Welfare

I’m posting this topic because it has almost entirely disappeared from public discussion since Clinton left office. It amazes me that it was completely absent from the Presidential campaigns (shame on you, John Kerry and George Bush). 35.9 million people are in poverty in the US and that number is rising (by 1.3 billion over the last year). Sadly, children account for most of that increase (rose from 16.7 to 17.6 percent in 2003). I also think that it’s important to discuss this because it demonstrates some of the basic attitudes that I think, unfortunately, separate Republicans and Democrats.

The current welfare program, TANF (click here for a comprehensive journal article on the program), has been in place since 1996/1997. It implemented new work requirements for welfare recipients and transferred much of the program implementation responsibilities to states and counties. While the effectiveness and merits of the new program, which dramatically reformed the previous welfare system, can be debated endlessly, I’d like to focus on the more basic questions behind the program. However, I expect that much of the discussion, if there is one, will inevitably turn to the merits of the current program. For a great resource on the current program, check out this page by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Among the many questions worth considering, here are some of the following I’d like to address. I hope some of our Republican readers can chime in here to give us an understanding of their view on this issue:

1. Why are people in poverty in this country to begin with? Is it a problem created by sociological and historical phenomena? Is the reason rooted in cultural aspects related to certain groups of people? Who’s responsible for their situations? Are they responsible? Are they entirely responsible?

2. By implementing new work requirements, is there an assumption that the problem with welfare recipients–ALL recipients, like people with substance abuse problems, people with mental illnesses, restrictions to infrastructure, etc.–is that they’re being apathetic towards working? In other words, is the primary problem with welfare recipients a lack of will to work?

3. Is it feasible that people in poverty–ALL types of people–can enroll and sustain participation in current welfare programs and subsequently move out of poverty as a result (notice I said move out of poverty, not move off of welfare, which is quite different. While people continue to move off welfare, the poverty rate continues to rise. Most states don’t track what happens to people when they move off welfare, even if they complete the necessary requirements while in the program).

Rumsfeld, Conspiracies, and Me

Fantastiko is back in action! I trust your holidays went well and that you’re looking forward to the new year. By the way, did you hear Christmas is under siege? It’s true! Fox says so.

Let the debates continue...

Since 9/11, conspiracy theories have developed concerning each of the flights that crashed that day. Don’t ask me for the details–I just know they exist (if you’re really interested, ask Guille). Based on the Administration’s story and the report by the 9/11 commission, which I’ve only just started reading, my understanding of 9/11 is less than complete. So is yours.

In spite of unprecedented access to information, the 9/11 commission has presumably created a story that does not completely demonstrate the context and details of 9/11 because so much of the information is based on memory, informants with intense political interests in the details of the official story, and so on. For me, believing that I have anything near a complete story bends on the credibility of the players involved. It’s sufficient to say that although a complete story is both desirable and impossible, we should get as close to it as possible.

Many of us have a deep, severe distrust of this administration–and not just because Michael Moore tells us to. I trust that they think their agenda is best for the country. I usually disagree with that agenda–and that’s okay. They represent the majority in this country and I’m clearly not the majority right now. That’s the game and I accept it. My problem is that I have a deep distrust in their ability, method and motivation to accomplish their goals efficiently, honorably and ethically. This is an argument that I should defend thoroughly. I won’t today, but look for it...

Assuming that our distrust is at least partly justified–an assumption that will surely be challenged by many of you–how are we supposed to react to Rumsfeld’s recent faux pas when he referred to flight 93 having been shot down over Pennsylvania (the official story says that passengers on board overwhelmed the terrorists)? How does that support arguments that we should trust the administration’s story of 9/11? Put another way, what are we supposed to do when we encounter information that challenges either the credibility of the Administration, the story, or both? Should we dismiss it in fear of being labeled conspiracy theorists or worse? Should we honor our desire to find truth by raising these difficult questions?

I’m not convinced by conspiracy theories, but thanks to "mistakes" like Rumsfeld’s and other events that have fueled my distrust in the Administration, I’m equally unconvinced by the official story–even before I’ve finished reading the Commission’s report. My point is that, conspiracy theories or not, we don’t have anything near the whole story and that’s not acceptable to me. Eternal ignorance of the 9/11 details doesn’t serve anyone except those who thrive on unfounded conspiracy theories and those who support policies that require an incomplete story.

Feelings on the 2004 Election

It's time for me to make a simple statement on the 2004 post-election activities and let the issue of its merits rest, aside from updates on investigations that I’ll continue to post on Fantastiko.

