Random Thoughts Blogging. . .

Once again, we're in for an installment of my random thoughts blogging, wherein I discuss issues briefly, rather than write a full post on each one.

The Bachelor: Once again, I was roped into watching "The Bachelor" - and not just the two hour finale, but the extra hour "after the rose." Ugh.  As usual, I found actual finale rather dull - as I said before, Brad Womack is not an especially interesting person on television - but I will say that my prediction as to who Brad would pick was spot-on (here's a hint - Brad's family liked Chantal, but his Mom literally CRIED TEARS OF JOY at the thought of Brad settling down with Emily, it was OVAH), and I predicted Ashley as the next Bachelorette (the makeover in the last episode was a dead giveaway).  The accuracy of these predictions came much to the chagrin of my girlfriend, and I did manage to get a great deal of dishes done.

What was more interesting was the "after the rose" deal after the ritual humiliation of Chantal when Emily and Brad were being interviewed.  And here's what's interesting to me - Emily was P-I-S-S-E-D at Brad and they broke up just about every Monday evening/Tuesday morning because Emily was watching her "man" romance other women.  And that lead me to an interesting train of thought - what if, utter failure of the Bachelor to produce married couples (3 relationships out of 15 seasons) comes as a result of "Bachelor" couples watching the show?  Even more interesting, does the fact that more Bachelorette couples stay together after the show ends indicate a difference between the sexes with regard to jealousy?  Certainly, the format of the Bachelorette, where men compete for a woman's affection, fits more within traditional social norms.  Can we get Malcolm Gladwell to look into this?

Devastation in Japan: When I first saw the news, my reaction was, as with everyone, "Holy Fucking Shit!" From my experience as a Californian, an 8.9 earthquake is ENORMOUS.  The Easter earthquake that did a lot of damage to the Imperial Valley, and was the first earthquake that actually scared me, was a 6.9-7.0 quake.  Given that the Richter scale is exponential, an 8.9 quake is around TWENTY TIMES stronger than the Easter quake.  Yikes.  But, if there was ever a country who could withstand such a quake, I thought that Japan would be that country.  And from what I can tell, it wasn't the quake so much as the tsunami that caused the damage.  Anyway, my heart goes out to them, and I sincerely hope I don't get any radiation sickness from the reactor meltdowns.

Buyer's Remorse in the Midwest: The newly elected governors of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan are all engaging in various degrees of union-busting, and find themselves with lower and lower approval ratings.  And ultimately, that's the rub that we face in America.  On one hand, we have the Democrats who generally have beliefs that are popular - like gun control, abortion choice, social safety nets, regulation to keep products safe, etc. - but are either incapable of expressing those beliefs, or incapable of enacting legislation to bolster those beliefs, and on the other hand, we have Republicans, who favor policies that are not popular - union busting, dismantling the social safety net, etc. - but are very capable at governing.  The whole thing is maddening, and until one party (*cough*Democrats*cough*) figures out how to govern, we're going to be stuck in this quagmire.

Libya, Bahrain and the Middle East: Like a lot of people, I am both heartened and dismayed by the democracy movements in the Arab World.  In countries like Egypt, this movement may well bring real progress.  But in Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, I am genuinely concerned that the governments will put down these movements in a horrifically violent way.  Given that our military is already stretched (thanks, Dubya), another military intervention, or two, is unlikely. 

Changing Democratic Politics. . .Finally

Peter Beinart, in the Daily Beast, writes about the recent change in Democratic politics since Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate Seat. The article, a good one, is found here. I do think Beinart overuses the phrase "superjumbo" but its otherwise a good article.

Still, I think it misses the mark somewhat. Democrats held power for almost sixty years by being effective coalition builders. Even to this day, the Democratic Party is a jumble of union workers, African Americans, Latinos, and liberals. The problem with this coalition, is that there is no unified political ideals. As a result, Democrats end up looking weak and beholden to the special interests within their own party.

Now, its true that by 1979-1980, people were fed up with liberal politics and wanted to open things up a bit, economically at least. And the DLC certainly played up to that during the 1990's. But what this article doesn't mention, and really should, is that in the interim, the Republican Party changed as well. The grassroots conservatives began taking over the leadership positions and the GOP moved to the right - too far to the right, in my humble opinion.

