?

One Love. One II.

Categories
Black Issues
Politics
Democrat

John Kerry & The Democratic Offensive

John Kerry is finally showing some damn heart.

Here is the video of him talking about how G. W. Bush is trying to distort his words from earlier this week about the troops and the Iraq occupation. Here is the transcript of the video. John Kerry’s official written response is here.

What we are seeing here is a grown man grow a backbone. During the election of 2004, Kerry was coached into playing the passive liberal, and not defending himself against personal attacks and not attacking his opponent rigorously. What this exchange between Kerry and the GOP establishment demonstrates is that you have to confront these people and call them out when they lie, elsewise they will keep doing so. Bill Clinton did this earlier this year, and I don’t doubt that Kerry took a page from the former president here.

Republicans want to equate liberalism with weakness. More steadfast rebuttals of right-wing distortions will destroy such math.

Does this make you respect Kerry more? Less?

One Love. One II.

Categories
Politics
Democrats
Iraq

Who Doesn’t Vote and Why

What drives some people to vote and others to stay home? The Pew Research center released a report on who votes, who does not, and tries to answer the question of why.

To summarize, they basically break adults into 4 categories, and then talk about each category:

Regular voters – The 35% of adults that ‘always’ vote.
Intermittent voters – The 20% of adults who are registered, but vote less regularly than Regular voters.
Registered but rare voters – The 23% of adults who rarely vote because most of the time (76%) they don’t think that they know enough about candidates issues to cast a ballot.
Unregistered adults – The 22% of the population who can’t/won’t vote because they are not registered or who’s registration has expired/lapsed.

There are a bunch stats, but the most telling to me [according to this research] are:

- Hispanic voters make up 40% of unregistered adults
- 18-29 year olds make up 40% of unregistered adults
- Republicans are more likely to be registered to vote than Democrats
- Non-voters are more like to distrust people in general than voters

What makes a conservative person more likely to participate by voting? I would think that the opposite would be true given that liberals generally support a more active government.

I can understand a non-voting person’s reluctance to trust a politician, but why do are these same people less likely to trust anyone?

One Love. One II.

Categories:
Voting
Politics
Republican
Democrat
Trust

Third way out of Iraq

So I read an interesting article today by Jonah Goldberg in the L.A. Times entitled, “Iraq was a worthy mistake.” In the article, Jonah makes underwhelming arguments as it pertains to insignificance of not finding WMD’s and how “the administration did not anticipate a low-intensity civil war in Iraq.” But after fighting through the end of the article, Goldberg (in classic Clintonian fashion) talks about the possible third way out of Iraq. His third way calls for a national Iraqi poll asking whether or not they want coalition troops to stay.

He goes on to say, “If Iraqis voted “stay,” we’d have a mandate to do what’s necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted “go,” our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. And pretty much everyone would have to accept democracy as the only legitimate expression of national will.”

I think it is insulting to ask the Iraqi people whether they think we should leave or not, especially considering the fact we didn’t ask the Iraqis to invade their country. And do you really think after the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent in invading and rebuilding Iraq coupled with the enormous drive to save face, coalition forces would allow their fate to rest with the voice of the Iraqis?

And what’s worse, between the criticism of Democrats that voted for the war and calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign, there is a deafening silence in holding Bush accountable for his mistakes. Just as you would think the Foley scandal would have happened last year if you follow mainstream news, Bush has already blamed intelligence failures on the CIA and before it’s all said and done, Rumsfeld will be blamed for not properly executing the war. So don’t let war fatigue make you ignore the dangerous times we live in.

Do you think there is a third way for Iraq? If so, what do you propose?

Stay up fam,

Categories:
politics
waronterror
bushadministration

Politics of Compromise, Politics of Extremism

The Washington Times has a piece today called “Which Way to Win?” It compares two political strategies for winning elections: one used by the Democrats of the early 90s and the other used by the Republicans of the early 2000s.

From the article:
–
“Clinton Politics is the politics of the center. It holds that Americans for the most part, with the exception of irate groups at the edges, are less interested in ideology than in practical solutions to basic problems. People would prefer politics to be polite, civil, and compromise-minded.”