Bush won the election using a severely flawed system. Had Kerry won, I would be saying the same thing (admittedly perhaps with less enthusiasm. We’ve talked about how this is the job of watchdogs and losers). Pretending that our system is good enough is a mistake because it could one day a) potentially produce a winner who does not accurately reflect the intent of voters (did this already happen in 2000?) and b) disenfranchise voters in a system that is already awash with apathy. We need to know that when we say that x-number of people voted for Bush-Cheney, x-number of people really voted for Bush-Cheney. It's important for me, you, President Bush, Democrats, Republicans and anyone else interested in preserving a democracy that isn’t dysfunctional. We need press coverage to highlight the problems and a substantial political movement to begin working on them. In the case of this past election, the close results have given us a golden opportunity to shine a big light on election problems and to motivate people to improve the system.

The Bush Force-Field

Rumsfeld has been taking hits from just about every direction lately, especially conservatives (e.g. Bill Kristol). Check out this interesting Washington Post Op-Ed from the conservative editor of the Weekly Standard.

It amazes me how George Bush has been so good at avoiding blame or responsibility—at least in a political sense. It’s like he has an impenetrable political force-field covering the oval office. This is something that Bush built. While the Office itself carries weight, not all presidents enjoy such unwavering support for so little production. Where’s the Bush backlash when it comes to concerns about unexpected difficulties, bad decision making, misjudging the “insurgency” and implementing a questionable war plan? It’s remarkable how our president has managed to avoid real scrutiny. During the election season, he did a wonderful job convincing us that if we’re too critical of the war, we’re being disloyal to our troops (and Poland!), so he protected himself sufficiently. Since the election, the worst he gets from people has to do with firing Rumsfeld.

Could it have something to do with the ridiculously high premium he places on loyalty? Could it be that conservatives use avenues like Rumsfeld to criticize policies so that they’re able to voice their concerns about the Administration’s policies without risking the trust they have from the President—a president who appears to value trust and loyalty over anything in his political reality?

I’m convinced that Bush is a genius (I mean politically only. As a public servant and executive, he’s a bottom dweller). But, it concerns me that the impenetrable Oval Office Force-Field seems to find it’s density in loyalty. Loyalty can be virtuous, but not in the place of critical analysis. I want a president who values diversity of opinion more than loyalty. Of course, that would mean no Oval Office Force-Field.

By the way, why was there no representative from organized labor in the recent economic summit?

Election Day Troubles in Ohio

On December 2nd, 2004, the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee signed a letter addressed to Ohio’s Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (R). The letter outlined 12 points worth investigating prior to certification. Although the election has been certified and we’re awaiting the casting of the electoral votes in a Joint Session of Congress on January 6th, the House Judiciary Committee has agreed to investigate the election. I’ve condensed the letter sent to Sec. of State Blackwell for your convenience so that you know what to look for from the media, Congress, the GAO and others who are (or should be) investigating this matter.

This gives you an idea of the questions raised by Democrats in Ohio. I’m not sure how many of them will actually be investigated or how many of them have been thoroughly and sufficiently addressed to date. As far as I know, questions related to these points below remained unanswered (sorry, Republicans. Calling it a "computer glitch" doesn't count). If you want to review the original letter, then follow this link. Enjoy!

