Tagged: Politics

What Drives Effective Policy?

I changed the tag line of this site a few days ago to, “Common Sense for the Common Good”. I don’t know if someone else on the web is using it, if it’s copyrighted, or if it sounds stupid to other people, but to me it makes sense. It is the phrase that drives my views on issues environmental, social and political.

The old tag line was “The Beginning of Everything Green”. It wasn’t too bad but it was a little vague while simultaneously seeming too oriented to environmental (nature) issues when my focus is really environmental (what we affect and what affects us) issues. Got it? Now that that’s settled, on to what’s on my mind today.

What drives effective policy? It’s a topic more philosophical than usually discussed here but is on my mind because of a piece by David Brooks in the New York Times today. His article is called, “Human nature is the basis for good policy”. He talks about three groups of people: (1) religious conservatives, (2) social libertarians and (3) social traditionalists, and how each thinks about government. Brooks says:

“Some people are religious conservatives who believe that policies should align with the transcendent moral order of the universe. Other people are social libertarians who believe that government should be neutral on values issues and that individuals should be guaranteed their own private space to work out their own solutions to moral questions.”

He continues:

“But others of us are social traditionalists. We differ from religious conservatives in that we’re not sure about a transcendent moral order, and we think it’s too sectarian and too lofty to try to pattern government policies on God’s law. We also disagree with social libertarians. We don’t think government can be neutral on value issues. Nations are held together by shared beliefs. People flourish because they have been encouraged by society to adopt certain habits and behaviors. Human beings are social creatures whose actions and views are profoundly shaped by the social fabric that binds them.”

Brooks’ biggest claim in the piece is that “We traditionalists observe that when policies fail, it’s usually because they are based on inaccurate assumptions about human nature.” I don’t entirely agree with this. Sometimes policies fail because they aren’t strong enough to control the weaknesses in human beings created by failed institutions (schools, government, etc . . .). This brings us back to his claim regarding what social traditionalists stand for. He says:

“Today, while religious conservatives and social libertarians have their culture war flashpoints, traditionalists are interested in how to strengthen institutions that breed responsible people.”

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with his claim on which group represents which ideal but I do agree that strengthening institutions to breed responsible people is vital. It’s the key to sustainability at all levels. Responsible people eliminate the need for Draconian laws, the moral police and hopefully, Republicans. I hope I see a day where policy is (once again?) drive by common sense and the notion that our institutions will only be sustainable if they breed responsible enough people to lead us into tomorrow.

The Fundamental Difference

Awareness: For a long time I wondered what made a progressive person fundamentally different from a conservative one, and not too long ago I found the answer. In any situation, regarding any issue, the great divide is a matter of selfishness, no matter how you slice it. While Democratic and liberal are words often used to categorize progressive people and ideas I avoid using them because to me “progressive” implies an inherent level of intelligence and awareness not always found in people labeled Democratic or liberal. Granted, I’d take a liberal over a conservative any day of the week and twice on Sundays but there are many smart, conservative ideas and an equal number of stupid, liberal ideas. With that said, the smart, conservative ideas may be well thought out but the ultimate goal always reeks of selfishness. The world isn’t perfect and if you’re reading this, most people on the planet have it worse than you in almost any imaginable way. Take for example:

Taxes – Most people who are well off and pay taxes at a (relatively) high rate had an advantageous upbringing. There’s no debating this fact. There’s also no debate that most people who earn high incomes do so legally, no matter the loopholes and inefficiencies inherent in our economic system. And in doing so, they want to keep as much of their income as possible for themselves. “It’s mine!” they say. So what? So what is that most people with this attitude ignore that they were given nearly every advantage to succeed in a capitalist society. Socioeconomic segregation, propagated dramatically through sprawl and gentrification, reinforces this ignorance. No one is asking for the more fortunate to give back their advantage and level the playing field. All the more selfless are asking for is for those who have to give a little to those who have not.