What drove me nuts was the failure of the DLC and the Democratic Party Establishment during the 2000's to see what was unfolding. Rather than chase the GOP to the right, the Dems should've stayed where they are, if not move a little bit to the left. Instead of coalition building, state a set of principles and stand by them. This is what guys like Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh don't understand.

With HCR finally

On Evan Bayh

I spent the last few days thinking about what to write on Valentine's Day, and came this close to posting some screed about my ex-fiancee, which would have been completely unproductive, whiny, and boring. Luckily, my fair reader, one of my favorite Senators (and I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible), announced he wasn't going to run for reelection. So without further ado, let me eulogize Evan Bayh.

In the past 10-15 years, there has never been a bigger waste of anyone's time like Evan Bayh. During his time in the Senate, Evan Bayh was a "leader" of the "Centrist" Democrats, who believed that the way to electoral success was to cave to the Republican Party at every possible moment. Shockingly, this strategy seemed to work for Indiana, but it didn't anywhere else (which isn't such a surprise - when given the choice between one candidate who espouses a coherent political ideology, and another who gives into the same ideology while whining about it, people tend to choose the former and not the later). So, Bayh tended to do what other Centrist Dems do - he went on "Meet the Press," complained about partisanship, and ignored the disasters his appeasement strategy caused.

Worst of all, for a guy who was relatively young, talented, and popular, Evan Bayh failed to lead, ever. For you political junkies out there, I ask you to name one, just one, policy initiative that Evan Bayh lead. Seriously, is there any? I checked out his Wikipedia entry, and found nothing. Now here's a guy who was seriously considered for Obama's VP, and in twelve years, he hasn't lead on anything.

So, I can't say its entirely shocking that Bayh decided, rather than trying to lead the Senate away from the hyperpartisanship he decried, to quit the Senate and whine about it. Naturally, all the blame will be on the dirty hippies like me (who, by the way, have been right about the following issues: Iraq, health care reform, the economic stimulus, Bush's tax cuts, torture, and education reform), rather than blaming Bayh for quitting a job he clearly never wanted.

One of the rumors floating out there is that Bayh is preparing to run against Obama in 2012, and that's why he's quitting the Senate. If that's true, then Bayh isn't just useless, but also insane. Primary challenges only work when the incumbent is viewed as moving too far from the Party line. Of the two, Obama is clearly more popular among Democrats than Bayh because he actually shares their political views. The Centrists that Bayh purports to represent don't vote in party primaries. See Joe Lieberman's 2004 Presidential Campaign.

So, I'm not exactly weeping over the loss of Bayh, per se. On the other hand, his timing pretty much fucked over the Dems, and gave Obama another week of bad press. Naturally, Bayh will be a hero of the DC press (the same people who cheered the invasion of Iraq, torture, and other atrocities), and my big prediction is that Bayh will be a big whiner for the rest of his term. Good times, good times.

See, this post was much better than whining about my ex.

On Interrogations. . .

I've written about interrogations before, specifically related to torture, but with the Christmas bomber thing ongoing, I felt the need to comment on the idiocy coming from the Republicans on the Hill. The more and more I hear from these guys, the more I realize that they don't care about truth or policy, but rather, are only interested in scoring political points.

So, here's the reality. The Christmas Bomber is in FBI custody, was Mirandized, and like almost all suspects, HE IMMEDIATELY BEGAN SINGING LIKE A CANARY. No waterboarding, no stress positions, and no smearing him with fake menstrual blood was necessary. The only time the guy stopped talking was when he was under sedation for some kind of medical procedure.

Now, you might ask, how did the Feds get the guy to talk? In reality, the question is, how does anyone not talk to the Feds? Like all law enforcement personnel, FBI agents are expert interrogators (or, at least, the guys interrogating terrorists are) who excel in getting confessions from people who they warn not to say anything. The dance of interrogation is a complex one, but this is pretty much all these guys do. And the suspects thank their interrogators when all is said and done.