1. The Warren County Lockdown: County officials claim that an FBI agent issued a level “10” terrorist threat warning, which resulted in a decision to lockdown the polling place, barring reporters from monitoring or viewing the polling. The FBI has no records of such a threat and there are discrepancies coming from the County officials’ information.
2. Perry County Discrepancies: It appears that in some precincts, voters were counted twice or there were more votes tallied than registered voters.
3. Perry County Registration Peculiarities: Extraordinarily high level of voter registration (91%) with a significant amount voting for the first time with no signature on file. Of these, a significant amount registered on the same day in 1977, a non-presidential election year.
4. Democratic Supreme Court Candidate Gets More Votes than Kerry: In Butler County, the underfunded Democratic Candidate for Supreme Court totaled 5,000 more votes than Kerry-Edwards. Based on the State’s unofficial results, this happened in eight other counties in addition to Adams County where Kerry barely received more (179 more). As noted in the letter, the question seems to be how voters in such large numbers declined a Kerry-Edwards vote but still waited in line to cast a vote for such a poorly funded candidate for State Supreme Court.
5. Unusual Results in Cuyahoga County: In 10 precincts throughout highly democratic Cleveland, there was a dramatic increase from 2000 in the votes tallied for a third-party presidential candidate. In one precinct, the tally rose from 08 votes for a third-party candidate in 2000 to 215 in 2004 (in 2004 in this precinct, Kerry had 290; Bush had 21). The letter questions the possibility of problems with punch cards.
6. Spoiled Ballots: While it happens everywhere (2% of votes county-wide are thrown out because of no clear choice), 75% more undervotes (no choice for president) were in Democratic precincts than Republican precincts. Two precincts in one county had 6,000 votes thrown out as undervotes (a rate of 25% each).
7. The Famous Franklin County Overvote (Woo-Hoo! Columbus-area!): Although there were only 800 registered voters in the precinct in question and only 638 people cast votes there, 3893 extra votes were given to Bush-Cheney (due to a “computer glitch”).
8. Miami County Vote Discrepancy: Nearly 19,000 votes were added after 100% of the precincts reported in this county. 13,000 of these went for Bush-Cheney.
9. Mahoning County Machine Problems: Numerous voters in this county reported that when they attempted to vote for Kerry-Edwards, the vote showed up for Bush-Cheney. The problem continued after they attempted to correct their votes.
10. Machine Shortages: Lines in Franklin County often ranged from two to seven hours, at least partly because 68 machines were never placed on Election Day and 77 machines malfunctioned. Still, it’s unknown how many machines were actually available during the morning to noon rush on Election Day. In predominately Democratic areas, there were fewer machines than in primarily Republican suburbs. In some of these areas, the numbers of machines were fewer than the amount used for the primary elections! There was an eight-hour line at Kenyon College for students voting there.
11. Invalidated Provisional Ballots: As we know, there was a pre-election interpretation of the rules related to casting provisional ballots in Ohio, saying that only those cast in the correct precinct could be counted. So, voters, especially African-American voters, were sometimes direct by door-hanging pamphlets, phone calls, official-looking letterhead documents, and election workers to go to the wrong polling place, thus invalidating their votes. In Hamilton County, provisional ballots were not counted because they were cast at the wrong table.
12. Directive to Reject Voter Registration Forms Not Printed on White, Uncoated Paper of Not Less Than 80 lb Text Weight: The directive was not clear to begin with and was subsequently reversed on September 28 without sufficient instruction to Ohio counties. Meanwhile, votes were thrown out that otherwise would have been valid.

CHECK HERE FOR 2004 POST-ELECTION NEWS

The latest in the Ohio election (facts are condensed from Bloggerman’s blog): Rep. Conyers, the ranking Democrat in the House Judiciary Committee will be formally contesting Ohio’s electoral votes on January 6th during a Joint Session of Congress where states’ votes are counted. But before the formal contest on the 6th, he must have a Senator co-sign the written challenge. Not sure that’s going to happen! Even if it does, the Senate and House individually vote to accept or reject the challenge. A rejection voted by a majority, on the other hand, will surely happen. At least it’ll get on the record.

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee has agreed to investigate the election on its own (I hope to have enough time to post the main points being investigated in this thread). In addition to the GAO’s investigation, we should see results trickling in through alternative news in the coming years. Unfortunately, any positive results from the investigations—that is, results that show a need for institutional election reform—will most likely not give us enough time to improve our system for the 2008 election. Considering how little attention is being given to the topic now only a month after the election (imagine how little interest there will be after a couple of years), I’m not optimistic when it comes to the next few elections—UNLESS we find multiple cases of wrongdoing; there are plenty of cases where we may find this.

What I AM optimistic about is that, despite the cold shoulder from the press—especially the mainstream press—and the obvious apathy on the part of Republicans, which happen to control the country at the moment, Democrats in Ohio are still working hard to get an accurate vote tally, shine a light (albeit a very dim light) on the flaws in our system, and investigate possible criminal activities. This is good. It’s good because it tells me that we’re being constructive with our frustration and are committed to honesty and democracy. Somebody has to be responsible for improving elections. If not for this, what chance would we have?

I’m disappointed with the anger I’ve been hearing from many Republicans on TV and radio in response to the calls for investigations. Why are they so angry that we’re looking into this? I suppose it’s because they think we’re trying to discredit Bush’s victory, or because we’re angry, or because we’re in denial. Frankly, I think they’re just trying to be louder. If they seem angry enough, our outcry will be crushed by a vociferous “SHUT-UP!!!” shouted in unison.

Bush: "Nation-Building Not Worthwhile"

I know the U.S. has been in Iraq for a while, but since elections in Iraq are near and since we're constantly discussing Bush's policies, I'd like to quickly revisit the 2000 campaign before he became president. You've heard or read this before, but let's do the media's job and remind ourselves what kind of flip-flopper we're dealing with (Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000):

• Q: In the last 20 years, there have been eight major actions involving the introduction of US forces. If you had been president, would any of those interventions not have happened: Lebanon?A: Yes. Q: Grenada? A: Yes. Q: Panama? A: Yes. Q: Obviously, the Persian Gulf. A: With some of them I’ve got a conflict of interest, if you know what I mean. Yes. Q: Bosnia and Kosovo. A: I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO. I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. Q: Somalia. A: It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either.

