A poem for the new year
Seeing the divine in the ordinary
Through portals of readiness
We step into God
Seeing the divine in the ordinary
Through portals of readiness
We step into God
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Could You Be President?
Do you think it is hard to be President? Maybe you could do it. Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief, and industrial leader. You have to make the tough decisions about cutting or raising taxes, how to allocate the federal budget, what kind of infrastructure you want, etc.. You also have to decide when to go to war and how to defend your country against attacks. It is very detailed and realistic. If you can beat the other presidents, you can win cash awards. Be warned, playing the game is addictive.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Alaska's Biggest Paper Endorses...Obama
By Greg Mitchell
Published: October 26, 2008 12:45 PM ET
NEW YORK Alaska's biggest paper, The Anchorage Daily News, has endorsed Barack Obama for president, despite -- or at least partly because of -- its state governor's presence on the opposing ticket.
While praising Palin's energy and bright future, the paper's editorial adds, "Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time."
Published: October 26, 2008 12:45 PM ET
NEW YORK Alaska's biggest paper, The Anchorage Daily News, has endorsed Barack Obama for president, despite -- or at least partly because of -- its state governor's presence on the opposing ticket.
While praising Palin's energy and bright future, the paper's editorial adds, "Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Alaskan Independence Party: The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
In 2004, America's malleable mainstream media allowed itself to be manipulated by artful Republican operatives into devoting weeks of broadcast attention and drums of ink to unfairly desecrating John Kerry's genuine Vietnam heroics while obligingly muzzling serious discussion of George W. Bush's shameful wartime record of evasion and cowardice.
Last week found the American media once again boarding Republican swift boats against this season's Democratic candidate armed with unfair and hypocritical attacks artfully designed by GOP strategists to distract attention from the cataclysmic outcomes of Republican governance. Vice Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin has taken to faulting Senator Barack Obama for his casual acquaintance with a respected Illinois educator Bill Ayers, who forty years ago was a member of the Weathermen, a movement active when Obama was eight and which he has denounced as "detestable." Palin argues that the relationship proves that Obama sees "America as being so imperfect that he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
The Times dedicated a page one article to Obama's relations with Ayers and CNN's Anderson Cooper obliged Palin by rewarding her reckless accusations about Obama's patriotism with a major investigative report. Fox, meanwhile, is still riveting its audience with wall to wall coverage of this pressing irrelevancy.
But if McCarthy-era guilt-by-association is once again a valid political consideration, Palin, it would seem, has more to lose than Obama. Palin, it could be argued, following her own logic, thinks so little of America's perfection that she continues to "pal around" with a man--her husband, actually--who only recently terminated his seven-year membership in the Alaskan Independence Party. Putting plunder above patriotism, the members of this treasonous cabal aim to break our country into pieces and walk away with Alaska's rich federal oil fields and one-fifth of America's land base--an area three-fourths the size of the Civil War Confederacy.
AIP's charter commits the party "to the ultimate independence of Alaska," from the United States which it refers to as "the colonial bureaucracy in Washington." It proclaims Alaska's 1959 induction as a state "as illegal and in violation of the United Nations charter and international law."
AIP's creation was inspired by the rabidly violent anti-Americanism of its founding father Joe Vogler, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American," reads a favorite Vogler quote on AIP's current website, "I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." According to Vogler AIP's central purpose was to drive Alaska's secession from the United States. Alaska, says current Chairwoman Lynette Clark, "should be an independent nation."
Vogler was murdered in 1993 during an illegal sale of plastic explosives that went bad. The prior year, he had renounced his allegiance to the United States explaining that, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." He cursed the stars and stripes, promising, "I won't be buried under their damned flag...when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home." Palin has never denounced Vogler or his detestable anti-Americanism.
Palin's husband Todd remained an AIP party member from 1995 to 2002. Sarah can be described in McCarthy-era palaver as a "fellow traveler." While retaining her Republican registration, she attended the AIP's 1994 convention where the party called for a draft constitution to secede from the United States and create an independent nation of Alaska. The McCain Campaign has reluctantly acknowledged that she also attended AIP's 2000 Convention. She apparently found the experience so inspiring that she agreed to give a keynote address at the AIP's 2006 convention and she recorded a video greeting for this year's 2008 convention. In other words, this is not something that happened when she was eight!
So when Palin accuses Barack of "not seeing the same America as you and me," maybe she is referring to an America without Alaska. In any case, isn't it time the media start giving equal time to Palin's buddy list of anti-American bombers and other radical associates?
In 2004, America's malleable mainstream media allowed itself to be manipulated by artful Republican operatives into devoting weeks of broadcast attention and drums of ink to unfairly desecrating John Kerry's genuine Vietnam heroics while obligingly muzzling serious discussion of George W. Bush's shameful wartime record of evasion and cowardice.
Last week found the American media once again boarding Republican swift boats against this season's Democratic candidate armed with unfair and hypocritical attacks artfully designed by GOP strategists to distract attention from the cataclysmic outcomes of Republican governance. Vice Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin has taken to faulting Senator Barack Obama for his casual acquaintance with a respected Illinois educator Bill Ayers, who forty years ago was a member of the Weathermen, a movement active when Obama was eight and which he has denounced as "detestable." Palin argues that the relationship proves that Obama sees "America as being so imperfect that he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
The Times dedicated a page one article to Obama's relations with Ayers and CNN's Anderson Cooper obliged Palin by rewarding her reckless accusations about Obama's patriotism with a major investigative report. Fox, meanwhile, is still riveting its audience with wall to wall coverage of this pressing irrelevancy.
But if McCarthy-era guilt-by-association is once again a valid political consideration, Palin, it would seem, has more to lose than Obama. Palin, it could be argued, following her own logic, thinks so little of America's perfection that she continues to "pal around" with a man--her husband, actually--who only recently terminated his seven-year membership in the Alaskan Independence Party. Putting plunder above patriotism, the members of this treasonous cabal aim to break our country into pieces and walk away with Alaska's rich federal oil fields and one-fifth of America's land base--an area three-fourths the size of the Civil War Confederacy.
AIP's charter commits the party "to the ultimate independence of Alaska," from the United States which it refers to as "the colonial bureaucracy in Washington." It proclaims Alaska's 1959 induction as a state "as illegal and in violation of the United Nations charter and international law."
AIP's creation was inspired by the rabidly violent anti-Americanism of its founding father Joe Vogler, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American," reads a favorite Vogler quote on AIP's current website, "I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." According to Vogler AIP's central purpose was to drive Alaska's secession from the United States. Alaska, says current Chairwoman Lynette Clark, "should be an independent nation."
Vogler was murdered in 1993 during an illegal sale of plastic explosives that went bad. The prior year, he had renounced his allegiance to the United States explaining that, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." He cursed the stars and stripes, promising, "I won't be buried under their damned flag...when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home." Palin has never denounced Vogler or his detestable anti-Americanism.
Palin's husband Todd remained an AIP party member from 1995 to 2002. Sarah can be described in McCarthy-era palaver as a "fellow traveler." While retaining her Republican registration, she attended the AIP's 1994 convention where the party called for a draft constitution to secede from the United States and create an independent nation of Alaska. The McCain Campaign has reluctantly acknowledged that she also attended AIP's 2000 Convention. She apparently found the experience so inspiring that she agreed to give a keynote address at the AIP's 2006 convention and she recorded a video greeting for this year's 2008 convention. In other words, this is not something that happened when she was eight!
So when Palin accuses Barack of "not seeing the same America as you and me," maybe she is referring to an America without Alaska. In any case, isn't it time the media start giving equal time to Palin's buddy list of anti-American bombers and other radical associates?
A great quote from today's New York Times
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.”
Monday, October 6, 2008
All About the Keating Five
We need to hit McCain now on this. Now!
You will see the following week get bogged down in smears.
The Campaign has asked us to forward this link to everyone we know. Please forward this link to all your friends.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
Now this is very urgent! Let me tell you why:
An hour long documentary by Sean Hannity on his Hannity's America show sliming Barack Obama so much it would make you sick.
The "sources" he used weren't even credible authors, but if you watched that doucmentary and had no other point of view, you wouldn't vote Obama.
So let's get the word out NOW about John McCain. Forward this link now to your friends.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
You will see the following week get bogged down in smears.
The Campaign has asked us to forward this link to everyone we know. Please forward this link to all your friends.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
Now this is very urgent! Let me tell you why:
An hour long documentary by Sean Hannity on his Hannity's America show sliming Barack Obama so much it would make you sick.
The "sources" he used weren't even credible authors, but if you watched that doucmentary and had no other point of view, you wouldn't vote Obama.
So let's get the word out NOW about John McCain. Forward this link now to your friends.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Ask the Candidates: Will You Cut Poverty in Half?
Next Tuesday, October 7, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain will meet at Belmont University to answer questions from around the country in a town hall debate. Moderator Tom Brokaw will be accepting questions from the public through Thursday, October 2. This will be the only opportunity for the candidates to address the importance of fighting poverty in a public forum. See http://www.myspace.com/mydebates to submit a question.
Not sure what to ask? Half in Ten sent in this question:
Since 2000 the economy has grown and productivity has increased, but median wages have gone down, and poverty has risen. More than 37 million Americans live below the official poverty line, and tens of millions more are having a hard time putting food on the table and keeping up with their bills. Will you make a commitment to cut poverty in half in the next 10 years? What specific steps will you take to achieve this goal?
Submit your question before Thursday, October 2 to make it into consideration for the town hall debate. By doing so, you will help keep the issue of fighting poverty and increasing opportunity on the table in this election.
Let us know what you ask: Send a copy of your questions to info@halfinten.org. We’ll pick questions to feature on our upcoming redesigned Half in Ten website!
For more information on the Center for American Progress’ policies to fight poverty, as well as the Half in Ten campaign, please see:
* From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half by the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html
* Half in Ten: From Poverty to Prosperity
http://www.halfinten.org/
Half in Ten plans to reduce poverty in the United States by 50 percent within 10 years. Under the leadership of Senator John Edwards, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), the Coalition on Human Needs (CHN), and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), have joined forces on the campaign to elevate and sustain a focus on the situations facing the poor and middle class today,build and strengthen an effective constituency to demand legislative action on poverty and economic mobility, advance specific legislative and policy proposals that will deliver real benefits to struggling American families. For more information on how to reduce poverty in America, see From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half by the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty.
Not sure what to ask? Half in Ten sent in this question:
Since 2000 the economy has grown and productivity has increased, but median wages have gone down, and poverty has risen. More than 37 million Americans live below the official poverty line, and tens of millions more are having a hard time putting food on the table and keeping up with their bills. Will you make a commitment to cut poverty in half in the next 10 years? What specific steps will you take to achieve this goal?
Submit your question before Thursday, October 2 to make it into consideration for the town hall debate. By doing so, you will help keep the issue of fighting poverty and increasing opportunity on the table in this election.
Let us know what you ask: Send a copy of your questions to info@halfinten.org. We’ll pick questions to feature on our upcoming redesigned Half in Ten website!
For more information on the Center for American Progress’ policies to fight poverty, as well as the Half in Ten campaign, please see:
* From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half by the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html
* Half in Ten: From Poverty to Prosperity
http://www.halfinten.org/
Half in Ten plans to reduce poverty in the United States by 50 percent within 10 years. Under the leadership of Senator John Edwards, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), the Coalition on Human Needs (CHN), and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), have joined forces on the campaign to elevate and sustain a focus on the situations facing the poor and middle class today,build and strengthen an effective constituency to demand legislative action on poverty and economic mobility, advance specific legislative and policy proposals that will deliver real benefits to struggling American families. For more information on how to reduce poverty in America, see From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half by the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Register and Vote on the Same Day in Ohio
This is the week in Ohio when you can REGISTER AND VOTE on the same day.
This week can be the LARGEST voting turnout EVER for STUDENTS !!!
Take advantage of Ohio's "Golden Week" -- Sept 30 to Oct 6
* Bring voters from campuses and urban areas to Early Voting Center, so they can
bank their votes early and ensure they don't get shut out by long lines and
broken machines on election day.
University of Akron 25,942
To Vote Early go to--
470 Grant St.
Akron, OH 44311
Mon-Fri: 8am- 4pm.
Telephone: 643-5200
* What YOU can do RIGHT NOW-- publicize the Golden Week on campuses and in
Ohio's urban centers. ..
* Educating early voters about the process
* Recruiting other volunteers
* Creating posters, flyers and visibility
* Recruit other volunteers to come to Ohio
* Donate your car or van for the week
* Coordinate w/OBAMA office nearest campus (see below) so you are not duplicating your efforts.
Akron Office
3 Merriman Rd
Akron
(330)252-5720
View Map
60 offices now open- http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ohoffices
LOOK at these numbers!!!...don't leave a single vote behind; we can win Ohio--
Ohio State University 59,568
University of Cincinnati 36,415
Kent State University 34,056
University of Toledo 22,336
Miami University of Ohio 20,126
Bowling Green State University 18,980
Cleveland State University 15,664
Wright State University 15,985
Youngstown State University 13,157
University of Dayton 10,426
Cuyahoga Community College
This week can be the LARGEST voting turnout EVER for STUDENTS !!!