Civil Rights – This topic is always a hot one. The first disagreement usually arises regarding whether we live in a Christian society or one inspired, in part, by Christian ideals (which, by the way, are the same ideals of any religion or sound moral code after you strip away the fantasy). The slope gets slippery quickly. Which version of Christianity are we talking about? Some are more liberal than others and some are more interested in protecting “institution” than saving souls. Do the values of Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, secular humanists and other minorities carry any weight. The selfishness of religion is inherent to each version’s survival but it is that selfishness that causes infiltration of another’s space. Guns directly affect others and gays do not, funny how the mention of god helps people sell it the other way.

Those are just two very broad topics analyzed with very loose arguments. Poke all the holes in them you’d like. But, if you take the principles I’ve mentioned and apply them to any issue you’ll find my conclusion to be true. I’m not making a judgment rather merely an observation. The sky is (not always) blue and the grass is (not always) green but most of the time they are; progressives are (not always) selfless and conservatives are (not always) selfish but most of the time they are.

Action: Sacrifice. Make a meaningful contribution to something or someone completely different than you. Step outside of your box and take a chance. Murder your ignorance by giving to or just recognizing an idea that goes beyond what you believe. It’s the only way to reinforce your beliefs. And if you find along the way something doesn’t jive you may have discovered a new truth, or that you’ve been misled. Don’t fear changing your step. You’ll have only yourself to blame if you keep dancing to that old, worn-out song.

Gore Power

A recent interview of Al Gore by David Roberts reveals details about his upcoming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and his thoughts on our impending “climate crisis”. He discusses aspects of making the movie but also opines on nuclear energy and ethanol, as well as how little time we really have left to make substantial changes in the way we live our lives before global warming reaches a tipping point and becomes irreversible. It is this discussion that held my interest.

Ten years, that’s it. Jason Hansen, the NASA researcher being muted by the Bush administration, says that is as long as we have before the level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere reach a level that gives global warming unstoppable momentum. Yikes! Hind sight is always 20-20 but we’ve known this day has been coming for a long time. Too bad with every battle on either side of the political aisle the environment has almost always lost.

Through recent battles Gore has always appeared almost too “green” oriented to pander to the demands of every special interest group, from Big Oil to the unions, and is part of the reason many Democratic groups never truly identified with him. But, he has been on the forefront of the global warming discussion for decades. Even before the globe’s biggest polluters tried to convince the world otherwise, through lies and deception no less, Gore has been fighting for the planet. Surely the Democrats have done less damage than the Republicans, but we are where we are today because of the lack of effort from everybody.

Gore thinks nuclear energy won’t play that large of a roll in our future. Why? He says:

There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved.

We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal — which is the real issue: coal — then we’d have to put them in so many places we’d run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we’d run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.

When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up — uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build.

In any case, if they can design a new generation [of reactors] that’s manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don’t think it will play a big role.

After hearing that nuclear energy isn’t going to provide the boon so many people had hoped, Roberts asked for Gore’s opinion on ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol. Different from corn-based ethanol. I think it is going to be a huge new source of energy, particularly for the transportation sector. You’re going to see it all over the place. You’re going to see a lot more flex-fuel vehicles. You’re going to see new processes that utilize waste as the source of energy, so there’s no petroleum consumed in the process — that makes the energy balance uniformly positive, so you can regrow it and it does become, in a real sense, renewable. You may also begin to see a new generation of fuel cells that run on cellulosic ethanol, where you can grow your own electricity. I think it’s going to play a huge role.

Gore makes a very important point in this statement, and it’s one that is purposely avoided in ethanol marketing in the U.S. The simple fact is that corn-based ethanol isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But the U.S. grows corn and corn growers have well-paid lobbyists. If we make the mistake of moving heavily to a corn-based ethanol we will have taken two steps forward only to take one and a half steps back. Sure it’s progress, but in the end it will be another half-assed attempt at solving a problem when more bold action is warranted. Ethanol derived from sugarcane and other agricultural plant waste provides for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases, versus a 20% to 30% reduction from corn ethanol. There’s no debate to that fact.

