Word of the day is...

Schadenfreude.

I'm sort of waiting for congressional repubs to send staffers to riot in Washington State. Until then, let us appreciate GOP Chair Luke Esser, who isn't all that big on counting votes, but apparently he does like pigs. Or he did, until HorsesAss updated their blog to remove pig-love references.


And The General has helpfully offered a redesign of the Washington State GOP's website.


If only the Washington GOP had managed to pass really great voter ID laws, I'm sure there wouldn't have been a problem.

Obamamania

I have some dear friends who are very frustrated with my support of Obama. And yes, they've worried the "cult" word a bit. Today at Orcinus, a typically brilliant bit on Obamamania in particular and transformative momentum in general.

What's going on is that we've finally got a Democratic candidate who understands exactly how the Republicans did it. As I pointed out my very first week on this blog, the GOP didn't come to power by talking about plans and policies; they did it by using strongly emotional appeals that grabbed people by the gut and didn't let them go. Theirs was never a movement based on reason. It was, from the very beginning, a movement of hearts and souls. And it was that deep, emotionally sustaining commitment that drew people in so deeply that they were willing to give 25 years of their lives to bringing about the New World Order their leaders promised them. We may hate what they've accomplished -- but we're never going to be able to do better until we can inspire that same kind of passion for change.
[snip]
Hillary is going the old route, with more plans and promises. And she's losing. Obama is trying something that's new to Democratic politics -- but that also has a proven track record when it comes to raising and consolidating truly transformational movements. In fact: that kind of change simply does not happen unless you've got this kind of committed mass movement.

This misguided "cult" talk not only misunderstands how social change occurs; it's also giving the GOP a weapon it will use to the hilt if Obama is the candidate in the general election. They're going to demonize those energetic kids at the living ghosts of the dirty fucking hippies of the 60s. And, in a real historic sense, they are. They're our own children, emerging to finish the work that their parents got too tired and too disillusioned to finish. For us old Boomers, they're our very last shot at the dream.

If Hillary is the candidate, I will back her for all I'm worth. But I think it's worth taking a serious look at a candidate who inspires so many, and so deeply.

And when the nominating process is over, we're all going to have to hug and make up. So it really doesn't behoove any of us to level either of the C words at either of our candidates.

Drinking Liberally tonight!

Painful memories

Atrios posted this last week, and I was surprised how much it affected me. I had this physical sensation that was very unpleasant, strolling through the mental nightmare memory of 2002-2003:

It's hard to try to recapture those time. A nation had gone truly mad, our discourse was run by warmongering fools and Very Serious Liberal Hawks, and any attempt to oppose the Iraq war was marginalized 3000 different ways.

Proof in the pudding: an old post by Kevin Drum - who is very smart and whom I read regularly:

What's more, they know that everything they say is easily verifiable once the war starts. No one ever pressed LBJ for proof of what happened in the Tonkin Gulf, but there will be dozens of countries and dozens more NGOs who will be looking very closely at what we find in Iraq after ground forces move in. It will hardly be possible to fake vast numbers of mobile weapons labs, swimming pools of anthrax, ballistic missiles, and the like, and if those things aren't found in substantial and convincing quantities George Bush will be lucky to escape impeachment, let alone win reelection.

If your opposition to war is based on the idea that Saddam does indeed possess illegal weapons but it's best to leave him alone anyway, well and good. But if it's based on the idea that the administration is lying and none of this stuff exists, you should tread carefully. I think it's pretty likely you will be proven wrong shortly.

It gives me shudders to think back on that time, and worse: it makes my blood boil that we have come this far from then, and no one has yet been held accountable.

Primary unease

First, I would like to send congratulations to the GOP- who've managed to grow their anti-voter efforts since the 2000 elections so succesfully. Back then, they only threw out Dem votes. Now, they throw out their own.

And I'd like to note that I was having a lot more fun before I voted in the primary. I liked not owning any of the candidates. I liked knowing that our side offers strong choices, and that I'd be happy with whomever won.

Now that I've voted, I feel like I have a stake in the Clinton/Obama race, and it isn't as much fun.

I voted Obama, by the way. And I've been thinking about a cabinet.

AG: John Dean
State: Richardson
Labor: Edwards

That's as far as I've got... any ideas out there?

Which reminds me

Of this endlessly amusing (in a very sad way) map that a repub friend sent me.

How things change...

Interesting how, since I made the post below, much of the angry right seems to be flocking to Hillary's defense.

What a difference a John McCain run makes.

Although I also have a liberal friend who says he'll vote McCain over HIllary. His issue is the middle east, particularly Arab/Israeli relations (he's Arabic). He's rather sick of his family's homelands being relentlessly bombed. When I protested that McCain wants to bomb everyone, he said yeah, well, at least he's honest about it.

It's the failure of republican economic theory, stupid

With bond insurers bailing, and implosions at the major ivestment firms (now aren't you glad you didn't let Merril Lynch take over your Social Security funds?), US companies begging for cash from foreign governments, international markets plunging on every word from Wall Street or our illustrious Decider-Man, with all of this, can we finally admit that Republicans don't know or don't really care how to properly manage an economy?

Here's the deal, kids: since the 1980s we've been betting the farm- literally- that investment is the answer. We've tried over and over again to create a bullet-proof US econmon using three tools: optimism (or magical thinking, have it your way), debt, and speculation.