“Bush Politics is the politics of the base,” the authors continue. “A successful leader will stand forthrightly on one side of a grand argument. Then he or she will win that argument by sharpening the differences and rallying his most intense supporters to his side.”
–

If I had to pick a side, I’d say that reasonable people should be able to compromise on just about anything and walk away feeling like they are better off because of the deal made. An approach that is polarizing by design will, in my opinion, lead to an environment where peace (both physical and political) will be an impossibility.

Which of these approaches is more attractive to you? Do either work? Which would be the most effective in getting people that have never voted to vote?

One Love. One II.

Categories:
Politics
Voting
Republican
Democrat

On the dissolution of Voting Rights

Many political observers have commented that the most controversial case rendered by the Supreme Court involved the illegality of Bush’s holding “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo Bay. However the more significant case to me was the case involving Tom Delay and the Supreme Court giving credence to changing election district lines more than once every ten years as outlined in the constitution.

For many years, state legislatures would get together after every census was taken to battle it out over how election districts should be redrawn. But in Texas, Tom Delay engineered an election coup by leading a successful campaign to get the Texas state legislature to re-draw the election district lines for Congress so as to give Republicans a decided and permanent advantage over Democrats in representing the Texas Congressional delegation. The Supreme Court upheld this redistricting scheme with the exception of one district that they said should be re-drawn to correct the disadvantage incurred by a largely Hispanic district.

Something is seriously wrong with the system and principle of voting in this system. To be sure, the redistricting plan upheld by the Supreme Court means that if there is a state legislature controlled by one party, then that legislature can redraw the lines for their advantage at will. Waiting every ten years to re-draw the map seems reasonable and dare I say constitutional. But now, there will be no rhyme or reason to re-drawing districts so if you thought we had a winner-take-all system before this decision was announced, you haven’t seen anything yet. The larger issue here is that when you leave politicians to redraw the election district lines at will, you create a system where by politicians choose their voters and voters don’t choose their politicians. Think about that.

And lest we forget, there will be states this year that will be voting with electronic voting machines that have no paper trail. I am sure this is the direction we will be heading. Mexico provides an excellent example of what happens when you have electronic voting machines. When the Pri (the dominant party for years in Mexico until the election of Vicente Fox) held elections while they were in power and the tallies seemed to go for their opponents, they would announce that the computers crashed and before you know it, the Pri remained in power.

Also, the Voting Rights Act is being held up in Congress over some stupid technicalities like having bilingual ballots. While that is a legitimate issue, didn’t everyone think that the Voting Rights Act should have been renewed without any fuss?

Between the Supreme Court decision agreeing to election redistricting at will, electronic voting machines with no paper trail, and the hampering of the Voting Rights Act, it seems like Diddy’s catch phrase “Vote or Die,” is not an adequate dichotomy because voting ensures fairness, honesty, and equality; traits that are seriously being undermined by the system and principles of voting in this country.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

On repeal of the estate tax

One issue that has notoriously been underreported is the Senate debate over repeal of the estate tax. While many of us don’t expect to inherit anything in terms of economic wealth, this bill will have a major impact on our lives. Here’s why.

The estate tax is a tax on your right to transfer wealth and property at your death.

Before the Bush 2001 tax-cuts, the tax rates on estates ranged from 37% on the low end and 55% on the high end. However, the 2001 tax-cut has two components that essentially cancel the estate tax. For starters, before 2001, estate taxes would not be assessed unless a person’s estate exceeded $1 million dollars. The tax-cut however, does not require estate taxes to be filed unless the estate exceeds the amounts as shown below,

2005: First $1,500,000 in assets
2006-2008: First $2,000,000 in assets
2009: First $3,500,000 in assets

Beyond that, the tax-cuts also decrease the tax rates over time by the following rates,

2005: 47 percent
2006: 46 percent
2007- 2009: 45 percent

So you should see that not only more assets are exempt from taxation, but the few who do actually pay this tax are paying less of it. And in 2010, the estate taxes falls to 0% but there is a sunset provision that resets the estate tax provisions to pre-2001 levels. This is why Bush and his Republican colleagues in the Senate are currently trying to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. It’s funny how this estate tax debate has been clouded by the gay marriage amendment and the death of Zarqawi.

