babbling blue

The Top 5 Reasons To Vote In Illinois*
Or: Why It Still Means A Thing Even If It Ain’t Got That Swing
*Or any non swing-state

1. Big margin = big mandate. The popular vote doesn’t put anyone in the White House, but it effects what presidents can do when they get there. Want Obama to be able to actually do the stuff he’s been talking about? Pass universal health care? End the war? Then we need a landslide.
2. The other things on the ballot matter! For example: Congress. Without more support in the House and Senate, Obama will have a hard time getting progressive laws passed. Plus, there are other important local races and ballot questions in some places.
3. If you don’t vote, everyone can find out. Voting records are public. (Not who you voted for, just whether you voted.) Pretty soon, finding out whether you voted could be as easy as Googling you.
4. Help make history. You could cast one of the votes that elect the first African-American president. If we win, we’ll tell our grandchildren about this election, and they’ll tell their grandchildren. Do you really want to have to explain to your great-great-grandchildren that you were just too busy to vote in the most important election in your lifetime?
5. People died so you’d have the right to vote. Self-government—voting to choose our own leaders—is the original American dream. We are heir to a centuries-long struggle for freedom: the American revolution, and the battles to extend the franchise to those without property, to women, to people of color, and to young people. This year, many will still be denied their right to vote. For those of us who have that right, it’s precious. If we waste it, we dishonor those who fought for it and those who fight still.

For information on how, where and when to vote: www.voteforchange.com

(Blatantly ripped off from MoveOn.org.)

If you didn’t vote early (and I did not), get your butt out there tomorrow and cast your ballot! Or else I’ll kick it.

For those who don’t know, there is a proposition on the ballot in California that seeks to amend the state constitution to make gay marriage illegal. I don’t even want to get into this right now because I get too worked up. The proponents of Prop 8 are spinning it as being about education, and trying to convince people this is the only way to keep their kids from being brainwashed in school that it’s good to be gay. They are dumping millions of dollars into airing their misleading ads, and Prop 8 is in danger of passing. I’ve donated to the No On Prop 8 campaign. They still need money, so please give them some ASAP. Even a small amount can help.

No On Prop 8

Comcast paid people to take up seats at a public FCC hearing on Net Neutrality to prevent actual concerned citizens from getting in. Bad Comcast!

savetheinternet.com

If you are in Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa (they can vote?), Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee or Utah then tomorrow is Primary (or caucus) day for you. Please be sure to vote. This is one of the most important (and, in my humble opinion, interesting) elections of our time.

I’d prefer if you voted for Obama, but even if you vote for someone else the important thing is voting. I think it’s a responsibility as well as a right.

In case you haven’t heard, Congress has finally rallied together to address a major problem facing this country right now. Iraq? No. Health care? No. The economy? No. Immigration? No sir. Oil? No no no. Give up? It’s a newspaper ad.

MoveOn.org published an ad in the New York Times criticizing Gen. Petraeus for being a shill for the White House, presenting misleading information to Congress and the American people. Apparently the thing that really has our illustrious legislators burning bright with the fire of righteous indignation was the heading “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” How dare they?! I’ll defer to MoveOn’s justifications rather than getting into them myself. They make sense to me.

To put this in perspective, I defer to the eloquence and knowledge of President Bill Clinton:

I sure do miss him sometimes! Sadly, it’s not just the Republicans involved in this nonsense. Many Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon as well, perhaps in fear of being left behind. My own Congressman voted for the House resolution condemning the ad. Way to go, Rahm!

Well, I hope now that Congress has dealt with this absolutely critical issue of a newspaper ad they’ll be able to move on to some of the lesser problems facing us. Like those I mentioned at the beginning of this post.

Dear friends, acquaintances and random anonymous readers:

The internet as we know it is under attack. No, not from bored Chinese programmers or cyberterrorists. It’s under attack from within. The concept of net neutrality, one of the founding ideals of the internet, is undergoing a full frontal assault by some of our biggest ISPs aided by our own members of Congress.

The issue in a nutshell is this: a person on the internet can access every resource on the internet with substantially equal speed (limited, of course, by servers and connections but web servers and high speed internet connections are very affordable). So MSN.com isn’t faster for you than my blog. Nothing is being sped up or slowed down at some point along the way. Essentially, all web sites and net applications are created equal.

But that could change. The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies “including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner” want to charge content providers to provide speedy access to their data. So MSN.com could pay the ISPs and get their data to you faster than my blog’s data. Giant media conglomerates could pay for faster access than local independent news sources. The possibilities are endless, and almost universally bad for consumers (that’s you and me).

Congress is currently considering a bill called the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006″ (COPE Act). An attempt was made to include network neutrality in this legislation but was shot down, thanks in part to heavy lobbying on behalf of the telephone and cable companies.

For more on this, visit the Save the Internet Coalition website.
Then sign the Petition and contact your representatives.