Take advantage of Ohio's "Golden Week" -- Sept 30 to Oct 6
* Bring voters from campuses and urban areas to Early Voting Center, so they can
bank their votes early and ensure they don't get shut out by long lines and
broken machines on election day.
University of Akron 25,942
To Vote Early go to--
470 Grant St.
Akron, OH 44311
Mon-Fri: 8am- 4pm.
Telephone: 643-5200
* What YOU can do RIGHT NOW-- publicize the Golden Week on campuses and in
Ohio's urban centers. ..
* Educating early voters about the process
* Recruiting other volunteers
* Creating posters, flyers and visibility
* Recruit other volunteers to come to Ohio
* Donate your car or van for the week
* Coordinate w/OBAMA office nearest campus (see below) so you are not duplicating your efforts.
Akron Office
3 Merriman Rd
Akron
(330)252-5720
View Map
60 offices now open- http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ohoffices
LOOK at these numbers!!!...don't leave a single vote behind; we can win Ohio--
Ohio State University 59,568
University of Cincinnati 36,415
Kent State University 34,056
University of Toledo 22,336
Miami University of Ohio 20,126
Bowling Green State University 18,980
Cleveland State University 15,664
Wright State University 15,985
Youngstown State University 13,157
University of Dayton 10,426
Cuyahoga Community College
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Economists question the bailout
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
Signed (updated at 9/25/2008 8:30AM CT)
Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Baliga Sandeep (Northwestern University)
Banerjee Abhijit V. (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Bartkus James R. (Xavier University of Louisiana)
Becker Charles M. (Duke University)
Becker Robert A. (Indiana University)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J. (UCLA)
Camp Mary Elizabeth (Indiana University)
Carmel Jonathan (University of Michigan)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
Da Zhi (University of Notre Dame)
Davis Morris (University of Wisconsin)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fohlin Caroline (Johns Hopkins University)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Frenzen Jonathan (University of Chicago)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Glomm Gerhard (Indiana University)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Greenstone Michael (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Guerrieri Veronica (University of Chicago)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Isakson Hans (University of Northern Iowa)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kahn Matthew (UCLA)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leeper Eric M. (Indiana University)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Levy David M. (George Mason University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lott John R. Jr. (University of Maryland)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nanda Dhananjay (University of Miami)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Parker Jonathan (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Pejovich Svetozar (Steve) (Texas A&M University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Robinson David (Duke University)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Seru Amit (University of Chicago)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spiegel Matthew (Yale University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)
Zitzewitz Eric (Dartmouth College)
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
Signed (updated at 9/25/2008 8:30AM CT)
Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Baliga Sandeep (Northwestern University)
Banerjee Abhijit V. (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Bartkus James R. (Xavier University of Louisiana)
Becker Charles M. (Duke University)
Becker Robert A. (Indiana University)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J. (UCLA)
Camp Mary Elizabeth (Indiana University)
Carmel Jonathan (University of Michigan)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
Da Zhi (University of Notre Dame)
Davis Morris (University of Wisconsin)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fohlin Caroline (Johns Hopkins University)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Frenzen Jonathan (University of Chicago)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Glomm Gerhard (Indiana University)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Greenstone Michael (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Guerrieri Veronica (University of Chicago)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Isakson Hans (University of Northern Iowa)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kahn Matthew (UCLA)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leeper Eric M. (Indiana University)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Levy David M. (George Mason University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lott John R. Jr. (University of Maryland)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nanda Dhananjay (University of Miami)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Parker Jonathan (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Pejovich Svetozar (Steve) (Texas A&M University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Robinson David (Duke University)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Seru Amit (University of Chicago)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spiegel Matthew (Yale University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)
Zitzewitz Eric (Dartmouth College)
Election Deception in Colorado
From Truthout.org http://www.truthout.org/092508J
Washington - Colorado Democrats accused a Republican county clerk Wednesday of falsely informing Colorado College that students from outside the state could not register to vote if their parents claimed them as a dependent on their tax returns.
At a news conference in Colorado Springs, Democrats also criticized Robert Balink, the El Paso County clerk and recorder, who was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, for taking other steps they said would dampen voting by college students, who are expected to heavily favor Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
"When election officials spread false information about who is eligible to vote and remove, not add, polling places, we need to be concerned that eligible voters will be denied their right to vote," said Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party.
Balink issued a statement saying his office had misinterpreted state law and "mistakenly published information that was incorrect."
Balink's actions are the latest of several instances in which local election officials, including some in Virginia and South Carolina, have discouraged college students from voting in a year in which legions of students have thrown their energy behind Obama.
Discovery of these restrictions comes as Democrats have increasingly accused Republicans of using an array of tactics to suppress the Democratic voter turnout in the November election.
Liz Olson, the elections manager in Colorado's El Paso County, said that the office "takes full responsibility for what's in that document. Nobody told us to put anything in there."
Martha Tierney, an attorney for the Colorado Democratic Party, said she obtained emails showing that Balink's office sent a misleading flier to the Colorado College president's office to provide students with voter-registration information and urged its circulation on campus.
The flier stated: "What this means is that if your parents still claim you on their income tax returns, and they file that return in a state other than Colorado, you are not eligible to register to vote or vote in Colorado."
Voter residency requirements vary from state to state, but must meet the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, said Jon Greenbaum, a voting rights expert with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Greenbaum said that what states and counties can't do is adopt rules that treat one group of voters differently than others.
Greenbaum noted that Virginia's elections board recently revised language on its Internet site that discouraged students from registering after reports of a similar episode at Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Va. The New York Times reported Sept. 8 that a local registrar had issued two releases that incorrectly suggested dire consequences for the university's students who registered to vote there, including the possibility they no longer could be claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns.
Sujatha Jahagirdar, program director of the Student Public Interest Research Group's New Voters Project in Washington, said she encountered similar problems when she posed as a college freshman last week and called registrar's offices in Greenville County, S.C., home to Furman University, and York County, S.C., where Winthrop University is located.
Jahagirdar said a Greenville official asked if her parents listed her as a dependent, and when she replied in the affirmative, told her: "You should vote where your parents live." She said a York County representative asked if she was in town for school, and when she said yes, stated flatly: "You can't vote here."
A caller on Wednesday got similar responses.
Told of the information imparted by his staff, Conway Belangia, Greenville County's director of registration and elections, said that "if a staff person made a statement like that, it was an error."
A York County official didn't respond to calls for comment.
Belangia said, however, that if a student lives in a dormitory, he must respond to a series of questions laid out in a 1974 federal court order covering voting registration in the county. He said students must demonstrate their "intent to claim this locale as their home when they finish school."
Jahagirdar called the counties' policies "intimidating" and said they "send a message that young voters are not welcome in our democracy" just when they're first enjoying the right to vote.
The flap over students' voting rights comes after Democrats last week filed a lawsuit in Michigan, seeking a court order barring Republicans from using lists of people facing mortgage foreclosure proceedings as a basis for challenging their voting eligibility. Michigan Republicans denied using foreclosure lists to cast doubt about voters' qualifications.
And in Ohio, a pivotal state that was mired in allegations of voting irregularities in the 2004 presidential election, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on Wednesday advised county election boards that foreclosure lists should not be considered proof that voters have changed residences.
"Ohioans faced with the pain and turmoil of a home foreclosure should not be targeted by the forces of disenfranchisement on Election Day," Brunner said.
Washington - Colorado Democrats accused a Republican county clerk Wednesday of falsely informing Colorado College that students from outside the state could not register to vote if their parents claimed them as a dependent on their tax returns.
At a news conference in Colorado Springs, Democrats also criticized Robert Balink, the El Paso County clerk and recorder, who was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, for taking other steps they said would dampen voting by college students, who are expected to heavily favor Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
"When election officials spread false information about who is eligible to vote and remove, not add, polling places, we need to be concerned that eligible voters will be denied their right to vote," said Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party.
Balink issued a statement saying his office had misinterpreted state law and "mistakenly published information that was incorrect."
Balink's actions are the latest of several instances in which local election officials, including some in Virginia and South Carolina, have discouraged college students from voting in a year in which legions of students have thrown their energy behind Obama.
Discovery of these restrictions comes as Democrats have increasingly accused Republicans of using an array of tactics to suppress the Democratic voter turnout in the November election.
Liz Olson, the elections manager in Colorado's El Paso County, said that the office "takes full responsibility for what's in that document. Nobody told us to put anything in there."
Martha Tierney, an attorney for the Colorado Democratic Party, said she obtained emails showing that Balink's office sent a misleading flier to the Colorado College president's office to provide students with voter-registration information and urged its circulation on campus.
The flier stated: "What this means is that if your parents still claim you on their income tax returns, and they file that return in a state other than Colorado, you are not eligible to register to vote or vote in Colorado."
Voter residency requirements vary from state to state, but must meet the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, said Jon Greenbaum, a voting rights expert with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Greenbaum said that what states and counties can't do is adopt rules that treat one group of voters differently than others.
Greenbaum noted that Virginia's elections board recently revised language on its Internet site that discouraged students from registering after reports of a similar episode at Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Va. The New York Times reported Sept. 8 that a local registrar had issued two releases that incorrectly suggested dire consequences for the university's students who registered to vote there, including the possibility they no longer could be claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns.
Sujatha Jahagirdar, program director of the Student Public Interest Research Group's New Voters Project in Washington, said she encountered similar problems when she posed as a college freshman last week and called registrar's offices in Greenville County, S.C., home to Furman University, and York County, S.C., where Winthrop University is located.
Jahagirdar said a Greenville official asked if her parents listed her as a dependent, and when she replied in the affirmative, told her: "You should vote where your parents live." She said a York County representative asked if she was in town for school, and when she said yes, stated flatly: "You can't vote here."
A caller on Wednesday got similar responses.
Told of the information imparted by his staff, Conway Belangia, Greenville County's director of registration and elections, said that "if a staff person made a statement like that, it was an error."
A York County official didn't respond to calls for comment.
Belangia said, however, that if a student lives in a dormitory, he must respond to a series of questions laid out in a 1974 federal court order covering voting registration in the county. He said students must demonstrate their "intent to claim this locale as their home when they finish school."
Jahagirdar called the counties' policies "intimidating" and said they "send a message that young voters are not welcome in our democracy" just when they're first enjoying the right to vote.
The flap over students' voting rights comes after Democrats last week filed a lawsuit in Michigan, seeking a court order barring Republicans from using lists of people facing mortgage foreclosure proceedings as a basis for challenging their voting eligibility. Michigan Republicans denied using foreclosure lists to cast doubt about voters' qualifications.
And in Ohio, a pivotal state that was mired in allegations of voting irregularities in the 2004 presidential election, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on Wednesday advised county election boards that foreclosure lists should not be considered proof that voters have changed residences.
"Ohioans faced with the pain and turmoil of a home foreclosure should not be targeted by the forces of disenfranchisement on Election Day," Brunner said.
Cheney Components of the Paulson Plan
From the Huffington Post
A sudden catastrophe, threat of a worse disaster if an exorbitant solution is not adopted immediately and exactly as requested, and the requirement that emergency action be subject to no supervision or check by a higher body. In short, a plan for a policy that changes the future of the country and yet is unaccountable and exempt from all opportunity for review.
Where has this happened before? Let us name just two. The September 11 attacks followed by the "permanent emergency" laws of the Patriot Act. And the nuclear Iraq forgeries and planted rumors to jolt the August-October 2002 debate on the authorization of the Iraq war--an authorization that exempted the president and vice president from future consultations with the Senate. But let us not forget the secret adoption of data mining procedures in violation of FISA in the years 2002-2005. The last had a smaller audience, but it, too, was a catastrophic cure enacted without consultation and on the same extreme-emergency basis.
Dick Cheney's signature is all over the controversial features of the Paulson bailout plan for the mortgage-and-securities crash. To a seasoned viewer it may also appear that John McCain's ploy of calling off the debate scheduled for this Friday has been coordinated with the same strategy. No debates at all until the plan is rammed through: that is the idea. Any searching discussion or challenge by the Democrats, amounts, it can be said, to a form of irrelevant "debate" or dithering. We are all in this together and we must solve it all at once on the terms the expert Henry Paulson has laid down.
The aim is to augment a real with a threatened catastrophe and so again achieve an immense consolidation of power. Newt Gingrich tried something akin to it in 1995, when he threatened to seal his Contract with America by closing all the operations of government. Dick Cheney was Gingrich's colleague in those years, at the American Enterprise Institute, and watched the process with interest. He may calculate that he has stronger nerves (and less short-term ambition) than Gingrich, and that the Democrats in Congress have less tenacity than President Clinton.
Some people have been wondering whether Dick Cheney and George Bush, to preserve their legacy and their secrets, would spring an October surprise to secure the election of John McCain--the clearest and almost the only urgent goal of this administration as it winds down. We have wondered whether the trigger could be in Georgia, or Iran, or Pakistan. Yet the banking crisis, in the manner of its management, now looks like the October surprise one week early and with one week longer to turn it to advantage. If the Democrats insist, as Barney Frank has lately announced they will, on rigorous oversight and explicit opportunities for review and caps on bailout profits by delinquent CEOs, will President Bush accept the result only to subvert it with the last and largest of his signing statements?