• Q: Why not Africa? Why the Middle East? Why the Balkans but not Africa? BUSH: Africa’s important. And we’ve got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade. It’s an important continent. But there’s got to be priorities. And the Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons as is Europe and the Far East, and our own hemisphere. Those are my four top priorities should I be the president. It’s not to say we won’t be engaged [in Africa], and working hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity [like in Rwanda]. I thought the best example of handling a [genocide] situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians; support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.

Q: Are you a flip-flopper?
BUSH: Yes. I mean...no. Yes. It depends.
(Source: I made this up)

I know, I know...this sounds like pre-election talk on my part. Is it useful to talk about it? YES!!! We've elected somebody who ran on being decisive and resolute. But now he seems to be a different person from the one who ran in 2000. It's important that we point this out, before or after the election, because he should be held to this shift in foreign policy. This is nation-building going on in Iraq, is it not? Our troops are expected to stay for another four years. Now that he's open to nation-building, how about giving some really problematic places a look?

What? They don't have as much oil as Iraq does or aren't close enough to Israel?

But these other places, like some countries in Africa, breed terrorists and genocide! What's that you say? They don't have as much oil?

How about some clarity on the issue? I'm confused. I want to know what our "strong" and "resolute" leader has to say about nation-building today. Is it okay when it's a poor country without any direct ties to "US interests" and without any useful resources we can take advantage of? Is it only okay when U.S. security is involved? I don't understand! I’m starving for a clear policy statement from our “unwavering” leader.

Let’s see if I can take a stab at this one: nation-building missions are okay where our national interests are concerned (i.e. where we’ll be able to build a Wal-mart) and in places where an investment in their development directly benefits our economy (i.e. benefits corporations like Wal-mart). The national security argument is fuzzy to me. That is, underdeveloped places tend to be the breeding grounds for terrorists and yet our nation-building efforts there are limited (with the exception of Afghanistan,which provides access to the oil-rich Caspian Sea and has already produced a monster oil pipline).

Am I wrong? Probably. If I am, it’s not because I’m stupid or biased. It’s because I'm uninformed. Our government has done a poor job of being clear on the issue.

The Straight-Talk Express

Remember Sen. John McCain’s failed campaign in 2000? Remember his campaign bus he called “The Straight-Talk Express?”

Sen. McCain showed that he would quietly criticize the Administration on matters like the Abu Ghraib scandal and campaign ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Although I don’t follow stories related to the Senator very closely, it seems to me like his “straight-talk” philosophy only applies when it’s politically convenient for him. Where was his strong criticism of Sec. Rumsfeld before the election?Recently, the AP reported on McCain’s lack of confidence in Rumsfeld:

“But asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, Mr. McCain recalled fielding a similar question earlier.”I said no," he said. "My answer is still no. No confidence."

There you go. Straight-talk from the driver of the Straight-Talk Express. He’s several months late--maybe even late by a year or two--but he never said that he’d be on time.

Here’s another interesting passage from the same AP story to note (on Rumsfeld’s response):

A Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said Mr. Rumsfeld had "relied upon the judgment of the military commanders to determine what force levels are appropriate."

Interesting coming from a man who earlier said this about responsibility regarding the Abu Graib abuse:

"These events occurred on my watch," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility."

So let me get this right. Because the prisoner abuse happened under his watch, he takes full responsibility, which actually helped slow the coverage of the story, making him look trustworthy and honest. But in regards to the criticism of the amount of our forces the US has in Iraq, he makes decisions based on the advice of his commanders. He’s not fully responsible on that one. Two points to make here about Rumsfeld. First of all, if you read Plan of Attack, you’ll read that Rumsfeld doesn’t just “rely on judgment” from anybody. Second, does ANYONE in this administration take responsibility for things that have potentially negative political consequences?

God Bless America

A recent article in the Washington Post about Bush and religion does not inspire any new thoughts to debate. Same old story: many people are uneasy with Bush’s use of religion in the formation, implementation and discussion of his policies and some people say that his religious beliefs will inevitably translate into policy decisions. And some people think that’s okay. I don’t mind the use of religion for meditation, philosophy, and justification or rationalization for decisions that are made. Religion is a person’s own business and I expect it naturally plays a role in that person’s decisions. We knew we were electing a deeply religious man when we put him in office. I fully accept the role of religion in our President's processes.