Roberts points out that two and a half of the ten years we have left will transpire during leadership by the Bush administration. Personally, I’m pessimistic enough to think that Bush will dawdle and cry of partisan politics, especially if the Republicans lose seats during the mid-term elections. Gore says, “We can’t spot the problem two and a half years. We’ve got to concentrate on changing the country’s mind even during this president’s term.” And in a genius response, Roberts asks:

Yes. But whoever is president next has four of the remaining seven years. Whoever it is will have history-changing effects, pro or con. I don’t see any candidate in either party who shows signs of having internalized the scope and severity of the problem. All of which you surely realize is leading to the inevitable question: Do you not feel some obligation to jump into the race?

Gore responds as expected, “I’m not planning to be a candidate again. I appreciate the way you asked the question, I really do, but I’m not planning to be a candidate again.”

Whether he runs or not, Gore has been saying we aren’t trying hard enough for years. Hopefully now people are ready not only to listen, but to act.

What Liberal Media?

A new study conducted by Media Matters for America shows conclusively there is no liberal bias in the media. In fact, it proves that the major networks lean to the right more often than not, and have since Clinton’s days in office.

The content analysis classified nearly 7,000 guest appearances on Sunday news programs between 1997 and 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive or neutral. And according to the study’s conclusions, “Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows – in some cases, dramatically so.”

Some of the study’s conclusions are:

The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton’s second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush’s first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.

Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Democrats had a small advantage during Clinton’s second term: 53 percent to 45 percent. In Bush’s first term, however, the Republican advantage was 61 percent to 39 percent — nearly three times as large.

In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, conservative journalists were far more likely to appear on the Sunday shows than were progressive journalists. In Clinton’s second term, 61 percent of the ideologically identifiable journalists were conservative; in Bush’s first term, that figure rose to 69 percent.

In 1997 and 1998, the shows conducted more solo interviews with Democrats/progressives than with Republicans/conservatives. But in every year since, there have been more solo interviews with Republicans/conservatives.

The most frequent Sunday show guest during this nine-year period is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has appeared 124 times. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) has been the most frequent guest since 2003.

In every year examined by the study — 1997 – 2005 — more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many righttitled panels as left-tilted panels.

Congressional opponents of the Iraq war were largely absent from the Sunday shows, particularly during the period just before the war began.

Granted, this survey looked only at Sunday news programs, but as the study states:

The Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where the prevailing opinions are aired and tested, policymakers state their cases, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground.

If all of this is true, why does the conservative movement bark about the media’s liberal bias? A rebuttle by Meet the Press offers some evidence contrary to Media Matters‘s study. Betsy Fischer, the show’s executive producer, offered this retort to the study:

We’d respectfully request that if Media Matters wants to undertake an unbiased look at Sunday show appearances – they do just that – and include statistics from President Clinton’s first term – and avoid comparing apples to oranges.

Why does she say this? Because the statistics show that during Clinton’s first term Democrats and progressives were better represented on the show than Republicans and conservatives.

During the first two years of the Clinton Administration – when Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress – the breakdown of ideological guests were as follows: 1993 (72 Democrats, 29 Republicans -or a ratio of (71% Dem to 29% GOP); in 1994 ( 71 Democrats and 47 Republicans – or a ratio of 60% Dem to 40% GOP). When both House of Congress shifted to Republican control in 1995 – the number Republican guest appearances also increased and resulted in almost an even number of Republican and Democratic appearances.

In summary, for the first term of President Clinton (1993-1996), the ideological breakdown of guests on “Meet the Press” was as follows: 260 Democrats to 208 Republicans – for a ratio of 56% Dem to 44% GOP). How different is that from the first term of President Bush? Well, it’s basically the same – according to Media Matters own findings – Republicans accounted for 58% of all guests on Sunday shows in President Bush’s first term and Democrats accounted for 42% of appearances).

