Your Moment of Shallow...

You've just gotta love Michelle.

Also... here is a dog.

More festive Obamaness can be found here (including special guest appearance of Mr. Schuster from Glee! Ahem).

OK, this post may have lacked nuance and insight, but give me a break it's Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia and a range of other non-denominational Winter Solstice related celebrations.

Are you a member of the "food eating" demographic?

Then this should be good news:

A bill that would overhaul the nation's food-safety laws for the first time since the Great Depression came roaring back to life Sunday as Senate Democrats struck a deal with Republicans that helped overcome a technical mistake made three weeks ago and a filibuster threat that seemed likely to scuttle the legislation.

I love this quote:

"This reaffirmed my faith in democracy," said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union. "We were getting ready for a last-ditch effort . . . and they just went ahead an passed it, like they should have. . . . There's some hope now that the government will do a better job of protecting people" from tainted food.

"Just went ahead an passed it." Imagine that...

I Love US Voters. But I Don't Understand Them...

It's the job of political activists and politicians themselves to try and understand the point of view of their constituents to that they can either persuade or represent as needed. But what are you supposed to do with a voting population that, within a few weeks of giving the President's party the biggest Congressional defeat in a hundred years, still tell pollsters that they basically don't trust the guys who they just voted in one little bit, and think the President will stand up a lot better for their values.

Obama's position against the Republicans in Congress is much stronger than that of his predecessors. The following polls were all taken in the December after the president's first major midterm defeat. So for Bill Clinton, the poll results are from December 1994, and for George W. Bush, they're from December 2006. In both cases, the public trusted the congressional opposition more than the president. Not so today

I mean, I agree with the assessment of the people. But I just can't reconcile it with their vote. Hmmmm...

Believing in Change You Can Believe In

Yesterday, by an amazing 64-33 majority, the US Senate finally voted to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. The President has promised to sign it next week, and will then promptly begin work on a policy to roll out the implementation.

Although that implementation must wait at least 60 days following delivery of the President's plan to begin, I think it is safe to say that last night's vote marked the beginning of the end to the last bastion of legal, open discrimination within the US Military. Let's be clear - this will not be the first time that gay men and women will serve in the US military. It will just be the first time they can do so without dishonoring and torturing themselves by lying to their friends and colleagues.

More than 90% of service members who believe that they are currently serving with gays and lesbians have stated that it had no impact on their morale, unit cohesion or ability to perform. Evidence from other countries which have long allowed gays to serve suggest that the transition towards open service is a gigantic non-event. Just as gays work and live openly alongside straights in every other walk of life, they will now be able to do so as members of the US armed forces.

In the end, the relatively large number of Republicans who voted for the repeal of DADT is a tribute to the integrity of those Senators. I am truly and unequivocally grateful to them. In the current Republican party, the tea party has proven their ability to defeat in primaries even well funded and popular Republicans who make any effort to work with Democrats in support of the country's best interest. Each of them had to be, therefore, very much aware that to some degree they were gambling with their jobs.  So, let's take a moment to give them their due.

Thank you, Senator Collins of Maine - an especially strong advocate, who worked closely with Joe Lieberman to ensure that a standalone bill was put on the floor after DADT was initially defeated.

Thank you, Senator Murkowski of Alaska - who has already been a victim of Tea Party extremism, losing her primary and thus running as a write-in candidate last November. Thank you for not running scared from the bullies who tried to kick you down.

Thank you, Senator Brown of Massachusetts - who I was (you may recall) a little annoyed to see winning Ted Kennedy's old seat in the early part of this year, but who has been among the most moderate Republicans in the Senate from that point. A classic New England Republican, in fact. Like... my whole family. I wasn't sure they were still out there.

Thank you, Senator Snowe (also) of Maine.

Thank you, Senator Voinovich of Ohio.

Thank you, Senator Kirk of Illinois.

