Open letter to President Obama

Mailed this morning:

 

-----------

 

Mr. President:

 

Good day. I write to you on the issue of U.S.C. Title 10 § 654, the governing statute regarding the

separation of military members for homosexual conduct and UCMJ Article 125, the provision

prohibiting “unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex”. During the

campaign last year and through the course of your young administration since, you have spoken of your

opposition to the first law, typically and from this point forward referred to as “don't ask, don't tell”

(DADT). Whereas the UCMJ article in question predates DADT and in fact was indirectly referenced

as justification for continuing restrictions on homosexual activity while passing the 1993 law, it should

be addressed as part of the larger question with regards to privacy rights for military members,

especially in light of the implications of the finding in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

 

The prohibition on homosexual conduct in the military was incorporated at a time when anti-sodomy

laws were prevalent through the United States. Since then, much has changed in the political landscape

regarding not only the acceptance of people's right to live as they wish, but also our understanding of

what is encompassed in Constitutionally-protected privacy. As Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority

opinion for Lawrence, “liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct

their private lives in matters pertaining to sex... [t]he State cannot demean their existence or control

their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due

Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the

government.” Prior to Lawrence, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) was the established precedent, and

therefore DADT was consistent with the Court's opinion on whether or not there existed a right to

privacy in the sexual affairs of consenting adults. In Lawrence, however, the Court overruled Bowers

and stated that such a right to privacy exists. Indeed, Justice Kennedy also wrote that “[t]he Texas

statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private

life of the individual.”

 

It has been argued that the military is a special case with unique circumstances and thus that the

findings in Lawrence do not apply to it. In fact, the government argued just that in United States v.

Marcum (2004) when upon appeal, the Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals considered whether or not,

in light of the then-recent Lawrence ruling, Article 125 was unconstitutional on its face. The

government argued that Lawrence only applied to civilian conduct and was inapplicable to the military,

despite the fact that no such stipulation was made in the majority opinion. However, this was not the

finding of the court:

 

“Constitutional rights identified by the Supreme Court generally apply to members of the military

unless by text or scope they are plainly inapplicable. Therefore, we consider the application of

Lawrence to Appellant’s conduct. However, we conclude that its application must be addressed in

context and not through a facial challenge to Article 125. This view is consistent with the principle that

facial challenges to criminal statutes are “best when infrequent” and are “especially to be discouraged.”

Sabri v. United States, ___ U.S. __, __, 124 S. Ct. 1941, 1948 (2004). In the military setting, as this

case demonstrates, an understanding of military culture and mission cautions against sweeping

constitutional pronouncements that may not account for the nuance of military life. This conclusion is

also supported by this Court’s general practice of addressing constitutional questions on an as applied

basis where national security and constitutional rights are both paramount interests. Further, because

Article 125 addresses both forcible and non-forcible sodomy, a facial challenge reaches too far.

Clearly, the Lawrence analysis is not at issue with respect to forcible sodomy.”

 

The court was unwilling to invalidate Article 125 in this case because special circumstances existed in

the case which made the member's activity contrary to good order and discipline: namely, that he was

engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate. Also, the court determined that the provisions

regarding forcible sodomy did not fall under the scope of the Lawrence ruling and thus that Article 125

was not, on its face, unconstitutional. However, other provisions within the UCMJ already address the

two uniquely military issues at hand. Article 120 deals with the issue of rape and sexual assault, and

Article 134-23 deals with the issue of fraternization. Clearly, from a chain of command stand-point,

engaging in sexual activities with a subordinate of the opposite sex would also have an adverse effect

on morale and discipline. A specific prohibition on sodomy with subordinates is superfluous and

regardless, it is not addressed in Article 125. It is a blanket prohibition on all sodomy. The portions of

Article 125 regarding forced sodomy are redundant with relation to Article 120 and are clearly a post

hoc rationalization to regulate the private sexual activities of military members with only a vague claim

of “good order and discipline” to justify it.

 

In truth, the findings outlined in DADT could just as easily be applied to any minority group with

whom someone could be uncomfortable. A devout Christian may not be comfortable serving next to an

atheist or a Muslim, but that Christian has to move beyond that discomfort just as much as the atheist or

Muslim would have to move beyond the discomfort of serving next to a devout Christian. Whereas we

live in a pluralistic society and have specific prohibitions outlined in the Constitution and in U.S. law

against racial and religious discrimination, the military has to accommodate the minorities as well as

members for whom the presence of these minorities is disconcerting, just like any other government

agency. Aside from religious sensibilities of the majority, there is no case to be made as to why the

presence of a homosexual would be bad for unit cohesion. We do not accommodate racists who does

not regard a black man as his equal or misogynists who will not take orders from a woman. No reason

exists to accommodate homophobes who cannot coexist with someone who does not love the same way

they do.