I don’t go to see movies very often (still haven’t see “Brokeback”), but I went to see two this weekend. I enjoyed them both! Here are my opinions on each.

Thank You for Smoking
I saw this one first, on Saturday afternoon. It was funny. I think it was the type of movie with a lot of subtle humor in addition to the obvious stuff. I’d probably have to watch again to see if I missed anything. The story involves a lobbyist and spin doctor for the tobacco industry. While you might be inclined to think that it’s just a long anti-smoking propaganda film from the previews or the title, you’d be wrong. It’s a satirical look at lobbying and spin in general, with a personal touch. The main character, Nick Naylor, deals with his 12-year-old son, his ex wife, his back-stabbing boss, a U.S. senator on the warpath and a sexy newspaper reporter. Lots of hijinks. I highly recommend it.

V for Vendetta
I saw this movie Sunday at an IMAX theater. I have to say, for big budget action films that’s really the way to go. Big and loud, as they’re meant to be seen. The movie itself was quite good. Set in the not-so-distant future, it shows us life in England after the United States has all but collapsed. England is now a totalitarian society, controlled by a High Chancellor and a small cadre of powerful Party members. People live in fear–of the secret police as much as terrorists or criminals. The depiction is reminiscent of 1984. The protagonists are a masked avenger named only V, and Evey, a young woman who gets thrust into the revolution by being at the wrong place at the wrong time. . . twice. Together they change the world. Or at least England.

I accused Crash of beating the audience over the head with its message, and the same could probably be said of this movie. But there’s a difference. With Crash the message is something most people already know, or will at least claim to. The message I took from V is what can happen if people allow fear to rule them. What it could be like in the future if society is cowed by threats and willingly sacrifices its freedoms in exchange for some perception of security. It says that if people don’t take advantage of the legal means available to them now to save their freedom, much more drastic and violent measures would be needed in the future to reclaim it. I agree with that, but it’s not an opinion that’s held by enough people. And that is the fundamental difference between V for Vendetta and Crash. With Crash, people argue about whether the movie was good or not, and whether it deserved to win an Oscar. With V, people will argue about and discuss the message. It’s something people need to talk more about.

This post is already longer than I intended, so I’ll stop here. But I may talk more about V in a future post.

Today Samuel Alito was confirmed as the 110th Supreme Court justice. This was expected, but it’s not good.

The vote was 58-42. The following 4 senators from the Democratic party voted for Alito:

• Robert Byrd of West Virginia
• Tim Johnson of South Dakota
• Ben Nelson of Nebraska
• Kent Conrad of North Dakota

I doubt any of their constituents are going to read my blog, but on the chance that they do, I encourage them to keep this betrayal in mind during the next election.

Why do I say betrayal? Because Alito is not a good thing for this country.

In the words of Robert W. Gordon, Chancellor Kent Professor of Law and Legal History at Yale:

But wherever there is running room - opened up by gaps in application, conflicts in precedents, ambiguities in statutes - Alito is an activist who works steadily to push the law well beyond conventional boundaries of precedent. There is nothing “restrained” about his opinions proposing to strike down one federal law banning machine guns for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause (U.S. v. Rybar, 1996); to strike down another mandating employers to grant medical leave to parents of newborn children for exceeding Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment (Chittister, 2000); and to construe regulatory and civil rights laws so restrictively as to frustrate their purposes. He is for “limited government” and “federalism” when those principles point to less regulation of business and religious expression; but for authoritarian government when it acts in the causes of protecting national security or law enforcement and regulating morals. He is in short a judge with an agenda, and the agenda is not “conservative” but right-wing-Republican.

Emphasis mine. I suggest you read the whole thing. Alito has an agenda, and it’s not one that’s good for most Americans.

Unfortunately the Democratic party is weak and lacks cohesiveness right now. They weren’t able to pull together a filibuster to hold Alito at bay. So now the Supreme Court shifts farther to the right, and another supporter of Bush (and executive power in general) is on it. We could be in trouble.

This Saturday, I went to a fundraiser for (and featuring) Hillary Rodham Clinton at Crobar in Chicago. When we arrived, there were a couple dozen protesters across the street. They had banners and were chanting various things, such as “Out of Iraq NOW!” and something about Hillary being anti-women (huh?) and it was clear they were liberals. So the following is a response to them and their kind.

My fellow liberal Americans, I recently witnessed some of us taking part in an important part of the democratic process, a protest. I have no problem with protesting. It’s the American way, and a powerful way to speak out against those things we disagree with. I don’t even find fault with protesting those who are supposedly on the same side of the aisle as us. Just because someone brands themself a Democrat doesn’t mean they always do what they should to represent liberal interests; if our own people screw up they should be called on it.