A sudden catastrophe, threat of a worse disaster if an exorbitant solution is not adopted immediately and exactly as requested, and the requirement that emergency action be subject to no supervision or check by a higher body. In short, a plan for a policy that changes the future of the country and yet is unaccountable and exempt from all opportunity for review.
Where has this happened before? Let us name just two. The September 11 attacks followed by the "permanent emergency" laws of the Patriot Act. And the nuclear Iraq forgeries and planted rumors to jolt the August-October 2002 debate on the authorization of the Iraq war--an authorization that exempted the president and vice president from future consultations with the Senate. But let us not forget the secret adoption of data mining procedures in violation of FISA in the years 2002-2005. The last had a smaller audience, but it, too, was a catastrophic cure enacted without consultation and on the same extreme-emergency basis.
Dick Cheney's signature is all over the controversial features of the Paulson bailout plan for the mortgage-and-securities crash. To a seasoned viewer it may also appear that John McCain's ploy of calling off the debate scheduled for this Friday has been coordinated with the same strategy. No debates at all until the plan is rammed through: that is the idea. Any searching discussion or challenge by the Democrats, amounts, it can be said, to a form of irrelevant "debate" or dithering. We are all in this together and we must solve it all at once on the terms the expert Henry Paulson has laid down.
The aim is to augment a real with a threatened catastrophe and so again achieve an immense consolidation of power. Newt Gingrich tried something akin to it in 1995, when he threatened to seal his Contract with America by closing all the operations of government. Dick Cheney was Gingrich's colleague in those years, at the American Enterprise Institute, and watched the process with interest. He may calculate that he has stronger nerves (and less short-term ambition) than Gingrich, and that the Democrats in Congress have less tenacity than President Clinton.
Some people have been wondering whether Dick Cheney and George Bush, to preserve their legacy and their secrets, would spring an October surprise to secure the election of John McCain--the clearest and almost the only urgent goal of this administration as it winds down. We have wondered whether the trigger could be in Georgia, or Iran, or Pakistan. Yet the banking crisis, in the manner of its management, now looks like the October surprise one week early and with one week longer to turn it to advantage. If the Democrats insist, as Barney Frank has lately announced they will, on rigorous oversight and explicit opportunities for review and caps on bailout profits by delinquent CEOs, will President Bush accept the result only to subvert it with the last and largest of his signing statements?
Letterman on John McCain's cancellation
Letterman reacts to McCain’s cancellation.»
As part of his plan to suspend his campaign activities, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today decided to cancel his appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman. McCain’s campaign reportedly told Letterman that the senator was “racing back to Washington.” That, however, didn’t happen. In his show to air tonight, Letterman shows footage of McCain sitting down with CBS’s Katie Couric for an interview at the same time he was supposed to be on his show. Watch it:
Instead of McCain, Letterman hosted MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. (HT: FDL)
As part of his plan to suspend his campaign activities, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today decided to cancel his appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman. McCain’s campaign reportedly told Letterman that the senator was “racing back to Washington.” That, however, didn’t happen. In his show to air tonight, Letterman shows footage of McCain sitting down with CBS’s Katie Couric for an interview at the same time he was supposed to be on his show. Watch it:
Instead of McCain, Letterman hosted MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. (HT: FDL)
Important observation from http://electoral-vote.com/
The NY Times has an analytic article on this politics of the proposed Wall Street bailout. The view is that Republican members of Congress know very well that throwing $700 billion at Wall St. in a big hurry with no oversight is not popular with the voters. On the other hand, they don't want to buck their own President who still has a modicum of popularity with the the Republican rank and file. They are hoping McCain can bail them out. Democrats don't want to be seen as obstructionists, but they also see the bailout for what it really is: a ploy to spend so much money that a future President Obama's hands would be tied for lack of money. In effect this move is Bush's attempt to "rule from the grave" by severely constraining what the next President can do. Oddly, it might constrain McCain more than Bush since he has spending plans, too. Obama could propose a massive tax increase for the rich claiming Bush's folly forced him to do it. When you read that this "crisis" is about economics, don't believe a word of it. It is 100% politics, pure and simple. Yes, something needs to be done, but if the markets know that Congress is working on it, they will wait a few weeks before dissolving in a puddle.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Why McCain Is The Issue
Stephen C. Rose: It's McCain Stupid --
Sep 20, 2008 14:59:17 GMT
I don't believe this election will be a nail-biter. It will be closer to a landslide. Barack will win. If not Barack, McCain. I believe the American people are poised to make a decision after a season of having decisions made for them.
The reason I believe Barack will win is because I credit the electorate with enough wisdom to understand that this year the issue is not the economy primarily. The issue is McCain. If it did not come clear this past week, I am wrong. But I believe it did come clear and that it will become even more clear in the weeks to come.
And on November 4, the American people will understand that he too great a risk just now.
They will vote in unprecedented numbers for a cool head, an energetic guy open to hearing all sides, who will have a gridlock-breaking majority in Congress and is open to a genuinely bipartisan march through the minefield created during the Bush years.
Yesterday I posted what this President will do:
Create a green future -- based on renewable sources of energy.
Create millions of new jobs and help the middle class with tax cuts, college subsidies and increased pay for teachers.
Create a foreign policy that's safe and secure. Repair frayed relationships, initiate tough diplomacy, save billions by ending the war in Iraq.
Create a smart, cooperative campaign to eliminate the terror threat and control nuclear materials.
Create schools that serve all children from birth.
Create a health care system for all Americans at costs all can afford.
Create a good, honest, transparent administration. Accountable to all. Led by one who has thought deeply about our needs and acted for two decades to put his goals into practice. SOURCE
McCain has fought this agenda for almost three decades. He has championed a thoughtless, pandering militarism and a domestic agenda that disrespects women, favors the wealthy and displays only ignorance when it comes to the economy.
He has distinguished himself as a near-compulsive gambler who operates on the false premise that he can bob and weave in all directions and somehow win -- when the inexorable odds favor his inability to fool all of the people all of the time.
This inability is what is happening daily on TV.
To vote for McCain, you have to factor in substantial mortality odds and ask yourself if you want to risk our future on a woman Chuck Hagel says is demonstrably ill-prepared. This doubles the reasons why McCain is the issue. And why he will lose.
McCain has shown himself to be not a leader, but a doer of whatever he is told to do. This is not new. McCain did the bidding of Charlie Keating for a long time, until he had to pay back the contributions he had received.
Now McCain follows Steve Schmidt. Perhaps he will fire Schmidt when it appears that the die is cast in Obama's favor and he must morph once again.
By November 4, I fully expect McCain to be having Fireside Chats with us -- with an FDR stogie in his mouth.
But by then it will be too late.
Barack will have done with all Americans what he did with Democrats in Denver. He will have convinced them, with accuracy, that he is a uniter who has carefully considered the options and arrived at an agenda which can indeed capture our imagination and carry us away from the nightmare of the last eight years.
The issue in this election is McCain. His dual nature as McSame and McFlop. And underneath it all, the little boy gambler a mite too dotty now to risk in the White House. The American people can take only so much. The circus is ending.
McCain is the man who crashed five jets, mistreated his wife, opposed Dr. King and would overturn Rowe v. Wade. He favors bombing anyone who does not fit in to the neocon agenda of forcing freedom everywhere while squelching it apace.
To the extent voters see the cool hand, over against this fading relic of a sick Republican era, the election will go to Obama.
The issue is not the economy, or foreign policy, or security -- the issue is whether we want to take a chance on another Republican after losing the farm with George Bush.
Sep 20, 2008 14:59:17 GMT
I don't believe this election will be a nail-biter. It will be closer to a landslide. Barack will win. If not Barack, McCain. I believe the American people are poised to make a decision after a season of having decisions made for them.
The reason I believe Barack will win is because I credit the electorate with enough wisdom to understand that this year the issue is not the economy primarily. The issue is McCain. If it did not come clear this past week, I am wrong. But I believe it did come clear and that it will become even more clear in the weeks to come.
And on November 4, the American people will understand that he too great a risk just now.
They will vote in unprecedented numbers for a cool head, an energetic guy open to hearing all sides, who will have a gridlock-breaking majority in Congress and is open to a genuinely bipartisan march through the minefield created during the Bush years.
Yesterday I posted what this President will do:
Create a green future -- based on renewable sources of energy.
Create millions of new jobs and help the middle class with tax cuts, college subsidies and increased pay for teachers.
Create a foreign policy that's safe and secure. Repair frayed relationships, initiate tough diplomacy, save billions by ending the war in Iraq.
Create a smart, cooperative campaign to eliminate the terror threat and control nuclear materials.
Create schools that serve all children from birth.
Create a health care system for all Americans at costs all can afford.
Create a good, honest, transparent administration. Accountable to all. Led by one who has thought deeply about our needs and acted for two decades to put his goals into practice. SOURCE
McCain has fought this agenda for almost three decades. He has championed a thoughtless, pandering militarism and a domestic agenda that disrespects women, favors the wealthy and displays only ignorance when it comes to the economy.
He has distinguished himself as a near-compulsive gambler who operates on the false premise that he can bob and weave in all directions and somehow win -- when the inexorable odds favor his inability to fool all of the people all of the time.
This inability is what is happening daily on TV.
To vote for McCain, you have to factor in substantial mortality odds and ask yourself if you want to risk our future on a woman Chuck Hagel says is demonstrably ill-prepared. This doubles the reasons why McCain is the issue. And why he will lose.
McCain has shown himself to be not a leader, but a doer of whatever he is told to do. This is not new. McCain did the bidding of Charlie Keating for a long time, until he had to pay back the contributions he had received.
Now McCain follows Steve Schmidt. Perhaps he will fire Schmidt when it appears that the die is cast in Obama's favor and he must morph once again.
By November 4, I fully expect McCain to be having Fireside Chats with us -- with an FDR stogie in his mouth.
But by then it will be too late.
Barack will have done with all Americans what he did with Democrats in Denver. He will have convinced them, with accuracy, that he is a uniter who has carefully considered the options and arrived at an agenda which can indeed capture our imagination and carry us away from the nightmare of the last eight years.
The issue in this election is McCain. His dual nature as McSame and McFlop. And underneath it all, the little boy gambler a mite too dotty now to risk in the White House. The American people can take only so much. The circus is ending.
McCain is the man who crashed five jets, mistreated his wife, opposed Dr. King and would overturn Rowe v. Wade. He favors bombing anyone who does not fit in to the neocon agenda of forcing freedom everywhere while squelching it apace.
To the extent voters see the cool hand, over against this fading relic of a sick Republican era, the election will go to Obama.
The issue is not the economy, or foreign policy, or security -- the issue is whether we want to take a chance on another Republican after losing the farm with George Bush.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
66% of Economists go for Obama
A new poll of economists finds Sen. Barack Obama is overwhelmingly preferred over Sen. John McCain by a 66% to 28% margin.
The survey consisted of 523 economists who are both U.S. citizens and members of the American Economic Association.
The survey consisted of 523 economists who are both U.S. citizens and members of the American Economic Association.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Quote of the Day September 15, 2008
"Sarah knows how to field-dress a moose. I know how to castrate a calf. Neither of those things has anything at all to do with this election. But since we know so much about Sarah's special skills, I wanted to make sure you knew about mine too."
-- Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge (D), quoted by Iowa Politics, on Sen. John McCain's running mate.
-- Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge (D), quoted by Iowa Politics, on Sen. John McCain's running mate.
From Electoral Vote.com: Wall Street in Turmoil
The financial industry is reeling. The venerable Lehman Brothers investment bank has filed for bankruptcy. Insurance giant A.I.G. is close to bankruptcy, and Merrill Lynch only avoided bankruptcy by selling itself to Bank of America for $50 billion in BoA stock. Other financial firms are in the bullseye. This week has been the worst week for Wall St. since 1929.
For people who don't understand what is going on, here is the story in a nutshell. Decades ago, when you wanted to buy a house you went to local bank and applied for a mortgage. If the mortgage was less than three times your annual income and you had a good credit history, the bank would loan you the money and you would pay them interest and some principal every month for 30 years. Then Wall St. got a bright idea: buy up all the mortgages from the banks, collect a few thousand into a pool called a CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation) and sell shares in it. The owner of each share would get a pro-rata share of the incoming monthly mortgage payments, analogous to what a bond owner gets.
What happened? It sounded like a great idea and soon all mortgages were sold and repackaged into shares. It didn't take long before the banks realized that they could issue mortgages of five, six, even eight times the buyer's annual income or sell them to people with terrible credit histories. After all, the shaky mortgages would soon be somebody else's headache. That's what happened. Lehman, Merrill, and others bought billions of dollars of mortgages that the homeowners had no hope of ever repaying on schedule and nobody wanted to buy shares in these worthless CDOs, so the brokers got stuck holding the bag with billions in worthless loans.