 

The Congress's claim of exclusive authority in setting standards for admission is specious at best. The

Constitution does invest the Congress with the authority to raise armies and provide navies per section

8 of Article I of the Constitution, but they are still subject to other requirements laid out in the

Constitution with regards to civil rights and civil liberties, and they are still subject to judicial review.

Significant precedent exists stating that American citizens do not check their civil liberties at the door

when they enter the military, except to the extent that a valid mission need to do so exists. Justice

Ginsburg, in her written concurrence with the majority ruling in Weiss v. United States (1994) stated,

“men and women in the Armed Forces do not leave constitutional safeguards and judicial protection

behind when they enter military service.” Only when the application of those civil liberties would be

harmful to the mission may they be curtailed, and then only to the extent necessary. Advocates of

restricting military members' sexual activities have never made a case where private, consensual sexual

activities between two clear-headed adults have any mission impact, save for in a war zone, where all

sexual activities are prohibited anyway. The United States Army Court of Appeals recognized this in

United States v. Bullock (2004) when, using Lawrence as precedent, they ruled that an act of sodomy as

defined by Article 125 did not demonstrate any “additional factors relevant solely in the military

environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest.” They thus overturned

his conviction for an act of sodomy with a civilian woman, since prosecuting him for that was a

violation of his civil liberties.

 

There is no evidence that a person's private sexual activities has any impact on mission readiness or

unit cohesion. If anything, it is the military's incessant snooping in our private affairs which is

destructive to morale. Our desire to keep our private lives private and out of the all-seeing military's

eye does not make us undisciplined or immoral. It simply makes us American.

 

The rationales for continuing to defend these restrictions in court do not carry any Constitutional

validity. Rather than feeling bound to uphold a bad law, would it not be possible to file suit challenging

the Constitutionality of the law yourselves? Its legal grounding seems dubious, especially in light of

the Lawrence ruling and subsequent findings by military courts that it does apply to military members.

DADT seems like it's just waiting to be knocked down by somebody big enough.

 

One final point of contention: the “Rule of Construction” in U.S.C. Title 10 § 654 paragraph (e)

explicitly gives the Secretary of Defense broad authority to determine through regulation whether or

not a member should be separated on account of homosexual conduct. To wit:

 

“(e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of

the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—

(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating

military service; and

(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.”

 

It strikes me that if challenging DADT in the courts is too drastic, the SECDEF could simply determine

it to be in the best interest of the armed forces to suspend all separations stemming from homosexual

conduct until such time as the Congress has fully reviewed the policy and passed legislation changing

or even outright repealing the law. If you asked Secretary Gates to make such a finding, would he not

do as the Commander in Chief asked? You have the authority under the very statute you say you are

bound to uphold to suspend it. Why have you not done so?

 

I hope that this letter will find you well. As a heterosexual who has had to watch homosexual friends

struggle with their hidden identities over the years, it pains me to see them still having to wait for

action which was promised to them and which could, in all reality, be carried out today. I hope you

will give this full consideration.

 

Thank you for your time.

Public Healthcare? (follow up)

A follow-up point which I neglected to mention: Medicare provides health
coverage for the elderly and disabled, who typically have higher health care
costs. Again, this is an apples and oranges comparison, since the linked
article compares all private health insurance costs against patient costs
for a program designed for the elderly and disabled.

-----Original Message-----

A friend recently sent me an article to read about public health care.
Names and e-mail addresses have been deleted, but otherwise the exchange is
presented without edits. The link to the article is at the bottom. My
analysis is cursory and actual research is limited. Feel free to dissect my
analysis, as it is incomplete and I would enjoy a more full discussion on
this issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: (CarbonDate)
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:34 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: Public Healthcare?

One point I'll concede is that I fail to see how a public option would
actually address the real cost of health care, which is the real problem, as
opposed to simply easing the burden on consumers. I like the public option
where people buy into Medicare (which doesn't appear to be the Obama plan,
but oh well) because of its potential to bridge the gap for people between
jobs (which there are a lot of these days), provide an affordable
alternative for people who don't qualify for Medicaid, and provide a new
revenue source for Medicare without raising taxes.

That said, I would like to discuss the article further. A couple of points:

1) The out-of-pocket expenditure change isn't something that happened in a
vacuum. There's a reason for it. That the article doesn't discuss the
reason leads me to believe that it's inconvenient for the point the author
is trying to make. Could it be that out-of-pocket health care is no longer
something average Americans can afford, where as it was back in 1970?

