Boiling it down for the boy

My kid is a news media consumer, even at his young age. He listens to NPR in the car with me, he watches The Daily Show and Colbert- which have become media criticism programs as much as comedy shows- he asks for background and then he considers and forms opinions. And we discuss.

These discussions give me a chance to cut through the BS and clean up the points in a way that talks with adult friends often do not. There isn't a self-affirming loop, nor a descent into accusation. Instead, there's the responsibility of clarification, because I will not let him grow up parroting the talking points of either side.

So this morning, NPR's reporting something or another on the health insurance reform debate. Conversation goes, basically, like this:

Him: It's like they said on The Daily Show; Jon said "But Bush supported end-of-life counseling," and Wiley said "Yeah, but he was a guy that I voted for!"

Me: Here's the thing, boy. The debate in congress isn't about "death panels". The debate in congress is simply this: Should government dip its hand into the health insurance industry, or not? And if so, how much will it cost and should that money be spent?

The health insurance industry has a powerful voice in congress, and they do not want to tamper with the market. Fiscal conservatives do not want to spend government money, on principal.

The thing is, politically speaking, it's easier to get the people riled up if you pretend you're debating death panels and government control and who's tactics are worse and which side has more crazies.

And that is, really, all there is to it.

Are there true believers in congress who would hold their positions with or without industry lobbying? I think so, but I don't think their beliefs are grounded in anything common to our society in general.

Are there members of congress who really, on principle, think that the economic health of the country depends on freer markets and less social spending? Of course, but I'd argue that they've held sway for 20 years and the outcomes make a damn good argument for reform.

And there are those who, no matter the outcome, see this as an opportunity for political gain. That isn't part of the congressional job description, and it's a deplorable perversion of power, but again: keep screaming about death panels and maybe no one will notice.

And sure, a few may actually believe in the threat of death panels and the destruction of the constitution. But they're just really stupid.

My New Year's wish: surprise me

Over a month of no blogging! I think the reason is simple: nothing shocking has happened, and I am waiting for the new era to begin.

Sure, things have happened that are worthy of comment, but my capacity for shock and outrage and snark are seriously depleted.

I mean, really: is it surprising in the least that a candidate for the GOP chairmanship would send out an offensive "parody" disk to republicans around the country this season? We really don't need any more ammunition in the You Pasty Old White Boys Don't Get It And You Never Will argument, and yet, they just keep delivering. Also not shocking: the possibility that this stupid, stupid move will actually enhance his chances for the seat.

Oh but never fear, rank-and-file, your intellectual leadership has a plan! And it includes Twitter! Because Twitter and Republican are two proper nouns I'd like to see forever linked.

Bush, meanwhile, pardons a man whose father's campaign donations might effectively kill congressional republicans Eric Holder/ Marc Rich outrage machine. So then he decides to take the pardon away, within days of issuing it. Was anyone honestly taken aback by this? Has the Bush administration ever properly vetted anyone?

Congressional republicans are demanding "transparency" and there's talk of them shutting down the president-elect's stimulus/recovery plans if they don't pass GOP muster. They want "fiscal responsibility" again. Of course they do. Whatever.

Also, turns out that OSHA hasn't actually been in the business of occupational safety and health for about... 7 years. Question for the 10% of American workers who're injured on the job each year: does it surprise you that your government's chief concern has been not bugging your employer? Thought not.

Then there's the coal ash spill in Tennessee: turns out that no matter how "clean" your coal operation is, the ash still contains toxic levels of arsenic, lead, barium, chromium, and manganese; tens of thousand of pounds per year. Also turns out that the TVA asserted for days after the spill that the sludge was not toxic. Shocking, shocking shocking. Not.

And the situation in Gaza is terrifying, Bush is in Crawford riding his bike, and Condi isn't on a plane yet. Although, even if she got herself over to Riyadh or something, I don't know how much leverage she has left. And all it leaves me with is a sad sense of deja vu. It's been a long time.

So I'm waiting for a new year, and some new stories to open. A whole new cast f characters who maybe won't be so goddamn predictable and obvious and stupid.

