I Will Not Support John Edwards in the Primary

There. I said it.

I don't mean that I won't vote for him, period. If by some miracle he wins the nomination, and it's him versus a Republican, of course I'll vote for him.

But right now, he's up with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich on the list of people whom I absolutely will not vote for in the primary.

It has nothing to do with him personally. I don't care that he got a $400 haircut, I just hope that it came with a really good scalp massage for that kind of money. I don't care that he was a trial lawyer before he was in politics (I'm pre-law, that'd be pretty hypocritical of me). He's more conservative on some issues than I'd like, and I disagree with his health care plan, but that's far better than we'll get out of any Republican. He sounds a lot like the old-style Southern populists who will say anything to get elected (you know, the ones I've been working to help defeat), but I'd rather have that in the White House than a New York sleazeball or a Hollywood actor.

It has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do with a campaign, and a campaign mentality, that is so far divested from reality that you have to wonder if their focus is on Iowa or on Jupiter.

The decision to accept public financing says a lot about where they are right now. Sure, it's really easy to say "Well we've always supported public financing, so this is about taking a principled stand, it's not a money calculation, and we hope the rest of the field will be as PRINCIPLED as we are!"

Only problem is, what happens if the "rest of the field" doesn't take the bait? Then they're raising as much money as they can (for both the primary AND the general) while you're constrained by limits that you wouldn't otherwise have.

And if it's truly not a "money caluculation", then there'd be no need to do it in the first place. If his Q3 numbers were going to show $18-20 million, as Obama and Hillary are showing, there'd be no need for public financing. And even if the public financing helps, even if he wins the early states, that would still leave him broke or underfunded for most of the time between the primaries and the convention, time that the Republicans would use to pummel him. It raises an enormous viability issue.

This is where campaign mentality comes in. I've spoken to many of his supporters, not just online but in real life as well. They're in complete denial over this. "Oh, his decision will just encourage all the supporters to donate more to keep him in!" Well, if it were that important, why didn't yall give him more money in the first place?

Edwards supporters can be very difficult to reason with. Just FYI, you won't convince me to vote for your candidate if all you can do is give me cliches or smear everyone else. Telling me that "John Edwards is going to bring power to THE PEOPLE" tells me absolutely nothing about him. Telling me that "John Edwards is the ONLY REAL progressive!" also tells me nothing. Telling me that "Hillary and Obama are Republican-lite who are no better than Bush!" will make me want to punch you in the face. Telling me that "If you don't support Edwards, then you are a corporate Dem and you're also no better than Bush" will just make me laugh. Give me a break!

Is this unfair of me, to say that I don't want to vote for Edwards just because some of his supporters are crazy? Could be. But to me, it just speaks to a larger campaign mentality. If you can't raise money, can't handle any criticism, and can't make an argument without cliches and smears, then guess what? You're not a viable candidate! I wish we could focus more on issues at this stage of the election than on viability, but I'm not throwing away the White House because of someone's misguided "principle".

UPDATE: If you call me a "spoiled elitist" just because I made the choice to go out of state for school, do you honestly think that's going to convince me to vote for John Edwards? That only proves my point about cliches and smears.

Lipitor For Climate Change

The Preznit sponsored a conference on climate change today, acknowledging for the first time that climate change is happening and the need to invest in technology to handle it, but refused to commit to mandatory curbs on emissions:

"By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it," Bush said in a speech that capped two days of talks at a White House-sponsored climate change conference. "We share a common responsibility: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing."

He said each nation should establish for itself what methods it will use to rein in emissions without stunting economic growth.

This reminds me of a story that my mom is very fond of telling. Some time ago, my father went on Lipitor for his high cholesterol. A few weeks after that, they went to a dinner party, and my mom caught my dad eating foie gras, which is quite possibly one of the highest-cholesterol foods there is. She was horrified, but my dad simply said "It's ok, the Lipitor will handle it."

Does anyone else see the problem in that line of reasoning?

It's the same problem with Bush's reasoning (or lack thereof). Investing in new technology to solve a problem is all well and good, and should be encouraged. But if you're constantly working against the new technology, it won't do you any good. Throwing resources into clean-energy technology without some form of emissions restrictions won't make much of a difference, and will be a colossal waste of time and money.

You have to work WITH the technology, not against it. Lipitor doesn't work if you're not willing to make the necessary lifestyle changes, and neither will clean-air technology.

Wealth of Nations Redux

One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone takes a famous, controversial book, takes it out of context, completely misinterprets it, and uses it for their own agenda. I can think of three books that this seems to constantly happen to--the Bible, Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, and Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. For this post, I will be focusing on Adam Smith. This book, one of the founding works of liberal economic theory, has been grossly misinterpreted by both the right and the left, and I have a feeling that a lot of people who quote Adam Smith have never actually read The Wealth of Nations.

Some of Smith's central points on economics are not even disputed today, by either end of the spectrum. Everyone now accepts, for example, that wealth should be determined by labor and not by land, that a meritocracy is far superior to a feudalist society, that division of labor makes for a more productive workforce, that monopolies are inefficient and drive up prices, and that mercantilism doesn't work. But there is much misunderstanding about Adam Smith and "the free market".

The late economist Milton Friedman wore an Adam Smith necktie, and I remember hearing that Ronald Reagan did as well. To them, Adam Smith was an advocate of unrestrained capitalism--that there's no place for the government in the economy, that taxes should be kept to a minimum. They took the idea of "enlightened self-interest" to the extreme, believing that all self-interest was a good thing. On the left, meanwhile, Adam Smith is seen as a symbol of unrestrained greed and selfishness.

But they're both wrong.

First of all, while Smith clearly believes that people do act out of self-interest, he never states that this is always a good thing; he just argues that it's just not necessarily a bad thing. In an earlier work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith argues that self-interest also includes the interests of the rest of society. Humans are selfish, but also sympathetic and altruistic. Both of these traits are necessary for a just society.

Furthermore, for those on the right, consider these three passages from Wealth of Nations:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

*********

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

*********

“It is but equity … that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerable well fed, clothed and lodged.”

Got that? Adam Smith argues for a) a higher tax burden on the rich, b) taxpayer support for government activity, and c) a living wage for the workforce (if your head hasn't exploded yet, keep reading). If Adam Smith were around today, while he'd probably support NAFTA and CAFTA, he'd also likely support ideas like universal health care (because after all, that ensures a healthy and productive workforce). And he DEFINITELY wouldn't support an economy that relies so heavily on the price and supply of oil--because what kind of economy is that other than a mercantilist system, only with oil instead of gold?

The truth is, Adam Smith can't be said to be either left nor right, because neither one of those concepts existed back then. The context in which he existed was one where society was beginning to throw off the chains of feudalism and mercantilism. In that context, he was certainly a radical, but not one that can fit into any neat little modern ideology.

Maybe sometime after this weekend, after the LSATs, I'll get around to writing about Darwin and evolution. If you'd ever actually read On the Origin of Species, you'd know that Darwin talks about evolution almost as an afterthought, and doesn't even use the word "evolve" until the last sentence of the book. He was far more concerned with the idea of natural selection.

I hope I've persuaded somebody, but now I have to go persuade a bunch of law schools to take me :)

Holy Crap, I Agree With O'Reilly on Something

In the midst whole flap over Bill Orally's comments about African-Americans and Sylvia's ("WAAAH! It was out of context! I can dish it out but I can't take it! Boo-hoo!"), a comment was made on The Factor last night that I actually find myself agreeing with:

The tragedy here is that there is no longer an honest press in America.

It's actually true, if you think about it. We already knew that O'Reilly, Rush, Faux News, and the rest of the right-wing noise machine can't be trusted (and if you need any further proof of that, look at the Media Matters transcript, one line above what I just quoted. If you're citing an unscientific AOL poll as proof that you're right, guess what? You're lying!).

And we already knew that the trustworthiness of the rest of the media has taken a hit in recent years. The media these days is far too willing to simply trumpet Administration talking points without doing serious investigative work, and tries to make all political stories fit into little narratives (i.e. the Republicans "support the troops" and Democrats are weak on, well, everything).

But then you have stories like this coming out that make you wonder if there are ANY honest journalists outside of ESPN:

Frustrated by press leaks about its most sensitive electronic surveillance work, the secretive National Security Agency convened an unprecedented series of off-the-record "seminars" in recent years to teach reporters about the damage caused by such leaks and to discourage reporting that could interfere with the agency's mission to spy on America's enemies.