I’m also not sure how his religious beliefs can be separated from attracting the satisfaction of his important Christian Evangelical constituency, so it’s difficult to say which policy decisions are to satisfy an important constituency or to satisfy himself. Or maybe he is satisfying his own religious needs by satisfying that constituency. Who knows? I really don’t care all that much.

What I do care about is the use of religion in speeches and forums that attracts world attention and generates a new perception of America abroad. That bothers me. It bothers me deeply when he invokes a sense of inherent virtue in our actions and decisions that is somehow rooted in some concept of God.

Nine days after Sept. 11th, 2001, he said this in a Joint Session of Congress:

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. - George W. Bush, Sept. 20th, 2001.

If we’re bringing God into this—God, in my view, being the most powerful notion among human beings—we better be pretty damn careful about the words we use. Freedom, fear, justice, cruelty AND GOD are all ambiguous terms. Even in a single context, like September 11th, they mean many things. And the world didn’t begin on September 11th and certainly didn’t end on September 12th. The concepts of these terms in the minds of people across the planet vary based on their own experiences. Naturally, I understand this is a problem for any figure who is giving a speech—the problem of speaking to the entire world is a daunting task for anyone. But surely we can do better than this. Surely we can do better than ignoring the troublesome nature of words like freedom, justice, and God and plowing ahead, tossing them around like we’re talking about the Jets playing the Giants.

Unless, of course, we don’t want to do better, which I suspect is the case here.

President Bush: Keep Your Eyes on the Ball

On Wednesday, I listened to part of an interview with Jeffrey Sachs, Special Advisor to the Secretary-General of the UN on the Millennium Project. The project was started in 2002 and Sachs has been brought on to lead a team of 300 scholars in analyzing and recommended policies for addressing world poverty. In mid-January, 2005, his group will issue a report which should have a major impact on the developed world’s approach to poverty. I was struck by the simplicity of his approach. Sachs believes that the problem in places like sub-Saharan Africa starts with the issue of survivability; if people aren’t able to meet their basic needs to survive, then economic and cultural growth will suffer. For example, nets for sleeping are important tools used to help protect people against malaria. Nets cost about 2 dollars each, more than a typical at-risk family can afford. When asked if his policy recommendations in the upcoming report involve writing huge checks to solve impossible problems, he said that his recommendations will be of this sort—to help at-risk families get nets by delivering them straight to them. The CDC reports that most people who die from malaria are African children less than five years old. Five years old! I just want to make three points about this (I have more, but I’ll spare you. Take a deep breath--this will take a while):

1) Everyone knows that there are serious problems that seem hopeless to solve, but let’s be clear. They’re not hopeless because we don’t have solutions to implement. They’re hopeless because we can’t agree on a basic paradigm for addressing the issues. We don’t agree on basis for the solutions. As a student of psychology, I believe in Maslow’s Theory of Motivation and Human Needs: basic needs must be met (physical safety, security, physiological, survival, etc.) before self-actualization can be achieved. More simply, have you ever tried studying for an exam when you have the flu and have missed consecutive days at work? I have. It’s much harder than studying when you’re in a quiet library with nothing else to worry about. How is a family supposed to bring crops to market when they can’t feed themselves? How are they to do well in school when they have to worry about their safety and the safety of their families? Yet, many people believe that those in poverty want to be poor, or that they’re somehow innately inferior. If we are serious about helping the poor—and I'm not convinced all of us or even a majority are—then we need to give something away. Sorry! It’s just the way it is. We need to give free nets to people in Africa. We need to give cash to individuals at home BEFORE they’re expected to advance socially. People need the means to get beyond survivability issues first.

Someone may point out the bad effects of hand-outs, like reduced self-esteem, dependency, apathy, etc., and that may be a problem for some people in poverty, but let's consider the alternative: we have problematic welfare programs in the U.S. like TANF, expecting single parents to forego schooling in order to work a job that pays minimum wage in order to get public financial support, while reducing child day-care support access, eliminating or reducing transportation programs and services, limiting health care access in terms of quality and services, and not accounting for the quality of work that is available for these individuals, especially the "hard to serve" individuals with severe psychological and developmental disabilities. We're not addressing survivability. Survivability requires more than a welfare check. It requires social support ranging from basic health care to basic education to access to clean water. Five years from now you’re going to see what the effects from programs like TANF are—I’ll post the reports on this blog (don’t let the numbers of people “leaving welfare” since TANF was implemented fool you; it’s complicated and enough to talk about for another topic, but suffice it to say that the results have been severely skewed by supporters of the program, which include both parties—thanks Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress!). I’ll concede that there are exceptions to Maslow’s Theory and many have left poverty without direct public assistance. But since the beginning of mankind, poverty has not been solved and it’s NOT because of handouts and welfare programs.