Thank you, Senator Ensign of Nevada and Senator Burr of North Carolina, both of whom (bizarrely) voted for the bill after initially voting AGAINST bringing the bill to a vote.

It's worth in particular noting the vote of Senator Burr - an old style Southern Conservative who NOBODY expected to vote for this bill. In fact, Senatory Collins, who was working to reach out to Republicans in this effort, didn't even bother to meet with him as she assumed he would be intractable. So why did he eventually vote for it?

Well, he says he did have concerns about the timing of making this change, but in the end:

“A majority of Americans have grown up at a time that they don’t think exclusion is the right thing for the United States to do,” Burr said, also noting, “It is not accepted practice anywhere else in our society and it only makes sense.”

That's... bizarrely reasonable. There is indeed no other part of American society where it is currently acceptable to discriminate against people solely because of who they are. We allow (in fact, sometimes we require) convicted felons to serve in the military. There is literally nothing that you can do, short of being physically unfit, that is so terrible it makes you ineligible for service. Except loving someone of the same sex.

While we are tipping out hat to erstwhile enemies, I probably need to take this moment to do the painful duty of singling out former Democrat Joe Lieberman for a special Medal of Excellence in pushing this bill relentlessly, determinedly and with unshakeable conviction. It was Lieberman who, when the first version of the bill failed to gain cloture immediately girded up to get a new version expedited through committee. It was Lieberman who made sure the bill had Republican support,  liaised with Nancy Pelosi about the timing of passage through the House, worked with Harry Reid to get it on the Senate calendar for a new vote and, in a final moment poignant moment, broke his longstanding and deeply held religious practice not to work on the Sabbath to shepherd the bill through the Senate on a Saturday vote. He decided that the opportunity to live the principles of his faith was more important, in this one case, than the duty to live up to the letter of it. I salute him for it.

I'm not sorry I called him a schmuck - because sometimes he acts like one. But today he was a mensch.
And finally, I want to once again give a round of applause to Harry Reid. The Leader has a lot on his plate lately, and frankly it would have been easy for him to find an excuse to not bring DADT back up for a vote - the packed schedule, the forthcoming Christmas break, the urgency of getting so much other vital legislation through (and here's hoping that we can find the couple more votes we still need to ensure passage of the vital START treaty...). But Reid made it clear he would keep the current Senate working until the voted on this bill - and that pressure undoubtedly move things along.

And President Obama... well, Obama has been the leader I thought he would be. He passed this bill in a stle that will be hard to reverse, easy to support, and will change America for the better and for good. By proceeding with an extensive study of the military's views, by bringing the top leadership of the military into the fold - including Bush appointee Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen - he made clear that this would be done with the suppor of and for the benefit of our services. And finally, by taking the painful decision not to rush this process but to dot every I and cross every T - even if it meant that, heart-breakingly, good men and women still had to suffer under this policy in the meantime....

He created change that wasn't as quick as we would have liked. Or as radical as we might imagine. But that we can absolutely, 100% believe in.

What the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Says: Tax Cuts

I'm still reading. Still thinking.

What the White House Says: Tax Cuts Explanation

Never post angry. Or uninformed. Or confused.

The above are three reasons why I have not yet written anything about the tax cuts deal recently cut between President Obama and the Republicans in Congress.

But I will. I just want to take a little time to think about it and read more first, because I keep changing my mind about it.

I think it's safe to say, though, that the deal has prompted strong emotional responses from both sides - and for us progressives, especially in response to President Obama's press conference. Which I haven't seen yet. Again, need to dig more.

But I am leaning towards the view that this might wind up being a pretty good deal for Progressives (a very good deal under the circumstances - with the new Republican Congress soon to take over) that has been very poorly communicated.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Elizabeth Edwards, 1949-2010

The progressive advocate, health policy reformer, author, mother, and (yes) estranged wife of former Presidential candidate John Edwards died yesterday after a long battle with cancer.