(I had an hour or so of dismay over the Rick Warren thing, but ultimately I realize that the man I voted for reaches out in just this way, compromises in just this way, recognizing that the people who admire Warren and didn't vote for Obama and supported prop 8 need a president, too. Note to Barack, though: it'd be swell if you invited Rev. William Sinkford to the White House before his term is up this summer. Just sayin'.)

I'm waiting patiently for New Years Eve champagne, and then I'll be waiting in a cozy wash of ahhhhhh for January 20, 2009. After which I am certain there'll be lots to get worked up about, and hopefully a few surprises.

Apparently, Wall Street does have a suitcase bomb

Because what else could drag John McCain back to the Senate at breakneck speed (after a Couric interview and a stump speech, that is), when we know because President Bush has told us repeatedly that really, really important work can be done from almost anywhere?

I'm looking forward to Obama showing up for the debate, and telling the assembled press, "I don't know, I've been on the phone with Republican Senator Coburn and Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi and Hank Paulson, and they tell me they have it under control, so I really don't know what John's doing."

This week, by the numbers

John McCain George W Bush's White House released a helpful Fact Sheet:

While these numbers are disappointing, what is most important is the overall direction the economy is headed. Last week, the economy posted a strong gain of 3.3 percent at an annual rate in the second quarter, led by growth in consumer spending, exports, and a well-timed and appropriately sized stimulus package. This level of growth demonstrates the resilience of the economy in the face of high energy prices, a weak housing market, and difficulties in the financial markets.

US unemployment rate now over 6%, worse than anticipated. 84,000 US jobs shed last month, 84,000 more men and women collecting unemployment.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are about to be taken over by the Fed.

Under a conservatorship, the common and preferred shares of Fannie and Freddie would be reduced to little or nothing, and any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee could be paid by taxpayers. Shareholders have already lost billions of dollars as the stocks have plunged more than 80 percent this year.

FDIC just took over Silver State Bank- incidentally, until July Senator McCain's son, Andy was a director there. (h/t Atrios). This the 11th bank failure this year, if you're keeping track.

Foreclosures are at a 30 year high, and home loans 1 or more payments behind are at over 6% (though there are estimates as high as 9% ).

But the important thing to remember is that our economy is resilient!

The problem with John McCain the White House's analysis is, as always, that the Republican focus on "growth" ignores entirely that the growth has not translated to economic security or opportunity for American taxpayers.

That, my friends, is the straight talk.

This gets funnier by the minute

"It has been brought to the school's attention that a picture of the front of our school, Walter Reed Middle School, was used as a backdrop at the Republican National Convention. Permission to use the front of our school for the Republican National Convention was not given by our school nor is the use of our school's picture an endorsement of any political party or view."

- Donna Tobin, Principal, WR Middle School

Update:

By late afternoon, McCain's campaign was characterizing the use of the picture as a way of illustrating the candidate's call "for public education reforms that empower parents and students before bureaucrats and labor unions," as spokesman Tucker Bounds put it.

Yeah. That's what it was.

But Tamar Galatzan, who represents the North Hollywood area on the Los Angeles Board of Education, was having none of that. She said she was "flattered that Sen. McCain chose to use a school from my district as backdrop to his remarks" but that more federal resources for education seems "not a priority for the McCain/Palin ticket."

Of Green Screens and Middle Schools

Aside from the fact that putting McCain in front of a massive, unidentified lawn brought the Green Screen speech to mind, the question arises: What is that picture? Why is it there?

Talking Points Memo, with help from readers, found that it is a picture of Walter Reed Middle School, North Hollywood.

In a speech that was not focused on education, in a week where the coastal "elite" has been demonized repeatedly, why a Southern California school? Especially on with the word "Hollywood" right there in its address?

I'm surprised this hadn't occurred to me. But several readers have suggested that perhaps one of the tech geeks charged with setting up the audio/visual bells and whistles for the evening was tasked with getting pictures of Walter Reed Army Medical Center but goofed and got this instead. At first I thought, No, that's ridiculous.

Maybe ridiculous, but what possible context could this picture provide?

Barack on O'Reilly

on Iran: O'Reilly just interrupted repeatedly and then changed the subject.

on Iraq: "We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqi's still haven't taken responsibility." O'Reilly changes the subject.

on Afghanistan/ Pakistan: O'Reilly says no one will send ground troops into Pakistan. Obama says if Pakistan wants military support, the support needs to have strings attached. O'Reilly basically saying he's full of shit.