2) "Only 35%"? In nine years? Am I the only one that thinks that's a
rather sizable increase?

3) Comparing the rise of out-of-pocket costs to the rise in total Medicare
expenses is apples and oranges, and in any case, the reason is easy to
deduct: Medicare likely has a lower deductible than most private insurance
plans. That's just speculation, of course.

4) "From a policy perspective, this would suggest that the key to lowering
costs is to let consumers control more of their own resources - that when
they have the freedom and incentive to pursue value, they know how to keep
costs down."

Translation: "Let them eat cake." You're right, the article does speak for
itself.

Seriously, is he suggesting that all health care be paid for out of pocket?
Who can actually afford that?

5) I do have a problem with an author citing his own "study" as an
authoritative source. At a minimum, he should explain where he compiled his
numbers from. The fact that the study was published by the Pacific Research
Institute (of which he is a senior fellow) doesn't really lend it any
additional credibility; this is an agenda-driven group. I'm not saying the
numbers are necessarily inaccurate, but it's not a scientific study. They
found a way to make the numbers work in their favor, and even then they have
to concede that out-of-pocket health care costs have risen 35% over the last
nine years.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute

A former senior speechwriter in the Bush administration is, of course, free
to write articles about health care and can even contribute constructively
to the discussion, but he shouldn't cite himself as his source, especially
since a layman like me can easily point out that he's a political animal,
not a public health care expert.

But at least you know I read the article ;).

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:01 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Public Healthcare?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067

This article speaks for itself.

Public Healthcare?

A friend recently sent me an article to read about public health care.
Names and e-mail addresses have been deleted, but otherwise the exchange is
presented without edits. The link to the article is at the bottom. My
analysis is cursory and actual research is limited. Feel free to dissect my
analysis, as it is incomplete and I would enjoy a more full discussion on
this issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: (CarbonDate)
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:34 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: Public Healthcare?

One point I'll concede is that I fail to see how a public option would
actually address the real cost of health care, which is the real problem, as
opposed to simply easing the burden on consumers. I like the public option
where people buy into Medicare (which doesn't appear to be the Obama plan,
but oh well) because of its potential to bridge the gap for people between
jobs (which there are a lot of these days), provide an affordable
alternative for people who don't qualify for Medicaid, and provide a new
revenue source for Medicare without raising taxes.

That said, I would like to discuss the article further. A couple of points:

1) The out-of-pocket expenditure change isn't something that happened in a
vacuum. There's a reason for it. That the article doesn't discuss the
reason leads me to believe that it's inconvenient for the point the author
is trying to make. Could it be that out-of-pocket health care is no longer
something average Americans can afford, where as it was back in 1970?

2) "Only 35%"? In nine years? Am I the only one that thinks that's a
rather sizable increase?

3) Comparing the rise of out-of-pocket costs to the rise in total Medicare
expenses is apples and oranges, and in any case, the reason is easy to
deduct: Medicare likely has a lower deductible than most private insurance
plans. That's just speculation, of course.

4) "From a policy perspective, this would suggest that the key to lowering
costs is to let consumers control more of their own resources - that when
they have the freedom and incentive to pursue value, they know how to keep
costs down."

Translation: "Let them eat cake." You're right, the article does speak for
itself.

Seriously, is he suggesting that all health care be paid for out of pocket?
Who can actually afford that?

5) I do have a problem with an author citing his own "study" as an
authoritative source. At a minimum, he should explain where he compiled his
numbers from. The fact that the study was published by the Pacific Research
Institute (of which he is a senior fellow) doesn't really lend it any
additional credibility; this is an agenda-driven group. I'm not saying the
numbers are necessarily inaccurate, but it's not a scientific study. They
found a way to make the numbers work in their favor, and even then they have
to concede that out-of-pocket health care costs have risen 35% over the last
nine years.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute

A former senior speechwriter in the Bush administration is, of course, free
to write articles about health care and can even contribute constructively
to the discussion, but he shouldn't cite himself as his source, especially
since a layman like me can easily point out that he's a political animal,
not a public health care expert.

But at least you know I read the article ;).

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:01 AM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Public Healthcare?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067

This article speaks for itself.

Arlen Specter and why the Republican party is dying

As most of you have heard by now, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has announced his intention to become Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA). This has had a predictable reaction among D.C. circles: Republicans hate him and Democrats love him. Sen. Specter clearly read the writing on the wall and saw that he was going to lose in the Republican primary because the modern Republican party has no room for moderates such as himself. In age when elected officials are kissing the ring of a radio talk show host, the Republican party is clearly in dire straits.

