Fall

I'll be back in 2.5 minutes. I have to rake the leaves.

Click for larger.
________
Photo by AAA Member John Wernette.

Fallout

No matter how you look at it, Libby's indictment doesn't reflect well on Bush. If he didn't know what his VP and Chiefs of Staff were doing, he lacks their loyalty and could be viewed as not in charge. If he knew what they were up to, then he's complicit, and cannot be taken at his word.

Another way of saying that...

He's either politically weak, or a teller of tall tales.

________
Sketch by David Mamet.

October 28, 2005

"Libby submitted his resignation and left the White House."

Iraq is not Vietnam

I was a kid during the Vietnam War. I wasn't paying attention then to combat casualties. I couldn't have told you that just over 1800 Americans soldiers lost their lives in the first 4 years (1961-1965) of US combat there. Or that just over 1600 were killed in the last 2 years (1971-1972).¹

Now that I know that, I'm finally understanding what politicians mean when they say "Iraq is not Vietnam." With 2000 American soldiers killed in Iraq in the last 2 years, our rate of death has surpassed that of Vietnam's ... by a chilling factor of 2.

________
¹ Soldiers Lost in Iraq Top Those Lost in First Four Years in Vietnam; Expert on the '60s Reflects on Similarities, Differences

Aging

Gouda wishes her special cheese a Happy 17th.

Plame Leak

The jubilation over possible indictments of (from what I can tell) mostly Republican members of the administration, by (from what I can tell) mostly Democrats is strangely partisan and, well, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's not as if Democrats are saints.

I like to see people who commit crime or engage in slimy backroom deals meet justice - regardless of their party. But people are treating this like a game, another "gotcha!".

That's sad, because the story that should be making headlines is the repercussions that ensue from disclosing the undercover status of a CIA operative. That agent, by nature of their work, has to build and maintain covert relationships with people, informers, all over the globe - some in levels of power, some just ordinary citizens. Those people's lives are immediately threatened when an agent is exposed. Outing doesn't just destroy people's careers, it places lives in danger. It also deconstructs an intricate network of years-in-the-making, on-the-ground, intelligence gathering. It is precisely this lack of intelligence that led to terrorists' successful bombing of the World Trade Center.

I hope Fitzgerald gets to the bottom of the Plame leak, not to discredit Republicans, but to root out those government officials who care more about their career than about thwarting another terrorist attack, who care more about smearing the reputation of someone who disagrees with them, than about the sanctity of human life. (And who have the gall to label themselves as pro-life.)

I Love This Time of Year

Pro-life is not the Opposite of Pro-choice

There's a term floating around that I have a feeling was invented as a "God-sanctioned" argument against people who support a pro-choice stance for women facing an unwanted pregnancy.

The term is pro-life. What does this term mean? It's certainly not the opposite of pro-choice.

I would like to see our society lessen the number of abortions now taking place. Contraception, education, and a lessening of poverty are some means to that end. But I am also pro-choice. Expressing my belief that life is sacred does not reveal my concurrent belief that a woman should possess a legal right to make choices about her body, including having an abortion.

In framing Harriet Miers' views as pro-life, the White House seems to want to send a message to their conservative Republican base that she will vote to overturn the freedoms set forth in Roe Vs. Wade, while maintaining enough ambiguity so as not to alienate someone like me ... who thinks life is precious, but is also against any legislation that governs how a woman may treat her body.

Harriet Miers can be labeled pro-life until the cows come home. But this doesn't make a statement on how she would vote on issues of privacy, under which abortion falls.

I think a better line of questioning for her in the hearings is not whether or not she believes in the sanctity of life, but whether she would rule to protect a woman's privacy.

Liberation

I feel happy that people who live in Iraq can vote.

I feel sad that 2.5 years after their unrequested liberation, they bear a 25% inflation rate, a 30% unemployment rate, and generate for their entire country, which is about the size of California, the amount of electricity that one US college campus uses in a year.

Iraq Constitution Out-democratizes US Constitution

The new Iraqi Constitution does a better job of serving democracy than our own, in at least one area, its provision for the representation of women.

You can read an English translation of Iraq's draft constitution here (pdf) or here.

I want to draw attention to one Article:

"Article (151): A proportion of no less than 25 percent of the seats in the Council of Representatives is specified for the participation of women."

Is there a reason that the US Constitution can't also stipulate a minimum requirement? If not, I'd like see an amendment that would guarantee a more equitable representation for women in this country.

Currently, 50% of the US population between 15 and 64 is female.

Yet, in the 108th US Congress (2003-2004), only 14 of 100 Senators (14%), and 60 of 435 Representatives (14%) were women. Only 2 women¹ have ever served on the US Supreme Court, a mere 2% of the 108 justices that ever served! And regrettably, no woman has ever served as President or Vice President.

It's not as if the US doesn't have a pool of educated and qualified women to draw from. If Iraq, where only 24% of the women can read and write, can guarantee their representation, why can't the US where 97% of women are literate?
________
¹ Sandra Day O'Connor (1981) and Ruth Bader Ginsberg (1993).

You Got to Love a Gore Speech

The man thinks. He also comes across as more true to his convictions than the man he lost to 6 years ago, as well as genuinely compassionate.

Last week (Oct 5) he gave a speech at a Media Conference in New York. You can read it here.

He discusses democracy, and the threat to its existence by the loss of a "marketplace of ideas". This he describes as the unrestricted flow of ideas between and among all levels of wealth and power, and claims it has been threatened by the insidious infiltration of television into the American experience.