O'Reilly's stretching this out over several days next week. Probably because MSNBC is kicking his ratings ass.

Watching MSNBC earlier and O'Reilly now, it occurs to me again why so many of us go to John Stewart every night for the daily, sort of, round up. The rest of these guys don't know how to be respectful and tough at the same time. Their interview styles are either total asshole (O'Reilly) or talking points pipeline (Matthews and Gregory).

John alwaqys knows how to cut to the heart, while respecting his guests and even, seemingly, enjoying them. Well, except Doug Feith, but no one could stand Doug Feith, right?

OMG, this is actually funny

I'm watching O'Reilly and a blonde, um, journalist FREAK OUT over unfair and biased reporting in People or Us or whatever the magazine is that put Palin on the cover this week.

Now, I haven't read the article because, maverick that I am, I don't read celebrity mags for POLITICAL NEWS.

But O'Reilly and the blonde are incensed- outraged- over the unfair biased reporting therein.

"You don't just throw out incendiary remarks!"

This, from the folks who brought you the madrassa scandal, the "baby mama" shit, endless memes about Ayers, etc.

I almost believe I'm watching Colbert.

Barack up now.

Sarah!

The writers devised some good, witty lines, and Palin, for her part, delivered them well. Much of the red-meat portion was lies and misrepresentations, of course, but it's a political speech, made at a rather desperate time.

The thing that nearly drove me over the edge was the cheering and screaming over her standard issue economic lines. Dems will tax you, Dems will make you lose your jobs, Dems will spend all kinds of crazy money.... and people eat that shit up.

I realize we are looking at THE Base here, the 27-30% of Americans who still think Bush is a GREAT president.

But my God, it is so obviously demonstrably patently WRONG to suggest that this country's economy is in better hands under Republicans.

Pop quiz: which two modern presidents have busted the biggest budgets and left office with the biggest deficits?

GWB and RONALD REAGAN

And under whose administrations does the middle class stand a chance at growth, while income inequality shrinks?

DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.

I mean jesus, you fools: it's numbers. Why are they so hard to understand?

Update: It is true that when I graded her delivery, I didn't consider presidential points. I do think that anyone who came away thinking she sounded in the least bit Presidential really needs to examine some deeply personal issues.

Brokaw is, mercifully, reminding us that Republicans have held the power of the government for the past 8 years, with Dems holding a meager obstruction advantage for the past 2, so it's a bit cheeky for McCain and Co to run on any kind of reform agenda.

And I can't resist this, from the site of the Great Orange Satan:

Different universe

Via TPM, via Politico:

The McCains increased their budget for household employees from $184,000 in 2006 to $273,000 in 2007, according to John McCain's tax returns.

My domestic "staff" is paid approximately 1 big bag of Iams per month.



Krugman fleshes out the differences.

Hot (predictable, unsurprising) sex

I was just over at Huffington Post, where the have a JOHN EDWARDS BIG NEWS PAGE! Interested? Sure- the guy had sex. I mean, he's no David Vitter or Mark Foley or Larry Craig, but WHO KNEW HE HAD A PENIS? Let me save you some time. Here's the BIG NEWS, in summary.

John Edwards had an affair. The woman's name is Rielle Hunter. She made web vids for the Edwards campaign, which is over, and which did not focus on marital fidelity and phony family values. She has a child, who may or may not be the product of said affair. John's (amazing) wife, Elizabeth, has been aware of the affair, and wishes, of course, that it had remained a private thing, between John and Rielle and his family.

Got it? That's what you need to know.

Over on Open Salon, Leigh wrote:

Now we have a bunch of fools who would argue that if a man cheats on his wife it reflects on his character and the public needs to know. But that's hypocritical bull shit which only came into fashion when the Republican Party planted the seeds of real honest to God fundamentalist Christianity and watered them and gave them plenty of fertilizer.
I have spent more than fifty years in Washington. I have hardly met a member of Congress who wasn't shtupping some woman in his office. And of course they lie. Who wouldn't? The one thing the media is ridiculing John Edwards for today is his 99% honest statement. I doubt that's true but if you can really find a member of Congress who is 99% honest you have found the Hope diamond. In all my years in Washington I only met two members of Congress who I found to be completely trustworthy and honorable; and even they cheated on their wives occasionally. I'll tell you who they were another day.