What are the political consequences of this meltdown? It is a bit early, but here's the expected pattern. Republicans will say that bankruptcies, however unfortunate, are an absolutely essential part of free markets. When managers make stupid decisions, the market punishes them by driving them into bankruptcy. This warns other managers not to be so greedy. Democrats will say that millions of innocent homeowners and small investors are going to lose their homes and life savings due to misbehavior on the part of rapacious and unscrupulous bankers and that it is the job of the government to regulate the entire financial sector to protect ordinary people who don't know the difference between a CD and a CDO.
One thing that is crystal clear already is that reporters are going to be asking the candidates how they plan to deal with this. John McCain might call for more regulation and when other Republicans scream at him use this to prove his "maverick" credentials. Of course he will be accused of locking the barn door after the prize horse (with or without lipstick) has escaped since he has never been much of a fan of government regulation before. For Obama it will be easier to call for more government oversight. Democrats believe government is supposed to protect people.
For people who don't understand what is going on, here is the story in a nutshell. Decades ago, when you wanted to buy a house you went to local bank and applied for a mortgage. If the mortgage was less than three times your annual income and you had a good credit history, the bank would loan you the money and you would pay them interest and some principal every month for 30 years. Then Wall St. got a bright idea: buy up all the mortgages from the banks, collect a few thousand into a pool called a CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation) and sell shares in it. The owner of each share would get a pro-rata share of the incoming monthly mortgage payments, analogous to what a bond owner gets.
What happened? It sounded like a great idea and soon all mortgages were sold and repackaged into shares. It didn't take long before the banks realized that they could issue mortgages of five, six, even eight times the buyer's annual income or sell them to people with terrible credit histories. After all, the shaky mortgages would soon be somebody else's headache. That's what happened. Lehman, Merrill, and others bought billions of dollars of mortgages that the homeowners had no hope of ever repaying on schedule and nobody wanted to buy shares in these worthless CDOs, so the brokers got stuck holding the bag with billions in worthless loans.
What are the political consequences of this meltdown? It is a bit early, but here's the expected pattern. Republicans will say that bankruptcies, however unfortunate, are an absolutely essential part of free markets. When managers make stupid decisions, the market punishes them by driving them into bankruptcy. This warns other managers not to be so greedy. Democrats will say that millions of innocent homeowners and small investors are going to lose their homes and life savings due to misbehavior on the part of rapacious and unscrupulous bankers and that it is the job of the government to regulate the entire financial sector to protect ordinary people who don't know the difference between a CD and a CDO.
One thing that is crystal clear already is that reporters are going to be asking the candidates how they plan to deal with this. John McCain might call for more regulation and when other Republicans scream at him use this to prove his "maverick" credentials. Of course he will be accused of locking the barn door after the prize horse (with or without lipstick) has escaped since he has never been much of a fan of government regulation before. For Obama it will be easier to call for more government oversight. Democrats believe government is supposed to protect people.
The trust factor: McCain over Obama by a slim margin
Sen. John McCain leads Sen. Barack Obama by a slim margin in the key battleground state of Ohio, where voters say they trust McCain more than Obama and identify the most with hockey mom Sarah Palin, according to a Suffolk University poll out this morning.
The GOP “maverick” ticket of McCain and Alaska Gov. Palin led Democrat Obama and his vice president pick, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden 46 percent to 42 percent in the general election - just 56 days away, according to a poll of likely Buckeye state voters.
Likely voters told pollsters they trust McCain more than Obama - 49 percent to 41 percent.
David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University in Boston, said Ohio voters are likely more trusting of McCain because of the popularity of his “Straight Talk Express,” and because Obama is still suffering from the smearing slugfest during Democratic primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
“What Obama needs to do is he needs to get back on message and get back on talking about McCain and trust and Bush. That’s it,” Paleologos said.
Obama remained strong on other fronts, Paleologos said.
Forty percent of voters believe Obama understands and cares about their problems, while just 22 percent believe McCain and Palin empathize with them. And, Ohio likely voters believe Obama has the best plan to bring jobs to Ohio by a split of 40 percent to 29 percent.
“With that as a backdrop the only thing he needs to do is break down that staunch advantage McCain has on trust,” he said.
Obama also has to overcome the Palin factor.
Buckeye voters told pollsters that they identify more with Palin than any other candidate.
When asked which of the four candidates is “most like you,” 31 percent said Palin, 22 percent said Obama, 21 percent said McCain and 13 percent said Biden.
Voters also said they think that McCain is more likely to fulfill his pledge to lower taxes - 41 percent to 31 percent.
Ohio likely voters also ranked the issues most important to them: Economy and jobs, 38 percent; Iraq War, 14 percent; health care, 13 percent; moral values, 10 percent; taxes, 9 percent; and terrorism, 8 percent.
The poll of 600 likely Ohio voters was conducted Wednesday through Saturday. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent. All respondents from the Ohio statewide survey were likely voters.
jfargen@bostonherald.com
The GOP “maverick” ticket of McCain and Alaska Gov. Palin led Democrat Obama and his vice president pick, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden 46 percent to 42 percent in the general election - just 56 days away, according to a poll of likely Buckeye state voters.
Likely voters told pollsters they trust McCain more than Obama - 49 percent to 41 percent.
David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University in Boston, said Ohio voters are likely more trusting of McCain because of the popularity of his “Straight Talk Express,” and because Obama is still suffering from the smearing slugfest during Democratic primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
“What Obama needs to do is he needs to get back on message and get back on talking about McCain and trust and Bush. That’s it,” Paleologos said.
Obama remained strong on other fronts, Paleologos said.
Forty percent of voters believe Obama understands and cares about their problems, while just 22 percent believe McCain and Palin empathize with them. And, Ohio likely voters believe Obama has the best plan to bring jobs to Ohio by a split of 40 percent to 29 percent.
“With that as a backdrop the only thing he needs to do is break down that staunch advantage McCain has on trust,” he said.
Obama also has to overcome the Palin factor.
Buckeye voters told pollsters that they identify more with Palin than any other candidate.
When asked which of the four candidates is “most like you,” 31 percent said Palin, 22 percent said Obama, 21 percent said McCain and 13 percent said Biden.
Voters also said they think that McCain is more likely to fulfill his pledge to lower taxes - 41 percent to 31 percent.
Ohio likely voters also ranked the issues most important to them: Economy and jobs, 38 percent; Iraq War, 14 percent; health care, 13 percent; moral values, 10 percent; taxes, 9 percent; and terrorism, 8 percent.
The poll of 600 likely Ohio voters was conducted Wednesday through Saturday. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent. All respondents from the Ohio statewide survey were likely voters.
jfargen@bostonherald.com
Sunday, September 14, 2008
An excellent post convention analysis
Partisans Return Home
The parties' national conventions did exactly what they were supposed to do.
by William Schneider
Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008
The presidential race remains a dead heat. And it's getting hotter, as both tickets solidify their support.
Four polls taken the weekend after the two major parties' national conventions all show results within the statistical margin of error:
* The CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research has the race dead even: 48 percent for Barack Obama, 48 percent for John McCain among registered voters nationwide.
* The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Obama with a 1-point lead, 47 percent to 46 percent, among registered voters.
* The CBS News poll has McCain 2 points up, 46 percent to 44 percent.
* The biggest gap is McCain's 4-point lead in the Gallup/USA Today poll, 50 percent to 46 percent. But given that survey's 3-point margin of error, that's still a statistical tie.
What happened? The conventions did exactly what they were supposed to do. They rallied partisans on both sides. Before the conventions, Obama voters were more enthusiastic about voting than McCain voters (by 2-to-1 in the CBS poll, 48 percent to 24 percent). The conventions revved up enthusiasm among both candidates' supporters. Obama voters are still more enthusiastic, but his edge is smaller (53 percent to 42 percent).
Change is the overriding theme of this campaign. That is a natural issue for Obama. He leads the opposition party. "It's time for [the Republicans] to own their failure," Obama declared at the Democratic convention. "It's time for us to change America."
Before the conventions, Obama had an 18-point edge in the CNN poll as the candidate more likely to bring about change. McCain used his convention to try to claim the change issue, in part by putting a Washington outsider on his ticket. "Let me offer an advance warning to the old big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd," McCain declared in St. Paul. "Change is coming!" That sounds like a warning to his own party, which was undoubtedly McCain's intention. After the conventions, Obama retained the lead as the candidate who "can bring the kind of change the country needs," but by a narrower margin: 8 points.
President Bush has a dismal 28 percent job-approval rating in the latest CNN poll. Imagine what the race would look like if Bush were running again, or if Vice President Cheney were running to succeed him. But they're not. McCain is. And that makes a huge difference.
Before the conventions, voters were almost evenly divided on whether McCain's policies would be mostly the same as Bush's (50 percent in the CNN poll) or mostly different (48 percent). Obama used his convention to argue that "McCain equals Bush." He told the Democratic convention, "In this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result." That argument worked -- temporarily. After the Democratic convention, more voters thought McCain's policies would be the same as Bush's (54 percent).
Then McCain used the Republican convention to convey the message, "I'm not Bush." And, lo and behold, we're back where we started. Voters are once again split down the middle on whether McCain would be the same as Bush (50 percent yes, 49 percent no).
Here's why that's important. Right now, a whopping 70 percent of voters disapprove of Bush. But nearly a third of them support McCain because they believe McCain is not like Bush. Obama has to persuade them otherwise.
Obama does retain one clear advantage: his image as a unifier. It may be enhanced, surprisingly, by McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin excites the Republican base, but at a cost: She is polarizing. In the CNN poll, 32 percent called Palin an excellent choice for vice president and 26 percent called her a poor choice. The comparable figures for Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden: 22 percent and 16 percent.
McCain's image as a uniter was not helped by the Republican convention or by his selection of Palin. Both played to the Republican base. Before the conventions, voters polled by CNN were more likely to see Obama than McCain as someone who "can unite the country," 52 percent to 37 percent. After the conventions, Obama's lead as a uniter was virtually unchanged, 53 percent to 37 percent.
The parties' national conventions did exactly what they were supposed to do.
by William Schneider
Saturday, Sept. 13, 2008
The presidential race remains a dead heat. And it's getting hotter, as both tickets solidify their support.
Four polls taken the weekend after the two major parties' national conventions all show results within the statistical margin of error:
* The CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research has the race dead even: 48 percent for Barack Obama, 48 percent for John McCain among registered voters nationwide.
* The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Obama with a 1-point lead, 47 percent to 46 percent, among registered voters.
* The CBS News poll has McCain 2 points up, 46 percent to 44 percent.
* The biggest gap is McCain's 4-point lead in the Gallup/USA Today poll, 50 percent to 46 percent. But given that survey's 3-point margin of error, that's still a statistical tie.
What happened? The conventions did exactly what they were supposed to do. They rallied partisans on both sides. Before the conventions, Obama voters were more enthusiastic about voting than McCain voters (by 2-to-1 in the CBS poll, 48 percent to 24 percent). The conventions revved up enthusiasm among both candidates' supporters. Obama voters are still more enthusiastic, but his edge is smaller (53 percent to 42 percent).
Change is the overriding theme of this campaign. That is a natural issue for Obama. He leads the opposition party. "It's time for [the Republicans] to own their failure," Obama declared at the Democratic convention. "It's time for us to change America."
Before the conventions, Obama had an 18-point edge in the CNN poll as the candidate more likely to bring about change. McCain used his convention to try to claim the change issue, in part by putting a Washington outsider on his ticket. "Let me offer an advance warning to the old big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd," McCain declared in St. Paul. "Change is coming!" That sounds like a warning to his own party, which was undoubtedly McCain's intention. After the conventions, Obama retained the lead as the candidate who "can bring the kind of change the country needs," but by a narrower margin: 8 points.
President Bush has a dismal 28 percent job-approval rating in the latest CNN poll. Imagine what the race would look like if Bush were running again, or if Vice President Cheney were running to succeed him. But they're not. McCain is. And that makes a huge difference.
Before the conventions, voters were almost evenly divided on whether McCain's policies would be mostly the same as Bush's (50 percent in the CNN poll) or mostly different (48 percent). Obama used his convention to argue that "McCain equals Bush." He told the Democratic convention, "In this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result." That argument worked -- temporarily. After the Democratic convention, more voters thought McCain's policies would be the same as Bush's (54 percent).
Then McCain used the Republican convention to convey the message, "I'm not Bush." And, lo and behold, we're back where we started. Voters are once again split down the middle on whether McCain would be the same as Bush (50 percent yes, 49 percent no).
Here's why that's important. Right now, a whopping 70 percent of voters disapprove of Bush. But nearly a third of them support McCain because they believe McCain is not like Bush. Obama has to persuade them otherwise.
Obama does retain one clear advantage: his image as a unifier. It may be enhanced, surprisingly, by McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin excites the Republican base, but at a cost: She is polarizing. In the CNN poll, 32 percent called Palin an excellent choice for vice president and 26 percent called her a poor choice. The comparable figures for Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden: 22 percent and 16 percent.