Its these interrogators that scare the hell out of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. When the Bush Administration was torturing suspects, Al Qaeda could use the whole thing as propaganda, and knew that the tortured would resist by lying to their captors. The information would be shitty.

But the interrogation of the Christmas Bomber is a total nightmare. Here's a guy who willingly strapped a bomb to his junk (for lack of a better word), because he had nothing to live for, and the Feds got him talking in a couple of hours. And since he wasn't tortured, the information he's giving is as accurate as can be. So, if the Feds can get one of the most dedicated to sing, imagine what they can do to someone who's less dedicated (i.e., not willing to strap explosives to his balls).

So, by all means criticize Obama for a fair number of things, but let's lay off the whole interrogation thing. For once, interrogations are back in the hands of guys who know what they're doing.

I think I have Obama figured out. . .

As I ride the train back to San Diego from Orange County (a great way to travel, by the way), I have had time to ponder about Obama during the past few weeks. I’ve often wondered: what the hell is this guy thinking? And I’ve filled this blog with discussions about the failures in health care, etc.

But after the State of the Union and the “question time” deals, I think I finally figured it out. Obama is, at heart, a classicist, and he wants to restore the Republic. Now, this might sound a bit out of “I, Claudius” but hear me out. For the past several decades, the power of the Federal Government has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of the Executive. Not only is the President the Commander in Chief, and running the operations of government, but he’s also pushing legislation, dictating budgets, and otherwise controlling Congress. This concentration of power was most evident under the Bush Administration which, under the theory of the unitary Executive, acted more or less with impunity, and Congress went along with it.

Obama’s actions have shown an interest in changing the dynamic to an earlier time when the Administration might set the agenda, but lets Congress legislate. Thus, to my great annoyance, Obama has left Congress up to its own devices on health care reform. Unfortunately, Democrats are by nature disorganized, and so this approach only makes things worse. But it appears that Obama is trying to strengthen Congress by purposely not stepping in. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.

This reestablishment of the Congressional independence also appears to be in line with Obama’s empowerment of the independent regulatory bodies. Under Bush, regulatory agencies were told, more or less, to fall in line with Bush’s conservative ideology. So the EPA refused to regulate Greenhouse gases, even after a conservative Supreme Court issued an order requiring it to do so. And that’s just one example of many. Anyway, Obama’s Administration has quietly gone about reestablishing the independence of these agencies.

Ironically, at the same time Obama is trying to devolve power from the Presidency, the power of the federal government is expanding due to the financial ruin of the economy. And typically, power is concentrated in the hands of an executive during moments of crisis. The takeaway here is that the whole thing is one big mess because Obama is trying to buck way too many trends at once.

Still, one can appreciate what he’s trying to do. When the U.S. government was perfected in the Constitution, there were three equal co-branches of government for a reason. It would be nice to go back to that.

Obama and Racism

So it appears that 60,000 to 70,000 people protested yesterday in a somewhat impressive showing of frustration with Obama's policies from conservatives.  Now, the reason this is somewhat impressive is because conservatives aren't generally the protesting type.  So, its kinda like seeing San Diego State play okay against UCLA - sure, they didn't win, but they didn't lose as badly as you thought they would.  Or, in this case, sure 60,000 isn't huge, but its a lot higher than you'd intially expect.   On the other hand, lying about the number of people there is pretty pathetic.  You had a decent turnout teabaggers, but you didn't match the Inauguration.

Anyway, in the various blogs today (Andrew Sullivan, TPM, etc) a discussion is ongoing about how much of the protests against Obama are race inspired.  And if that wasn't enough, "Mad Men" had a scene in which some executives chose not to advertise in Black media because they didn't want to be associated with African Americans.  Couple those two things with my past experience as a civil rights attorney, and you got yourself a blog post in waiting.

First off, I loved the whole storyline in "Mad Men" regarding the African American market.  The awkwardness of the ad exec when he's questioning the only African American he knows, followed by the executives openly deriding the idea of advertising in African American media (despite being told that it was both cheaper and would increase sales more effectively) was a great example of the dichotomy of racism in the U.S.  Pete's questioning of the elevator operator about why the guy bought an RCA television was classic and awkward and there's no doubt that the operator will now think that Pete is a racist.  But, Pete isn't a racist, he's just awkward in general, and his pitch to the Admiral TV guys shows that where there's an opportunity, he'll take it.  Money trumps race.