Over at Aristocrats, Paul wrote:

Reporters seem obliged to ask the question, "Why did you do it?" Inevitably, this leads to a complicated self-examination ("I was depressed at the time..." or something) and introspective condemnation ("I knew it was wrong but...")
[snip]
Someday, the Lord Of The Rednecks (whoever that might be) will get caught and, lacking the verbal tools of pop psychology, he'll wrinkle his brow when the question is asked, think back to when it happened, and answer, "Well, she was there and I got a boner - or I got a boner and she was there - I forget which. She seemed willing and, sure enough, she was. Next thing you know..."

I will vote for that man, even if he's a Republican. It's really not complicated at all, in fact it's kinda natural. Anyone who knows that is fit to lead. Important decisions, like trivial ones, are best made on the facts at hand and not behind a cloud of some mystical idealogical bullshit. Oh, to hear "the lord" or one of his lesser lieutenants just come out and say it, "Yeah, I fucked her."

Ok. Now that we've finished with THE BIG NEWS ON JOHN EDWARDS' PENIS, could we talk about Russia? China? Did the president instruct the CIA to forge "evidence" against Saddam Hussein? I mean, Suskind's book never, to my knowledge, mentions whether the president's penis had anything to do with it, but still.

How about discussing the actual, current presidential candidates actual, documented, positions on key issues and policy ideas, rather than whether they appeal to Hot Chicks (spoiler: the old guy, according to his campaign, does not).

Last word: Someone (Josh Marshall? Who was it?) wrote this week that arguably the worst outcome of the Edwards story is the silencing of Elizabeth, a smart and savvy woman of class and ideas, who, should she face the cameras again and approach issues of poverty or health care policy, will be met with, "But how did it feel when you found out?"

Mike Dunn needs to share, too

In comments, bookslinger recommends Dunn's recent letter to the TO Acorn. I had read the letter and wanted to write about it, thanks to bookslinger for prompting me to just do it. As bookslinger notes:

It is telling that not once does he mention the students which he serves, in his letter about "what makes (him) tick."

Indeed. What he does say is this:

Here's what makes me tick:

I grew up in the 1950s eating graham crackers dipped in milk while watching television on a 1956 Packard Bell with wooden knobs. Superman, Roy Rogers, Billy Graham Crusades, Ozzie and Harriet, Mighty Mouse, Disneyland, Lawrence Welk, Lassie and the Untouchables with Elliott Ness were favorites.

The 1950s instilled in me a sense of optimism, faith, justice, morality and patriotism. I still have the 1956 Packard Bell TV, and it works.

Our congressman was a Democrat, James Charles Corman. Corman was born in Galena, Cherokee County, Kansas, on Oct. 20, 1920. He moved with his family to Los Angeles in 1933. Corman served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps with the 3rd Marine Division from 1942 to 1946. He was in the Bougainville, Guam and Iwo Jima actions. He was my congressman from 1961 to 1981.

Congressman Corman did something I never forgot: he conducted polls before he voted. Our family would get a letter about every three months asking our opinion of about three different issues. Corman would tabulate the results and then vote, representing the wishes of voters in his district.

I loved Corman. He was a war hero. He conducted polls. He listened to the people. He was honest, uncorruptable. He represented the people when he voted.

He listened to the people.

When I got elected to the Conejo Valley Unified School District School Board, Corman became my mentor and the example that I've followed as a trustee.

Following Corman's example, I polled teachers asking when they wanted Christmas vacation to start. The result: Union bosses Arliegh Kidd and Susan Falk issued a complaint that I violated the labor code. I polled PTA presidents seeking opinions on school closures. The result: Trustees Dolores Didio and Dorothy Beaubien gave me a "Stalin style" no witness, show trial and censured me. Didio and Beaubien should retire.

James Charles Corman, congressman, war hero, family man, my mentor, my example to follow, died in 2001 at 80 and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Corman and Ronald Reagan are my heroes.
Michael Dunn
Newbury Park

Oh god, where to start.