McCain's image as a uniter was not helped by the Republican convention or by his selection of Palin. Both played to the Republican base. Before the conventions, voters polled by CNN were more likely to see Obama than McCain as someone who "can unite the country," 52 percent to 37 percent. After the conventions, Obama's lead as a uniter was virtually unchanged, 53 percent to 37 percent.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Voter Registration may be the Key to this Election
Voter Registration
While most of the media attention is focused on candidate misstatements and national polls, there is important stuff going on below the radar. In particular, voter registration. Both sides are doing it, but the Obama campaign is doing it on a scale no party has previously done. According to an article in Time, voter registration is up by over 400,000 in Florida, Michigan, and North Carolina, and up by over 100,000 in 10 other key states. Most of the people being registered are under 35, a key Obama demographic. These huge increases could determine the election in a number of swing states.
While most of the media attention is focused on candidate misstatements and national polls, there is important stuff going on below the radar. In particular, voter registration. Both sides are doing it, but the Obama campaign is doing it on a scale no party has previously done. According to an article in Time, voter registration is up by over 400,000 in Florida, Michigan, and North Carolina, and up by over 100,000 in 10 other key states. Most of the people being registered are under 35, a key Obama demographic. These huge increases could determine the election in a number of swing states.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Sarah Palin: the Trojan Moose
Arianna Huffington: Sarah Palin: A Trojan Moose Concealing Four More Years of George Bush
Palin, and the circus she's brought to town, are a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing. Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory for John McCain. Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything. I disagree: in the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the country from the horrific Bush record -- and McCain's complicity in it. My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.
Palin, and the circus she's brought to town, are a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing. Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory for John McCain. Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything. I disagree: in the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the country from the horrific Bush record -- and McCain's complicity in it. My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Legislative Experience: Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
my.barackobama.com — You can get this information by logging on to the Library of Congress website http://thomas.loc.gov/ and conducting a search under Barack Obama. This posting organizes and categorizes the Bills sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator Obama, and highlights those that have been passed into US Law. IL State Legislature accomplishments are summarized.
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
Los Angeles Times
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.
Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.
Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.
This could be huge.
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
Los Angeles Times
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.
Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.
Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.
This could be huge.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Sarah Palin and library censorship
Palin Asked City Librarian About Censoring Books, Insisted It Was 'Rhetorical.' In 1996, according to the Frontiersman, Wasilla's library director Mary Ellen Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books. Emmons said, "This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy. … She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Palin said in response, "Many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." [Frontiersman, 12/18/96]
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Young Voters Stay With Obama
August 25, 2008
A new Harvard Institute of Politics poll of young voters shows Sen. Barack Obama with a huge 23 point lead over Sen. John McCain, 55% to 32% with 13% undecided.
This lead is virtually unchanged since the last poll in the spring before the Democratic nomination was settled.
Key finding: "Overall, 62% of young voters report that they are excited (23% very excited, 39% somewhat excited) about the upcoming election, including 69% of 18 to 24 year olds currently in college."
A new Harvard Institute of Politics poll of young voters shows Sen. Barack Obama with a huge 23 point lead over Sen. John McCain, 55% to 32% with 13% undecided.
This lead is virtually unchanged since the last poll in the spring before the Democratic nomination was settled.
Key finding: "Overall, 62% of young voters report that they are excited (23% very excited, 39% somewhat excited) about the upcoming election, including 69% of 18 to 24 year olds currently in college."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Going Democratic for the Sake of the Supreme Court
Think of the Supreme court and you have to go Democratic - unless you want a reactionary Supreme court. Whomever is President will impact the make up of the court way past the time when this current crop of candidates is active. Just what did Senator McCain said about the Supreme Court justices at the Saddleback "debate" last week? His selections would move the court to the far right in terms of decisions on the important social issues of the day - like affirmative action, a woman's right to choose - all of the issues that progressive women are interested in. Please, please - if anyone is reading this little blog out there - think beyond yourselves and think instead of the kind of country you want to leave for your children and vote Democratic.
Do We Really Want Four More Years of the Same?
New Obama Ad Hits McCain, But With Lighthearted Touch
The Obama campaign goes up with a lighthearted negative spot hitting McCain on the economy:
Play video:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/new_obama_ad_hits_mccain_but_w.php
The Obama campaign goes up with a lighthearted negative spot hitting McCain on the economy:
Play video:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/new_obama_ad_hits_mccain_but_w.php
The Wiki-Way to the Nomination
From the New York Times
June 8, 2008
A COLLABORATION Something like 75,000 people showed up at an Obama rally last month in Portland, Ore. Without a doubt, more than one supporter got there by way of the Internet.
Commenting on the Democratic presidential primary campaign, the blogger Andrew Sullivan praised Mr. Obama’s success in mastering “Facebook politics.” Roger Cohen, writing online in The New York Times, likened the rapid success of Mr. Obama to that of a “classic Internet startup.” And The Atlantic Monthly, in a much discussed article titled “HisSpace,” described what Mr. Obama’s impressive online fund-raising apparatus owes to the enhanced social networking of sites like MySpace, Twitter and YouTube.
Mr. Obama is hardly alone in making use of the Web (remember Howard Dean in 2004). What sets him apart is his openness to contributions from those working outside the campaign organization. As he described it to a Time magazine reporter last week, “We just had some incredibly creative young people who got involved and what I think we did well was give them a lot of latitude to experiment and try new things and to put some serious resources into it.”
Consider the video “Yes We Can,” Mr. Obama’s words set to music by will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, which has been viewed more than 18 million times online, first at YouTube, and now at the Obama campaign’s portal, my.barackobama.com. And there is also the ubiquitous poster of Mr. Obama (with the captions “Progress” and “Hope”) created by the street artist Shepard Fairey and later incorporated into the campaign and sold on its Web site.
Mr. Fairey posted the image (inspired by the famous photograph of Che Guevara) on his own site early in the primaries, and said in an interview that “the official campaign had been hit up so many times, they asked, ‘Can we get you to do an official thing?’ ”
The receptiveness of the Obama campaign to such bottom-up influences raises a question: might the candidate actually model his approach to politics on the informal communal spirit the Internet encourages?
It is not easy to say, because Mr. Obama draws on a range of influences, not the least of which is the high rhetorical tradition of American politics. As Garry Wills recently suggested in The New York Review of Books, Mr. Obama’s characterization of himself as an “imperfect candidate” draws on Lincoln’s idea “that the preamble’s call for ‘a more perfect union’ initiated a project, to make the Constitution a means for its own transcendence.”
But at the same time, Mr. Obama’s notion of persistent improvement, both of himself and of his country, reflects something newer — the collaborative, decentralized principles behind Net projects like Wikipedia and the “free and open-source software” movement. The qualities he cited to Time to describe his campaign — “openness and transparency and participation” — were ones he said “merged perfectly” with the Internet. And they may well be the qualities that make him the first real “wiki-candidate.”
Wikipedia is the influential online encyclopedia that is in a constant state of revision, thanks to its tens of thousands of contributors around the world. There is no single “editor,” no presiding panel of experts for its 2.4 million articles in English. Indeed, anyone can pick up an article and make changes immediately (“wiki-wiki” is Hawaiian for fast).
Similarly, open-source software is created by groups working on “patches,” as programmers call them. Anyone can contribute, and the most useful ideas thrive. A result has been successes like the Linux operating system and the Firefox Internet browser.
Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor whose book “The Wealth of Networks” is a manifesto for online collaboration, points out a crucial difference between Mr. Obama’s approach to attracting supporters and that of his chief rivals. “On the McCain and Clinton Web sites, there is a transactional screen,” Mr. Benkler said. “It is just about the money. Donate, then we can build the relationship. In Obama’s it’s inverted: build the relationship and then donate.”
For this reason there are thousands of people working across the Internet to build enthusiasm for the campaign, some of it even gently mocking, like Barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com, a site listing the many examples of Mr. Obama’s magical compassion. (“Barack Obama carries a picture of you in his wallet”; “Barack Obama thought you could use some chocolate.”)
For his part, Mr. Obama is quick to take himself out of the narrative, even as he promises to remake Washington. This isn’t simply modesty. It reflects the utopian, community-building vision central to the Internet. Wikipedia’s unpaid collaborators, for example, hope to “distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language,” says the site’s mastermind, Jimmy Wales. So too the thousands of programmers in the open-source world intend not just to develop a free operating system, but vanquish Microsoft.
In this scheme, Mr. Obama’s role, at least in the rhetoric, is less leader than facilitator, a conduit for decentralized collaboration as described by James Surowiecki in his book “The Wisdom of Crowds.” “The ethos of the Net is fundamentally respectful of and invested in the idea of collective wisdom, and in some sense is hostile to the idea that power and authority should belong to a select few,” Mr. Surowiecki wrote.
This is not to say that open projects always produce the best results. Thousands of ordinary people having their say can lead to dubious outcomes. And in politics, particularly at the presidential level, where decisions affect the lives of millions, the risks can be great.
For a candidate, there is always the danger of “making yourself vulnerable” by “giving participants control of chunks of the enterprise,” Mr. Benkler said. Mr. Obama has to walk a careful line. It’s one thing to help popularize a campaign, quite another to shape policy. And Mr. Obama’s team has been as adamant as any about staying on message.
To some extent, however, Mr. Obama has invited policy ideas from outsiders. Deb Barry, an Obama supporter in New Hampshire, said she was impressed that the organization she belongs to, Educators for Obama, had a chance to speak with his education-policy staff members before the primary there. “I went into that conference call, kind of with the impression that the purpose was for us to ask questions,” she said. In fact, “they were picking our brains. They had specific questions they wanted to ask us, and were seeing how we felt about what had already come out from the campaign.”
Not that Ms. Barry expects to play a direct role in shaping government policy. “There is a huge limitation about how much contact someone like me can have with the big decision makers,” she said, but a critical first step is reaching out: “Not just reaching out to experts, with big titles and degrees after his name, but people with experience.”
Other online activists are more skeptical about the openness to outsiders. “The Obama campaign is still very much a top-bottom operation,” Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, of the influential DailyKos Web site, wrote in an e-mail message. “They’ve made it very easy for people to hop on the bandwagon, but those in the back of that wagon still get no say in where the campaign is going.”
Yes, someone is driving the bandwagon, even if he constantly plays down his role — describing himself as a Rorshach image on whom others project. Even Wikipedia has administrators who monitor the work there, and open-source projects have their “leaders,” who keep them on course.
In truth, there is no such thing as purely collective decision making. As Mr. Surowiecki summed it up in his book: “It has historically been unusual for change to bubble up from below on its own. So it is, in fact, more likely that someone will take it on himself to champion the idea of collective wisdom, and in that way create the conditions that allow it to flourish. This is paradoxical, but no more so than the fact that an individual, not a crowd, wrote ‘The Wisdom of Crowds.’ ”
June 8, 2008
A COLLABORATION Something like 75,000 people showed up at an Obama rally last month in Portland, Ore. Without a doubt, more than one supporter got there by way of the Internet.
Commenting on the Democratic presidential primary campaign, the blogger Andrew Sullivan praised Mr. Obama’s success in mastering “Facebook politics.” Roger Cohen, writing online in The New York Times, likened the rapid success of Mr. Obama to that of a “classic Internet startup.” And The Atlantic Monthly, in a much discussed article titled “HisSpace,” described what Mr. Obama’s impressive online fund-raising apparatus owes to the enhanced social networking of sites like MySpace, Twitter and YouTube.
Mr. Obama is hardly alone in making use of the Web (remember Howard Dean in 2004). What sets him apart is his openness to contributions from those working outside the campaign organization. As he described it to a Time magazine reporter last week, “We just had some incredibly creative young people who got involved and what I think we did well was give them a lot of latitude to experiment and try new things and to put some serious resources into it.”
Consider the video “Yes We Can,” Mr. Obama’s words set to music by will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, which has been viewed more than 18 million times online, first at YouTube, and now at the Obama campaign’s portal, my.barackobama.com. And there is also the ubiquitous poster of Mr. Obama (with the captions “Progress” and “Hope”) created by the street artist Shepard Fairey and later incorporated into the campaign and sold on its Web site.
Mr. Fairey posted the image (inspired by the famous photograph of Che Guevara) on his own site early in the primaries, and said in an interview that “the official campaign had been hit up so many times, they asked, ‘Can we get you to do an official thing?’ ”
The receptiveness of the Obama campaign to such bottom-up influences raises a question: might the candidate actually model his approach to politics on the informal communal spirit the Internet encourages?
It is not easy to say, because Mr. Obama draws on a range of influences, not the least of which is the high rhetorical tradition of American politics. As Garry Wills recently suggested in The New York Review of Books, Mr. Obama’s characterization of himself as an “imperfect candidate” draws on Lincoln’s idea “that the preamble’s call for ‘a more perfect union’ initiated a project, to make the Constitution a means for its own transcendence.”
But at the same time, Mr. Obama’s notion of persistent improvement, both of himself and of his country, reflects something newer — the collaborative, decentralized principles behind Net projects like Wikipedia and the “free and open-source software” movement. The qualities he cited to Time to describe his campaign — “openness and transparency and participation” — were ones he said “merged perfectly” with the Internet. And they may well be the qualities that make him the first real “wiki-candidate.”