Nevertheless, this week, the repeal of the estate tax was up for a test vote and once supporters of the bill realized they would be two shorts shy, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona proposed a compromise that “would exempt the first $5 million of an individual’s estate, or $10 million of a couple’s, from taxation. Estates between $5 million and $30 million would be taxed at rates equal to capital gains, and the remainder would be taxed at 30 percent.” This idea is wrong-headed because Senator Kyl can’t repeal the tax entirely; he is trying to kill the estate tax with the death of a thousand cuts.

Why is this important?

The estate tax is important because it is a significant source of revenue for the federal government. As the Center on Budget for Policy Priorities points out,

“The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this would reduce revenues by $290 billion through 2015, including $72 billion in 2015 alone. But this estimate essentially captures only the cost of four additional years of estate tax repeal; the revenues losses associated with 10 more years of repeal — for the period 2012 through 2021 — are much higher, about $745 billion. And when the associated $225 billion in higher interest payments on the debt are taken into account, the total cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly $1 trillion.”

I suspect that many of the people who read this blog are under 35, but I could be wrong. In any event, if we were to fast forward nine years, many of you will be married, raising children, and probably taking care of your parents. Now let’s assume that the first figure of tax revenues being reduced by $290 billion through 2015 is true. The current national debt is upwards of $8.2 trillion dollars. It is so bad that Congress had to write legislation to raise the federal debt limit to $9 trillion dollars so we can keep living above our means. Now it’s hard for me to imagine that amount of money so percentages sometimes work better. “From 1975 to 2005, debt, as a percentage of GDP was once at 34.7%, now exceeds 60%.”

This is astonishing because foreign countries, China in particular, are financing our national debt, thereby furthering the allusion that everything is ok. And if you thought the price of gas was high, just wait until foreign countries decide to take on less of our debt.

This says nothing of the amount we are paying for our activities in Iraq. Last I checked the war has cost us $320 billion dollars and the Senate is about to authorize more funding. But whatever happened to the pre-war claims that Iraq’s oil revenues would finance most of the war? Jim Hoagland of the Washington points out,

“Iraq’s oil production limps along below prewar levels. Sabotage and neglect hamper production. Corruption that is aided and abetted by neighboring Arab countries drains revenue. Forced to import $6 billion worth of refined petroleum products this year for the domestic market, the Baghdad government will spend the same amount to sustain its security forces in 2006, according to U.S. estimates.”

Speaking of war, I doubt if neo-conservatives know how to fight the war on terrorism with anything but military force so I doubt it Iraq is the last front. (read more money)

And then, there is the issue of healthcare. Once the baby boomers start to get older, they are going to put a huge financial strain on our healthcare system. This in turn will cause politicians to devote even more resources to healthcare so they can satisfy this demographic. What’s worse is that we can’t adequately handle the load we have now, so when a significant portion of the population needs access to healthcare and prescription drugs, it will be tantamount to an entire city, flushing their toilets at the same time. We have to plan ahead and the repealing or shrinking the estate tax will not help the situation.

Lastly, there is the environment because unfortunately, the earth is not getting any cooler and as a result, we will likely see more storms similar to or stronger than Hurricane Katrina. This no doubt will put further strains on the national budget.

So what I am I saying?

Between the national debt, the war on terror, healthcare, and stronger storms due to global warming, repealing the estate tax is one of the dumbest things Congress could be doing right now. Moreover, Republicans are generally regarded as more frugal than Democrats but this Congress takes the cake, the chicken, and the kool-aid! And whenever Bush is pressed on the budget, he excuses everything on the war on terror. So why does he push his annual tax cuts and why is he aiming to kill the estate tax? If the war on terror is such a burden, then why does the government need less money? Especially when we know that when the government has less revenues, education budgets get tighter, and there is an overall decrease of government investment in services and infrastructure. When Bush started the war on terror, he knew good and well that it would be finished during his Presidency. And like the war on terror, future administrations will have to deal with this tax cut until eventually, American’s will be forced to pay the bill. And when that time comes, there will be calls to sacrifice (in the form of higher taxes) to help keep the American Dream alive. I believe this will happen in our lifetime so do know that the decisions of today will affect you tomorrow.