The half-day classes featured high-ranking NSA officials highlighting objectionable passages in published stories and offering "an innocuous rewrite" that officials said maintained the "overall thrust" of the articles but omitted details that could disclose the agency's techniques, according to course outlines obtained by The New York Sun.

Read the full New York Sun report here.

In other words, the NSA encouraged reporters to censor their own stories. That the Administration would do something with complete and utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution no longer surprises me. But according to the report, these classes went on between 2002 and 2004, which means that the media has known about this for five years and we're just NOW finding out about it!

What if this were still going on? Would the stories about the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo gotten out?

Republicans would say that the leaks about torture are what's dangerous and the NSA is right to crack down on freedom of the press this way. Well, y'all can continue to live in your Disneyland where all is well and you don't have to worry about uncomfortable truths, while we REAL Americans will continue to insist on keeping the Constitution intact.

My List

There was an article in the Tennessean today about which five things we don't have in Nashville just yet. Their list was: IKEA, Crate & Barrel, Trader Joe's, wine at the grocery store, and an upscale department store. Sean Braisted added another good one, Wegman's grocery store. Wegman's is incredible, and to many Cornell students, a trip to the Ithaca Wegman's could end up being the highlight of your week. But since grocery store chains tend to be regional, I doubt we'll ever get one in Nashville.

So here's my list:

What We Need in Nashville:

1. NORDSTROM!!!

I shopped there when I was in Florida last weekend. I got two dresses and two pairs of shoes, and the quality of the clothes is just incredible. Even if we just got the Nordstrom shoe department, I'd be happy--they have the biggest selection of any department store, running the gamut from Vans sneakers to Jimmy Choos and Manolos. None of the other upscale department stores would work here--we couldn't support a Neimans or a Saks, and I don't know if I'd really want them here anyway, part of the appeal of those stores for me is that they're a treat to shop at when you're on vacation. And the nice thing about Nordstrom is that they always have some sort of sale going on.

2. IKEA

The best quality furniture at the best possible price.

3. An outdoor concert venue

With the demise of Starwood, the only decent places left to have a large concert in town are the Sommet Center and the Ryman (or if you're really ambitious, LP Field). So while we were once in the predicament of only having a few major summer tours coming to Nashville, now we're faced with NONE. The country tours didn't even come here last year, except for Fan Fair (or CMA Fest or whatever it's called). To me, this is unacceptable for a town that calls itself "Music City".

4. Dylan's Candy Bar

Currently, this candy store is only in New York, Florida, and Houston. I can't really describe the experience that is this candy store. Just go to the website and it shows you all you can get there.

5. An authentic Jewish deli

I think we've got enough people to support one now. And no, Noshville is NOT authentic.

Your Christian Duty to Oppose Hillary

Via Kleinheider, an argument for why Fred Thompson will, in fact, get the support of the Religious Right in spite of their reluctance to endorse him upfront:

If Fred Thompson is nominated to be the Republican candidate for President next year, you will not only see most of these so-called “conservative evangelicals”
not oppose Fred Thompson, but will see them support him with their wallets and their prayers.

You will hear preachers - as much as they can get away with it - crying out from their pulpits to their congregations that it is their “good Christian duty” to vote for Thompson.

You will witness the supposed “leaders” of Christian virtue in America do an about-face and instruct their followers via websites and radio programs and “voter guides” that they “cannot turn away from their God-given task” by failing to support Fred Thompson… especially if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee.

Here's what royally pisses me off about this. I don't know whether Politico or Christopher Knight is right on what'll happen to Thompson, I suspect that the correct answer is somewhere in the middle.

However, the preachers that Knight mentions probably will, in fact, get away with outright telling their congregations that it's their good Christian duty to vote for Thompson. The Justice Department has become so politicized that they probably wouldn't even bother looking into the activities or the tax-exempt status of these hypothetical preachers. Meanwhile, preachers who DON'T advocate for one candidate or another, but who give anti-war sermons, are immediately investigated.

In contrast, Jewish rabbis often give sermons on political issues. But if one of them were to insinuate that the congregation should vote for one candidate or another, there would be HELL to pay...and that would just be from the congregation (even if most of them agreed), even before the government got involved.

The Correct Way To Be A Budget Hawk

I was very pleased to see that last night, Congressman Jim Cooper (whom I interned for in June and July of 2006) apparently changed his mind and voted to reauthorize S-CHIP. He had voted against this the first time around, concerned about the earmarks that had been added to the bill, but either those earmarks were taken out or he decided that health care for children is more important, and voted for it. And for that, I'd like to congratulate him and to express my gratitude.

Because really, what would voting against S-CHIP prove? That you're a "budget hawk"? Fiscal responsiblity is very important, but there are better ways to cut down on needless spending in Washington. For example, Congressman, you could stop voting to send more money into that black hole known as Iraq unless there's a set date when you can stop. But voting against S-CHIP for that reason, voting against a popluar program with bipartisan support, only puts you in the same category as people like Marsha Blackburn, who don't care about children who are a) out of the womb and b) come from families that make less than six figures annually.

Voting to condemn MoveOn wasn't cool, I'll admit, but I'm less concerned about that issue. Nobody will remember the "General Betrayus" ad a month from now, but the kids who are losing their health care coverage will remember what happened.

Quote of the Month

My good friend Tom, who's from England, Wales, or Australia, take your pick; and who knows more about American politics than 95% of Americans do, had a dead-on reaction to the new Rasmussen poll that showed Freddie handily beating all of the Democrats, but showed Hillary beating both Romney and Giuliani in Tennessee:

So it seems the people of your state are saying to the GOP 'give us Thompson or we're going to throw all our toys out the pram and vote Dem'

When do I get to go back to London?! I want to throw my toys out the pram!

How Not To Make Your Point

Everyone's been asking me today what I think of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University. First, my mother wanted to know if I had been at Columbia, would I have gone to hear him speak or would I have been outside protesting.

The answer is pretty simple. I would have been inside, challenging him on every single point. And if he hadn't answered my questions, the NYPD would have had to drag me away from the stage with me screaming "Don't tase me bro!"

However, I was a little perturbed by Columbia president Lee Bollinger's speech beforehand, in which he referred to Ahmadinejad as "a petty and cruel dictator":

Bollinger described Ahmadinejad as having a "fanatical mindset" for making statements like wanting Israel to be “wiped off the map.”

"Do you plan on wiping us off the map too?" Bollinger asked, also asking questions about allegations Iran was supplying insurgents in Iraq. "Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq?"

Here's what bothers me about this. It was Bollinger who invited him to speak in the first place. I certainly agree that Ahmadinejad is petty, cruel, and fanatical, but if you're going to extend the invite, then for God's sake, STAND BY THAT DECISION. If you're going to attack him before he even speaks, then what on Earth was the point of inviting him in the first place? It just strikes me as bizarre.

The man's a lunatic, to be sure. And his Holocaust denial is particularly grating to me--he uses a new kind of denial. Rather than outright denying that the Holocaust happened, he tries to cast doubt on it, by saying things like "there's nothing known as absolute". The intent is the same though.

But there was no need to attack him beforehand. Especially when he drops gems like this:

Asked about executions of homosexuals in Iran, Ahmadinejad said the judiciary system executed violent criminals and high-level drug dealers, comparing them to microbes eliminated through medical treatment. Pressed specifically about punishment of homosexuals, he said: “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.”

With the audience laughing derisively, he continued: “In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.”

LOL. He thinks they don't have homosexuals because they executed them all! And the audience here reacted appropriately--getting laughed at and not taken seriously must have KILLED Ahmadinejad.

McWherter!

In case you're interested, I posted the story about Mike McWherter forming an exploratory committee to run for Senate over on Daily Kos, and it's now on the Recommended list.

Here's what I think--Mike McWherter has many of Harold Ford's benefits, without the pratfalls. They both had the family name recognition, but unlike the Ford name, the McWherter name isn't tainted by scandal and is revered by many. Mike McWherter could turn out West Tennessee to vote. Assuming Lamar! holds a tight grip on East Tennessee, then this becomes a battle over Middle Tennessee, at which point this race could get very interesting. What he said in his Jackson Day interview also makes me very hopeful.