The Admiral TV guys, meanwhile, are out and out racists.  Even told that they could both increase their sales and lower their advertising costs by reaching out to the African American market, they not only pass at the opportunity, but they look disgusted by the very idea of it.  In their eyes, race trumps profit.

And therein lies the dichotomy.  Racism can be perceived when actors are, in fact, completely awkward around people of a different race because they don't know anyone outside their race.  In that instance, integration can help alleviate the problem.  As people get to know one another, the awkwardness ends.   I would say that most Americans fall into this area - they're not racist, but racially awkward.  Race for these individuals is easily trumped by other considerations.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are the true racists.  A study undertaken in 2000 indicated that approximately 20% of the time, minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans) received negative treatment when attempting to buy or rent a home.  The study was based upon testing - where two people (one white person and one person of a minority group) apply for the same housing around the same time.  The person in the minority group has slightly better qualifications than the white person.  Yet, in 20% of the housing opportunities tested, the housing provider gave the white person better treatment, and race trumped profit.  For individuals such as the Admiral TV guys, there's nothing that can be done to change their minds.

So back to the original issue, are the teabaggers racist?  Mostly no.  For instance, the socialism charge is dumb, but its the same charge made against every Democratic President since FDR.  If anything, I think most of the protesters are racially awkward, abet moreso then most.  But I think that people like Glenn Beck are purposely stoking racial fears.  The whole thing about Obama seizing guns comes right out of the "Turner Diaries," the racist tome that inspired Timothy McVeigh.  Birtherism is a direct result of the fears that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America.  This fear is stoked by the fact that Obama is African American and has a Muslim sounding name. 

One poll done on the birthers, shows that of Republicans, 42% believe that Obama is a U.S. Citizen, 30% are unsure, and 28% believe that he isn't.  I would state to you that the 28% are racist, the 30% are uninformed, and the 42% are normal people.  Anyway, here's my point to the whole blog post - you can work with the racially awkward and people who have honest disagreements about policy.  That's 72% of Republican voters.  But that 28% will never, ever, relent or compromise.  Race trumps all other considerations in their eyes.

Shit is Getting Scary. . .

Whenever I read shit like this (and I suggest you read it), I become very, very worried about this country. If one reads the accounts of the political discourse prior to the Civil War, its filled with Senators fighting each other, and prior to the War itself, people were literally killing each other in Kansas. And to be honest, I see the country going this way again.

For a variety of reasons, political discourse in this country stopped being about which policy is the best to follow, but rather about which reality to live in. For more than a few right-wingers, reality is that Obama was born in Kenya, that he's a Socialist, that he wants to kill old people and children, that global warming does not exist, and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 and had weapons of mass destruction. None of these things are true, but are taken as gospel by too many people.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are, of course, somewhat responsible. Glenn Beck, in particular, has done a lot to stoke the fires of hatred against Obama. And Limbaugh calling Obama a Nazi is not helping either. But let's face it, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are opportunists - if they didn't chase the lunatic fringe, someone else would. That's capitalism. As a moral matter, if anyone gets hurt, because of the hatred these douche nozzles spew, I hope they burn in hell.

Before someone says something about Move-On, and the Hitler ad, allow me to point out that the ad was submitted to Move-On, and they ultimately scrubbed the ad from their site. Oh, and Bush did invade a country for the purpose of spreading his ideology across the world (and was torturing people, and spied on Americans. . .but that's another post). There is a big, big difference between Rush Limbaugh and some random guy. Don't get me wrong, the left has its loonies (goddamn hippies), but our nutjobs don't have institutional support.

So, how do we walk back from this precipice? From this Democrat's perspective, walking back can't mean giving up the store. No, Democrats need to fight harder for what they believe in. And Republicans shouldn't stop fighting for what they believe in either. But we have to start reading from the same page.