Admittedly, there may have been a liberal bias in the media at one point, over TEN years ago. It’s long gone now. Conservatives probably harp on it because they finally have all the power they dreamed of having in the 90′s and have no ability to use it for the betterment of our society. I doubt that’s even the goal of some Republican leaders but since they’re screwing things up so badly they have to cry about something. Here’s an idea, quit complaining about something that doesn’t exist and fix all the things you’ve screwed up over the last few years. The media, liberal and conservative, will eat that up.

A Little Patience

Is waiting out the storm the only choice we have? In William Rivers Pitt’s piece, The State of the Union, published on t r u t h o u t, he suggests exactly this and offers a quote by our third President. Rivers says, “If there is hope to be found in all this, it is in the words of Thomas Jefferson, written 208 years ago after the passage of the Sedition Act.

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt.

I highlight one particular sentence in the passage because of its irony and lasting nature. Surely our situation now should be different than it was over two hundred years ago. Have we not evolved as a society? Two hundred years ago this country was an infant, fighting for the very rights we seem to be losing every single day.

Americans killed to be free from religious oppression. Now they have “intelligent design” to contend with at every turn, and religion – one particular religion – infiltrating the very fabric of our government. I’m an adamant proponent of free speech, but seeing commercials about Jesus during the Super Bowl is disconcerting. Evidence of a much different country than was envisioned by so many of our great leaders is mounting every day. A recent post on Change for Missouri led me to these unnerving tidbit of information from the New York Times.

Tidbit One:

“It is not the job of public-affairs officers,” Dr. Griffin wrote in an e-mail message to the agency’s 19,000 employees, “to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA’s technical staff.”

The statement came six days after The New York Times quoted the scientist, James E. Hansen, as saying he was threatened with “dire consequences” if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency’s 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters.

Tidbit Two:

In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.

The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

The Times article points out a few other instances of absolute infantile behavior on the part of the White House and can be viewed here.

How can these people operate like this? The above is just proof that one of many viruses released by the people running this country is taking a hold, and to everyone’s detriment.

The following information comes from Pitt’s article, referenced above. Exxon Mobil made $32 billion in profit last year, the most money ever made by an American company . . . ever. Programmatic cuts for health care, child support and educational subsidies totaling $40 billion are suggested in Bush’s latest budget. All this while the rich are keeping $750 billion in tax cuts. Over 37 million Americans live in poverty, including 13 million children. 47 million Americans have no health insurance. More than one in four families with children make less than $30,000 a year.

Ladies and gentlemen, the results of compassionate conservatism!

The bad news can be overwhelming but progress is being made. Democratic candidates have very good chances of winning pivotal elections in key states; former military officials are vying for at least ten seats in the midterm elections and hope to challenge the war in Iraq. Independent voters are starting to lean back to the left.

Jefferson continued:

If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.

But patience doesn’t mean inaction. Take a deep breath, and as Gandhi said, “be the change you want to see in the world”. Time will take care of the rest.

Cough On This

I subscribe to the Sierra Club’s e-newsletter, RAW: uncooked truth, beyond belief, and was a little disheartened to find a disturbing but not altogether surprising story by Megan Lewis on the forgotten heroes of 9/11. She begins with this heroic description:

On September 11, 2001, Paramedic Marvin Bethea was buried in debris when the first World Trade Center tower fell, but he got out, and returned to provide aid to others. Demolition supervisor John Feal oversaw and carried out recovery work at Ground Zero until his foot was crushed on site, hospitalizing him for two months. U.S. Air Force Captain Mike McCormick worked at Ground Zero through the first six days of the rescue effort, at one point unearthing the World Trade Center towers’ flag, which was later displayed at the Olympics. Structural Ironworker Jonathan Sferazo performed search and rescue and burned iron to reach lower areas of the pile in the search for survivors. He did this grueling work for more than 30 days.