2) Five years old! Can you imagine if a million kids in the US died every year of a single disease what kind of response there would be? Even if it was in Canada we’d still be outraged. Problems in places like the 49 countries in Africa deserve MORE attention for this fact alone. Say what you want about the causes of poverty, but surely children aren’t at fault.

3) Finally, President Bush and Congress have an opportunity here. 300 scholars worked on this project. These are experts. We should listen to them. In spite of the recently strained relationship between the U.S. and the U.N., we should listen to the best policy advice that is out there. Because Sachs is an advisor to Annan and he’s one of those “intellectual types” is no excuse not to consider the report’s recommendations. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball—and I don’t mean the kind of ball that you hit with a bat. I fear that we’re going to hear more words being devoted to the issue of steroid use in baseball in next year’s State of the Union Address than direct poverty solutions (tax cuts don’t count). This issue requires presidential leadership. A quarter of our world’s population lives in severe poverty. The official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number in poverty increased also, by 1.3 million people, to 35.9 million in 2003. I would like to see at least 12.5 percent of the State of the Union Address devoted to dealing with poverty DIRECTLY, including plans to increase survivability and access to basic needs.

GOP.com

I was surfing GOP.com (not looking for material, but just out of curiosity) and found some real gems. Did you know that they have a book club, a page that categorizes groups for outreach, and a store? It’s great!

These are the groups they targeted for outreach. You can click on them for a recruiting message from the GOP. I’ve bolded my favorites:

African American/ Arab American Asian American/ Pacific Islander/ Catholic/ Conservative/ Conservative Punk/ Disability/ Eastern European/ Education/ Environment/ Evangelical/ Farmer and Rancher/ First Responder/ Greek American/ Haitian American/ High-Tech/ Hispanic/ Home Schoolers/ Indian American/ International Relations/ Irish American/ Italian American/ Jewish/ Labor Unions/Latter-day Saint/ Law Enforcement/ Lebanese American/ Muslim/ Native American/ Orthodox Christian/ Community/ Senior/ Small Business/ Snowmobiler/ Sportsmen/ Stock Car Race Fans/ Student/ Veteran/ Women/ Young Professional

Notable exceptions include: Democrats, Liberals (why just Conservatives?), Moderates, Western Europeans, Africans, Refugees, and Social Workers. As a liberal, I could use some Republican outreach about now. What in the hell is Conservative Punk?

The best is the Snowmobiler. Click on that group and you’ll get the following message:

Our national parks are the crown jewels of the country's environmental heritage. They belong to all Americans and should be accessible to all. As a Snowmobile Team Leader you will help protect our back country and our right to multiple use by recruiting more snowmobilers to support President Bush’s sound plan to protect America’s natural resources and open them up to multiple use conducted in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.

Using noisy, dirty, gas-guzzling snow mobiles? Really?

Make sure we protect our back country-- from those communist invaders!

I also love how they have an entire category for golf wear in the GOP store. It’s still polo shirts, like in the other categories, but with horizontal stripes.

And check out the recommended reading. Heavy stuff! It includes subtle titles, like Thank you President Bush.

Rumsfeld -- Secretary of Bad Moves

I was going to post something completely different today, but with all the replay of the Rumsfeld visit to the troops, I couldn’t resist.

Thanks to Eric Hananoki’s blog post, we’re reminded of a speech President Bush gave over a year ago to our military:

These Senators are strong supporters of your mission. They appreciate what you do. They vote for strong defense budgets, because they know what I know -- that any time we put our troops into harm's way, you must have the best training, the best equipment, the best possible pay. (Applause.)

Note that this was over one year ago. The President understood, or at least claimed to understand, that we have a gap to fill in terms of our military’s preparedness—the simple fact that it is being addressed means that it is a problem for somebody. The Administration had an entire year to get it right—or at least get the appearance right. My instincts tell me that they’re either really stuck on Rumsfeld’s Transformation policy or they truly just don’t have the resources. Either way, I suspect they were just hoping to make it past the election. In this sense, it’s clear that destroying Kerry on the 87 billion dollar issue was the key to building a distraction plan and side-stepping the real issue. After all, Kerry was not the Secretary of Defense or the President of the United States when the issue came to light.

I’m not a military guy, as you all know, and don’t claim to understand the in and outs of military preparations and defense budget issues. Based on books I’ve read, like Plan of Attack, and my understanding of policy reforms, I have a basic understanding of Rumsfeld’s Transformation policy, which I suspect plays a big role in the criticism we’re taking with regards to the size of our forces abroad and the resources they’re given. I know that the administration has had difficulty gathering political support for this war—and lack of political support usually translates to lack of funding (or a crippling of ability to ask for more of it). Where’s the appropriated money going? Are they not able to afford the armor? Is it that they would rather sacrifice a dozen national guardsmen rather than inflating the budget for a war with limited support? I have no idea. In any case, the outcome is the same: people get bad wounds or die.