Wikipedia is the influential online encyclopedia that is in a constant state of revision, thanks to its tens of thousands of contributors around the world. There is no single “editor,” no presiding panel of experts for its 2.4 million articles in English. Indeed, anyone can pick up an article and make changes immediately (“wiki-wiki” is Hawaiian for fast).
Similarly, open-source software is created by groups working on “patches,” as programmers call them. Anyone can contribute, and the most useful ideas thrive. A result has been successes like the Linux operating system and the Firefox Internet browser.
Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor whose book “The Wealth of Networks” is a manifesto for online collaboration, points out a crucial difference between Mr. Obama’s approach to attracting supporters and that of his chief rivals. “On the McCain and Clinton Web sites, there is a transactional screen,” Mr. Benkler said. “It is just about the money. Donate, then we can build the relationship. In Obama’s it’s inverted: build the relationship and then donate.”
For this reason there are thousands of people working across the Internet to build enthusiasm for the campaign, some of it even gently mocking, like Barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com, a site listing the many examples of Mr. Obama’s magical compassion. (“Barack Obama carries a picture of you in his wallet”; “Barack Obama thought you could use some chocolate.”)
For his part, Mr. Obama is quick to take himself out of the narrative, even as he promises to remake Washington. This isn’t simply modesty. It reflects the utopian, community-building vision central to the Internet. Wikipedia’s unpaid collaborators, for example, hope to “distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language,” says the site’s mastermind, Jimmy Wales. So too the thousands of programmers in the open-source world intend not just to develop a free operating system, but vanquish Microsoft.
In this scheme, Mr. Obama’s role, at least in the rhetoric, is less leader than facilitator, a conduit for decentralized collaboration as described by James Surowiecki in his book “The Wisdom of Crowds.” “The ethos of the Net is fundamentally respectful of and invested in the idea of collective wisdom, and in some sense is hostile to the idea that power and authority should belong to a select few,” Mr. Surowiecki wrote.
This is not to say that open projects always produce the best results. Thousands of ordinary people having their say can lead to dubious outcomes. And in politics, particularly at the presidential level, where decisions affect the lives of millions, the risks can be great.
For a candidate, there is always the danger of “making yourself vulnerable” by “giving participants control of chunks of the enterprise,” Mr. Benkler said. Mr. Obama has to walk a careful line. It’s one thing to help popularize a campaign, quite another to shape policy. And Mr. Obama’s team has been as adamant as any about staying on message.
To some extent, however, Mr. Obama has invited policy ideas from outsiders. Deb Barry, an Obama supporter in New Hampshire, said she was impressed that the organization she belongs to, Educators for Obama, had a chance to speak with his education-policy staff members before the primary there. “I went into that conference call, kind of with the impression that the purpose was for us to ask questions,” she said. In fact, “they were picking our brains. They had specific questions they wanted to ask us, and were seeing how we felt about what had already come out from the campaign.”
Not that Ms. Barry expects to play a direct role in shaping government policy. “There is a huge limitation about how much contact someone like me can have with the big decision makers,” she said, but a critical first step is reaching out: “Not just reaching out to experts, with big titles and degrees after his name, but people with experience.”
Other online activists are more skeptical about the openness to outsiders. “The Obama campaign is still very much a top-bottom operation,” Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, of the influential DailyKos Web site, wrote in an e-mail message. “They’ve made it very easy for people to hop on the bandwagon, but those in the back of that wagon still get no say in where the campaign is going.”
Yes, someone is driving the bandwagon, even if he constantly plays down his role — describing himself as a Rorshach image on whom others project. Even Wikipedia has administrators who monitor the work there, and open-source projects have their “leaders,” who keep them on course.
In truth, there is no such thing as purely collective decision making. As Mr. Surowiecki summed it up in his book: “It has historically been unusual for change to bubble up from below on its own. So it is, in fact, more likely that someone will take it on himself to champion the idea of collective wisdom, and in that way create the conditions that allow it to flourish. This is paradoxical, but no more so than the fact that an individual, not a crowd, wrote ‘The Wisdom of Crowds.’ ”
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Voter Registration is a MUST
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as many as 35 percent of eligible Americans are not registered to vote - that's 45 to 65 million people! Less than half of the voting age population actually vote in any given election.
Ohio Voter Registration Deadlines
1. General Electon Deadline - Monday, October 6
2. Absentee Ballot Deadline-Tuesday, November 4
To register to vote, call Ohio Secretary of Tate, Toll Free (877) 7657-6446
Your vote will make a difference. Please be an active citizen and vote.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Official Google Reader Blog: Read what they read
Official Google Reader Blog: Read what they read: "Read what they read
Monday, August 18, 2008 by Chrix Finne
The Reader team has always been interested in politics, and we use Reader (of course) to stay current on all the political happenings. As we were reading and sharing amongst ourselves, it got us thinking: what would happen if political newsmakers used Reader too?
Today we're announcing Google Power Readers in Politics: leading political journalists and both U.S. presidential campaigns using Reader to read and share news. You can read what they read, and see what's on their minds as they share and discuss news. Each participant has created a reading list with a feed you can subscribe to in Reader (or any other feed reader), and is also publishing shared items. Here's the list of participants:
* Obama and McCain campaigns
* Mike Allen, POLITICO
* Chuck DeFeo, Townhall
* John Dickerson, Slate
* Mark Halperin, TIME
* Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post
* Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
* Jon Meacham, Newsweek
* Patrick Ruffini, The Next Right
Visit http://www.google.com/powerreaders to get an overview, and subscribe to what you're most interested in using Reader. We're excited to see what's newsworthy this election season - we hope you will be too!"
Monday, August 18, 2008 by Chrix Finne
The Reader team has always been interested in politics, and we use Reader (of course) to stay current on all the political happenings. As we were reading and sharing amongst ourselves, it got us thinking: what would happen if political newsmakers used Reader too?
Today we're announcing Google Power Readers in Politics: leading political journalists and both U.S. presidential campaigns using Reader to read and share news. You can read what they read, and see what's on their minds as they share and discuss news. Each participant has created a reading list with a feed you can subscribe to in Reader (or any other feed reader), and is also publishing shared items. Here's the list of participants:
* Obama and McCain campaigns
* Mike Allen, POLITICO
* Chuck DeFeo, Townhall
* John Dickerson, Slate
* Mark Halperin, TIME
* Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post
* Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
* Jon Meacham, Newsweek
* Patrick Ruffini, The Next Right
Visit http://www.google.com/powerreaders to get an overview, and subscribe to what you're most interested in using Reader. We're excited to see what's newsworthy this election season - we hope you will be too!"
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Senator McCain Grow Up!
Keith Olbermann | McCain: Senator, Grow Up!
http://www.truthout.org/article/mccain-senator-grow-up
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: "Senator McCain - on the 22nd of May, 2003 ... you said, of Iraq, on the Senate floor, quote: 'We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.' Senator - you declared victory in Iraq, five years and nearly three months ago. Today you say: 'victory in Iraq is finally in sight?' The victory you already proclaimed five years ago?"
http://www.truthout.org/article/mccain-senator-grow-up
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: "Senator McCain - on the 22nd of May, 2003 ... you said, of Iraq, on the Senate floor, quote: 'We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.' Senator - you declared victory in Iraq, five years and nearly three months ago. Today you say: 'victory in Iraq is finally in sight?' The victory you already proclaimed five years ago?"
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Best reform in education? End poverty
From the Des Moines Register
RICHARD DOAK
The elementary-school teacher in a mid-sized Iowa town came across the little waif of a girl standing in the hall, sobbing. The child said she was crying because her teeth hurt.
A look inside her mouth stunned the teacher. All the girl's back teeth were rotting.
The school managed to get her to a dentist that very day, but it was apparent the little girl had been in pain for a long time. She had never been to a dentist and had no one at home who cared about hygiene. With pain on top of an unsettled and impoverished home life - the parent was angry that the school sent the kid to a dentist - it's no wonder the child was having trouble learning.
You can't concentrate in school if you hurt. Or if you're hungry. Or abused. Or worried about your parents being evicted. Or if your parents are druggies who take the Ritalin that was prescribed for you. Or if your older sister entertains gentlemen callers in the next room all night. Or if your mom has a new live-in boyfriend every few months. Or if your job-losing parents keep moving you from school to school with long truancies in between. Or if you don't know where you'll be sleeping tonight because your dad's in prison and you get shuffled from one relative to another, and no one really wants you.
Any teacher in Iowa can tell stories that both tug at the heart and stir anger. Such stories are probably more common, in large and small schools alike, than Iowans would like to believe.
What's remarkable is not that the stories are commonplace - anyone who knows a teacher has heard them - but that they are heard so little in the public discussion about education.
As another school year is set to begin, the focus is once again not on the kids themselves. It's all about test scores, teacher quality and education standards. This year features a national advertising campaign from Strong American Schools, partly financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The campaign notes that schools in most other industrial countries outperform American schools. It advocates higher standards, more time in school and better teachers. The Register's editorial page has been urging higher, uniform standards for Iowa, too.
All well and good, but once again the discussion studiously avoids the elephant in the room.
Student achievement in this country is never going to significantly improve until attention is directed to the root causes of low achievement: failing families in a low-wage economy.
Sure, teaching can get better and schools can adapt their methods to help low achievers. Individually, caring teachers do what they can to overcome poor parenting, but they have the children only a few hours a day. The larger influence is at home.
If fundamental improvement is going to occur, it must happen primarily outside the classroom.
Test data firmly link income, achievement
The most firmly established link in education research is the correlation between family income and student test scores. Poverty is the single biggest predictor of low scores. It's a greater factor than class size or per-pupil spending.
Low scores are not a sign of a poor school. They are a marker of an impoverished neighborhood.
A student's low scores are not evidence of bad teaching. They're most likely a reflection of the child living in poverty.
Yet this overwhelming truth is virtually absent from the political debate over education.
The debate should be about how to increase the number of American children who grow up to become well-educated, successful adults. A clear-eyed, rational approach to doing so would not focus on test scores and on punishing "bad" teachers and schools, as the No Child Left Behind program does. It would focus on eliminating poverty.
To boost scores, close gap between rich, poor
Poverty in itself does not produce low student achievement, but the conditions of life for children in poverty are not conducive to learning. Conversely, the conditions present in higher-income families - stability, educated parents, security - are conducive to learning.
Teachers know that any student who has two parents in the home and can afford to pay full price for school lunches will do just fine on standardized tests. The goal should be to get every kid into a home like that or something close to it.
That's a long way from happening. In the richest country in the world, a certain level of poverty seems to be increasingly intractable, chronically pushing down the average on test scores, among other social pathologies.
Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan and other countries that outperform the United States in education are not as wealthy as America, but their gaps between rich and poor are not as wide. The wealth they do have is more evenly distributed. So is their student achievement.
Politicians dodge issue of educational underclass
We might not want to talk about it, but one of the most serious problems in contemporary America is the deep and widening chasm between rich and poor. There is a segment of the population - think of the poor waif with rotten teeth - who are almost invisible to most of us but who are at risk of becoming members of a permanent underclass.
It would be an educational underclass, really, in which poor and undereducated parents beget poor and undereducated children.
The political establishment has not faced up to the problem. Looking at poor student achievement, politicians find it convenient to blame the schools, bash teachers and demand non-solutions such as vouchers. The political right chants a mantra that is uttered like one word: thefailingpublicschools.
Wrong. It is not the public schools that are failing. It is the larger American culture and economy.
Change economic policies that encourage low wages
Perhaps politicians fall back on non-solutions because the real solution - ending poverty and the conditions associated with it - seems impossible.
No law could persuade every couple to delay childbearing until they are financially secure. No government program can ensure that every parent provide a secure, stable, encouraging environment. No magic wand can rid America of the family-destroying ravages of drugs. No public policy can undo the damage done by incompetent parents or those who are scornful of education. No amount of scrimping can make the minimum wage a living wage.
A general rise in the level of wages might help, at least with respect to the all-important financial security of children, but the country is locked into economic policies guaranteed to hold down wages.
Those would be the first policies to re-examine if the country ever gets serious about raising student achievement. Then concentrate on changing the cultural traits that reinforce poverty, such as single parenthood and scorn for education.
The No Child Left Behind Act should be repealed as an education bill and reshaped into an antipoverty program.
Improve the economy, especially at the bottom, and strengthen the American culture. Better schools will follow.
Richard Doak is a retired Register editor and columnist, a lecturer in journalism at Iowa State University and an adjunct in history at Simpson College.
RICHARD DOAK
The elementary-school teacher in a mid-sized Iowa town came across the little waif of a girl standing in the hall, sobbing. The child said she was crying because her teeth hurt.
A look inside her mouth stunned the teacher. All the girl's back teeth were rotting.
The school managed to get her to a dentist that very day, but it was apparent the little girl had been in pain for a long time. She had never been to a dentist and had no one at home who cared about hygiene. With pain on top of an unsettled and impoverished home life - the parent was angry that the school sent the kid to a dentist - it's no wonder the child was having trouble learning.