There's this romantic movie called "The 1950s". Fans of this movie become so engrossed in the beautifully written plot that they cannot, will not, netflix something new for a change. It's "The 1950s" or nothing, because this movie is the height of human achievement, the nexus of imagination and moral fortitude.

But all they're really talking about is a movie. And it's not like it's a documentary. It's just a movie.

I grew up in the 1970s, and while fans of "The 1950s" really only see the drug scenes and permissive sex scenes, my movie has its own optimism. I grew up optimistic about the equality of women and racial minorities being, you know, normal. SOP. I also got to watch the moon landing on TV- the culmination of a decade of a governmental and societal drive toward progress and science.

Growing up in Southern California in the 1970s, you could believe that racism was a thing almost of the past, and that sexism soon would be. When my grandmother told me that Martin Luther King was a trouble maker and the KKK were upright citizens, I could chalk that up to the outdated memories of an old southern woman. And when Phylis Schafly and friends put out their hysterical tripe about the ERA and how it would be the ruin of American women, you could hope that their craziness was a soon to be vanished backlash against necessary and just change.

And I never, no never, thought of or heard anything about a war on Christianity, of all things. Saying Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays hadn't yet become a political statement.

So my own personal movie is optimistic and hopeful, but also cautious and not a little bit disappointed in the way a certain sector of society and opinion seems to have taken on the identity of the victim, howling about the low returns they're getting on their goddamn movie, "The 1950s".
(Hey: remember that the top tax rates in the '50s jumped around in the 80% range most of the time? Which meant that a lot of the optimism of that decade was given solid grounding in the building of vital infrastructure and the funding of priorities deemed important by the American people.)

Mr. Dunn: there was nothing "Stalin style" about your censure on the school board (Also note that in future, for stylistic purposes, you may want to use stalinesque).

There are rules in any governing body, you chose not to learn them. You said that taking training would be agreeing to brainwashing. You were given the opportunity to apoligize and stop acting like a spoiled ass, you chose to chew your gum and cross your arms and continue acting like a spoiled ass.

Of course, you weren't censured for being an ass; that would in itself be against the rules. You were censured for breaking the rules.

So, this open society you fear so deeply- the one where there is no right or wrong, only what feels good, the one that you're pretty sure George Soros is forcing us into- is this in evidence when you flout governmental rules and standards of decent behavior in your work on the school board?

Ignoring the rules of the governing body you've been elected to serve on: would that be right, because its in some way respectful of the rules? Or wrong, because you are just doing what feels good to you, based on your love of a fictionalized plot that you developed all on your own?

PS: I don't serve on the board and I haven't asked any of the members, but I'm betting that if you really wanted the teachers' opinions on anything, there's probably a means to legally ask for said opinions. That might mean asking someone who knows the ropes to advise you as to the how.

Saturday local focus: CVUSD and Mike Dunn

Here in the Conejo Valley, we're blessed with good schools. Parents in LA Unified and elsewhere through the state have to weigh scores and hope that they can get their kid into a reasonably good public school somewhere in their district; here there really isn't a bad option.

The schools are different from one another, certainly. One thing that has changed a great deal since I was a CVUSD student is the level of parent involvement. Back in the day, parents weren't involved with schools so much as required to pay attention now and again. Yes, there was the PTA, but kids, for the most part, got up and walked or biked to school and developed their relationships with teachers and brought home report cards. Parents showed up for plays and the occasional conference, and complained to the principle when something got in their craw.

Now parents are everywhere in the school experience. Parents raise money to offset budget cuts. They volunteer in classrooms. We know our kid's teachers- what music they like and maybe where they went to school and how many pets they have, in addition to their teaching style. Parent involvement has a lot to do with the character of your neighborhood school. If you live in a neighborhood with a high concentration of artists, musicians, people who work in entertainment, your school probably has a very strong arts focus. Likewise science, sports, and multi-cultural events.

But the schools also have dedicated, talented, loving staff. I have been thrilled each year with my kid's teachers- all of them different in style and focus, all of them offering inspiration and support, all of them providing life lessons and academic skill to a diverse student population. We also have a really amazing child care program in CVUSD. It costs very little, and surprises me every year with the professionalism of the staff.