I'm eagerly awaiting to hear further policy positions from him, particularly on Iraq.

Everybody Go Poke Bill Gates!

Microsoft is currently in talks to buy a minority stake in Facebook.

In related news, your account has been hacked into, all of the new apps have crashed indefinitely, and you'll have to restart your computer every time you edit your profile. Sorry!

How the Right "Supports the Troops"

The Right would have you believe that they are the ones who "support the troops" and military families while the Left hates them.

This is how the Right supports the troops. This is how much respect they show for families who have lost children to the war in Iraq:

Carlos Arredondo, 47 year old father of two sons, arrived in the nation’s capitol on Monday, 09/10/07 to share a memorial he has made to honor for his eldest son, Alex. Carlos has visited thirty of the United States with the traveling memorial to his son Alexander. Lcpl. Alexander S. Arredondo, USMC was killed on 08/25/04. He was 20 years and 20 days old. The memorial consists of a casket, poster- size photographs of Alex when he graduated from boot camp, before his second tour in Iraq, lying in state at his wake, and a photo of Alex with his younger brother Brian.

Saturday, September 15, 2007 consisted of first a rally, a march towards the capitol and then a die-in. Carlos pulled the memorial along the march route approaching the rotunda near the capitol building. Several of the marchers requested for him to speak about the memorial where a crowd gathered around him. After finishing, several people walked with Carlos as he pulled the memorial. Several pictures of Alex dressed in his blues were attached to the display.

As Carlos passed counter protesters, one man ripped a picture of Alex from the memorial. Carlos leaped on the man to retrieve the picture. It was at that point that approximately five others all began to attack Carlos by kicking him in the head, legs, stomach and back.

Crooks and Liars has pictures of what happened.

So far, nothing but crickets from the Right on this. Why is that? Oh that's right, because an ad in the New York Times criticizing General Petraeus is somehow FAR MORE DISRESPECTFUL to the military than this.

How is it that the conservatives haven't drowned in their own hypocrisy yet?

Update on "Go Back to Nicaragua"

I received several emails about this yesterday and today while I was in Florida, thank you to everyone who kept me informed.

As you'll recall, Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young told a LEGAL immigrant who had come to his court seeking an order of protection against her verbally abusive estranged husband to "go back to Nicaragua". This was a flagrant violation of her right to due process in a U.S. court.

Fortunately, Judge Young is apparently now under judicial conduct review:

On Wednesday, Jim LaRue, an investigator for the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary, was in Maryville conducting interviews focused on Young’s behavior on Sept. 7 during an order of protection hearing.

David Byrne, assistant general counsel for the administrative office of the Tennessee Supreme Court, confirmed that LaRue is an investigator working on an investigation in Blount County.

Good. He ought to be removed from the bench for his complete and utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, I'm still waiting for the people who go on and on about "all them illegals coming in" but claim that they're all in favor of legal immigration to condemn what happened here. If it's truly a question of legality vs. illegality, and not a question of you just not liking brown people, then surely you'd be outraged at a legal immigrant being treated this way by a U.S. court, right?

RIIIIIIIGHT?

UPDATE 2: Jim Boyd answered my question on a Tennessean forum that had nothing to do with immigration but somehow got onto that topic. This pisses him off too. Good on him for not being a complete and utter hypocrite, but I'm still waiting to hear back from the rest of the conservatives.

My Little AIPAC Dilemma

I have a little AIPAC dilemma. I don't like talking about it, because it really is an issue that weighs heavily on my conscience. However, the story of Congressman Jim Moran's comments about AIPAC has been on my mind all day.

Here's what he said to Tikkun, a Jewish magazine:

“AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized… they have been able to exert power.”

This has provoked a strong backlash from the Democratic leadership, with Steny Hoyer criticizing him and Henry Waxman circulating a petition calling for him to apologize. This raises the question, is what he said anti-Semitic? Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic?

For the latter question--no, of course not. Few people criticize their government more than Israelis themselves. Ehud Olmert had lower approval ratings than Dubya last time I checked. Calling Israel a Nazi state or saying that it should be wiped off the map--yeah, that's pretty anti-Semitic. But criticizing them for, say, having illegal settlements in the West Bank or treating the Palestinians unfairly, is certainly not.

The former question is a little more complicated. I agree with him on one major point (which I'll get to in a minute), but the way he phrasedit makes it easy for the crazies to come out and say "The Jews got us into this war!" If you look at the CNN message board for this article, they've already taken it that way. In addition, it's certainly tempting to wonder if he himself has anti-Semitic, given what he's said in the past:

At a March 3, 2003, forum, Moran said: “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.”

Uh, I wish we were that influential. If we were, maybe we could have done something about the Christian Right by now. But at 2% of the population, we're clearly not as influential as he thinks...

...unless, of course, you think that AIPAC is the "Jewish lobby". And that, my friends, is bullsh*t (but apparently, CNN thinks so too. G-d damn them).

The major point where I agree with Congressman Moran is that AIPAC, by and large, does not represent mainstream Jewish opinion, even if everyone thinks they do. Israel is of course a huge issue for American Jews. We all want peace and stability there, and we want political leaders who will work to achieve that end.

But that DOES NOT MEAN that we all support the right-wing vision for the Middle East. Look at the numbers--77% of American Jews believe that going into Iraq was a mistake, and 87% voted Democratic in 2006.

(And hey, Republicans--if you want to know why that number is so high, look at the Freeperville response to that article about the 87%. All I'm saying is that if you claim that we Jews want another Massada, that this is yet another reason why we're going to hell, that you grew up thinking that Jews were smart but this disproves it--you know, some people might think that the Republican Party base is hostile to Judaism. And you guys think that Daily Kos is anti-Semitic. Geez.)

I don't know whether or not AIPAC explicitly pushed the war with Iraq, but I do know that their repeated association with far-right Christian Right leaders like John Hagee, who has repeatedly stated that he wants the Jews to be Israel because that will bring about the end times (at which point all Jews will either be forcibly converted or killed), gives me pause about
whether they're acting in America's and Israel's best interest, or just espousing a right-wing ideology.

What would be in the best interest for both countries would be for the U.S. to be firm with Israel. The U.S. should perhaps tie further military aid to Israel actively working to pull the settlers out from the West Bank and working out a final solution. We've got sticks and carrots here, we need to use them! And bear in mind, whatever sympathy I may have for the Palestinians has worn pretty thin--if they're going to shoot Qassam rockets at schools, they shouldn't act surprised when Israel strikes back. I'm suggesting this because it would force Israel to change strategy and gives them a real incentive to go back to the table.

Blindly supporting Israel, which is what AIPAC does, is not in either country's best interest. It is, in fact, only a way to keep the conflict going, and it allows the John Hagees of the world to exploit the Jews for their own twisted ends. As far as I'm concerned, if you're pro-Israel but are concerned about AIPAC's ideology, there are far more worthy groups to support, such as the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism or the New Israel Fund.


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

On a somewhat related note, I won't be around for the next few days, I'm heading out Thursday afternoon for that great Jewish paradise known as Miami. I'm going to be spending Yom Kippur with the family, visiting my grandparents, and also seeing my little brother, who goes to "The U" as they call it. I still don't get it--why would anyone want to spend four years at a resort-like campus near the beach when you can go to school in a freezing cold hippie town in the middle of nowhere like Cornell? Anyway, I'll be too busy fasting and atoning (and shopping) to blog for a few days. Just know that if I've wronged you in the last year (and you didn't deserve it), I apologize.

L'shanah Tova y'all!

Lamar! and Football

Our esteemed Senator Lamar! Alexander testified before Congress today in favor of a bill he's sponsoring that would spread out the presidential primaries so that it's done on a more regional basis:

The Tennessee Republican testified about a bill he co-authored that would divide the states in regions. The states in those regions would schedule their primary or caucus during the months of March, April, and May. The regions of country would then rotate months each election cycle.

He then used a football analogy to describe the problems with our primary system:

"The NFL schedules 16 contests over five months to determine its champion," Alexander said in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. "The presidential nominating process uses the equivalent of two preseason games in Iowa and New Hampshire to narrow the contest to two or three -- and sometimes pick the winner."