But even after all of that, I still support the estate tax because there is already an industry of tax lawyers and accountants that do nothing but find ways for the rich to pay fewer taxes. Moreover, only less than 2% of the population pays this tax. My take is that if you are in the top 2% wealth bracket, you can sacrifice a little bit. Of course, I can’t tell people what to do with their money but passing on a huge inheritance to children is foolhardy because generally, the money will make these kids spoiled and less inclined to work. I think Warren Buffet said it best;
“Warren Buffet didn’t disinherit his children because he disapproved of their career choices or their character…His desire was to “force them to carve out their own place in the world.” He was determined to leave them “enough money so they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.”

So stay informed and be aware of how repealing the estate tax will affect you and your future,

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

In defense of Dubai (and Bush)

I waited to write about the Dubai issue until it was clear who was going to back down first. In the end, opportunistic politicians and an irrational public won along with terrorism recruiters. And while Bush lost this battle, he won a tiny bit of my respect.

Everyone is against it

For starters, let me say that just because the proverbial “everyone” seems to be against the port deal, doesn’t make that position any less vulnerable to criticism or ignorance. In fact, when it seems like “everyone” is doing it, the chances of that position being flawed is usually high. In a previous post, I made reference to a poll where the majority of soldiers in Iraq believed they were in Iraq to retaliate against Saddam Hussein for his involvement in 9/11. Now of course, this is not true but this is just one small example of how being in a majority does not make your position right.

Port management not port security

Companies like DP World are not responsible for providing security at the ports. Port security is maintained by the US Coast Guard and Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “For instance, in New Orleans, P&O is one of eight terminal operators responsible for marketing the port, signing agreements with shipping lines, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo …We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard,” says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. “That won’t change no matter who is operating the terminal.” So for all the people against this deal, who prefaced their opinion by stating that this is not about “Arab” countries, please know that the US would still be responsible for security no matter which company operated the ports.

But here is a better analogy that explains how ignorant the media and politicians have twisted the truth; “It’s like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building.” And if you are really concerned about national security, take Bush to task for funding “only one-fifth of what the port authorities had identified as needed to properly secure the ports.”

But UAE has helped terrorist networks

So what!!!! I don’t say that to mean that we should be doing business with the likes of Bin Laden, BUT since when did the actions of certain individuals come to reflect the beliefs of that government? And if you are willing to do that, then tell me why we haven’t invaded Saudi Arabia because we know that most of the hijackers of 9/11 were from there? And I understand that “Dubai was the distribution hub of rogue Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s nuclear black market. But truer still is the cooperation Dubai’s intelligence officials gave the US in helping unravel Dr. Khan’s network.” After 9/11, people had to change the way they did business with the United States. And maybe, just maybe if people knew how responsive the UAE were to these changes, then people might understand that Arabs, like most people, just want a better life for their families.

But how can we trust the UAE?

Well, if you did your homework, you would know that the UAE was the “first Middle Eastern government to accept the US Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America. In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the US Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment – evidence of a commitment to invest in technology. In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.” Now for some people, that might not be enough but if Dubai did all of this work just to get denied due American prejudices, then what more do you want from them? There is a point where being friends hurts more than being enemies. And I blame Bush for painting this global conflict as “you are either with us or against us,” and then get surprised when the public responds to this port deal with the same ignorance.

Sorry Democrats

However, I have been most disappointed with the Democrats who are trying to out-hawk the Republicans on this issue. Now anyone who reads the Superspade, knows that I am very critical of the so-called war on terror and I think we must re-examine Western business and foreign policy that fuels terrorism. And it is not just on religious grounds but I digress. The Democrats are weak on defense issues because they think that if they appear tougher than Republicans, they will gain majorities in the House and Senate. However, a proven martial arts principle informs us that the best way to defeat opponents is to find ways not to fight. Democrats would gain my respect if they showed any hint of understanding that principle.

Why I agree with Bush

Now that the deal is done, I must say I was impressed when Bush said, “I’m concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East.” But my major contention is that Dubai and the UAE played by rules of democracy and capitalism while also showing itself to be an ally in the war on terror. Now my guess is that most wars are fought in part to create better business conditions for those involved. So if Dubai can’t get the hook up in getting some extra business deals for helping the US, then benefits are there for helping the US? Not to mention that by most accounts, UAE is considered a moderate Arab country. Given that, what incentive do we give other moderate countries to help the US when in the end, you probably won’t be able to get the financial hook up or any boost in nuclear arsenals.