When I moved back to TO after years away, I was a mom expecting that the school district would never be able to meet the demands I have for my kid's education. I had been convinced that schools were in such decline, that educational standards were so low, that our family would have to resort to private schools.

I was so wrong. And the school board is primarily responsible for strength of our district.

Standards are, in general, much lower here in the US than I think they should be. Our kids are not required to do enough in depth science, history, geography, etc. The "Three Rs" advocates that I recall from my youth have largely succeeded in shrinking education down to reading, writing, and 'rithmatic. But here in the Conejo Valley, I have seen teachers and staff (and parents) who strive to broaden the curriculum and each child's academic exposure, against painful and repeated budget cuts and increasing testing demands (which focus solely on the "Three Rs").

The biggest fights around here used to be over which math curriculum to teach (and no, I really have no problem with "everyday math"). Used to be. Until Mike Dunn was elected to the school board, giving voice and power to a weird subset of people who seem to have made it their life's work to denegrate and demonize the school board.

Dunn has been a frustrating and very expensive presence on the board since his tenure began. Styling himself as the "voice of the parents" he has sowed division and controversy at every opportunity, slandered the service of the other board members repeatedly, and cost the district thousands and thousands of dollars in legal expenses every time he pulls some bone-headed illegal maneuver. He hates the teachers union, and that has been an ongoing issue, because he won't play by the rules when dealing with them, resulting in more legal costs. He won't even learn the rules, since he considers the training that's been offered him brainwashing.

Two years ago, when elections came around, Dunn had recruited a raft of candidates that would give his views an easy majority. They had a sizable evangelical contingent behind them, not to mention the Stricklands. It was pretty worrisome, for me and families like mine, and the teachers I had come to know and respect so deeply, and the volunteers who work closely with the district and the PTA. In the end, all three incumbents running were reelected, including Dunn. Which said, to me, that residents really didn't know the board, just voting the incumbents because everything seemed to be going ok. There is no other reason that anyone would cast a ballot for both Dunn and Tim Stephens.

There will be another election this fall, and the climate has changed here, dramatically. Due to declining enrollment and repeated state budget cuts, the district made the painful decision to close two elementary schools. It created a panel to review objective data and determine which schools should be closed. The panel worked for several months, as I recall, and then made its recommendations.

Then followed the great school closure fight, which got ugly and classist and racist very quickly (and when one parent group threatens to call the INS on another parent group, I don't know what to call it other than racism). I know that not all parents involved in the fight were into the ugly parts, but still: it was everyone out for themselves, with no regard for what their "win" would mean for other families, or the rest of the district.

My kid came home one day and asked if he could paint "Save " on his clothes. We said no. He could paint "Save ALL of our schools" if he wanted to, but his school staying open meant that another kid's school would close, and we care about that kid, too.

There's still fighting in the works, as one of the schools scheduled for closure is applying for magnet status. For the most part, the biggest hubbub has died down. But hundreds and hundreds of families were following this issue closely and actively- school board meetings had to be held in high school auditoriums. And of those hundreds of parents, I will bet that most of them were getting their first look at trustee Mike Dunn, the "voice of the parents".

Dunn, off course, convinced all of them that their schools could remain open, if only the other board members weren't so stubborn, refusing to look at other options. And his affected persona, his outsider status, his renegade "voice of the parents" act, has been enhanced to a great degree for people who know little else about him, or the other board members, or the work that any of them have done during their tenures.

I have exchanged email with Dunn on several occasions: once, when he was first elected, because I was a bit disturbed by his website (which became another legal issue for him a couple of years ago). Later, we had a few exchanges over the Glencoe high school biology curriculum, which he used in his culture war against all the liberal monsters he imagines under the bed.

I have thought a good deal about whether to publish his words, whether that's really fair game, as when he wrote them, he was writing to a parent, not a reporter. But I decided that he was writing as a public servant, and the public who will choose whether to vote for him and his new recruits this fall should probably know who the man really is, and then decide if they want him having a majority on the board when it makes decisions that affect our kids and their teachers.

So, email 1. I wrote:

Hello Mr. Dunn:

I am a parent, my child has registered in a CVUSD school for the first time this year. I am also a member of my church's Faith in Action group, and we're interested in school board activities, among other things.