I agree with him on one point, that perhaps Iowa and New Hampshire have too much of a say in the selection. But there's other ways of fixing that rather than changing the primary system altogether.

And his legislation, in fact, doesn't really fix that. It leaves Iowa and New Hampshire first. So who's to say that the rest of the regions won't still fall in line with the first two states, making this whole change moot?

There's further problems with this idea as well, in that it would likely sway primaries in the regions that go in April or May. For example, if the Northeast were to pick first in 2008, then you'd likely have Hillary and Giuliani emerging victorious. That could have the potential of swaying undecided voters in the other regions, making whichever region picks first disproportionately influential on the outcome of the primaries. One good thing about the way our primary system works now is that it gives each region a more or less equal say. Having Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina as the first contests means that the candidates have to engage voters nationally and not just pander to one region of the country.

Furthermore, Lamar! touched on a huge pet peeve of mine here, and that's using a sports analogy for a political purpose. I have no problems with using sports analogies in everday conversation (and I use them often), but not in something serious like this. Senator--we're picking the leader of the free world here, not playing f***ing football! If you want to fix a broken system and have it be relevant to football, retire from the Senate and go fix the BCS!

Finally, someone who's more versed in Constitutional law than I am, please weigh in on this--does the federal government even have the right to decide this? I thought primary-scheduling is a states' issue. If the federal government has the right to change how the primaries are scheduled, then what's to stop the party in power from changing it on a whim?

No Goals, Just Timelines

This is good to hear:

After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so.

The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.

"There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.

Don't back down on this. Don't give in to Mr. 30%. Go with what the majority of the American people want, and that's a definitive end to the war.

And if the Republicans filibuster, so what? Make them read out of the phonebook to keep it going. Let the country see who the real obstructionists are.

Bush will probably veto, but that's just because he has no regard for the military or military families whatsoever.

To the Media, Re: O.J.

Dear Media,

I will admit, I'm watching the O.J. Simpson story closely. Yes, I like celebrity gossip, I'm not going to pretend like I'm some sort of ELITIST who pretends not to be interested. And I'm really hoping that maybe now they can finally put O.J. in jail where he belongs (and really, where he's belonged for the last 13 years).

However, even I have my limits. I care about how much prison time he may get, however, I really don't care about what sort of food he's getting served in prison. Do you see the difference? There's no need to waste precious time on Countdown with Lady-Who's-Not-Keith-Olbermann-Because-He-Had-His-Appendix-Removed talking about that.

Kthnx,
GoldnI

The Serial Campaigner For Labour

It's U.K. shout-out time!

Via Daily Kos, we have word that Democratic "serial campaigner" Bob Shrum, is going over to the U.K. to work for the Labour Party and help the current Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Gordon Brown MP, to win another term in Parliament in 2010.

Bob Shrum was a consultant to several Democratic presidential candidates, most recently to Al Gore and John Kerry, and is partially to blame for problems in both of their campaigns. In fact, he's widely considered to be "cursed". I hope this doesn't mean we'll be looking at Prime Minister The Right Honourable David Cameron MP in a few years.

The Chicago Sun-Times article points out that Shrum helped out with Labour campaigns in the past, and they were successful. However, I don't know how much that can be attributed to Shrum. I think it probably had mostly to do with Tony Blair's own popularity to begin with.

Heads Hillary, Tails Obama

That's probably what my decision on who to vote for in the 2008 presidential primary will come down to.

It's not that I don't like our candidates. On the contrary, I've been impressed with all of them, and could easily vote for any of them. I wish that Bill Richardson could have been a more viable candidate, and I have a few problems with John Edwards, but I'd vote for him over Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson without hesitation.

Compare that to a conversation I had with a Republican friend over dinner on Friday (yes, they do exist at Cornell). I asked him who he'd vote for in 2008, finishing the question with, "and you'd better not say Fred Thompson." His answer was very interesting: "Gun to my head, I'd vote for Giuliani, but I don't like any of them."

As of right now, if I'd have to pick a candidate, I'd vote for Obama, because I find him to be the most inspiring, and I'm pleased that he's committed to not voting for any further funding for Iraq unless it comes with a deadline for withdrawal. I never had anything against Hillary, but I was worried about her electability. Not because of all the conservatives who hate her, I was just worried that she was trying to be everything to everyone.

But against my better judgment, over the last two months Hillary has slowly convinced me to support her. The first instance was how candid she was at Yearly Kos. That may or may not have been scripted, but she just seemed to be answering the questions far more honestly than any of the other front-runners. When she said that lobbyists will always be a part of the government, that may have made a nice sound-bite for Edwards, but she was essentially correct. Big oil and big pharma may have tons of lobbyists, but so do the unions and other liberal-leaning groups.

Then came the Wesley Clark endorsement over the weekend. It didn't come as much of a surprise, but it still makes you wonder if he's angling for a job should she be elected. I was an enthusiastic "Clarkie" in 2004, and really hoped he'd run again in 2008. But I think Clinton/Clark would be an incredible ticket. Even if some see Hillary as a war hawk, General Clark could figure out how to get us out of Iraq as quickly and as responsibly as possible. It's a good balance.

Finally, Hillary unveiled a new health care plan today. I support full universal coverage, and allowing for multiple options in coverage is probably the most realistic way to achieve that end. This plan reins in the people most responsible for our health care crisis, the predatory insurance companies, without unfairly punishing doctors.

But I'm still waiting to hear from Obama. I'm hearing that he's going to have a big October, and I'm just hoping that he didn't peak too early.

Heads Hillary, Tails Obama.

Vandy! Vandy! Go Go Go!

Vanderbilt just pulled off a most excellent win over Ole Miss. After every win, all Vandy fans start doing "the math". That is, we look at who else we're playing and try to figure out all possible scenarios where we can get six wins and thereby FINALLY get to a bowl game.

Here's the rest of the schedule:

09/29	E Michigan
10/06	at Auburn
10/13	#23 Georgia
10/20	at #17 S Carolina
10/27	Miami (OH)
11/03	at #5 Florida
11/10	Kentucky
11/17	at #22 Tennessee
11/24	W Forest

If we don't beat E. Michigan and Miami (OH), then we clearly don't deserve to go to a bowl game in the first place. So if we win those two, we just have to win two more, and as far as I'm concerned we have three excellent chances. We beat Georgia on the road last year, there's no reason why we can't beat them at home. And if Mississippi St. could beat Auburn, then by God we can beat them too. Finally, although we've done poorly against them in recent years, there's no excuse for not beating Kentucky.

Of course, wouldn't I love it if we could beat Tennessee again?

Come on Dores. All we need is 6-6. All we Vandy fans want is a bowl game, ANY bowl game. The Music City Bowl would be just as good as a BCS Bowl to us.

Judge To Abused LEGAL Immigrant--"Go Back to Nicaragua!"

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos. H/t Sean Braisted and Kleinheider)

This is an outrageous story from Blount County in East Tennessee. I hope the conservatives will be all over this one, because if this isn't a clear-cut example of an "activist judge" enforcing a political agenda from the bench, then I don't know what is. But of course, it's an immigration issue so I'm sure they're all in favor of it.

Anna Calixto, an immigrant worker from Nicaragua, went to Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young to seek an order of protection from her estranged husband, who's been harrassing and stalking her. But the judge, despite her LEGAL status, ignored her request and instead told her to "go back to Nicaragua"!

First of all, some background:

Calixto moved to the United States from Nicaragua in 1994 to go to school and work. She and Fernando Calixto met in the United States and were later married. They have a U.S. marriage license issued by the state of Virginia, where they lived at the time. The Calixtos’ children, a 9-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son, are U.S. citizens.

Nine months ago the couple separated, and in May Fernando Calixto filed for divorce. Anna Calixto said she wanted an order of protection because her husband has been harassing her, calling her and regularly showing up at her home trying to get visitation with their two children. Calixsto said her husband had also made unauthorized charges to her bank account with a debit card.

Anyone who's studied domestic violence can tell you that it doesn't take much for it to progress from stalking and harrassment to physical violence. This is a cut-and-dried domestic abuse case.

When Ms. Calixto when to court, she was asked for proof of her legal status in this country:

"When the judge asked if I was here legally," Anna Calixto said, "I told him I have my temporary worker permit and I have the documentation showing it from the immigration service."