"So, unlike the marketplace of ideas that emerged in the wake of the printing press, there is virtually no exchange of ideas at all in television's domain."

And...

"To the extent that there is a "marketplace" of any kind for ideas on television, it is a rigged market, an oligopoly, with imposing barriers to entry that exclude the average citizen."

He cites the following example:

"Moveon.org tried to buy ads last year to express opposition to Bush's Medicare proposal which was then being debated by Congress. They were told "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, one of the networks that had refused the Moveon ad began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the President's Medicare proposal. So Moveon complained and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporary, I mean it was removed until the White House complained and the network immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the Moveon ad."

Is that true? Grrr. If I ever thought television was anything more than a corporate soap-box, I've just been hand-slapped.

He points to the internet as one salvation for American democracy, and closes on an uplifting beat:

"The final point I want to make is this: We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use."

Regardless of their ISP? What compelled him to add that? Is there something on the drawing board for ISPs that isn't so ducky?

You got to love a Gore speech.

Evolution, a Little Bit

I'm having difficulty understanding what Christians believe concerning evolution.

When President Bush says that a recently evolved avian flu virus could mutate and become transmissible between humans, is he endorsing evolution? It sounds like he is, so I'm guessing that he believes in evolution for some things. Either that or he believes that a benevolent God sees the utility of placing a specific avian flu virus on the earth that's capable of being transmitted between humans, with fatal outcomes.

If he endorses evolution sometimes, when are those times?

There's a news story making headlines recently:

University of Chicago Researchers Find Human Brain Still Evolving

Do Christians deny this? I'm guessing they do, but I don't know.

One more point, if Christians endorse evolution at all, why do they support teaching intelligent design as an alternative to it, and not in addition to it?

________
Shown is an image of the April 28, 2005 edition of the journal Nature. Its cover reads:

"This journal contains material on evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
- Approved by the University Board of Regents, 2006"

Democracy At Last

As a follow-up to my previous post, a friend sent me this:

Three Men and a Party. At last, Democrats get a clue.

... and got me very excited.

The three men are:

• Rahm Emanuel (Democratic Representative from Illinois)
  
• Andy Stern (International President, Service Employees International Union)
  
• Barack Obama (Democratic Senator from Illinois)

Why am I excited? Because, as Slate author Bruce Reed puts it, each of these men are rising stars in the Democratic party, who are "tired of a strategy that depends on the other side falling to pieces."

Yes, yes, yes. Just what I tried to say, exactly how I feel. And meaty:

• Rahm Emanuel has 5 ideas that I would vote for in a heartbeat. Ideas that would make me vote for a Democrat other than "he's not a Republican". (See the article for the ideas.)
  
• Andy Stern started a website, www.sinceslicedbread.com that will pay mucho dinero (up to $100,000) for practical ideas that help working families.
  
• Barak Obama posted an essay in Daily Kos, Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party that speaks to the heart of the issue:

"Whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government."

Don't stop. Whatever you do, don't stop.

Where are the Democrats?

I'm a little discouraged I don't hear more from them, besides bellyaching about the Republicans. I'm losing touch with their ideas:

• Where do they stand on the Iraq war? Would they increase troops or bring troops home?
  
• Do they have an energy plan? If not drilling offshore, then what? A gas tax?
  
• Big government or small government? This one is really confusing, given 8 years of debt pay-off under Clinton, and Bush's slaphappy spending on typically Democratic programs like education and Medicare.
  
• Pro-choice? Someone say something! The last time I heard a Democrat address this was one of the presidential debates last year when Kerry said he was against abortion, but for a woman's right to choose. Articulate but, I sense, lost on the masses.
  
• What's their alternative to the current administration's "ownership society"? A welfare society? You wouldn't guess that given Clinton's 1996 welfare reform package.

I heard Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, yesterday defend that the Democrats just don't have a pulpit right now. But ... how do they expect us to vote for them if they don't have a voice? Who speaks for the Democrats?

Where's Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Edwards? And that DNC chair, what's his name .... Dean? (Has this man been sitting on his hands?)

________
Dear Mr. Dean,

I may be a lone and plebeian voice, but I beseech you ... get a platform, make it real, and get it out there.

Concerned Citizen

Is a Gasoline Tax Regressive?

Until recently, I've been a proponent of an increased gasoline tax. I think it has the potential of altering how Americans use energy, in turn boosting development of fuel-efficient technologies, and decreasing dependence on foreign oil.
Clicking the gas pump icon will take you to the government's gas prices site.

But the more I think about it, the more it seems like a regressive tax, something that would place a disproportionately higher burden on those with lower incomes. If the price of gas goes up, those with the fewest alternatives have no other option but to pay it. I'm beginning to see that the poor have the fewest alternatives. Trading your car for a newer, more fuel-efficient model is, well, costly. Public transportation? Its cost is rising, and will continue to rise as the cost of fuel rises. And a car provides some protection in areas of high crime. If you're walking or on a bicycle, the only thing between you and a person with malicious intent is your skin.

Also, those with the highest incomes (and the greatest influence in society) wouldn't feel a pinch at all. And feeling a pinch is part of the gas tax's strategy for change. Here's where gas rationing could work, but I don't think we're at that point yet.

Still, I think that in the long run and on a large scale, a gas tax is beneficial. So in conjunction, I might offer some kind of subsidy to those who qualify - like gas vouchers, similar to food stamps, or maybe a gas rebate.

Just a thought. What's yours?

Whoosh!

Look went over my house this morning. They were so close we could talk! (Click for larger.)