Inspiring, no? Of course the Bush administration would like to have you believe everyone did a noble job and went home, happy and healthy, to their loved ones. The truth is much darker.

. . . life hasn’t gotten any easier for these men. Bethea suffered a stroke attributed to 9/11 stress, and later was diagnosed with adult-onset asthma and chronic rhinitis. Half of Feal’s foot was amputated, and his respiratory system became impaired. McCormick now suffers from respiratory illness and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Sferazo has lost 31 percent of his lung capacity, and is unable to work.

Ground Zero was a war zone when these brave people went in to help their fellow Americans and everyone knows that in rescue work there is danger. But, one would think that the government and its officials, sworn to protect the citizens of this land, would do everything in its power to assist those helping the victims of any tragedy. But that wasn’t the case four years ago, and to make matters worse, that wasn’t the case four months ago.

What they were told about the air pollution around Ground Zero and what was the truth are now emerging as two very different tales. Five days after the attacks, the EPA, under the White House’s direct supervision, released the following statement: “The new samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern.” But soon 9/11 workers and residents started experiencing serious respiratory problems, a condition now called “the World Trade Center Cough.” Thousands of rescue workers are sick, and no one knows what long-term health impacts may arise in the future.

Americans cannot rest assured that the missteps of Ground Zero are in the past. In fact, the same errors are being repeated in the Katrina disaster area. A Sierra Club report finds that the Bush administration’s new National Response Plan even incorporates some of these missteps as federal policy.

The frustrations of those who sacrificed life and limb are growing, and with due cause. The homepage of the EPA boasts, “35 years of protecting human health and the environment”. How can a few men, who are with every passing day being proven the worst kind of leaders, make a puppet out of an organization whose mission is to protect us and our environs? Lewis concludes with:

Americans involved in disasters need strong, effective action from their national government. There are already too many forgotten heroes asking the same questions as John Feal: “They called us ‘Heroes’! But where are our heroes? We are the ones that need the help now. Where is it?”

The number of people suffering in this country because of misinformation is growing at an alarming rate. The heroes of 9/11 need a spokesman, a martyr, their own hero, to step up and make it known to the world that in a once-a-generation moment, when a government can truly rise up and help a country heal, it let the very people picking up the pieces suffer the most.

Goal Setting, Ephemeral or Enduring?

I’ve been doing a considerable amount of thinking on organization, goals and effectiveness. To the chagrin of my employer I must admit that my recent pensiveness is unrelated to work, but instead to democracy and grassroots efforts to change the direction America is headed.

My girlfriend says my frustrations related to “making a difference” arise from thinking too globally. She’s right in that thinking globally without also thinking locally is a recipe for mental disaster. Time will pass amid a whirlwind of amazing ideas with no implementation or effort, leading eventually to feelings of in competency, inadequacy and deficiency. And thinking about only your next meal, like an animal, will leave you with no direction or accomplishment . . . but if you’re ignorant enough you won’t even know it so who cares!

Apologies for referencing a business school acronym but setting S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and tangible) goals never seemed to applicable.

A group with which I’m involved and have referenced before, Change for Missouri, is going through some soul-searching. It’s core leaders have established a relatively effective strategy for engaging members in topical, but short-lived efforts. These are effective and important, but are better described as one-off efforts to influence immediate political behavior, not strategic efforts to influence long-term policy. In the group’s past is the experience of organizing, rallying and planning effectively to achieve a long-term goal . I’m trying to get the group back there. Unfortunately nothing ubiquitously motivational exists at the moment. In the past was the 2004 election. Now, the American public is frustrated beyond description but by a million little fire ants and not one gigantic, heinous monster . . . though one could argue quite convincingly a clueless, seething monster commands the damned ants.