I had the pleasure of meeting her once, and found her funny, smart, down to earth and thoughtful. May she rest in peace.

Wikileaks Part 2

I didn't want to write any more about the Wikileaks document dump, but I must admit the issue keeps turning over and over in my mind, and I'm not 100% sure I'm right or - if I am - what should be done about it.

I'm unwilling to declare the publishing leaked information should be a crime, because it is so often vital that people feel free to publish information that is in the public interest.

On the other hand, I do believe that you have to strike a balance between the public's interest in knowing what their government is doing (which is real) and the public's interest in having their government negotiate on their behalf to prevent wars, disarm enemies, or even just build allies under tense circumstances.

Where I instinctively tend to come down is on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to peacemakers and am inherently sceptical of warmongers. Diplomats are often responsible for conducting tricky, private negotiations to try to prevent nations from going to war with each other. And if they are successful, you may never hear about it. So I have an inclination to say there are a lot of useful things that they do that can't be done in secret. A friend and colleague challenged me today whether there really are things that governments need to do that they should be allowed to do in secret in a Democratic society. My answer is a cautious and carefully managed yes - I don't think they should have a blank check to conceal all their actions from the people who put them into power, but if I have to balance the chance of deescalating a conflict with Iran or risking nuclear war (for instance) I'm willing to be kept in the dark for a period of time.

What I struggle with, and what I honestly don't know, is what the ultimate effects of a world of perfect leakability would be. I can imagine a number of scenarios. I suspect the most likely is that government officials simply adapt their working practices, as TSA officials have, to elevate their privacy concerns to the next level. You can easily envision a rule that diplomats are only allowed to brief their superiors in person or by secure telephone and may not put anything in writing.

The end result? No paper trail is created, making it impossible for anyone to leak but also for future historians to ever know what "really" happened. Also, potentially, this would lead to spectacularly biased and wrong-headed foreign policy as the top leaders could never see a horses mouth analysis or summary.

Or, if the world adapted to a situation where it was understood that all communications take place in the open, then we would have to treat every delicate discussion with crazy regimes like North Korea as if they might be listening. This means that either we can't frankly assess their situation (For instance, you couldn't say, "The Dear Leader is very old and may die soon, after which the nation may be plummeted into disaster. Meanwhile, he's desperately trying to aquire nuclear weapons before the End of Days.") or that we can never in fact engage in diplomacy with such regimes.

I may be wrong - I honestly don't know. How do you envision this playing out?

Ha ha ha....

Tee hee...

Filibusters Are No Fun These Days - but we can fix em!

Long term readers of this blog will know that I blame the evils of the current filibuster ssystem in the Senate for just about everything that goes wrong in America. But perversely, the Republican gains in November's midterm elections have actually made it marginally more likely that Democrats might have the will and ability to actually fix this system. And Josh Marshall points out the perverse incentives that make the current system so terribly unworkable.

In the outgoing Congress it would have meant getting all 60 Senators to stay on the floor indefinitely while the GOP only had to make sure one senator was on the floor at any one time to raise an objection to ending debate. Maybe two at any one time if you figure the need for occasional bathroom breaks. And since each party is going to have somewhere on the order of at least 40 senators, taking shifts indefinitely just isn't a problem. And even though people think you've got to sit there reading the phone book or talking forever or whatever else, you don't. You don't have to do anything except sit there and be ready to stand up for 30 seconds and make an objection. So while the majority needs 60 Senators cooling their heels on the floor, the minority can just have one or two sitting there playing Angry Birds on their iPhones.


Here's another part of the equation. Everyone knows you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. But it's not 3/5 of the votes, it's an absolute 60. That's why you'll note that when a filibuster is a broken it's usually by a vote of 60 to 30-something. In other words, the folks in the minority, the folks filibustering, don't even need to show up. I'd like to say they can just dial it in. But actually they don't even need to do that.

These are, to put it mildly, very perverse incentives.