Our government should say we haven’t done well enough. I applaud Rumsfeld for taking questions from people outside of the US press—which in itself is a BIG step for this administration—and for trying to answer the hard questions. Is there any way he can take a stab at mine?

Enjoying a Cup O’ Joe

I’ve been spending the last few days with my nose stuck in books trying desperately to prepare for final exams. The end is near! In ten hours, the pain will end and I can live like a normal human being again.

Forgive me for slowing the pace of the blog for a day—I’m a bit numb from staying up late inhaling economics. For my own therapeutic purposes, I’d like to take a quick breath and think out loud. Here are three things that have gotten me through the last few days of misery.

1) Dawn and I went to Philadelphia and D.C. this weekend to visit my good friends Carl, Julia, Julia (my sister), and Alex (soon to be my brother-in-law). With exams looming, I had hoped that the weekend would deliver rest and relaxation. As expected, it was a weekend full of merry friendship and fascinating conversation. These are good people. I can’t tell you enough how exciting it is to get to know each other as couples. It amazes me how fast Alex and Julia have grown to be solid companions. Thanks to help from the Julias, Dawn took up knitting this weekend (can I have a scarf?).

Philadelphia and D.C. are two very different cities. Having spent more time in D.C., I can’t make a fair comparison just yet, but both cities are big, alive, and rich with history. I have to get out to the east coast soon (no offense, Columbus!). In Philadelphia, I saw the Independence Hall, where those nifty guys signed the Declaration of Independence over 200 years ago. Across the street, the Liberty Bell sits in a glass viewing chamber. It appears that the crack story isn’t as interesting as I originally thought; it was produced by a flaw in the bell, not by raucously ringing the bell in joyous celebration for winning independence. Nevertheless, it was touching.

2) I had three great cups of coffee this weekend. Nothing lifts my spirits like a good cappuccino; milk perfectly heated and properly frothed with two lumps of sugar. Two of these delicious delights were from coffee houses in Philadelphia, which I’ll leave Carl to plug for in case you’re ever in the city. The third was from Carl, who has perfected the art of brewing and frothing. If ever in his presence, don’t be stupid—demand a cup and prepare yourself for ecstasy. His process is slow, deliberate, delicate and worth the wait. Bring the show home for Christmas, Carl. I expect at least a gallon of coffee over the holidays.

3) Making it through each day can be hard as it is, but it’s much harder when the person you live with is taking final exams. I’m amazed by how patient other people can be when I’m going crazy with pressure and deadlines. Dawn smiled at me every morning and Bailey, my dog, waited up for me until 1:00 AM last night, greeting me with kisses and play.

Get ready for some heavy stuff tomorrow.

Let's Revisit Ohio

I don’t normally revisit previous topics, but this isn’t going away (hopefully you don't miss the previous topic, which is also new). The Bloggerman reports that twelve of fifteen Democratic members of the US House Judiciary Committee sent a fifteen-page letter on Thursday to Ohio’s Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell formally requesting answers to questions surrounding election night. It is, by far, the most comprehensive report of the Ohio allegations I’ve seen so far. Gee, I wonder if Sec. Blackwell will formally try to answer all these questions. He’ll just have another worthless press conference calling us crazy, angry and confused. He needs to be careful; the report also notes that the twelve representatives have requested an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee in addition to the GAO investigation that has already been approved. He may actually need to start taking this seriously.

I agree with Olbermann’s assessment. The questions outlined in this report are worth investigating, especially the Warren County lockdown. Keith has highlighted important points for Blackwell to consider: “If County officials were not advised of terrorist activity by an FBI agent, have you inquired as to why they misrepresented this fact? If the lockdown was not as a response to a terrorist threat, why did it take place? Did any manipulation of vote tallies occur?”

At the very least, we owe it to those who feel they may have been victims of either a flawed system or fraud. Is that not enough reason to investigate? I just don’t understand the hesitation to proceed with evaluating the election. Someone explain to me why we shouldn’t investigate. Please?

I feel compelled to defend the investigation—not because I want Bush to lose (although that may be a convenient outcome), but because our system simply may not have worked. I’m going to keep searching for investigation-related reports in the media and will post comments on this topic to give people easy links to information, which, believe me, is very hard to come by.