You can't concentrate in school if you hurt. Or if you're hungry. Or abused. Or worried about your parents being evicted. Or if your parents are druggies who take the Ritalin that was prescribed for you. Or if your older sister entertains gentlemen callers in the next room all night. Or if your mom has a new live-in boyfriend every few months. Or if your job-losing parents keep moving you from school to school with long truancies in between. Or if you don't know where you'll be sleeping tonight because your dad's in prison and you get shuffled from one relative to another, and no one really wants you.
Any teacher in Iowa can tell stories that both tug at the heart and stir anger. Such stories are probably more common, in large and small schools alike, than Iowans would like to believe.
What's remarkable is not that the stories are commonplace - anyone who knows a teacher has heard them - but that they are heard so little in the public discussion about education.
As another school year is set to begin, the focus is once again not on the kids themselves. It's all about test scores, teacher quality and education standards. This year features a national advertising campaign from Strong American Schools, partly financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The campaign notes that schools in most other industrial countries outperform American schools. It advocates higher standards, more time in school and better teachers. The Register's editorial page has been urging higher, uniform standards for Iowa, too.
All well and good, but once again the discussion studiously avoids the elephant in the room.
Student achievement in this country is never going to significantly improve until attention is directed to the root causes of low achievement: failing families in a low-wage economy.
Sure, teaching can get better and schools can adapt their methods to help low achievers. Individually, caring teachers do what they can to overcome poor parenting, but they have the children only a few hours a day. The larger influence is at home.
If fundamental improvement is going to occur, it must happen primarily outside the classroom.
Test data firmly link income, achievement
The most firmly established link in education research is the correlation between family income and student test scores. Poverty is the single biggest predictor of low scores. It's a greater factor than class size or per-pupil spending.
Low scores are not a sign of a poor school. They are a marker of an impoverished neighborhood.
A student's low scores are not evidence of bad teaching. They're most likely a reflection of the child living in poverty.
Yet this overwhelming truth is virtually absent from the political debate over education.
The debate should be about how to increase the number of American children who grow up to become well-educated, successful adults. A clear-eyed, rational approach to doing so would not focus on test scores and on punishing "bad" teachers and schools, as the No Child Left Behind program does. It would focus on eliminating poverty.
To boost scores, close gap between rich, poor
Poverty in itself does not produce low student achievement, but the conditions of life for children in poverty are not conducive to learning. Conversely, the conditions present in higher-income families - stability, educated parents, security - are conducive to learning.
Teachers know that any student who has two parents in the home and can afford to pay full price for school lunches will do just fine on standardized tests. The goal should be to get every kid into a home like that or something close to it.
That's a long way from happening. In the richest country in the world, a certain level of poverty seems to be increasingly intractable, chronically pushing down the average on test scores, among other social pathologies.
Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan and other countries that outperform the United States in education are not as wealthy as America, but their gaps between rich and poor are not as wide. The wealth they do have is more evenly distributed. So is their student achievement.
Politicians dodge issue of educational underclass
We might not want to talk about it, but one of the most serious problems in contemporary America is the deep and widening chasm between rich and poor. There is a segment of the population - think of the poor waif with rotten teeth - who are almost invisible to most of us but who are at risk of becoming members of a permanent underclass.
It would be an educational underclass, really, in which poor and undereducated parents beget poor and undereducated children.
The political establishment has not faced up to the problem. Looking at poor student achievement, politicians find it convenient to blame the schools, bash teachers and demand non-solutions such as vouchers. The political right chants a mantra that is uttered like one word: thefailingpublicschools.
Wrong. It is not the public schools that are failing. It is the larger American culture and economy.
Change economic policies that encourage low wages
Perhaps politicians fall back on non-solutions because the real solution - ending poverty and the conditions associated with it - seems impossible.
No law could persuade every couple to delay childbearing until they are financially secure. No government program can ensure that every parent provide a secure, stable, encouraging environment. No magic wand can rid America of the family-destroying ravages of drugs. No public policy can undo the damage done by incompetent parents or those who are scornful of education. No amount of scrimping can make the minimum wage a living wage.
A general rise in the level of wages might help, at least with respect to the all-important financial security of children, but the country is locked into economic policies guaranteed to hold down wages.
Those would be the first policies to re-examine if the country ever gets serious about raising student achievement. Then concentrate on changing the cultural traits that reinforce poverty, such as single parenthood and scorn for education.
The No Child Left Behind Act should be repealed as an education bill and reshaped into an antipoverty program.
Improve the economy, especially at the bottom, and strengthen the American culture. Better schools will follow.
Richard Doak is a retired Register editor and columnist, a lecturer in journalism at Iowa State University and an adjunct in history at Simpson College.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Ohio Changes Voting Regulations
In principle, election results should not depend on whether the state officials are Democrats or Republicans. But as Yogi Berra so aptly put it: "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." In 2004, George Bush won Ohio by 118,000 vote in an election supervised by Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Republican Gov. Bob Taft. There were many (unproven) allegations of people being denied the right to vote, insufficient voting machines in Democratic areas, fraudulent voting machine software, and other issues. This year is likely to be different because Gov. Ted Strickland and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner are both Democrats and both are determined to make sure every eligible Ohio voter can cast a ballot and that the election is completely transparent. A new Ohio law allows any eligible voter to vote by mail with no questions asked. In addition, there is a window of a week in early October when a voter can register and then vote immediately. These changes make it much easier to vote. The Obama campaign has a massive effort going to try to get Ohio's 470,000 college students to vote, knowing that students favor Obama by more than 2 to 1. Ohio State University alone has 52,000 students, nearly all of whom can vote if they are Ohio residents over 18. The Republicans are likely to challenge the new law in court, claiming it enables voter fraud.
Friday, August 1, 2008
McCain admits he was a D student and he is computer illiterate
McCain admits he was a D student and he is computer illiterate
From the Ohio Daily Blog
So, either he is dumb or he was a spoiled brat kid who got into the naval academy as a legacy and took advantage of the fact that his Dad was Admiral. Or, I guess, it could be both.
Well, here are some excepts from Miltary.com written by fellow POW and one of his Naval Academy friends. The article is titled Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States...
I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year.... I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.
So, even Johns friends think he was a spoiled brat. But, this article gets better it goes on to state that:
* As a POW, the author knows that the stress and malnutrition they endured has led to poor health and "So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years."
* John McCain has a low emotional intelligence "I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button."
* McCain has lied about his position to garner support "I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he..."
We can compare this with Barack Obama who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. Then gave up opportunities for wealth to work with non profits helping his community.
Come on people, do we really want another four years of a spoiled brat President?
From the Ohio Daily Blog
So, either he is dumb or he was a spoiled brat kid who got into the naval academy as a legacy and took advantage of the fact that his Dad was Admiral. Or, I guess, it could be both.
Well, here are some excepts from Miltary.com written by fellow POW and one of his Naval Academy friends. The article is titled Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States...
I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year.... I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.
So, even Johns friends think he was a spoiled brat. But, this article gets better it goes on to state that:
* As a POW, the author knows that the stress and malnutrition they endured has led to poor health and "So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years."
* John McCain has a low emotional intelligence "I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button."
* McCain has lied about his position to garner support "I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he..."
We can compare this with Barack Obama who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. Then gave up opportunities for wealth to work with non profits helping his community.
Come on people, do we really want another four years of a spoiled brat President?
Friday, July 25, 2008
Measuring Poverty
By Rosemary - Jul 25th, 2008 at 7:22 am EDT
I wrote a short piece about Obama and McCain's stands on poverty for God's Politics Blog.
Measuring Poverty (by Rosemary Du Mont)
Both political candidates for president have made poverty part of their political agenda. Sen. McCain promised to make the eradication of poverty a top administration priority in his April 2008 statement. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the Global Poverty Act, which calls on the president to develop a comprehensive agenda to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015. He has also endorsed the need for a new poverty measure that more accurately reflects the costs of living and the economic pressures on American families.
Read the whole statement by going to this site: http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/07/measuring-poverty-by-rosemary.html
I wrote a short piece about Obama and McCain's stands on poverty for God's Politics Blog.
Measuring Poverty (by Rosemary Du Mont)
Both political candidates for president have made poverty part of their political agenda. Sen. McCain promised to make the eradication of poverty a top administration priority in his April 2008 statement. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the Global Poverty Act, which calls on the president to develop a comprehensive agenda to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015. He has also endorsed the need for a new poverty measure that more accurately reflects the costs of living and the economic pressures on American families.
Read the whole statement by going to this site: http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/07/measuring-poverty-by-rosemary.html
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Can a Guy (McCain) Who Doesn't Know How To Use a Computer Become President?
Can a Guy (McCain) Who Doesn't Know How To Use a Computer Become President?
By David Corn | June 24, 2008 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
On Monday, I was at the annual Personal Democracy Forum, and the news of the day--in between wide-ranging talk of social networking, new politics, and blogging and journalism--was a brief exchange between Tracy Russo, who was deputy director of online communications for John Edwards' 2008 campaign, and Mark Soohoo, an adviser to the John McCain campaign for online matters.
It was a slam waiting to happen.
In early February, John McCain, in an interview with Yahoo news, acknowledged that he does not know how to use a computer without his wife's assistance (thus, he couldn't say whether he prefers a Mac or a PC). Bloggers and techies have been poking fun at McCain ever since.
So at the PDF confab, Russo, while sitting on a panel with Soohoo, remarked that she did not see how anyone unfamiliar with computers could become president in 2008. Soohoo responded the best he could:
You don't necessarily have to use a computer to understand, you know, how it shapes the country....John McCain is aware of the Internet.
Aware of the Internet? It's a remark ready-made for derision. But let's (at least this time) avoid the cheap shot, for there is a serious point here: where is McCain's intellectual curiosity? Over the past decade, more and more Americans of all ages have become wired. Using email and the Internet has become a fundamental activity of modern life. How could McCain, who has long wanted to lead this nation, say to himself, I don't need to know how this stuff works? And in an era when so much depends on the Internet--including much of the economy and aspects of national security--how could a senior legislator and commander-in-chief wannabe eschew firsthand experience of how this series of tubes and wires functions?
What motivated--or demotivated--McCain to be a computer illiterate? Is he a fuddy-duddy resistant to change? Is he--let's be frank--too old to absorb new notions? Is he a Luddite? None of these are qualities you'd want in a president. Are there other explanations?
This is no laughing matter. At a debate, a town hall meeting, or a press conference, McCain ought to be pressed on this point. Not as gotcha politics; this is fundamental politics. Voters ought to know what makes a candidate tick--or not. Soohoo's reply to Russo was, of course, insufficient. Being "aware" is not enough. McCain needs to say more on this front. Maybe in an email.
By David Corn | June 24, 2008 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
On Monday, I was at the annual Personal Democracy Forum, and the news of the day--in between wide-ranging talk of social networking, new politics, and blogging and journalism--was a brief exchange between Tracy Russo, who was deputy director of online communications for John Edwards' 2008 campaign, and Mark Soohoo, an adviser to the John McCain campaign for online matters.
It was a slam waiting to happen.
In early February, John McCain, in an interview with Yahoo news, acknowledged that he does not know how to use a computer without his wife's assistance (thus, he couldn't say whether he prefers a Mac or a PC). Bloggers and techies have been poking fun at McCain ever since.
So at the PDF confab, Russo, while sitting on a panel with Soohoo, remarked that she did not see how anyone unfamiliar with computers could become president in 2008. Soohoo responded the best he could:
You don't necessarily have to use a computer to understand, you know, how it shapes the country....John McCain is aware of the Internet.
Aware of the Internet? It's a remark ready-made for derision. But let's (at least this time) avoid the cheap shot, for there is a serious point here: where is McCain's intellectual curiosity? Over the past decade, more and more Americans of all ages have become wired. Using email and the Internet has become a fundamental activity of modern life. How could McCain, who has long wanted to lead this nation, say to himself, I don't need to know how this stuff works? And in an era when so much depends on the Internet--including much of the economy and aspects of national security--how could a senior legislator and commander-in-chief wannabe eschew firsthand experience of how this series of tubes and wires functions?
What motivated--or demotivated--McCain to be a computer illiterate? Is he a fuddy-duddy resistant to change? Is he--let's be frank--too old to absorb new notions? Is he a Luddite? None of these are qualities you'd want in a president. Are there other explanations?
This is no laughing matter. At a debate, a town hall meeting, or a press conference, McCain ought to be pressed on this point. Not as gotcha politics; this is fundamental politics. Voters ought to know what makes a candidate tick--or not. Soohoo's reply to Russo was, of course, insufficient. Being "aware" is not enough. McCain needs to say more on this front. Maybe in an email.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Maytime
I
In the spring sunshine
Blossoms dance and swirl
In the arms of the wind
II
Flower blossoms
Cover the ground
Like fragrant snow
In the spring sunshine
Blossoms dance and swirl
In the arms of the wind
II
Flower blossoms
Cover the ground
Like fragrant snow
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Matthew is performing in Florida this summer!!
Matthew is performing on Sanibel Island this summer. Hurray! Here are the two plays he will be in...