When Mr. Smith goes to Washington these days, he doesn't make heroic speeches for hours on end until he collapses with exhaustion. No, he just stands up and says, "I object," then proceeds to check his e-mail, while 60 of his colleagues scramble to try and get some work done.

The filibuster was never a part of the Constitutional design of the Senate. It was created by accident in 1805 by America's Worst Vice President Aaron Burr (shortly after he killed Alexander Hamilton in a Duel. No, seriously!), and no one noticeduntil years later that the procedural change led to this possibility.

And for a while it meant dramatic scenes of Senators doing marathon speaking sessions, and literally peeing themselves on the Senate floor because they couldn't afford to leave the chamber lest they break the filibuster. Dramatic stuff. But it's not like that any more.

Senators no longer have to actually speak up about the bills they are trying to block. They can just make sure it never comes to a vote.

Time to put a stop to this nonsense.

Oh, and for the record - let's remember that the so-called glory days of marathon filibustering was not some brave stand in favor of the oppressed minority. Actually, it was used for such noble causes as blocking civil rights reform and preventing the passage of anti-lynching measures. If today's Strom Thurmonds want to block unemployment insurance, or insist on tax cuts for millionaires, let them have the courage to display that shame on the Senate floor at the very least.

Or better yet, let's let the majority actually get on with leading the country.

DADT Repeal and Gay Marriage - For Different Reasons

As the Senate has been considering repeal of the appalling Clinton-era Don't Ask Don't tell rule this week, I've been giving a lot of thought to how far the country has come in the last decade and a half on our attitudes towards gay rights. And it caused me to reflect on the fact that, although I personally feel very strongly about both the importance of repealling DADT and also offering access to marriage for gay men and women, I think of the two issues a bit differently.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is, as I see it, the most straightforward and indefensible example of outright legal bigotry still in place in our system. I can't think of any other group of individuals who are straightforwardly banned from participating in any part of our civil society purely on the basis of who they are. Can you? What if we told Jewish soldiers that they could serve with their Christian comrades, but only if they never aknowledged their faith? Of if we told Hispanics that they could serve only if they could "pass" for anglo? What if we told married heterosexuals that they could serve only if they never told anyone of their marriage, or did anything that might allow their fellow soldiers to understand that they were married? That is quite literally exactly what we are asking gay men and women to do - and all for the priviledge of fighting and dying to defend... us. It's appalling, it's morally reprehensible, it unduly traumatises good men and women who want to serve, it harms our national security by preventing highly qualified people signing up, and there is broad agreement from both the top military leaders and the rank and file soldiers themselves that repealling it would do no meaningful harm to our military capacity. In fact, of the 70% of currently serving military who said that they believed they already were serving with gay or lesbian colleagues, 92% of them said that it had had no effect on the performance of their unit.

Everyone who continues to defend this policy should hang their heads in shame, as they no longer have even a fig leaf of a reason to do so.

Yes, I'm talking to you, John McCain.

But gay marriage is something different. Although I fully accept and agree with the contention that it is also bigoted to exclude gays from this institution,  I can understand the rationale of the people who say that this to some extent change the nature of the institution. Marriage WOULD change if gays and lebians were allowed to fully participate in it. Just as it changed when it turned from a financial arrangement in which the bride was offered up as collateral for a bargain between two men. Just as it changed when women gained legal rights to property within marriage.

I support the innovation of allowing gay men and women to participate in the institution of secular civil marriage because I believe that this would not only be of great benefit to the couples who would now be allowed to marry, but also because (as with heterosexual marriage) encouraging two people to make a lifelong commitment of mutual responsibility and promise solemnly before the state and their loved ones to honour and care for each other is of enormous benefit to society as a whole.