“It is hypocritical for America to want democracy in the Middle East, to champion capitalism as the best economic framework while pushing for reform, transparency, and anticorruption practices in its businesses, and then turn protectionist when a Dubai-owned company turns up on our shores having played the capitalist takeover game responsibly and transparently.”

Nothing is free in this world and the UAE scratched the US back by helping in the war on terror so now it is time for the US to scratch the UAE’s back. Unfortunately, DP World and UAE now probably feel like they have been stabbed in the back. And if you were the leader of a moderate Arab country, would you feel comfortable doing business with the US? Of course not!!!! And of course if the UAE becomes a hub for terrorists, critics will say this had nothing to do with the ports deal. But the main point is that the biggest recruiting hub for terrorists can be found in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’m sure that the US is going to be fighting this so-called war on terror long after Bush is gone from office, but we have to understand that we are living in a world that requires strategies more akin to chess than checkers.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

The State of Your Union

Tonight was the continuation of an American tradition in which the elected executive stands before the whole of the remaining two branches of government and delivers their thoughts and visions on and for the Nation. It is a good opportunity to listen to what the president has to say about America: what do do they care about? What do they want to do? What have they done?

G. W. Bush had a few main points tonight, which included:

1. Isolationism = Defeatism
2. Democracy everywhere is the future
3. Building on existing domestic momentum

That is what he said. Here is what it actually means. We will approach this line-by-line, with parallel translation of rhetoric.

G. W. Started out paying respect to Coretta Scott King, who passed on today. That was a good move, but it was also probably the highlight of the night.

“Act in a spirit of goodwill and respect.”
G. W. Used this in reference to the heated, partisan tone of recent Washington debates (Patriot Act Extension, Alito Confirmation Hearings, Domestic Spying Inquiries). What this really means is “Democrats need to stop making noise. Get down or lay down.” It means that conservatives don’t want any disagreement, regardless of its merit (more on this below).

“Isolationism leads to danger and defeat.”
This is how G. W. Began his foreign policy section. This is a challenge to those of us who feel that domestic matters outweigh foreign affairs. Isolationist is conservative code for “having one’s priorities in logical order.” Is it “danger and defeat” if you care more about someone else’s house than your own family’s well-being? Of course not: it’s stupid.

“We seek the end of tyranny in the world…democracies replace resentment with hope…”
This was how G. W. Justified his *Offensive Democracy* foreign policy approach. Research has shown that “fighting them there so they don’t fight us here” holds as much water as a spider web. What does tyranny mean? It can be summed up in two words: unchecked leadership. America was designed to protect against such a thing, but with all three branches compromised, that protection has disappeared. As for democracy replacing resentment, is there resentment in American democracy? That’s another spider web full of Kool-Aid.

Mentioned Zimbabwe among non-democracies
The African continent made an appearance this year. The last time the Earth’s source was mentioned by G. W. was when he lied about Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction from Niger. I don’t think this mention will stir as much reaction.

“Terrorists chose the weapon of fear”
This is the first nominee for Line of the Night. BushCo has pedaled fear and propaganda in order to justify their foolish, selfish policies, including [but not limited to] the Patriot Act and the Domestic Spying program and the so-called “War on Terror.”

“The US will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil”
More code for “isolationism” being bad. See above.

“Clear plan for victory” in Iraq
This is the second nominee for Line of the Night. All I can say about this is this: when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”

“Iraq: 3 years to sovereignty…we are winning”
Sovereignty? G. W. Still hasn’t figured out what sovereignty means. What government is sovereign when it is supported, financed, and protected by another government. And “we are winning?” See above for an explanation on why you can’t win when you don’t know what winning means or looks like.

“The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home”
This is a feeble attempt at defining winning. Any idiot knows that when a “war” is “over,” the troops will come home. This is simply an empty, rhetorical, admission of the obvious.

Responsible Criticism vs. Defeatism
G. W. has touched on this before. Responsible criticism might as well mean total, blind agreement. Anything less is defeatism in the eyes of conservatives.

“Keep our word…stand behind the American military”
The “keep our word” part is the same as the “stay the course” B.S. that we’ve been hearing since the election of 2004. It means “I [and my backers] am too damn hard-headed to see my flawed actions and decisions of the past, and I refuse to change my tactics in spite of my mistakes.” It is an unfortunate reality that we meddled in and broke Iraq. Oh well in my opinion. I would much rather see resources expended in the Gulf Coast than the Persian Gulf.

“Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law…”
The timing of this statement is matched only by its irony. We are amid scandal and corruption in Washington, yet the President is calling for “the rule of law” in other nations. Apparently Americans can be above the law. Well, Americans WITH MONEY (read: Republicans) can be above the law.

America wants to be “the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran”
This is laughable considering that we will likely be invading Iran in the near future. Whether they were free or democratic, they would get invaded.

Patriot Act: “same tools used to fight drugs and crime”
This is how G. W. introduced his case for renewal of the controversial Patriot Act. There is plenty on this blog that makes our opposition to this clear. Black people should fear and reject anything similar to the “tools used to fight drugs and crime” that have led to such grave injustices as racial profiling, disproportionate Black male incarceration, and systematic Black disenfranchisement.

Spying: “appropriate members of Congress kept informed”
More attempts to justify “Terrorism Surveillance.” What defines “appropriate?” Why wasn’t the “appropriate,” appointed FISA Court informed?

“Roosevelt, Kennedy rejected isolation and retreat”
Sprinkle of rhetoric here about why “isolationism” is bad. We’ve already covered why that’s just plain dumb.

“I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.”
This oxymoron is the third nominee for Line of the Night. This means the the legislature should “responsibly” withhold money from important domestic affairs to reward the wealthy. Permanent tax cuts would be as irresponsible as permanent tax increases. Since one cannot predict future occurrences, tax policy should be periodically, organically evaluated.

The Special-Interest problem can be tackled with the Line-Item Veto
Never seen a President that didn’t want a Line-Item Veto, so that’s nothing new. The question is, would he really, really do something about lobbyists if he had one? I doubt it.

“Keeping America competitive requires affordable Health Care…Strengthen Health Spending Accounts…Make coverage portable”
The first and third phrases sound decent enough to me, given that I want the ultimate in affordable, portable coverage: Universal Health Care. The second phrase is one that I have a problem with. This point, nestled between two decent ideas, is part of G. W.’s Ownership Society message. The problem is that 45 million Americans don’t have Health care and cannot afford it, another would not be able to afford or understand HSAs as proposed. The beauty of Universal Health Care is that is based on a simple notion: you need health care, you get it, period. HSAs are no more than funnels leading to the pockets of HMOs and Insurance companies. Do not be fooled.

“America is addicted to oil…Advanced Energy Initiative…Replace 75% of Middle Eastern oil dependence by 2025″
This is actually a good idea. Increase research in ethanol and zero-emission coal power is a good thing. However, I can’t imagine BushCo’s oil buddies letting this kind of thing actually result in lower oil consumption.

“American Competitiveness Initiative”
Again, another good idea in theory. Doubling our commitment to natural sciences, permanent research tax credits, encouraging more math & science in secondary education, all good stuff. I just hope they don’t use No Child Left Behind as the model for implementation.

Work with Black churches to fight AIDS
Black folks came up again at the end. This marks the first time I had ever heard a White Republican cite statistics on AIDS in Black America. While I am happy about that (it is a step in the right direction), I am worried that the Black church path is a flawed one. BushCo has coaxed the Black church into supporting him on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and he may be at it again. I would not trust these guys, as a fear that they are more concerned with gaining votes that saving Black lives.

There you have it.

Please share your thoughts and reactions to the speech and my reactions.

–
GDGII
www.TheSuperSpade.com

Sent using Windows Mobile 5.0

Why the US don’t want Dems in charge

Ok ummm Joseph Phillips (the sailor from the Cosby Show) has lost his mind. I will break down two excerpts of his article where he explained why Americans don’t want the Democrats in charge.

Let’s get to the first excerpt where Phillips explains,

“Americans are many things. We are compassionate, industrious and brave. Americans are kind; we are good, we are also winners! Democratic political hopes in 2006 may hinge on their ability to convince Americans that Democratic leaders believe in American virtue.”