I have been researching current members of CVUSD board, as you're new, I have questions regarding some statements you make on your website. I would appreciate your clarification. I specifically would like clarification on the following:

1) Please explain "freedom of all religions".
2) Please explain "support for other traditional family values".

Thank you,

And yes, I put in the part about church intentionally, because I wanted him to be honest. It wasn't a lie, though.

He responded:

Evidence supports my conclusion that groups like the ACLU are trying to purge from this country all public expression of religion. I can also present evidence that suffering in our society is increasing as the influence of religion and moral absolutes is declining. The worst example is the rise in the number of unwed mothers.
I contend that if religion had more influence in the public schools that we would have fewer drug problems, unwed births and disciplinary problems.
To reduce suffering and to promote stable families, I will support freedom of all religions in the public schools. Judism, Christianity and Islam all desent from Abraham and Moses.
All three monotheistic religions promote moral absolutes.
My support for traditional family values is in response to attacks from some secular groups against groups like the Boy Scouts. People like George Soros are aggresively using judicial dictators to promote a Godless humanistic society. They want kaos and no limits on morality.
No right or wrong. Sounds tempting until you look at the rates of unwed mothers, drug abuse and crime in the parts of this country where they dominate.
My primary motive is to make our world a better place to live in. Serving on this school board is one step of many to accomplish this objective. I remember a happier, healthier, country when I grew up in the 1950's.
Thank you for writing me. I would be glad exchange ideas with you.
Sincerely,

This post is long, so I won't comment further. But there will be more.

Intellectuals

Writing the posts below made me recall the creationists at the forum last week demanding to know "What does Webster's say?" about the definitions of scientific theory and scientific law. So I thought I should provide a handy definition of the word "intellectual":

Oxford: adj. 1. of or appealing to the intellect. 2. possessing a high level of intelligence. 3. requiring the intellect. n. person possessing highly developed intellect.

Bly: wingnut. set of seemingly thoughtful ideas or concepts, compiled to confuse or demean normal human thought.

More tomorrow.

Dear editors

I know: the 'Opinion' page is made up of opinion, not reporting. I know that it's an important journalistic tradition, and that the free press demands a free opinion page.

I'm cool with that.

I do wish, though, that the Star and every other news paper in the country would just ask their columnists- at the very least- not to lie. That would seem to be a pretty minimal standard, asking opinion writers to opine on fact, rather than calculated partisan fiction.

Take, for example, Terry Paulson.

In his column this week (Energy Independence Now), he makes some pretty dubious claims:

While politicians demand more oil from overseas, we sit on oil reserves that are the envy of the world.

Really? The envy of Saudi Arabia? Of Iraq? Of Canada? Venezuela? US oil production reached peak in the '70s, and while we certainly have more reserves, even untapped reserves, there isn't much evidence indicating that tapping them now would lead us to energy independence.

What would lead us there is getting off our addiction to a finite resource. But since people like Terry must support the line of the current administration ("Conservation is a personal virtue" and "So long from the world's biggest polluter"), even when giving alternate energy resources a nod, they must press the delusion that the oil is there, and it is ours for the taking.

All of that is just opinionating, though, so of course it has a place in the editorial pages. What I really have a problem with is this:

When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita roared through the Gulf's 3,000 offshore oil and gas platforms, no major spills were recorded.

Now, if you're going to let someone write something that easily disproved (in fact, the oil spill could be seen from space), maybe just a note from the news bureau at the bottom of the column?

It just tears my hide when lies are published without challenge on the pages of a newspaper.

Oh, and although this isn't a lie, I can't pass up commenting on

France generates 80 percent of its energy needs through nuclear power and safely handles the waste; so can we!

France has a significant regulatory structure. And as this government can't seem to figure out how to keep e coli out of my food, and refuses to address weaknesses is chemical manufacturing and transport, I'd prefer not to complicate their to-do list with enforcement and protection of nuclear power plants.

Unbelievably stupid "journalists"

Of course the McCain campaign would take the opportunity to twist Wesley Clarke's words. They are a political campaign. That's what they do.

But the "journalists" of Washington didn't even need a nudge from the McCain camp. They just heard what they wanted to hear, got their man panties all in a bunch, and went bonkers. And not just the Fox News team and Joe Klein, either. Pretty much every moron on every network and every news outlet have made asses of themselves over this total non-issue.