However, I must confess to being a bit baffled on some of the points you guys were trying to make this past Saturday when protesting Hillary Clinton in Chicago. There were signs complaining about healthcare and you were chanting that Hillary is anti-women (which then changed to anti-human). I don’t know where those criticisms came from. Mrs. Clinton crusaded for healthcare reform when her husband was president. It’s not an easy issue to tackle. She’s made some small accomplishments in the Senate, but broad and meaningful reform is elusive. She’s only one Senator out of 100. I also don’t know what anti-women (or human) stances Hillary has taken. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

What I really have a problem with are the demands that we (the U.S.) withdraw from Iraq immediately, and the criticism of anyone that refuses to join in those demands. That kind of thinking is short-sighted and irresponsible. A complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq at this point isn’t in anyone’s best interest. While we should probably have never invaded Iraq in the first place, we can’t unring a bell. Right or wrong, good or bad, it’s been done. And we have to see it through. To do otherwise creates a massive risk of destabilizing the region much more than it is now.

We went in to a country and toppled its government. That isn’t something that can be fixed over night. Removing our presence prematurely could lead to a civil war, with many more people dying than there are now. It could allow Iran (a country which is probably more a threat to us after being included on the foolish “Axis of Evil” than it was before) to exert great influence on Iraq. Certainly the area could become more of a staging ground and safe haven for terrorists than it ever was under Saddam.

America owes it to the Iraqi people to ensure the government we leave behind can protect them. We owe it to our soldiers, over 2000 of whom gave their lives for this already, to finish what we started. What we need, and what Senator Clinton and others are calling for, is a plan to transition military control of the country to the Iraqi people and gradually shrink our own presence there.

Going to Iraq in the first place was probably the wrong thing to do. But the cliche “Two wrongs don’t make a right” that you probably heard from your parents as a child rings true in this case. We can’t right our initial wrong by doing another one.

So to all of you liberals who like to protest against and attack liberals: if you’re going to continue to do so, you should really have a legitimate point or two. I know I neither heard nor read any at your protest this past Saturday.

Sincerely,
Josh V

One things conservatives do particularly well (better than liberals, who do it also) is demonizing things that don’t fall into their narrow view of how the world should be. Either they smear an organization or idea so much that its name becomes a dirty word, or they just “re-brand” the concept for their own purposes. The re-branding is often highly inaccurate.

Let’s look at some examples.

ACLU
This is a favorite target among social conservatives in particular. They can’t say “ACLU” without sneering (or maybe even spitting). To them, it’s the enemy of the people. And they bash it so much that those who are inclined to listen–like many Fox (Faux) News viewers–think of it as a terrorist organization. Many of them probably don’t even know what “ACLU” stands for. It is, of course, the American Civil Liberties Union. According to their website:

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? Of course you can’t go by a blurb on an organization’s own website. But I’m not; I know what they stand for and what they do. And while I don’t agree with every position they take or jump onto their every cause (you have to choose your battles), in general I think they work for the greater good. If “liberty” is going to become a dirty word, then we have some monuments to rename and some major historical documents to edit.

Pro Choice (Pro abortion)
When the appropriate term for something sounds too harmless to properly slander, the right will simply give it a new name more evocative of the evil they claim it represents. Take the abortion debate. “Pro Choice” doesn’t sound bad. So the right invented the totally inaccurate term “pro abortion” to describe that position. It implies Pro-Choicers are somehow in favor of abortions. That we go around looking for pregnant women and ask them “Pardon me miss. I see you’re with child. Have you considered aborting it?” The idea that we like or encourage abortions is insulting. Pro-Choicers believe exactly what the correct term implies: a woman has the right to choose what is best for her.

The concept of abortions is something I personally struggle with. I consider myself Pro Choice, but I don’t like the idea of abortions being done as some sort of substitute for other forms of birth control. It’s not something I think should be done lightly. It’s also not something I’d ever presume to tell a woman what she can or cannot do about it.

Estate Tax (Death Tax)
Another example of rebranding is with the estate tax, which conservatives have dubbed the “death tax”. In this case, the new name is largely a method to mislead those who don’t really understand the issue. No one thinks it’s fair to get taxed for passing away. Of course, if you’re dead, what do you care? You don’t own anything any more. But that’s beside the point, because the tax is levied against your heirs on their inheritance from you. It’s not levied against your corpse. It’s not a death tax.

What most people fail to realize is that the federal estate tax applies to only to about 2% of American families. That’s the richest 2%. The current law exempts $1.5 million per person or $3.0 million per couple and that amount is set to gradually increase to $3.5/$7.0 million by 2009. Oh, and money that goes to spouses or charitable organizations are also exempt. That means if you inherit $10,000 from Grandma when she passes on, the tax collector will not be knocking on your door. But if you’re Paris Hilton and mumsy leaves you a $500 million when she checks into that great luxury hotel in the sky, you have to pay up. Oh boo hoo, how unfair! How will you survive?!

The estate tax is not a death tax, and it doesn’t affect any but the richest people in America. And it produces important revenue that the government desperately needs. The idea that small businesses and family farms are destroyed by this is mostly a myth; they can be further protected by reforming the law instead of repealling it. But of course, no one wants to get taxed for dying.