Got that? She's in this country LEGALLY. She has documentation from the INS, she has a worker permit. She is not an illegal immigrant.

But what did the judge say to her?

"The judge shrugged his shoulders like he didn’t care — then he told me to go back to Nicaragua."

"I told him I have two children and asked what I was supposed to do about my children. The judge said there were Americans here in this country who could take care of my children."

Unsurprisingly, this judge is a former member of the Blount County Republican Executive Committee. Don't you just LOVE conservative "family values"? They have no problem breaking up families when there are immigrants involved, but God forbid anyone else be in a family that falls outside of the "Leave It To Beaver" ideal.

And again, Ms. Calixto is in this country LEGALLY. Judge Young has absolutely no right to tell her to "go back to Nicaragua", she has rights in the American justice system.

What's particularly odd about this case is that this is what Judge Young said about domestic violence when running for re-election in 2006:

...Those who are the victims of domestic violence are due the same respect and thoughtful consideration that any other litigant who has a case before the Court.

Unless, of course, he doesn't like your ethnicity.

To voice your outrage:

W. DALE YOUNG
Judge, Circuit Court, Division I
Fifth (5th) Judicial District
Blount County Justice Center
946 East Lamar Alexander Parkway
Maryville, Tennessee 37804
Phone: 865+273-5550 (Office)
FAX: 865+273-5558 (Office)
Email: wdyoung@blounttn.org

UPDATE: Something else just occurred to me. Plenty of people say that they oppose illegal immigration but are all in favor of legal immigration. So I'm sure those people, the Lou Dobbs and Jim Boyds of the country, will be outraged that a documented worker was treated in such a way by the courts, right?

I'm not holding my breath.

Sweet

I don't know if anyone saw this on Wednesday, but it sure was funny to see at 6 in the morning in the airport. I went to get a copy of the paper, and what do I see on the front page?

Of all the pictures they could have put on the cover from the victory party, they put the one of my family looking up at Karl Dean.

Check it out. My dad's on the left, I'm on the right, and my mom's arm is blocking part of my face:

"Does He Live In This World Or Is He Just Selling It?"

That was the money quote from Chris Matthews on MSNBC after President Bush's speech.

I think the answer is pretty obvious, he's selling it. He's already admitted that he's "playing" for October-November, he's trying to get the presidential candidates comfortable with keeping the troops in Iraq indefinitely. And as I said a few months ago, it's very clear that Bush thinks the American people are stupid.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, this Administration can't bring themselves to admit that we're policing a civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites. No, we're still fighting "al-Qaeda" and "Iran-backed militants." Problem is, we could get rid of both of those threats, and it still wouldn't do anything to erase centuries of acrimony between the two sects, not to mention the scars left from decades of being pitted against each other. Not to mention Sunni-Sunni and Shi'ite-Shi'ite violence in areas where rival blocs are competing for power. For their part, the Kurds just flat out refuse to be part of the new Iraq, and who can blame them?

The truth is, there's simply not much the U.S. can do in Iraq anymore. The Iraqis have to come up with a political situation themselves. If we force one on them, then it'll fall apart the moment we leave, REGARDLESS of when that happens.

Bush tried to play up "successes" in Iraq to justify staying there. For example, the fact that Anbar province is nominally more stable than it once was. Problem is, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the "surge", and the fact that there isn't as much sectarian violence there can mainly be attributed to the fact that there simply aren't many Shi'ites there. And all of the "success" that Bush tried to talk about was overshadowed by how one of our biggest Iraqi allies was killed earlier today.

But Bush can't tell the truth here, because of course that would be tantamount to admitting he was wrong, and WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. So we'll just go along, "playing" with it.

I Don't Heart Huckabees

I was about to start posting my reaction to the Preznit's speech, when Mike Huckabee said something to Chris Matthews on MSNBC that I felt needed an answer first.

I don't have the direct quote yet, but in response to a reference to Vietnam from Matthews, Huckabee said that the war in Iraq is completely different from Vietnam, because this is about fighting religious fanatics and that it's a worldwide fight, not about "borders and boundaries."

I'm sorry Governor, but actually, that's EXACTLY what Vietnam was about. The American people WERE in fact told that the fight against Communism was a global fight. If we didn't fight them in Vietnam, there would be a "domino effect", and Communism would engulf the rest of Asia and the Soviet Union would be emboldened. There was a chance that the threat of a Communist takeover would make it's way over here. We were fighting the Communists over there so we wouldn't have to fight them here, to put it in perspective.

But of course, I wouldn't expect the Republican chickenhawks who avoided going to Vietnam to be able to make the distinction.

Revisiting the Idea

A few days ago, I posted a story about a Republican challenger to Jim Cooper, Gerard Donovan. I concluded that he didn't seem like that bad of a Republican, but figured that Cooper would easily brush it off.

Little did I know that Mr. Donovan would take the time to personally respond to me:

Thank you for the kind words, "He doesn't sound like that bad of a Republican on some issues...", or at least for the back handed compliment.

In regards to your question as to whether I was referring to Democrats or Republicans...

Both parties have let us all down! Both parties voted to send us to war and now their gamesmanship is affecting the very fiber of this nation and the safety and security of our men and women, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers that serve honorably in our military. Both parties are guilty of this behavior, both parties will have to answer to you and I. They have let us down on many issues, the least of which is the war in Iraq. For what? For their own political careers, their own financial gain and the gain of the their parties.

The reason I am running is because I am concerned for future generations of this great Nation (our children and our children's children) and the American way of life. Again, political professionals on both sides of the aisle have lost touch with the general public. They are more concerned with the interests of the special interests, political professionals and the politically connected and do not respond to the concerns and needs of the most important special interest group, their constituents.

Having put me on your blog you obviously have done some research as the press release of announcement wasn't very news worthy. No one knows I exist and that is ok. In fact it is ok that "Cooper needs a snack". I am willing to put myself out there and step out to the scrutiny of everyone (and trust me I have bones in my closet) because I believe so much that we need to clean the House and the Senate in 2008.

Please understand one thing, I love my life, I am married to my best friend and have three wonderful children. I am not doing this for a career change, I have a great job and make a modest living. I am not doing this because I have hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting around that I don't know what to do with, I am middle class, not upper middle class, just plain old middle class. I am not doing this because I need an ego boost. I am doing this because I am truly concerned, I am concerned that future generations are not going to have the opportunities we have had because career politicians have sold them and our way of life out for corporate greed, personal greed and party partisanship.

Again thank you for the kind words, I know as this moves forward there will be fewer and fewer so I will cherish the ones I get early on. They will keep me strong so that I can fight the good fight for you!

Kindest Regards,

Gerard Donovan
Republican Candidate
Tennessee's 5th District
U.S. House of Representatives

One of the biggest misconceptions about me is that people think I hate all Republicans. That's not true, I only hate obnoxious Republicans. Gestures like this do a lot to ensure that you don't fall into that category with me, and I greatly appreciate it. Really, I can think of a lot of Democrats who can learn from this.

Mr. Donovan, if you're still reading this, two things:

--You say both parties let us down on Iraq. So where exactly do you stand on Iraq? Pullout soon, gradual withdrawal, keep levels the same?

--Good luck. And I really mean that. The Davidson County GOP is a real status-quo, old school bunch who probably won't like the idea of someone without some sort of Family Name running. But if you can get past them, we may actually get a real race, which is always exciting no matter what the party.

Still on Cloud 9

I don't think it's quite hit me yet that we won. I haven't stopped smiling all night, but I think the full weight of what just happened will probably hit me at some point en route to Syracuse tomorrow morning.

As I said before, I think this is the first time in my life that I've been involved with a winning campaign, and it tastes so sweet. And to think, we came from nothing...from virtually no name recognition to winning the whole thing.

I head back to New York at 6:30 tomorrow morning. I just wanted to thank everyone for giving me my highest-traffic day since starting the blog!

Runoff Live-Blog

7:36 p.m: Well shoot, that was fast. In the 30 minutes it took me to get over here, all of a sudden we've got almost 88% reporting according to Channel 5, and Karl Dean winning 52.1-47.9.

The Tennessean hasn't updated their live-feed yet, but you can see from what they do have that Karl Dean won the early vote by about 2000 votes.

7:40 p.m: 90.6% reporting, Dean 52.2-47.8

7:42 p.m: Council At-Large update--it's looking like Barry, Tygard, Stein, and Maynard. This would be a result I could live with.