Fucking idiots. How do any of them have jobs? How are we supposed to take any of them seriously?

Columbia Journalism Review:

Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Clark, in reference to John McCain, said:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

Bush foreign policy and national security, or, McCain? Really?

The Army War College (patchouli-soaked hippies) has released a report on the Iraq occupation, concluding that Rumsfeld and the neocons really never knew there asses from a hole in the ground.

Not that we didn't already know that.

And not that a solid review of the mess that got us into and sustained this grand adventure isn't needed. It is, if only to maybe put a few red flags in people's minds in case our government decides to launch a new grand adventure (like, I don't know... in Iran?)

But there's more to our global situation than Iraq, unfortunately. There still exists a nagging little problem called Afghanistan, the first one we invaded, because the governing body there was actually harboring al Qaeda, plus they were (are) total assholes.

And there still exists the nagging problem of Pakistan, a country that actually has nuclear weapons. Like the kind we were sure Saddam Hussein was hiding under his bed, the kind we pretty sure the mullahs in Iran keep beneath there skirts, the kind North Korea has developed over the last few years of non-engagement.

NY Times:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — In the last two months, Taliban militants have suddenly tightened the noose on this city of three million people, one of Pakistan’s biggest, establishing bases in surrounding towns and, in daylight, abducting residents for high ransoms. [...]
The threat to Peshawar is a sign of the Taliban’s deepening penetration of Pakistan and of the expanding danger that the militants present to the entire region, including nearby supply lines for NATO and American forces in Afghanistan

Today the Times reports:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — With Islamic militants tightening their grip around Peshawar, kidnapping residents and threatening the city itself, the new coalition government of Pakistan delivered its first military response to the Islamists on Saturday.

The action was limited, with security forces shelling territory outside Peshawar held by an extremist leader. Army forces were not used, and the intent apparently was merely to push the militants back from the city’s perimeter.

But the shelling was the first time the new civilian government, which has been committed to negotiating peace accords with Pakistani Taliban and other Islamic militants, resorted to military action.

In response, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, announced that he had suspended his participation in peace talks.

It remains to be seen whether this initial action has accomplished anything: it is likely that the militants left the area ahead of the force, and shutting down shops and imposing curfew are temporary controls, one would think.

The news from Peshawar this week is a reminder that Afghanistan hs not been stabilized at all. That outside of Kabul, muscle is the only government, and Taliban have a lot of muscle.

And that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is still a dangerous home base for extremism. Focusing only on our grand adventure in Iraq lets the administration off the hook for the complete bungling of Afghanistan.

And this region was always where the threat lay, and this region was always where we had the chance to be the "liberators" our government assured us we were destined to be.

Any discussion of national security needs to include these facts.

And the idea that McCain is still seen as "strong" on national security would be laughable, if it wasn't so frightening. This is a man who still believes that Iraq was a great idea, who still believes that concentrating all of our might and money to Iraq will lead to a bright and beautiful and capatalist middle east.

And who hasn't addresses Afghanistan to any real degree.

Just keep celebrating the surge, senator. That will make everything perfect. No, for real.

And everyone will greet us as liberators...

John "the meanest mustache in the world" Bolton, this morning:

I don’t think you’d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

What a fucking asshole.

Deja vu

via Atrios:

Late payments and defaults in every other major category of consumer debt also rose in the first quarter, the American Bankers Association reported. Auto loans issued through car dealers have a delinquency rate of 3.13 percent, the highest since at least 1990, according the ABA.

"The rise in consumer credit delinquencies is consistent with a rapidly slowing economy," said James Chessen, the ABA's chief economist. "Stress in the housing market still dominates the story, but it's a broader tale of an overall weak economy."

Emphasis mine. Original here.

Hm. 1990. What was happening then?

Oh, yeah. We'd recently completed 8 years of spending a bunch of money the government didn't have, because the Reaganites sincerly believed that money would appear out of thin air if we just lowered taxes on the wealthy, deregulated everything, busted unions, and prayed.

Is it me...

Or is the McCain team having some trouble editing their style sheet?


Gentlemen: Pick a color. And maybe not the same color that Obama's using. And maybe not anything that reminds folks of the green jello speech.