Sen. Mitch McConnell stated that this increasingly unipolar political landscape is bad for the country, and I would have to agree. However, it is Republican policies which have pushed the nation in this direction. The answer isn't for voters to throw the Republicans a bone and vote a few of them in to hold back the changes Democrats will bring -- changes which, by the way, the American people are voting for in large majorities -- but rather for the Republican party to go back to the drawing board and come up with some better ideas. As it stands, the Republicans have been absolutely pathetic since 2005. The marginalizing of the Republican party didn't begin with Hurricane Katrina -- that's just when it was solidified. It began with Terry Schiavo.

The nation watched national Republican officials all the way up to the President of the United States directly inject themselves into a decision which should have been a private family affair: whether or not to keep alive by artificial means a woman who had been in a permanent vegetative state for fifteen years. Prior to that, Republicans had held the nation in fear over terrorism and managed to manipulate a portion of the population over the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage issue tied in with abortion on a broader "bedroom police" platform. Not wanting to dispense with a winning strategy, the next natural step was to inject themselves into life or death medical decisions other than abortion. Whether or not it was right to pull the feeding tube of Terry Schiavo is not, and never was the issue. The issue was whether this was a decision for her family or for Washington politicians. At that moment, all the fear-mongering about socialism with regard to universal health care lost its bite. The Republicans, not the Democrats, were the ones injecting themselves into private medical decisions. The Republicans, not the Democrats, were the ones telling people who they could and could not love. The Republicans, not the Democrats, were the ones telling women that if they had their way, they would have to carry all their children to term, regardless of their circumstances.

And now, as it turns out, the Republicans were the ones rounding people up and putting them in camps to be tortured. Not for intel purposes, but for propoganda purposes. They wanted somebody to tell them that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in order to justify invading Iraq. The Republicans were the ones listening to our phone calls without warrants. It goes on and on: the Republicans became the party of Big Brother. They became the party of aggressive war. They became the party of torture. They became the party of homophobia, xenophobia, and Pax Americana. They became the party of a nationalist political philosophy which good manners dictate we not mention in civil debate. So I won't. Their actions speak for themselves, and we need not look to the past to find a label to which to attach these philosophies. We need only call them what they are: the Republican party platform. And these days, people understand well enough what that means in order to reject it out of hand. Republicans, when calling Democrats socialists, only serve to stir up their fringe base. The label doesn't have any affect on people's perceptions of the Democratic party platform. If anything, it only serves to soften the image of socialism in the minds of Americans. So when the Republicans loosely accuse the Obama administration of "tyranny" for the heinous act of governing as they promised to during a Presidential campaign they won by sweeping margins, it really does sound like a classic case of projection.

Republicans, if they wish to survive, need to denounce the policies of the Bush administration forcefully and declare a new day for the Republican party. As it stands, they seem to believe that the current political climate is simply a passing storm rather than the sea of change it actually represents. They need to do this for the good of America, because they're not entirely wrong: single party rule does make for bad government. Just not as bad as Republicans do right now. If they cannot change, then they need to dissolve and allow a new party to take their place. Right now they're in their last throes, and their choice is simple: evolve or die.

The 20th century is over. America is moving into a new day. Perhaps the Republican party has simply outlived its usefulness. But if a viable conservative party does not soon emerge to take its place, then a party which sits to the left of the Democratic party will. Then we really will begin moving toward socialism. It's incumbent upon conservatives to find ways to make capitalism continue to work in the 21st century, not to simply assert that it does. And they need to give up on their imperial ambitions. The future lies in global partnership, not world domination. It's not just the pragmatic way: it's the American way.

The future is leaving the Republican party behind.

Cell phones are tracking devices

And, according to the Obama Department of Justice, should be used as such.

A bit of context: the actual brief requesting that law enforcement officials not be required to show probable cause before seizing cell phone records tracking your movement was filed by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, a Bush holdover who has refused to tender her resignation under the new administration. President Obama has not seen fit to terminate her, despite the fact that her philosophies are quite divergent from his own. As such, by choosing to keep her on, he is responsible for any briefs she files. Her most notorious case has been the prosecution of Tommy Chong for shipping drug paraphernalia through the mail. Now she wants access to your where-abouts by tapping into your cell phone records. Awesome! Somebody's been watching too many movies:



But if you're a law-abiding citizen, you've nothing to worry about, right? Unless, of course, you're engaged in constitutionally-protected free speech which upsets the establishment, such as an anti-war demonstration or a tea party demonstration. Say they want a list of names of people at that demonstration. Anybody with a cell phone (which is most people these days) can be tracked. Say they start a police riot and want to press trumped-up charges against anybody at that demonstration, both to discredit the demonstration and to send a message to anybody who gets any ideas about standing against them. You see where this is going.