7:44 p.m.: 93.6% reporting, still 52.2-47.8

7:46 p.m: They interviewed me for a video on tennessean.com. They said it'd be up later tonight. I hope I looked ok.

7:47 p.m: 95.9% reporting, still 52.2-47.8 for Dean.

7:54 p.m: Howard Gentry's here, talking to the media. If that's not an endorsement I don't know what is.

7:55 p.m: 97.7% reporting, same result.

7:56 p.m: Council update, 97% reporting, still looks like Barry, Steine, Maynard, Tygard. Maynard's moved up from the last time they reported.

7:59 p.m: I must say I'm very disappointed in Thelma Harper's hat selection. It's neither bold nor bright enough.

8:07 p.m: CLEMENT CONCEDES, KARL DEAN WINS!!!!!

8:11 p.m: Clement says he couldn't have been negative if he tried. Oh bullsh*t. You know what, I don't want to rub the salt in, but Clement is sounding like a real sore loser here. But oh well, he's not the mayor!

8:17 p.m: Just to put this into perspective--I backed Gore, Kerry, and interned for the Harold Ford campaign. I helped out a friend's student council campaign last year, and he lost. I'm just so happy to have FINALLY backed a winner!!!

8:21 p.m: Dean thanks Clement and says that they were in this together. Showing once again that we chose the far classier candidate to be mayor.

8:26 p.m: Dean brings Diane Neighbors up on stage. This is going to be a good four years

"The Safest Place We Could Possibly Be"

I had wanted to do this earlier, but this is the first time today I've been able to breathe.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was on a bus headed for North Carolinga. I was a sophomore in high school, and our school always did a "Sophomore Retreat" where we went to Pisgah Forest to camp out for a few days. About two hours into the trip, my English teacher got up and told us, in a very shaky tone, that two planes had hit the World Trade Center and another one had hit the Pentagon. They put on the radio and allowed the kids who had immediate family in New York City to call home on the teachers' cell phones, but other than that we had no idea what was going on. By the time we got to North Carolina, we'd heard that 30,000 people were dead, and we didn't even know abou the towers falling. As we had our orientation session before going into the woods, the park rangrs kept assuring us that we were in "the safest place we could possibly be" and that they would come get us out of the woods if there was an emergency. We didn't learn the full extent of what happened until the last night of the retreat, Thursday night.

I guess it probably was the safest place we could have been. The worst thing we had to worry about in the woods of North Carolina in 2001 would probably have been Eric Rudolph. But we took a longer way back from home so that we wouldn't be driving near Oak Ridge.

Thinking about it six years later, it still makes me angry. I 100% backed going into Afghanistan, and I believed President Bush that we were going to fight them and catch Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But six years later, that hasn't happened, and we seemed to have forgotten about the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

That's the fight we should be focusing on though. While we've been trying to mediate a civil war, the Taliban has regrouped and Osama bin Laden is still out there. Even if he's now "impotent", that shouldn't stop us from wanting to bring him to justice. There's no reason to think we can't catch him, we caught Eric Rudolph in the end after all.

Weakening the mission in Afghanistan to go into Iraq was a strategic blunder that we will be paying the price for decades from now.

A Tale of Two Phonebanking Responses

Two funny phonebanking responses that people around me got today:

--One woman, upon hearing the call was from the Dean campaign, said "I am so happy to hear from an actual person and not a machine! I'll vote for Dean because of it!"

--Someone had changed their answering machine message to say "If this is a campaign call, DO NOT leave a message!" (The person making that call didn't leave a message, but I probably would have just to be facetious).

Some Early Turnout Numbers

Here's what my "eyes on the street" are hearing:

--Crieve Hall has had very high turnout, and Madison and Goodlettsville are pretty low

--West End/Green Hills has also had high turnout.

I don't want to rush to judgment yet, the rain's cleared up and people who live in the outlying communities will likely vote after work.

But this is sounding good so far...

UPDATE: Bellevue is high too, both the JCC and Bellevue Middle are reporting high turnout. St. Bernard's and Julia Green schools are also having high turnout.

I Changed My Mind, They Really ARE That Amateur

The funniest damn thing I've heard in awhile:

This morning driving to work in the rain, there was slight traffic but at least it was moving fast; in the distance I see random cars start to brake for no apparent reason. As I approach the area where people are braking, I see one rep for Bob Clement Mayor campaign on each corner of the intersection randomly jumping toward incoming traffic with a sign for Bob Clement and then dodging the incoming traffic just before getting ran over like a cracked up raccoon.

One of the guy participating in this ridiculous idea of a campaign was on the phone while he's jumping in and out of traffic. Every one of these morons deserve to be on the Darwin list if anything happens. Tennessee drivers are pretty bad driving on dry pavement as it is, so forget about driving on wet. I see more people run red-lights here in a week than I do up in NJ in a year, literally (and we think NJ drivers are bad...). If those guys don't end up getting themselves killed, they're going to cause an accident.

I don't see how it's a smart campaign, it gives an negative association to the public and also goes against the typical message these politicians try to make. Sure, I'll remember Clement when I go vote, but I sure won't vote for this dimwit and his campaign crew.

Memo #2 to the Clement campaign--If something God forbid happens, if someone gets hurt or there's an accident, y'all could be held liable for this. But don't worry, I know a great lawyer you could call...

...oh wait, he's going to be booked solid for the next four years.

(H/t Kleinheider)

Let The Games Begin

Just got an alert from one of my sources...someone put up a plywood sign at 21st and Fairfax that says "Dean = More Taxes", and that there was a Bob Clement sign right next to it.

Memo to the Clement campaign: First of all, do you honestly think that's going to sway anyone in Hillsboro Village? Second of all, that was really amateur to do it that way, could you have been any more obvious?

UPDATE--Someone pointed out to me that we don't know for certain that the campaign was behind it. But whoever did it obviously thinks people in the Hillsboro Village/Belmont are are that stupid.

This Is Pretty Cool

The Tennessean has a source code on their website that allows you to have live election results from them on your blog. That was very nice of them, I must say. I'll repost this when the results start coming in so it'll be at the top.

You Can Stand Under My Umbrella ('Ella, 'Ella, Ay, Ay)

Got back to NashVegas at 10:30 last night, hoping to escape from the rain that hasn't stopped in Upstate New York over the last few days. I woke up this morning, and discovered it had followed me here.

I'm not sure how this is going to affect voter turnout just yet. Presumably the weather hurts Clement, although that's not something you want to assume. But it does cause a lower voter turnout overall. One of my friends who worked with me on the Ford campaign last year is convinced that the rain on that Election Day was the final nail in the coffin for him.

However, I braved the rain this morning and went to go vote. I got really excited when I pulled into the church this morning--the parking lot was packed, and there were a bunch of young mothers with little kids walking around. I thought, "High turnout! Young voters! Democracy is working!"

But it turned out the church was having a Mommy & Me event, and there was only one other person voting besides me. Typical.

Maybe Not So Progressive After All

Very interesting article in this week's international edition of Newsweek, about how gay rights are expanding even in the land of "machismo". Mexico City, Buenos Aires and four Brazilian states allow for civil unions, 3 million people participated in a gay-pride parade in Sao Paolo, and even countries with right-wing governments like Colombia are considering expanding partner benefits. It was heartening news to hear.

But one thing that struck me were the Latin American leaders not mentioned in this article. You would think that the countries with the furthest left-leaning governments would be leading the way on this. But no mention of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Evo Morales in Bolivia, and only a brief reference to Cuba.

This is an issue where I diverge from many on the left, in that you will never hear me defend Chavez. A dictator is a dictator no matter where on the political spectrum they are. He may be doing good things for the poor in Venezuela, but no one has yet explained to me why that requires cracking down on civil liberties and staying in power until 2027. To me, Chavez is just proof that there's no real substantive difference between the far left and the far right--they both tend towards authoritarianism.

Maybe there are thriving gay cultures in Venezuela and Bolivia. Or maybe gay rights simply don't fit into the "socialist model". Regardless, it's countries like Brazil and Argentina that should be leading the way in Latin America, not Venezuela.

Update on "Those Meddling Kids!"