We must first decide what do we want to do? The consensus among the majority of those I’ve talked with is that the group should focus on candidate recruitment and campaigning. The group’s experience matches this objective and the future is most susceptible, in the longer-term, to this type of action. If it is agreed upon to proceed in this manner it is of utmost importance that it be the primary, if not only, driving forced behind the group’s actions. Personally, I find my distracted perpetually by fleeting thoughts, ideas, bits of information . . . this type of flippancy can not plague our group if it’s to be effective. Change will not be seen tomorrow but helping the right people get elected in the right places will turn the tides in the tsunami of deceit, misrepresentation and incompetence that’s washed ashore our once great and now faltering country.

Civic Participation

On Wednesday night I attended my first general meeting for Democracy for America / Change for Missouri (DFA/CFM). I was actually asked to moderate the meeting and did a fairly reasonable job; no complaints is a sign of success! About 30 or so attendees heard from a number of our members and a few guests regarding a variety of issues.

Jeff Smith, who’s running for the Missouri State Senate’s 4th District seat next November, led off the meeting with a talk on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He gave the audience a historical perspective on Supreme Court nominations over the last century and how more recent nominations – those in the last few decades – have been met with a much different response than in past, which is to say they have actually seen resistance. This was exceedingly rare prior to the mid- to late-twentieth century. Jeff also opined that Alito’s confirmation was fairly certain due to the make up of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Arlen Spector’s allegiance to the Republican party. He’s apparrently the only one who could swing what is predicted to be an 11 to nine vote in favor of bringing Alito’s nomination to the Senate floor into a 10 to 10 tie. Keep your fingers crossed.

A representative from Jane Bogetto’s office then talked briefly about her campaign and some last minute volunteer opportunities available before Tuesday’s election. I’m not too familiar with her campaign but I wish her the best of luck. Unfortunately there’s not much time to help out before the big day.

“It’s like-a torture!” The focus of our next discussion was John McCain’s Anti-Torture amendment 1977 to House bill 2863, the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2006. The White House wants the amendment watered down. Yes, this is the same amendment which was voted for by a margin of 90 to nine in the Senate on October 5th. Our very own Kit Bond was one of the nine. Please call and let him know he’s a buffoon, and that holds regardless of the economic benefits he’s delivered to the region. Many of the people even hand-wrote letters to Bond and other Senators asking for them to reconsider their position. This issue is about the torturing innocent people (some to death) using unacceptable methods without formally charging them. The amendment re-standardizes what was once accepted practice in the military. Waivering from these standards has put soldiers’ and suspected criminals’ lives in jeapordy. The vote should have been 100 to zero in favor. All nice of the desenters should be ashamed.

Following this we heard from Democratic National Committe Chairman and Vermont Governor Howard Dean, his brother, Democracy for America Chairman Jim Dean and Democracy for America Executive Director Tom Hughes. None of them were actually at our meeting but what we experienced was something truly new to politics. On a conference call of about 500 people we had a former presidential candidate and chairman of a major political party address us in such a casual manner the significance of the moment was almost lost. Jim Dean and Tom Hughes, two individuals driving one of the largest progressive movements in the country, also answered questions but we didn’t stay on the call that long – Howard Dean’s participation was limited due to regulations governing fundraising and involvement in political organizations.

Some miscellaneous issues were discussed at the meeting also, and in the end, I was left with a feeling of empowerment and accomplishment. While my involvement in the development of (failed) amendments to the city of St. Louis’s charter was grassroots, this was my first experience in some time conducted by the people, for the people.

Out With The Old, In With The Old

It’s been a week since the last post, and for that I apologize . . . to the three people who read this (Vihar points to the drummer for some love). Much has happened in the mean time.

(1) Harriet Miers withdrew her name from consideration for the Supreme Court due to pressure from the radical right of all places. Apparently she just wasn’t good enough friends with the devil. “George Bush is the best governor ever!” Lap dog. Research shows that having two pets is better than one. I suppose Condi Rice was getting lonely.