The real people who would need to be concerned would be the organizers of such a rally. Some of these things can get quite large, and without some sort of organized presence behind them, can get unwieldy, potentially chaotic. What better way to communicate than by cell phone? Well, I'd recommend purchasing a pre-paid cell phone. They can track that, but they'd have to know who they're tracking. Some require you to register in order to use it; these are a bad deal and defeat the purpose. You want use of the technology without having to have your movements tracked. For your average Joe Protestor? Leave your cell phone at home, or else pull the battery if you want to keep it on hand in case of an emergency. Even if you turn it off, the phone still transmits and receives signals. Only pulling the battery stops the signals.

Best bet for those who don't actually have a need for a mobile phone but just keep it out of convenience: get a land line. It's cheaper, and these days if you really need a cell phone for a specific purpose, you can pick up a cheap disposable pre-paid phone for $30. It's what I do any time I go back to the states. I've already discontinued my GuamCell service and will be picking up a land line when I get back to Guam.

That's a tip for activists, not average folks who don't represent a threat to the status quo.

This is why I always did my X-Mas shopping Dec. 24:

I know they call it "Black Friday", but this is outrageous. There's a deep sickness in America that it won't be easy to address, but it's going to be up to our new President to at least try to put down this out-of-control culture of greed in our country. It goes from the top to the bottom, whether it's a shopper stepping on a worker to save a few bucks on a TV or a President sending a nation to war over billions of dollars in oil. Republicans talk a good game about establishing a "culture of life", but this culture of greed we've established stems from the same principles that drove the Reagan revolution: greed is good. I don't know if our new President can do anything about this, but I'm hopeful that his call to service may stem the tide. We can hope.

A Wal-Mart worker died early Friday after an "out-of-control" mob of frenzied shoppers smashed through the Long Island store's front doors and trampled him, police said.

The Black Friday stampede plunged the Valley Stream outlet into chaos, knocking several employees to the ground and sending others scurrying atop vending machines to avoid the horde.

When the madness ended, 34-year-old Jdimytai Damour was dead and four shoppers, including a woman eight months pregnant, were injured.

...

Even officers who arrived to perform CPR on the trampled worker were stepped on by wild-eyed shoppers streaming inside, a cop at the scene said.

"They pushed him down and walked all over him," Damour's sobbing sister, Danielle, 41, said. "How could these people do that?

"He was such a young man with a good heart, full of life. He didn't deserve that."

...

"I look at these people's faces and I keep thinking one of them could have stepped on him," said one employee. "How could you take a man's life to save $20 on a TV?"

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/11/28/2008-11-28_worker_dies_at_long_island_walmart_after.html?page=1

Future of the Republican party

I want the Republican party to get back on its feet, for the same reasons I was so distressed with the idea of them running everything: echo chambers are not conducive to good governance, and a variety of ideas and points of view are necessary in order to pluck the best ones from the crop.

 

For the future of the Republican party, I like what I see from Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-18/governor-cool/

 

Not because of his specific policy proposals, which are rather vague in this article, but because he gets it: he understands that if a hammer is only making things worse, the answer isn’t a sledgehammer.  Just because the hammer got the job done when the job was to nail some plywood to a 2 x 4 doesn’t mean that the hammer is the right tool for setting glass plating.

 

Basically what I’d like is to have two political parties who both have a number of good ideas hashing them out together and coming to a consensus on which ones are best.  Seemingly what we have now are the Republicans, who believe that every problem can be solved by cutting taxes or blowing up another country, and the Democrats, who believe that every problem can be solved by some new government program.  Neither view is correct.

 

A couple of places where I think the Republicans can start:

 

1.        Universal health care is something that Americans want, whether Republicans do, or not.  However, I don’t necessarily think that a big new government bureaucracy is the way to go, especially with our massive existing federal deficit.  The Republicans could fashion something workable that would be free market-based and managed at the state level.  The problem with many of the Republicans’ health care proposals to date have been that they’re either designed to fail or don’t address the actual problems.  If the Republicans could come up with something like that, they’d be competitive again by 2012.