I’m sorry, but when did being good become synonymous with winning? In other words, if you win a game because you cheated that doesn’t make you good. And likewise, if you are good, you may not always win (enslavement of Black people anyone?). And the logic that I think that has probably done more harm to the world is that things are “either or”. SO what does it mean to say that Americans are winners? This must mean that there are losers right? Why are the losers never named! Why do we know every detail about every American life lost, but it wasn’t until a couple weeks ago (during the busy holidays I might add) that when Bush was asked about the number of dead Iraqis he stated, “30,000 more or less.” Imagine if he would have used “more or less” while describing American lives lost in this war. And Phillips has the nerve to write that “We are compassionate.’ Because like most people and societies, America is filled to the brim with contradictions and to not highlight these contradictions is to be a liar. Lying aside, Phillips goes on to say,

“Americans may disagree on the wisdom of this war and the manner in which it is being waged. But the idea of losing is hateful to us. The only thing more hateful is the idea of leadership that is uninterested in winning and thinks us incapable or undeserving of victory.”

The first fallacy of this quote is that losing is hateful to Americans. But when you look at your own life, you can not reject the fact that the most important life lessons you learned was when you failed and learned how to pick yourself up. When a baby is learning how to walk, you don’t pick them up every time they fall down. So if that logic makes sense, then why is losing so hateful to Americans? Its because Americans don’t want to confront our own contradictions. Policy makers are experts at pointing out the faults in other countries but when we can’t get our act like together, like we did in Hurricane Katrina, we reject the aid of Cuba because we need to act like we have it under control. And more importantly, can anyone define what victory means in Iraq? Forget the witty comments and all of that. Just someone define that for me because if the terrorists wait to attack until the coalition leaves, then do we have to go back to get the job done?

War is not a game and people are dying for reasons that change from month to month and sometimes week to week. And for any troops reading this blog, you are in my prayers and I hope you can get home as soon as possible.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

All over but the pullout

All over but the pullout

I keep writing about the war because it has struck a nerve ever since the Bush administration pulled the ultimate switch-aroo; going from 9/11 to going into Afghanistan (which I supported) to invading Iraq. It makes no sense to me. And how/why are we having tax cuts when are fighting a war? This is asinine. But nevertheless, I read a good article in the Washington Post that basically predicted Bush would have to start pulling out of Iraq by next spring or else give Democrats the club they would then use to bludgeon the Republicans in 2006 Congressional midterm elections. I predicted in earlier posts that the media will help present a rosy picture of Iraq on top of being the microphone for Iraqi leaders pleading for the Americans to leave. This two-fold effect will allow the administration to claim when they pull out, “We have achieved victory in Iraq and we are humble enough to acquiesce to the Iraqi government’s request that we leave them so they can govern their own country.”

The article explained the political reality of why Bush will pull out in order to save face and save the Republican party from certain defeat next year. The logic is simple, if the troops stay Bush and Republicans lose. If the troops begin to leave, then the Democrats are forced to follow the President, the same way they did when they voted to authorize the war. And we all know followers are losers in American politics, which is part of the reason Kerry could not explain how he voted for and against the war.

But my heart goes out to the Iraqis. I heard John McCain on Meet The Press discuss quite gleefully, how the Iraqis are starting to die in battle so therefore, the President’s strategy is working. (As Iraqis stand up we stand down) But why do Iraqis have to die if it was the American coalition that initiated the violence? How is it the deaths of Iraqi soldiers turn into a positive situation? Call me a pacifist but an American life is no better/worse than that of an Iraqi. And maybe, just maybe if we valued life more than money and power, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now.

Stay up fam,

John Murtha & a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq

Props to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for presenting a resolution on getting a timetable to get the troops out of Iraq. Unfortunately, the Republicans changed the spirit of the resolution to say that we should pull out the troop immediately. Of course, this was not Murtha’s intention and it was not passed. But as a decorated Veteran and noted hawkish Democrat, Murtha’s comments has caused an uproar in the political climate concerning this invasion (war is really a misnomer).

But here’s the catch. On Meet the Press, he went on to say that he made a mistake for voting for the war. Even John Edwards penned an article claiming that he regrets his vote to authorize war. But on Meet the Press, I was ashamed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who distanced themselves from Murtha’s comments. This week, TIME and the mainstream establishment will make sure to paint Murtha as a flip-flopper (Murtha voted for the war) and at the same time, make the push that we should stay in Iraq. But in all honesty, what good will come from our staying in Iraq? Especially when the political will is rapidly declining and almost three years into this war, the public still questions if and how the President misled the country into this war. That is insane people! As Murtha put it, our presence in Iraq is only going to make the situation worse. Bush often says, “as Iraqi stand up we will stand down.” But as nice as this sounds, the future of Iraq and many American lives are in the hands of Iraqis. So if our success is based on what the Iraqis do or don’t do, how can we say whether we are successful or not? This war is out of our hands, literally and figuratively.