(2) Yesterday, Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court. I support the presence of a non-judge on the Supreme Court but Miers’s nomination was a joke. And to counter, Bush has nominated uber-ruler “Scalito” Alito, who Bush claims, “has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years”. I don’t know if that’s true and I don’t really care. What’s important is that his mother was “tickled pink” by her son’s nomination and told the country, “Of course, he’s against abortion.” She’s 90 so I’ll cut her some slack but why mouth off about your son’s position on the biggest issue facing the Supreme Court in the coming years if the conservatives gain a majority. It’s not like position is a secret, but at least John Roberts said he’d honor precedent. I haven’t read the initial report on Alito a friend of mine forwarded me but you can find it here (pdf). Alliance for Justice and Supreme Court Watch, a project of Alliance for Justice and the publisher of the aforementioned report, are two great sources of more information.

(3) Lewis “Scooter” Libby resigned as Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney. He has subsequently been replaced by two others from Cheney’s circle. He was so good at his job, as the President and his Vice so eloquently told the American public upon Libby’s resignation, that he was doing the lying of two men. A reporter on one morning news program said today that this isn’t a case of one person’s word against anothers. It’s one person’s word (Libby’s) against a whole host of people who are prepared to testify against him. Hopefully this will be a victory for the proponents of truth in Washington, if any are left, and open up room for more investigation into who did what in this pathetic White House. If you’re confused by the entire thing TomPaine.com has put together an amazing little diagram (pdf) outlining who’s who in the world of lying to go to war. A small version of the diagram viewable in your browser can be found here. Click on the picture at the link for a larger version.

(4) Today, Donald Powell, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, was appointed as the Bush administration’s coordinator of recovery and rebuilding in the Gulf Coast areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I’m probably just missing something here but the FDIC works with banks, not disaster relief, or anything else remotely tangible for that matter. I remember the last time I used a spreadsheet to clean up after a big storm . . . Powell’s former job was chief executive officer of the First National Bank of Amarillo, Texas. There’s the experience we were looking for. Oh yeah, he was a major contributor to Bush’s presidential campaign. There it is.

Democracy For America / Change For Missouri

On Monday night I attended the first steering committe meeting for DFA / Change for Missouri. I should actually describe the meeting as one organized to form a steering committe rather than an actual committee meeting. The group’s organizer, Dyan Ortbal-Avalos, had been bearing the brunt of the workload for some time and decided for the group’s health, and her own, more people needed to take on responsibility. With everything being in the hands of one person certain responsibilities had fallen by the wayside; not because of the leader’s ability but from sheer lack of resources, mainly time.

The meeting was my first, but at it I met a small group of very dedicated and passionate people who’d been involved since before the 2004 elections. We discussed how and under what structure the group should progress. Some of the items covered are listed below, in no particular order:

(1) internal structure
(2) legal status of the organization – should we become a 501(c)3 or 527 PAC?
(3) who would do what
(4) short term goals (i.e. letter writing campaign on Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court
(5) long(er) term goals (i.e. supporting candidates, issues, legislation, etc . . .)
(6) communication (within the organization and to our constituents and coalition groups)

I’m excited about what we can do with the people involved in this group. I want to learn from people who’ve been in the trenches. The track record of my peers is impressive, and I want to help add more and more pages of accomplishments. I want to do something instead of bitch about politicians or get a headache thinking about issues. I’ve sat on the sidelines too long, and a few months ago started to get worn out reading the barrage of misinformation and bad news perpetually flowing from nearly every media source. I stopped paying as much attention, thinking it would relieve some of the frustration I was experiencing. But, the exact opposite happened – I grew even more irritated. It was then that I decided to seek out people who could help me act. That brings us back to my attendance at the DFA / Change for Missouri meeting.

While passion isn’t lacking a bit of organization is. But, if we can train ourselves to pick specific targets, develop a concrete strategy with tangible milestones and create a healthy momentum the people messing up this country won’t know what hit ‘em.

1