2.       The inequitable nature of public education is a long-standing problem in this country, dating back to segregation.  The Democrats have largely tried to bail out the Titanic with a Dixie cup on this issue, and Republicans’ sole policy proposal has been to man the lifeboats by giving out vouchers.  However, once again, manning the lifeboats doesn’t address the actual issue: there is no reason that public education cannot be as high quality as private education.  I’ve seen that in Green Bay: we had high quality public schools in that city, mainly because the people and the government made it a point to deliver high quality education in their schools.  The Republicans can take the lead on this issue by discontinuing their efforts to simply abandon the public school system and begin to work at the local level to fix the system.  Once again, I don’t think a massive federal program can fix this: it has to be the people on site doing the job, but the Department of Education can coordinate by studying school districts like Green Bay to figure out what they’re doing right and then studying school districts like Milwaukee to figure out what they’re doing wrong and then providing actual guidance (not just testing) to those failing school districts to get them back on track.

3.       The programs of the Great Society failed to fix the problem of poverty and have instead institutionalized it.  Kudos to LBJ for trying, but it didn’t work.  Unfortunately, the Republicans have offered little more than “let the churches handle it” as an alternative solution to the problem.  This is a messy issue, and no one big sweeping program will fix it.  It’s going to take a number of approaches, and I really do think the Republicans do have some potential to offer some constructive input on this front.  The Republicans are terribly fond of telling people to pull themselves up by their boot straps.  They should take it a step further and show people how.  Work with the business and religious communities to change people’s mindsets from one of dependency to one of empowerment.  Take the “homeless shelter” model and take it a step further: help those who want it, even those who are not homeless, to overcome drug and alcohol addictions.  Offer work to those want it in exchange for a minimum wage, shelter, food, and job training.  Don’t just hand it out to them: make them earn it.  There is always litter to pick up and graffiti that needs to be painted over.  If they do good work, provide letters of recommendation for prospective employers.  Don’t just feed them hand to mouth: make them productive citizens.  I think everybody wins in that arena.  And give the churches and private charities the freedom to operate as they see best, with some bare minimum standards in place to prevent unlawful discrimination.  Each community’s needs are going to be different, so too stringent of standards will only ensure failure.

4.       The Republicans need to address the perception that they are a “whites only” and “Christians only” party.  The percentage of people in this country who are other than white or other than Christian is growing, and if the Republicans don’t get on board with that reality, they’re going to be left in the cold.  The first step in addressing that perception would be to shun the racist and Christianist elements of their party.  In the short term, that will  cost them some votes in the south, but one thing I’ve learned is that one need not be white or Christian in order to be socially conservative.  I’ve met atheist Republicans and black Republicans.  It’s the people who are saying, “you’re not like us, you’re not welcome here” who are creating this problem in the Republican party.  Following the nomination of Barack Obama, we had a number of closet racists in the Democratic party (“PUMAs”) bolt for McCain.  Good riddance, I say.  Let the Republicans and Democrats once and for all say to these people, “You have no place in our party.  Make your own party.”  And here’s the thing: the Republicans don’t have the monopoly on racists.  There were plenty of racists in the Democratic party, but the Democrats didn’t try to pander to them the way the Republicans have with their “southern strategy”.  Well, the southern strategy has come full circle: the Republicans are now officially the Party of Dixie, since they weren’t able to consistently win outside of the old CSA and flyover country in the Midwest.  New England, the Great Lakes states, and the west coast are all lost to them.  The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that you have one.  If the Republicans keep trying to act as though this is a simple question of marketing or that “those darkies are too stupid to know what’s good for ‘em”, then they’re going to continue losing ground with minorities, and thus with the country as a whole.

5.       Finally, having a firm hand on the world stage doesn’t mean slapping everyone who looks are you cross-eyed.  Not everybody who says mean things about us is automatically our enemy (France and Venezuela come to mind) and we should be receptive to at least saying, “Okay, I’m not saying you’re right, but let’s talk about this.”  If Nixon could go to China… if Reagan could talk to the Soviet Union… then there’s no reason Obama shouldn’t be able to meet with the Iranian president, is there?  Finally, if the Republicans can finally make a distinction between world leadership and world domination, then I think that would go a long way in making them credible on the world stage again.

 

Republicans are going to have a choice in 2012, and I think it’s going to boil down to Pawlenty vs. Palin.  Will they be a party of substance or will they become, as it was put in The Economist recently, the “stupid party”?

 

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12599247

 

I’ll be frank: Pawlenty in 2012 doesn’t guarantee a win for the Republicans unless Obama’s first four years are marked by a Katrina-like disaster for which Obama takes the blame.  Barring that, if Obama’s first term is even marginally successful, I think he has a good shot at getting re-elected in 2012.  However, it would be an important first step in the right direction for the Republicans and set the stage for a Jindall candidacy in 2016 (I regard him as too young to be a credible candidate in 2012).  I believe that a Palin candidacy would solidify the Republicans’ “stupid party” label and set the stage for a generation of Democratic presidents and Congresses.  I don’t think Palin has the good sense to lay low and brush up on her understanding of world and national issues to be a credible threat to Barack Obama in 2012, even with a Katrina-like disaster.  She’s going to keep running her mouth in the press to try to get face time with the American public, and the press will continue handing her the rope with which to hang herself.