In a figurative sense, Bush is going to have to go to Iraq and drive around in an unarmored Humvee with guns blazing just to show that he believes we should stay in Iraq. But seriously, with the 2006 elections fast approaching, we have reached a breaking point in this war. When politicians are able and willing to say “I was wrong,” that is especially poignant. And it is only a matter of time before other Democrats and some Republicans start saying the same thing. And when they do, the Congress will wrest control of this war from this President and find a way out of Iraq so they can keep their seat. Shout out to John Murtha!

Stay up fam,

Categories:
iraq
waronterror
politics

Activist Nerds

Conservative pundits have over the last couple of years adopted a catch phrase to define legal decision-makers that they disagree with: “activist judges.” Perhaps in another post, I will break down exactly how idiotic the notion of an “activist judge” is.

But I like the concept of prepending your favority noun with the word “activist,” and therefore changing its meaning to fit the context you select for it. We can do this for all kinds of things: “Activist preachers,” “Activist infants,” “Activist insects,” the list goes on.

I’d like to use one that may be more near and dear to my heart, and perhaps a bit more useful: the “Activist Nerd.” Is this simply a rebranding of the technocrat? It could be, but it’s much more broad than that. As society becomes more dependent on information technology, policy makers will be faced with more and more technology-related legislative decisions. Examples include the respective “innovation agenda” proposals by Democrats and Republicans.

Technology decisions, like any other policy decision, is best made by those with [at least basic] experience with technology. The average baby-boomer politician lacks this experience, and that leads to very irresponsible technology legislation. An examples include HR 4194, which include directives that may limit the free expression of bloggers.

The next generation of political leaders will not have this problem to the same extent, but it will still exist. Why? Because we tell people who are technically apt (either by trade/training or naturally) to worry about their fields and not about politics or social issues. Similarly, when someone is eloquent and expressive, we tell them let the “nerds” worry about that “other stuff.” What I see is a merge of these two “types” of people on the horizon. That is a great thing, and it will produce a diverse set of capable leaders that can make informed decisions on a wider array of issues. My hope for these leaders it that their technical expertise will enable them to make more objective decisions since they are more used to parsing massive amounts of both technical and non-technical data effectively.

For those who want to be more nerd than activist, there are solutions. A great example is Riot Tones, a service starting next month that will allow you to create/download/share politically motivated ring tones for your phone. Great idea. Fun idea. Nerdy idea. For those who want to be more activist than nerd, start a blog. That’s what I did.

Bush’s Veteran’s Day Speech

So November 11, 2005 (Veteran’s Day) Bush gave a speech to fire back at critics of the war. But before I get into the analysis, let’s point out two things, 1) Bush billed his speech for Friday, which in the media represents the day where all the news items are swept under the rug. If Bush really wanted to make a statement, he would have given his speech on Monday to set the agenda but the timing is representative of how weak this President is in the polls. Secondly, he focused his criticism on Democrats when many people of all political stripes found themselves in opposition to the war before it began. By limiting the scope of the debate, Bush tried to avoid the deep well of discontent over the rationale for this war and its management.

Now that we got that out the way, I cannot believe Bush had the audacity to accuse anyone of trying to re-write history. To be clear, I will be the last person to try and defend many of the spineless Democrats for their complicity in this atrocious war. But Bush is trying to re-write history because conservative historians will look back during this time and say that “the poor President and Congress were victims of bad intelligence, shame on the CIA.” Just think back to the spin put on the failure of government services to help Hurricane Katrina victims. It is tantamount to saying that since everybody messed up, nobody messed up. I give Bush credit for knowing how to frame the debate to his advantage. However, Bush has proven to be a liar and he can do nothing to save his legacy.

And please my being remiss to not point out that Bush has re-written history numerous times with respect to this war. So twenty years from now when someone younger asks you why we invaded Iraq what will you say? To help you out, I included a link that breaks out the 21 reasons why we went to war. From regime change, the Iraqi connection to 9/11, and those WMD, I wonder what Bush does to sleep at night as he finds new ways to rewrite history.