Optimism fuels the speculation: the dream that we can all get rich together when we throw money at the right things, and the government will reward us by lowering taxes on the returns. The '80s were the decade of Wall Street schemes and junk bonds and deregulation. Debt soared, publicly and personally, and enough people made impressive enough sums that it looked like maybe it was working if you didn't look too closely.

We defunded infrastructure and poor people. We watched homelessness become a fact of life. We lived through the collapse of Savings and Loans- which we're still paying for. Eventually, we had to take a tax incerase, and then a recession hit us. Economists say that it wasn't a serious recession, but I remember it, and it was very hard on a lot of middle class people.

The '90s gave us free trade agreements and the dot com boom. Free trade which failed to hold manufacturers outside of the US to any standards in human rights, safety, or environmental responsibility meant that jobs began to migrate. And not just menial jobs. We all know educated specialists who had to train their overseas replacements.

The saving grace of the '90s boom was, of course, that we also had instituted some responsible fiscal policy in the federal government. We had balanced budgets and reasonable taxation and in the end, a good sized surplus. This meant that government actually had some cash to respond when the dot coms burst and the economy took a short dip. And the fact that much of the rampant speculation was targeted at dot coms specifically meant that the bust directly affected a relatively small set of people. While I did see a friend lose a very lucrative job and change careers, my household wasn't really affected. A couple of friends anxiously sweated the NASDAQ, but my job not only stayed secure, my income continued to rise.

Tis term has brought more debt that we could have imagined, zero responsible thinking in government, and a return to the fantasy of instant riches for all. Unfortunately, the specualtion was based mostly in the houseing sector, which affects a much broader section of the population than Sillicon Valley ever did. From the first time home buyer- now deeply in debt from the purchase of an over-valued home, to everyone in the mortgage industry, home insurers, the trades in the field, the suppliers, the purchasing people and all of the office staff- hundreds of thousands of people are watching their ncomes either steeply decline, or disappear completely.

And this time, the government has no money.

Bush and the congress appear to be working out an agreement, but I fear it will be a stupid, expensive one. Tax rabtes? Big deal. I'll probably pay off some debt. More corporate tax breaks- for "investment"? Who cares? At my company, we won't be putting anything into "investment" until we can start operating in the black again, and that's going to depend on a whole lot of middle class people with a lot more than $800 to live on.

Extending unemployment is a good idea, but there'smuch more that needs to be done. I don't think anything will change until next year, with a Democrat in the White House. And then, that Democrat will need to make structural changes that the Republicans will go crazy about.

But it's time. And can we all be honest about that?

All you need to know...

...about the media and their contributions to political discourse.
David "Stretch" Gregory, just now on Olbermann:

...and George W. Bush, as he becomes less relevant, still has a role to play in terms of helping the Republicans [win the election in an economic slump].

This, in the midst of a discussion about the Michigan kitchen table economy, and how the price of milk really matters when your job goes away, regardless of what Wall Street does.

"A role to play". Not a role in, you know, running the country to the benefit of the people, but in helping his party win an election in a year when they have no moral right to.

More about Huck

Over the weekend I had "primary vote" with a bunch of teenagers. First, we listed the top 4 candidates for each party. Then we asked them what they knew about the candidates. One of the more politically aware ones said Huckabee was a religious psycho.

Mindful of the young minds (and aware of my duty not to train them into my liberal fascist kooky camp), I said, well, hang on a minute. Huck was a Southern Baptist minister, yes. But he also says that his religion compells him to be pro-life even after birth, to care for the poor, etc. So, I said, you'll have to come up with something more damning if you want to use the word "psycho".

So while I will not go reporting this back to the kids, I will state firmly that anyone who says the Constitution should be changed to be more in line with the Bible (and which set of laws would we choose? And where would one stop?) is, for practical political purposes, psycho.

The Charmer

I have been promised by a dear friend that this country will never elect a President Huckabee.

Today in Michigan:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

ht Lawyers Guns & Money

Primaries

What to think, what to do...

I confess to a yearning for our own JFK, and that yearning leads me toward Obama. And any of us should be so smart and dedicated and CLASSY as Edwards. However, my son has done his own research and informed me that Hillary's policy plans are much more clearly stated and actionable (from the mouths of babes...).

Doing my own cruise of the candidate's websites, I tend to agree with the boy that Hillary's plans seem concrete and actionable. Edwards offers an 80 page download on his economic plan, and Obama's has TOO MANY WORDS.

When a geek like me thinks there's too much information, there's probably too much information.

So, despite my concerns about triangulation and equivocation, I'm leaning toward Hillary.

And I'm willing to bet that there will be no consensus among my friends and fellow travelers when Super Duper Tuesday hits.

New space

I haven't been blogging for over a year.. got tired of it and had other things to occupy my mind, anyway. But the need to discuss, to wrangle, to argue, to try out thoughts with a keyboard.. the need persists.

I went back over to the Ventura County Star forums a few times, but OMG is it boring. While I visit my favorite blogs at least once a day, commenting isn't tempting for me. The threads are too long. And I'm such an exhibitionist.

So here I am.

Comments are on, but I won't spend a moment worrying about whether to delete things that piss me off. It's my space, I reserve the right to set the rules and clean the house once in a while.

Welcome.