President Bush is Not Fond of Eggs

Like many of you, it pains me to think of witnessing another Bush-Cheney inauguration. While the 2000 inauguration festivities produced an unexpected uproar from Bush protesters, this year’s event will surely match the level of commotion surrounding Bush’s procession down Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Washington Post reports that security will be at an all-time high, apparently because of 9/11. I’ve had friends tell me that they would expect, and in some cases support, a visible outcry of protest (many have referred to the egging of the presidential limo in 2000). I’m not sure I agree with egging as a course of action—at the very least, doesn’t it just fuel the new Angry Left label that’s been developing since the 2004 election?—but I fully support protesting at events like this. I respect the Office of the President, but the inauguration is to many people the making of the man into the office. One can protest the man without protesting the institution of the Office.

I dare say that it’s awfully politically convenient to have security, including restricted opportunities for protesters, at an all-time high this time around.

Our “Liberation” Message

Many have been arguing (and I agree) that since the Iraq invasion--or “liberation” depending on who you agree with--took place, the Administration and its political supporters have completely misunderstood the context and details of the middle-east-hates-America problem, the effects of the war on our credibility and the War on Terror.

Finally, a government committee convened by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz seems to agree. In a report by the Defense Science Board (DSB)—that was released the day before Thanksgiving on PDF! Coincidence?—conclusions and recommendations are made that are not optimistic considering we have another four years of “they hate freedom” claims and the like. It turns out that the DSB agrees that we’ve made a mistake. I can’t wait to watch the Sunday shows this week to see how many hosts call out administration officials on this.

The report points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem and an inappropriate choice for a solution: our credibility as “liberators” is questioned abroad because we historically have supported tyrannical regimes in that area (e.g. Saddam Hussein) and because they think we have blindly supported Israel. (Before anyone gets angry with me, I’m not saying I agree with those views, although they’re more accurate than the views of our administration; I’m agreeing that we frame the problem incorrectly and ineffectively, often ignoring facts and the views of the “enemy” in a way that serves us badly-- Well…in a way that serves us and the thousands of people who have died as a result of our “liberation” efforts badly.)

This report is realistic and thorough, commenting on policy and communication methods and taking a well-rounded approach to the problem beyond military activity. Please read it. There’s an excellent column written by James Norton on the subject that is also worth a quick look.

O Canada!

It appears that President Bush has finally decided to make the long flight up to Canada (it only took 4 years and that's okay because Canadians are well known for their patience). In a scene that has become all too familiar, he was greeted by over 5000 protestors. Is it the news coverage that’s misleading or is this president setting records for opposition demonstrations across the world? I know every president has had his share of protestors, but it seems to me like the passion—and, sadly, the violence—that Bush brings out in people is unprecedented or at least unmatched since Vietnam.

Canadian polls showed over 80 percent of Canadians had hoped that Bush would have lost in the election and disagree with his foreign policies. His banning of Canadian beef imports, disagreements on Iraq, and disappointment that Canada has not yet supported US decisions in missile defense development have demoted Canada from “best buddy” status--since replaced by Tony Blair (not the British; they hate Bush too). On the missile defense debate, I say to Canada: DON’T DO IT! According to polls, you don’t want to and, since everyone loves Canada, you certainly don’t need to! Man, the options you have when you’re liked by people…it’s amazing. I’m jealous.

Mr. Bush: when you’re not hated across the world, making decisions that actually promote peace are possible. LEAVE THEM ALONE! We should learn from our neighbors.

As for the beef and other trade issues, we’re screwing Canada big time. Reports show a loss of 2-3 billion dollars since the beef plan has been in place. Fortunately, Bush has finally put some presidential push behind the move to eliminate the ban, although it won’t happen until well into 2005. I didn’t know they had cattle! Is it good?

Too Controversial

I just read that NBC and CBS, both owned by Viacom, have chosen not to air an advocacy ad for the United Church of Christ for being "too controversial" and "unacceptable for broadcast.” The main point of controversy seems to be the text "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we,” which is in reference to homosexuals, people with disabilities, and minorities. Honestly, I had no idea that UCC even existed or that a church was seeking to advocate tolerance on the airwaves. Sounds like a nifty idea to me. They’re a minority so the word has to get out somehow.

Alas, Viacom has decided to help keep people like me in the dark. Their intention, supposedly, is to avoid controversy since the whole “gay marriage debate” has been thrust to the forefront thanks to Rove and Co. What a horrible attempt to create an excuse for banning an ad.

Do I understand this correctly? They’re trying to avoid controversy by implicitly advocating the conservative right’s views on marriage and tolerance?

By the way, isn’t UCC money as good as any other kind? I guess not. It’s scary when even paying up can’t get your words on the air.