 

As to the question of whether the Republicans have been “too conservative” or “not conservative enough”,  I think the real answer is that they need to dispose of the “left vs. right” paradigm and start thinking in terms of pragmatism and good government.  The modern Republican party is simply too caught up with labels and dogma to govern effectively, which is why they haven’t and why it was best that they lost this election resoundingly.  However, if the Republicans are left to lie in the gutter for too long, then the Democrats will simply become what the Republicans have been.  We need a viable opposition party in this country to keeping the majority party in check, and the Republicans right now are a complete mess.  Their ideology is morally, intellectually, and (of late) financially bankrupt.  They need to go into the back room and do some serious re-thinking of their platform.  Hopefully the ideas I’ve presented above can help.

What if history isn't repeating itself?

Yesterday I went home after a very frustrating day at work of inventories and a futile search for a computer which nobody has used for over a year. It's been sitting in a corner gathering dust in somebody else's work center and somebody finally moved it somewhere where I cannot find it. Such is life for an equipment custodian. I went down for an hour nap around 6:30 last night and just woke up twenty minutes ago, at 5:30 this morning. I did some rather intense dreaming, but for all its vividness, it was remarkable mostly for its absurdity. It featured Homer Simpson using a magic beard to propel himself over a wall. Finally after things went badly, we all started running, but I found myself trapped in a cage with a large guard dog with security guards bearing down on me with rifles. I realized there was only one way out: I woke up.

After eleven hours of sleep, I got some water and went outside. The sun is just now rising and I can see the full moon to the west from my balcony. Sitting out here on my twelfth story balcony, seeing the full moon and two planes passing in the night over my tropical island paradise, I decided it was time for blogging.

I've given a lot of thought to this past Presidential election, and sentiment aside, I always try to place these things in some sort of historical context. You can usually look back at history and see when something similar has happened in the past, no matter how new and unique a particular event may seem at the time. I've been trying to contextualize the 2008 Presidential election, and while a number of past elections seem to fit on the surface, the comparisons fall apart upon further analysis.

Is it like 2000? In all senses, no. Then Governor Bush and Vice President Gore were running during a time of economic prosperity. Bush ran against Clinton's character and Gore ran on his and Clinton's record. Gore's margin of victory was so narrow that he actually lost. What followed was eight years of mismanagement and strife that set the stage for 2008.

Is it like 1992? Again, no. We were in a recession, but Americans didn't want to fundamentally change the way we did business; they just wanted someone they thought could do it more competently than President Bush did, so they elected then Governor Clinton.

Is it like 1980? In some ways, yes. Reagan represented a fundamental shift in how the government did business. He wasn't simply running to the right of President Carter, but also to the right of President Nixon, and that's how he governed. Reagan set the stage for the next twenty-eight years. Even President Clinton was forced to govern to the right of himself as a consequence of the political climate of the time.

But upon further analysis, 2008 is actually the antithesis of 1980. What Reagan represented was a turn away from responsibility and service. You shouldn't have to pay high taxes, he said. You shouldn't have to worry yourselves about what's going on overseas, he said. Those Soviets are the Evil Empire, and you shouldn't have to think about it any further than that. We're Number One. Reagan simply asked Americans to trust him to do the right thing, whatever that may be. The Reagan presidency marked the beginning of America's great apathy toward its government. After Watergate, Americans simply concluded that “they're all a bunch of crooks” and voted for the guy they found personally likable – the guy who wouldn't ask anything of them, but who would take care of things himself while they turned on the TV and tuned out of their government: seemingly forever.

2008 can be likened to a great awakening of the body politic. Suddenly, everybody's paying attention. Suddenly, everybody is greatly concerned about the future of their country – even those who don't support Obama. I'm not just talking about the millions of people who either donated to or volunteered for Obama's campaign, although that's significant enough in of itself. I'm also talking about the disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters who for a time refused to vote for Obama because they believed so strongly in her candidacy. I'm also talking about the disaffected Republicans who, although they may not have liked the performance of their current standard-bearer, believed enough in Republican ideals that they still supported McCain. I'm talking about disaffected Republicans who were so fed up with the direction their party has taken that they chose, for the first time ever, to vote for a Democrat for President of the United States. And, of course, I'm talking about evangelical Republicans who'd almost given up on being relevant in politics, only to find their new standard-bearer in Sarah Palin.