Just got an e-mail from Davidson County Young Democrats President Addison Pate regarding the phonebanking situation. In a nutshell, Davidson County Democratic Party Committee member Alma Sanford objected to the DCYD using the Party HQ to do a GOTV phonebank, arguing that increased youth turnout would hurt Bob Clement. It was completely ridiculous, as the DCYD was in no way endorsing a specific candidate.

However, I am pleased to say that the situation appears to have been resolved:

Over the weekend Ms. Sanford called me to discuss the situation. She assured me that she is very sorry about the e-mail and that it was a poor choice of judgment. She has been and will continue to support the Davidson County Young Democrats.

This is good to hear. They're recognizing that the Young Democrats are doing a good thing for the party, and not trying to be "meddling kids".

Two other important points in the e-mail:

--The phonebank will go on, at the DCDP Party Headquarters at 95 White Bridge Road, Ste. 412, from 5:30-7:30 tonight.

--At the DCDP Executive Committee meeting on September 25, this incident will be on the agenda. Please go to the meeting if you're able to.

Yeah, Good Luck With That

It seems that Congressman Jim Cooper will have a Republican challenger for his seat next year:

Local businessman John Gerard Donovan, a Republican, has announced that he will challenge Democratic Congressman James Hayes Schofner Cooper in Tennessee’s sprawling 5th Congressional District, which includes Davidson county and parts of Cheatham and Wilson counties.

He doesn't sound like that bad of a Republican on some issues:

Moving from the federal drain on citizen’s income to business’s drain on their ability to generate a larger income, he called for a stop to the outsourcing of American jobs, specifically mentioning manufacturing jobs.

So he wouldn't be beholden to corporate interests like the rest of his party, which is an improvement. But:

Donovan called for an end to political gamesmanship with the lives and well being of our military by those using funding for those with their lives on the line to drive political agendas.

I would hope he's not specifically referring to Democrats in Congress who want any further funding to the war tied to a specific withdrawal date. After all, it's the Republicans who are cynically "playing" with the lives of the troops.

I say serve it up. Contested elections are good for democracy, and Cooper needs a snack anyway.

(h/t Kleinheider)

Programming Update, 9-9-07

I can't even believe that this time tomorrow, I'll be on a plane en route to Nashville. But we had a credit on U.S. Air, so tomorrow evening I'll be headed back home for the election. Same drill as last time...I'll be on location with the Dean campaign most of the day, culminating in an election-night live blog session. Then I'm out again Wednesday morning, getting back to Ithaca in time for my Introduction to Wines class (and yes, that is a real class at Cornell...I love being a senior). Can't wait to see everyone!

Also on Tuesday, I get to vote. In case you're interested, I'm voting for:

Mayor--Karl Dean (obvi)

Metro Council--Megan Barry, Jerry Maynard, Saletta Holloway, Luvenia Harrison Butler

In an unrelated note, I wanted to spend tonight not doing anything political, so instead of watching the Democratic Univision debate, I'm watching the VMA's. And wow...Britney Spears opened the show and looked like she didn't even know where she was or what she was singing. Between her and the Michigan Wolverines, this has been my Weekend of Schadenfreude.

UPDATE: Does anyone NOT lip-synch on these shows anymore? Chris Brown isn't even pretending to sing. MTV has seriously gone downhill from my day. Bring back the videos and give us "Daria" on DVD!

Just Plain Disturbing

A violent neo-Nazi cell has been broken up by the police, before the cell could carry out a murder. Normally this would be cause for celebration, but the location of this cell makes the story shocking:

In a case that would seem unthinkable in the Jewish state, police said Sunday they have cracked a cell of young Israeli neo-Nazis accused in a string of attacks on foreign workers, religious Jews, drug addicts and gays.

Eight immigrants from the former Soviet Union have been arrested in recent days in connection with at least 15 attacks, and a ninth fled the country, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said, in the first such known cell to be discovered in Israel.

My first thought on seeing this story was how could it be possible, in a Jewish state? But in the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Israel witnessed a surge in Russian immigration. Under the Law of Return, anyone who has at least one Jewish grandparent can move to Israel and claim citizenship. As such, many people who had little or no ties to Judaism came in. It seems that these neo-Nazis were allowed in under this law.

Predictably, many on the Israeli Right are calling for an end to Russian immigration. Part of the problem is indeed with the Law of Return, but not in the way they think. Under the Law, it's easier for people like the neo-Nazis to gain Israeli citizenship than it is for people who have converted to Judaism by choice, and whose conversions were performed by anyone less than an ultra-Orthodox Israeli rabbi. It makes no sense--Jewish law makes no distinction between someone who was born Jewish and someone who converted, so why should the Jewish state? To me, this highlights the problems of what happens when you let religious extremists control your domestic policy.

It's also pretty sad how these people have more rights in Israel than law-abiding Arab Israeli citizens.

I love Israel, but it's become increasingly clear to me over the last few years that their system is hopelessly warped. I don't think it makes me a bad Jew to say that even though I support Israel, I'm American and will always be American.

Chopper Church

This story cracked me up:

So Southern Baptists are taking the Gospel to them, giving away free motorcycles at biker rallies and motor speedways as they try to attract new converts with a revved-up new style of evangelism.

Baptists in North and South Dakota for a second year in a row gave away a new Harley Davidson at the Sturgis, S.D., biker rally in August. To be eligible, people had to listen to a 3-minute sermon and fill out a card to get a raffle ticket.

So let me get this straight. You sit through a three-minute sermon, you get entered into a drawing to win a Harley, and there's no further obligation on your part? Shoot, I'd sit through the sermon for that. It would be like when I worked on Capitol Hill and all of us interns would go sit through Cato Institute propaganda lectures so we could get a free lunch.

But if there's someone reading this who actually is an evangelical Christian, explain something to me. I understand that going out and witnessing is central to your faith. But doing something like this--essentially bribing people to listen--it brings up the idea of "money-changers in the Temple", at least to an outside observer like me. How is it different?

My Letter to the Editor

I used to write LTE's to the Tennessean all the time, and got published several times. I haven't in awhile, only because I haven't seen anything in there worth responding to.

But today, I had a letter printed in a smarter but less widely read paper, the Cornell Daily Sun. You can see it here. And it's true...I really don't have much sympathy for conservatives who think they're being discriminated against on campus. First of all, if you can't make a coherent conservative argument without resorting to shock tactics (parading around with pictures of aborted fetuses or staging games of "Catch the Illegal"), then your argument is probably not fit for a university campus. Second of all, you control the political discourse off of campus already.

And finally...let's be honest here. What conservative students want is not free speech, it's not "ideological diversity." If given the opportunity, they'd take control of the campus discourse and use it to drown out liberal voices.

So, I really don't have sympathy for them. It's hard to be a liberal in the South with people trying to shout you down all the time, but I understand that it's my burden to bear.

Gee, Thanks Mr. Jobs

Those of you who know me know that I LOVE MY iPHONE. I hadn't planned on getting it right away, I was going to wait to hear if there were any problems and then decide. But a few days after it came out, I happened to be at the Apple store in Green Hills, because my Mom wanted an iPod Shuffle. While we were there, I asked them to show me the phone on a whim, and a few minutes later I decided that I HAD TO HAVE IT. They were out of 8GB phones then, but told me to come back the next morning. I came back, lined up, and a few days later after sorting out the billing issues with AT&T, I had an iPhone. It has absolutely everything I need in a phone. The Safari feature works so well that last month, I was able to perform quite possibly the world's first ever iPhone live-blog on Election Night (I now have a broadband card in my laptop so I won't have to do that again on Tuesday).

So you can imagine how pissed off I was yesterday when Steve Jobs announced that not even two months after I bought it, they were dropping the price of the phone by $200. I still think it was worth the money, and I realize that it's good business strategy to do this in time for Christmas, but it was still pretty jarring. The worst part was how Steve Jobs dismissed the concerns of those of us who are loyal Apple customers and had already bought the phone by simply saying "That's life".

Good to see he's being a little more conciliatory today:

Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and who is not receiving a rebate or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of any product at an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store. Details are still being worked out and will be posted on Apple's website next week. Stay tuned.

So now I'll have $100 to spend at Apple. I should probably spend it wisely, maybe buy one of the cool new iPod Nanos for someone special...