Run For Your Wife
May 24th - Aug. 16th
Schedule TBA
In this superb, hysterically funny British farce, London cabbie John Smith lives a happy life with his wife Mary. He also lives a happy life with his wife Barbara. Since neither Mary nor Barbara knows the existence of the other, John's cleverly secluded life is free of incident... UNTIL... a trip to the hospital sends John Smith into the most hilarious mix-up of a lifetime!
Caught in the Net
by Ray Cooney
May 24th - Aug. 16th
Schedule TBA
The sequel to "Run for Your Wife." 18 years later, modern technology is about to lead John Smith's two families into a head-on collision. His son Gavin (with his mum Barbara) and daughter Vicki (with her mum Mary) are discussing having met in an Internet chat room. They are amazed that they both have fathers named John Leonard Smith who are London taxi drivers, and since romance has blossomed, they are determined to meet in person. And chaos ensues...
Check out The Schoolhouse Theater website...
http://www.theschoolhousetheater.com/coming_attractions.htm
Run For Your Wife
May 24th - Aug. 16th
Schedule TBA
In this superb, hysterically funny British farce, London cabbie John Smith lives a happy life with his wife Mary. He also lives a happy life with his wife Barbara. Since neither Mary nor Barbara knows the existence of the other, John's cleverly secluded life is free of incident... UNTIL... a trip to the hospital sends John Smith into the most hilarious mix-up of a lifetime!
Caught in the Net
by Ray Cooney
May 24th - Aug. 16th
Schedule TBA
The sequel to "Run for Your Wife." 18 years later, modern technology is about to lead John Smith's two families into a head-on collision. His son Gavin (with his mum Barbara) and daughter Vicki (with her mum Mary) are discussing having met in an Internet chat room. They are amazed that they both have fathers named John Leonard Smith who are London taxi drivers, and since romance has blossomed, they are determined to meet in person. And chaos ensues...
Check out The Schoolhouse Theater website...
http://www.theschoolhousetheater.com/coming_attractions.htm
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Before a Departure in Spring
W.S. Merwin
Once more it is April with the first light sifting
through the young leaves heavy with dew making the colors
remember who they are the new pink of the cinnamon tree
the gilded lichens of the bamboo the shadowed bronze
of the kamani and the blue day opening
as the sunlight descends through it all like the return
of a spirit touching without touch and unable
to believe it is here and here again and awake
reaching out in silence into the cool breath
of the garden just risen from darkness and days of rain
it is only a moment the birds fly through it calling
to each other and are gone with their few notes and the flash
of their flight that had vanished before we ever knew it
we watch without touching any of it and we
can tell ourselves only that this is April this is the morning
this never happened before and we both remember it
Once more it is April with the first light sifting
through the young leaves heavy with dew making the colors
remember who they are the new pink of the cinnamon tree
the gilded lichens of the bamboo the shadowed bronze
of the kamani and the blue day opening
as the sunlight descends through it all like the return
of a spirit touching without touch and unable
to believe it is here and here again and awake
reaching out in silence into the cool breath
of the garden just risen from darkness and days of rain
it is only a moment the birds fly through it calling
to each other and are gone with their few notes and the flash
of their flight that had vanished before we ever knew it
we watch without touching any of it and we
can tell ourselves only that this is April this is the morning
this never happened before and we both remember it
Monday, April 7, 2008
To Welcome Spring....
From Metamorphisis/ Ovid
So, when the Nile, the stream with seven mouths,
recedes from the soaked fields and carries back
its waters to the bed they had before,
and slime, still fresh, dries underneath the sun,
the farmers, turning over clods, discover
some who are newly born, who’ve just begun
to take their forms, and others who are still
unfinished, incomplete—they’ve not achieved
proportion; and indeed, in one same body,
one part may be alive already, while
another is a lump of shapeless soil.
For, tempering each other, heat and moisture
engender life: the union of these two
produces everything. Though it is true
that fire is the enemy of water,
moist heat is the creator of all things:
discordant concord is the path life needs.
So, when the Nile, the stream with seven mouths,
recedes from the soaked fields and carries back
its waters to the bed they had before,
and slime, still fresh, dries underneath the sun,
the farmers, turning over clods, discover
some who are newly born, who’ve just begun
to take their forms, and others who are still
unfinished, incomplete—they’ve not achieved
proportion; and indeed, in one same body,
one part may be alive already, while
another is a lump of shapeless soil.
For, tempering each other, heat and moisture
engender life: the union of these two
produces everything. Though it is true
that fire is the enemy of water,
moist heat is the creator of all things:
discordant concord is the path life needs.
Friday, April 4, 2008
If Wright killed Obama, then Bill must have killed Hillary
If Wright killed Obama, then Bill must have killed Hillary
Submitted by lgstarn on April 4, 2008 - 3:15pm.
If the comments and actions of other people who one stays with were the sole criteria we used to judge someone, why shouldn't we judge Hillary for staying with Bill, who even his supporters will admit is a lying, cheating philanderer?
Or better yet, since Hillary was a board member of Walmart for 6 years (which she includes in her "35 years" of experience but strangely doesn't list on her website), why don't we judge her by the comments of her fellow Walmart board of directors member John Tate, who repeatedly called labor unions "blood-sucking parasites"? Hillary stood by and did nothing in that case. Please see the following article and video from ABC news and spread it around when hypocrites try to smear Obama for letting someone else say something offensive:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4218509
Submitted by lgstarn on April 4, 2008 - 3:15pm.
If the comments and actions of other people who one stays with were the sole criteria we used to judge someone, why shouldn't we judge Hillary for staying with Bill, who even his supporters will admit is a lying, cheating philanderer?
Or better yet, since Hillary was a board member of Walmart for 6 years (which she includes in her "35 years" of experience but strangely doesn't list on her website), why don't we judge her by the comments of her fellow Walmart board of directors member John Tate, who repeatedly called labor unions "blood-sucking parasites"? Hillary stood by and did nothing in that case. Please see the following article and video from ABC news and spread it around when hypocrites try to smear Obama for letting someone else say something offensive:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4218509
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Cold Spring
The Equinox has passed.
Spring is here.
No matter that the wind is cutting,
and piles of old snow still litter the ground,
and the pond freezes up at night,
to the consternation of the Canada geese
who land on the frozen surface
slipping and sliding
like drunken skaters.
They fall through the ice where it is thin
and paddle frantically,
pushing with their chests against chunks of ice,
and make a watery path to the far shore,
where they graze like horses, tugging with their beaks on frozen blades of grass.
The sky is gray - it could be a snow sky.
Perhaps rain, if the temperature holds, just above freezing.
Whatever...
The air is dark; it holds little heat.
Suddenly, the crow of spring dusk
cries out,
full of longing.
Spring is here.
No matter that the wind is cutting,
and piles of old snow still litter the ground,
and the pond freezes up at night,
to the consternation of the Canada geese
who land on the frozen surface
slipping and sliding
like drunken skaters.
They fall through the ice where it is thin
and paddle frantically,
pushing with their chests against chunks of ice,
and make a watery path to the far shore,
where they graze like horses, tugging with their beaks on frozen blades of grass.
The sky is gray - it could be a snow sky.
Perhaps rain, if the temperature holds, just above freezing.
Whatever...
The air is dark; it holds little heat.
Suddenly, the crow of spring dusk
cries out,
full of longing.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Law of the Garbage Truck
Love the people who treat you right
Forget about the ones who don't.
Believe that everything happens for a reason.
If you get a chance, TAKE IT!
If it changes your life, LET IT!
Nobody said it would be easy...They just promised it would be worth it.
Blessing always look small if we hold them in our hands. But if we learn to share them, we realize how great and precious they are."
Forget about the ones who don't.
Believe that everything happens for a reason.
If you get a chance, TAKE IT!
If it changes your life, LET IT!
Nobody said it would be easy...They just promised it would be worth it.
Blessing always look small if we hold them in our hands. But if we learn to share them, we realize how great and precious they are."
Some comments I agree with from bloggers at the Baltimore Sun
I'm sad to say that I've finally crossed the threshold that all the Democratic Elders fear - I hate Hillary Clinton.
I won't vote for her if she is the nominee. She is so violently power hungry that she will do anything to win this election - including setting race relations back 50 years. And she can lie repeatedly about her so-called experience, and then turn around and say "Sorry, I'm tired, I misspoke"... and the media doesn't give her a free pass? She's not so tired that she hasn't with all of her might delayed and/or prevented her tax returns, schedules, and the donor list for the Clinton library out of our view, all the while throwing the "kitchen sink" at her opponent. Are you kidding me? Samantha Power didn't accidentally call her a monster, she had actionable intelligence that she is one and was trying to warn the rest of us.
Are Hillary supporters so blind that they cannot see how manipulative she is? Do they not see how badly she has managed her campaign? Do they not see how whenever she has been put down legitimately in this election she has turned around with a political low-blow (not just to Barack but to the Democratic party) and then spun it as a "rebound?" How's this for a reality check: the only thing she has been politically consistent with is her ability to deceive. I cannot believe I used to be someone who would try to defend her early on in this campaign. She's not only lost my vote, she's lost my respect - not just for her, but for the former president as well.
We are no longer simply choosing between two candidates similar in position, we are deciding the fate of our party, and ultimately this nation - taking a stand against everything that frustrates and angers us about the rancid and stale state of our politics today. And I'm sad to announce that Hillary and her campaign is the primary source of that smell.
I for one say "not this time."
Posted by: Adam M | March 27, 2008 12:04 AM
I'm with you, Adam. I started out thrilled that Hillary was going to run. But along the way she and Bill and killed any excitement I had for the first woman running for President. It started with Shahane's comments way back at the beginning about Obama's drug use, and went into high gear after Bill's comments in South Carolina about Jesse Jackson having won there too. Now there are two many instances to number. And if Hillary gets the nomination, I won't vote for John McCain, I'll stay home.
I won't vote for her if she is the nominee. She is so violently power hungry that she will do anything to win this election - including setting race relations back 50 years. And she can lie repeatedly about her so-called experience, and then turn around and say "Sorry, I'm tired, I misspoke"... and the media doesn't give her a free pass? She's not so tired that she hasn't with all of her might delayed and/or prevented her tax returns, schedules, and the donor list for the Clinton library out of our view, all the while throwing the "kitchen sink" at her opponent. Are you kidding me? Samantha Power didn't accidentally call her a monster, she had actionable intelligence that she is one and was trying to warn the rest of us.
Are Hillary supporters so blind that they cannot see how manipulative she is? Do they not see how badly she has managed her campaign? Do they not see how whenever she has been put down legitimately in this election she has turned around with a political low-blow (not just to Barack but to the Democratic party) and then spun it as a "rebound?" How's this for a reality check: the only thing she has been politically consistent with is her ability to deceive. I cannot believe I used to be someone who would try to defend her early on in this campaign. She's not only lost my vote, she's lost my respect - not just for her, but for the former president as well.
We are no longer simply choosing between two candidates similar in position, we are deciding the fate of our party, and ultimately this nation - taking a stand against everything that frustrates and angers us about the rancid and stale state of our politics today. And I'm sad to announce that Hillary and her campaign is the primary source of that smell.
I for one say "not this time."
Posted by: Adam M | March 27, 2008 12:04 AM
I'm with you, Adam. I started out thrilled that Hillary was going to run. But along the way she and Bill and killed any excitement I had for the first woman running for President. It started with Shahane's comments way back at the beginning about Obama's drug use, and went into high gear after Bill's comments in South Carolina about Jesse Jackson having won there too. Now there are two many instances to number. And if Hillary gets the nomination, I won't vote for John McCain, I'll stay home.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
March Madness
The geese are back
The pond is filled with the sounds of them
They stomp across the iced surface, necks outstretched
Heads bobbing
Wings flapping
They race after each other
Marking territory
Marking time
Waiting for the pond to become a pond again
So that nesting can commence
The return of the geese
Signifies spring and new beginnings
In the midst of still frozen fields and bitter wind
Winter is not giving up easily
Not this year
Climate change
Lessons can be learned
From the chill of shivering snow
And the plaintive cries of ice skating geese.
The pond is filled with the sounds of them
They stomp across the iced surface, necks outstretched
Heads bobbing
Wings flapping
They race after each other
Marking territory
Marking time
Waiting for the pond to become a pond again
So that nesting can commence
The return of the geese
Signifies spring and new beginnings
In the midst of still frozen fields and bitter wind
Winter is not giving up easily
Not this year
Climate change
Lessons can be learned
From the chill of shivering snow
And the plaintive cries of ice skating geese.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Dire Economy
The economic situation in the country is so dire that racial issues may move to the back burner rather soon. We have some money we had invested in a retirement account - relying on stocks. We moved the money to a fixed interest account this week. Paul and I really believe that we could be facing the beginning of the worst financial mess since the Great Depression. People will become more racist if they take the small view that they are competing with minorities for the pitiful jobs that may be around (thus, the attack on immigrants) or the large view that it takes all kinds of people to get us out of this economic mess - and there Obama has a chance - if he sticks to message and does not get caught up in the discussion about race. He has gotten distracted by the likes of Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary's fear mongering. I think his main strategy has to be to let most of this stuff slide and focus on the problems of the country.
- Show quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)