America isn't tuning out like they did in 1980. They're finally tuning in. And while I have no idea what kind of changes this sort of resurgent democracy will bring, I do think that I can safely say that the days of the next American Idol commanding more attention than the next President of the United States are drawing to a close. People are really paying attention, and what that means for our next President is that he's going to have to govern accordingly. Gone are the days when a President can pull a fast one on the American public and simply ask them to trust him. Bush saw to that when there were no WMD in Iraq.

There were other historical comparisons made. There was fear of a repeat of 1968. That hasn't happened. There were no riots in the streets, there were no assassinations of major public figures. 1968 was the year America lost the last vestiges of its innocence and gave up on hope. 2008 is the year that, just based on the mere fact of an African American being elected President, America has begun to realize that hope never actually died and that fundamental change really is possible. It's like America blacked out for forty years and is suddenly asking itself, “wait, how did I get here?”

It's not 1960. 2000 was really a lot closer to 1960. Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon on foreign policy in order to appease the Cold War fears of the day. Obama actively ran against an on-going war (note of caution: Nixon also ran on a promise to end the war in Vietnam in 1968, so Obama supporters hoping to see an end to the war in Iraq will need to remain vigilant, even during an Obama presidency. Now, Nixon ran on a “secret plan”, while Obama made his plan public. But the point remains: stay on top of this. We haven't won this fight until the last man is out.)

You could make a case for 1952. General Eisenhower ran against Governor Stevenson, who was burdened by being from the same party as the very unpopular President Truman. There was an unpopular war in Korea from which the public was largely disengaged. Neither candidate was a sitting President or Vice President, and that's actually the last time that has happened. Mostly, however, Stevenson was burdened by the simple fact of not being Eisenhower, much the way McCain was burdened by the simple fact of not being Obama. But ultimately, Eisenhower's election was an affirmation of people's approval of his performance in World War II and an easing of their concerns of having a dovish Adlai Stevenson as President in the midst of the Cold War. In 2008, the American people have simply said, as the Wisconsin state flag does, “FORWARD”. Obama's election is not about what he has done, but about what people hope he will do. Indeed, that has largely been the greatest criticism of his campaign. What's he done? What's he accomplished? The answer really is, “not much... yet.”
I'll end with another year people have compared it to: 1932. In that year, people voted Herbert Hoover out of office in favor Franklin Roosevelt. This has mostly been based on the economic issues of the day, which even a superficial analysis will show are not as dire today as they were then, mostly thanks to the safeguards which were put into place by Roosevelt in the years following. People have raised the possibility of a generation of Democratic Presidents similar to the generation of Roosevelt and Truman. But again, this is faulty. What we're seeing is not a rejection of Republicans per se, but a rejection of politics as usual, which is to say a rejection of, once again, “trust me” politics. If Democrats expect the American people to simply go back to sleep after this election and simply go along with everything they do, they're in for a big surprise. The Republican party will return as a legitimate force in national politics within the next eight years. I'll caveat that by saying that it will be longer if the evangelicals manage to make Sarah Palin the standard-bearer of the party. The Republicans can no longer cheaply win elections by appealing to the worst in people. The gratuitous use of Obama's middle name to score cheap political points didn't work this time around. That in of itself should send them a signal: they can't use those types of dog whistles anymore. They're going to have to stop being lazy and win on the merits of their ideas, and that means they're going to have to actually come up with some new ideas. Supply side economics isn't a winning policy position anymore. They're going to have to retool and come up with something new. If they don't, then yes: we'll see a generation of Democratic Presidents. If they do, then I think we'll see a purge of the business-as-usual Democrats who've only managed to stay in power because they're not Republicans. That means you, Harry and Nancy. You're on notice: if you don't recognize the winds of change all around you and adapt to them, you'll be swept away by them eventually, too.

And let that serve notice to our President-elect, as well. We're not looking for another Clinton administration of small, incremental change. We're looking for fundamental change: a new New Deal. Think big. Act bigger. And most importantly, listen to the people. I'll give you a name of someone who's been really good about that: Russ Feingold. Bring him into your administration. He's been in the Senate for sixteen years and hasn't lost touch with the reasons he came to Washington in 1992. You can learn a thing or two from him if you're really interested in changing Washington instead of being changed by it.

But what of the historical context? How do we place this election in the larger scheme of things? Has a man who belongs to a race of people who were once enslaved by his nation ever been elected its leader? When viewed in that context, this election is almost Arthurian. But we can't afford those types of mythical comparisons. This isn't a story book we're reading: it's real life. That means that we simply have to admit that we have no idea where this is going, and if for no other reason than that, we all must stay engaged in the navigation of our ship of state for the next four years.

Geronimo.