...nah, I'll probably just blow it all on the new iPhone ringtones they're going to start selling next week :)

Kids! I Don't Know What's Wrong With These Kids Today!

I've been following with great interest this story that Sean's been on since this morning. Go over there and read it. Long story short, the Davidson County Young Democrats were going to use the Party HQ to phone-bank and encourage young voters to vote. This was to be strictly a GOTV effort, and more importantly, not biased towards either Bob Clement or Karl Dean. But one Davidson County Democratic Committee member opposed using party resources for this effort.

Why? Because she was worried that increasing youth turnout would hurt Bob Clement:

As a strong Bob Clement supporter I am concerned that getting out young voters means getting out people who read The Scene and The City Paper, both of which have been strongly biased against Bob Clement. Although you have indicated you are not taking a side in this mayor's non-partisan race, the phonebanking gives an appearance that the Young Democrats are doing just that.

Wow. Let's break this down a little bit. As DCYD Addison Pate points out, this woman is making the assumption, without cause, that young voters are stupid and uninformed, and are uniformly biased. There's also a great implication here--Ms. Sanford is a Clement volunteer (although Clement's campaign has completely distanced itself from these comments), and she seems to think that increased youth turnout will definitely hurt Clement. Do they have an internal on that?

But this touches on a larger issue in my humble opinion, and that is the disconnect between young Democrats and the larger Party. Look at the College Republicans and Young Republicans--yes, they're the incredibly annoying people on campus who go around doing reprehensible things (anyone want to play "Catch the Illegal"?) and then whine about how they're being "censored" when the university tries to step in. And of course, they're all in favor of sending other people to die in Iraq but can come up with the most amazing excuses for why they personally won't enlist.

But look at how well-organized they are. And look at how well-integrated they are within the larger Republican Party apparatus. One thing the Republicans do right is that they recognize talent early on, and they nurture it. How many current Republican party leaders got their start in college? A lot, I'd be willing to bet.

I've never been involved with the College Dems. Here at Cornell, it's far more about internal politics than actual politics. I get the sense it's that way at a lot of other schools too. But beyond that, sometimes it almost feels like you have to have some sort of family connection to get anywhere within state parties like ours. Otherwise, as a young Democrat, you're only an afterthought.

The Putz-In-Chief

Funny story that I heard about on a diary at Daily Kos. President Bush wants to wish all of us Jews a very happy Rosh Hashonah:

The enduring traditions of Rosh Hashanah remind us of the deep values of faith and family that strengthen our Nation and help guide us each day. As Jewish people around the world come together to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, it is a chance to look to the new year with hope and faith.

Laura and I send our best wishes for a blessed Rosh Hashanah and shanah tovah.

That was a very nice gesture on his part. Only problem is, Rosh Hashonah is next week.

This must be the White House post-Katrina strategy...do everything early so that you won't be so late!

He'd Rather Be Doing It In New Hampshire

I decided in the end to watch Fred Thompson's announcement on Leno. First of all, maybe I haven't noticed this because I don't watch all that much TV, but has Thompson lost a good deal of weight over the last few months? I'm just curious, someone let me know.

I don't want to give credence to Mitt Romney here, but in terms of campaign strategy, he may have a point here about Thompson:

"I think it will boost the ratings for Jay Leno's show, but I'd rather be doing well in New Hampshire," Romney told reporters before he marched in a Labor Day parade in Milford, New Hampshire.

Now, Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he was running for the Governator of Cahleefornia on Leno a few years ago, and that certainly worked out nicely. But then again, they were actually IN CALIFORNIA. Announcing on Leno will certainly get buzz, but do you suppose a lot of undecided conservative voters in the early primary states (whichever ones they are now) really watch Leno?

I think he may risk cultivating the "Frederick of Hollywood" image here.

But on the other hand (and I know I'm acting like Tevye here), Romney probably has more to lose than any other Republican candidate from Thompson entering this race--if Thompson can sway conservative voters, then it not only hurts Romney but helps entrench Giuliani. So of course he'd want to make Thompson look bad.

Of course, none of this really matters to me. Feuding Republicans amuse me to no end.

Yawn

Grandpa Frederick of Hollywood has officially (for real this time) announced he's running for President.

Whoop-de-doo.

Enough

This is something I heard about this morning, and as the details have emerged over the course of the day, it's shocked, angered, and sickened me. But I couldn't get all my thoughts together until seeing Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Countdown tonight. Here's the transcript, and the video from Crooks and Liars. Just a heads up, this is going to be a pretty long post.


***

It's been a tough six and a half years for this country. 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, the economy, and an incompetent administration running the whole thing. But all throughout, I've tried to keep my chin up, and the events of the last year have given me more hope. The Democrats took back Congress and have at least attempted to start undoing the damage, and the prospect of a Democratic President in 2008 looks very good. And after all this time, you almost grow numb to the daily scandals coming out of this White House.

But just when you think to yourself it can't get any worse, it does. In fact, it gets much, MUCH worse. The story that has come evolved over the last few days makes me sick to my stomach.

A biography of the Bush Administration, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush by Robert Draper came out today. Several disturbing anecdotes about Bush and his attempts to place the blame for his failures on others have already emerged. For example, Bush claimed to Draper that he "couldn't recall" why the decision was made to dissolve the Iraqi army:

"The policy was to keep the army intact; didn't happen," Bush told biographer Robert Draper in excerpts published in Sunday's New York Times.

Draper pressed Bush to explain why, if he wanted to maintain the army, his chief administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, issued an order in May 2003 disbanding the 400,000-strong army without pay.

"Yeah, I can't remember; I'm sure I said, 'This is the policy, what happened?' " Bush said

Pretty damning stuff. Dissolving the army turned out to be one of the most disastrous decisions of this war, as it left thousands of men (with weapons training) unemployed, hungry, and pissed off at us. So maybe Bush did in fact realize that this might be a consequence, but for some reason his orders weren't followed, and L. Paul Bremer is to blame for what happened.

Only problem with that is, it's a blatant lie:

But the exchange of letters provided by Bremer, the Times reports, "shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq envoy in May 2003 of a plan to 'dissolve Saddam’s military and intelligence structures.'"

The Times added, "In releasing the letters, Mr. Bremer said he wanted to refute the suggestion in Mr. Bush’s comment that Mr. Bremer had acted to disband the army without the knowledge and concurrence of the White House."

One day after receiving Bremer's May 20 message, Bush wrote back a short thank you to him in Baghdad. “Your leadership is apparent,” the president wrote. “You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence.” On the same day, the Times notes, Bremer had issued the order disbanding the Iraqi military, but "Bush did not mention the order to abolish the military."

Bush knew. He knew what Bremer was about to do. And now that it turns out the decision to dissolve the army was a catalyst in creating the insurgency that's killing our troops right now, he's trying to push the blame onto someone else.

***

But as Olbermann pointed out, that's not the most damning thing that's emerged from this book.

Yesterday, as you'll recall, Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq to meet with the troops on Labor Day. During that visit, he promised them that he would start to bring them home if security conditions continued to improve in Iraq. And since all the Republicans are claiming that glorious progress is being made in Iraq, it seemed like Bush was finally coming around to the idea that it's time to start pulling out.

Only he's not coming around to that idea. We now know that he told a blatant, cynical, deadly lie:

“I’m playing for October-November.” That is when he hopes the Iraq troop increase will finally show enough results to help him achieve the central goal of his remaining time in office: “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence,” and, he said later, “stay longer.”

He doesn't want to bring the troops home. He doesn't want to start preparing for a withdrawal, even if the situation improves. He wants them to stay longer, past his presidency. He doesn't see this as putting American lives on the line. No, it's "playing" for a political gain.

Bush went all the way to Iraq so he could have a photo-op and lie to the people who's lives mean nothing to him.

I want the conservatives to see this. I want to see them spin it and tell us why Bill Clinton's lies were worse and tell us all about how Bush and the Republicans "support the troops". It just goes to show, once again, that it's nothing more than a slogan to be exploited by the corrupt and the craven.

***

So do I want the Dems in Congress to impeach him? I don't know. At this point, I honestly think it's too late.

But I can tell you what I DO want, and that's for not another penny to be spent on this God-damn quagmire. Not another penny for American lives to be wasted just so this President can "play" in the hopes that someone else will agree to continue it.

We have just over 500 days left in this presidency. God help us all.