Very large numbers of gay households are raising children - I believe it's better for children to have two parents than one. Sometimes, in gay couples, one partner will find themself in financial difficulty - I believe it's better for the community if that person is financially supported by their partner than through the welfare system if this is possible.  Sometimes, in gay couples, one partner will become sick - I believe it's better for them and everyone if that person is not only loved, cared for and supported by their partner but also, yes, has access to their partner's health insurance so that they avoid having to potentially end up in medical bankrupcy. Sometimes in gay relationships, one partner come from another countries - I think it's better that they are able to stay in America rather than have to flee the country to be somewhere that their relationship can be aknowledged by the immigration authorities. Sometimes in gay relationships, people fight. I think on the whole, if they still love each other, that there be some reasonable expectation that they make an effort to work things out.

I support marriage for gay people, in other words, for the exact same reasons that I support it for straight people. And because I think it would be a change to the institution of marriage that would improve it.

Also, because... weddings. Dontcha just love em?

The Week's Worst: Republicans Block Tax cut for All Americans Because Democrats Won't Let Them Cut Taxes for Millionaires Even More

So I took a little pause from the Week's Worst series last week in honour of the Thanksgiving spirit. But this week we're back looking at Terrible Things Republicans Do That Hurt the Country(TM) with a doozy of an example. This week, after the House passed a bill that would keep in place the Bush era tax cuts for every American, but would restore tax on incomes over $250,000 to the level they were under the Clinton Administration, Republicans in the Senate successfully "defeated" the Senate's attempt to do the same. That is, it was defeated with 53 people voting for it and 4X voting against. In other words, most Senators agreed that the this is the approach we should take, but by taking advantage of the filibuster, Republicans were once again able to ensure that they look out for the interests of the richest at the expense of... well, everyone else.

What fascinates me is that this is a wildly unpopular position Republicans have taken. 67% of Americans polled agree that it is time for these tax handouts for the wealthiest to end. Even 52% of REPUBLICANS agree that tax cuts on income over $250,000 should expire. It's just what makes sense - the wealthy have been the group of people least affected by the economic crisis, their incomes have been rising while everyone elses's has been stagnating, they certainly don't suffer from high unemployment, and they won't be deeply harmed by restoring them to Clinton-era tax rates under which, if you recall, they also did pretty darn well.

Billionaire Warren Buffet agrees, pointing out that,

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on,"

Indeed.

So why are Republicans so determined to offer this hand out to the people who need it most, at the same time they are trying to deny unemployment insurance to the people who need it a lot?

Well 2 reasons, I guess. 1) They really, really love millionaires. I mean, a lot. Way more than they like the rest of us. They just love them. That's why they're Republicans after all. Duh. But also 2) they calculate that any political failure for the Democrats and the President is good for them. And they may be right.

But I'm really hoping that the American people will see that a bunch of people who would fight tooth and nail to help the few who are least in need and will fight equally hard to avoid helping the many who are in need is not a party that's got the interests of the country at heart.

Wikileaks: All I have to say on the subject...

Is that the current set of leaked documents do not unveil any government wrongdoing that requires public exposure to be redressed. What they do, however, is make it much harder for diplomats to actually do the difficult work of preventing wars and easing international tensions. Our diplomatic corps are heroes, in my eyes. And whilst it is certainly very interesting to know that China - for instance - might be open to allowing the reuinification of North and South Korea, it is also deeply saddening to realise that the exposure of these views now makes it far less likely that any deal could be struck to make this happen. The prospect of peacefully defusing some of the threat from one of the world's most deadly nuclear aspirants strikes me as a compelling public interest and a great example of the kind of thing that diplomacy can do as long as it remains in the category of a closely held secret.

So I do not agree with Julian Assanage's simple-minded "More transparency always makes the world better," viewpoint. Some things worth doing can only be done in secret, and he has done no one in the world any favours by making that work impossible. Alas.

That does not mean I'm against transparency - or that all leaks are bad. If there is criminal or unethical activity it shoudl be exposed, and if public servants are wasteful or ineffective that should be known. But these documents seem to show nothing but US diplomats doing effective and difficult work and providing honest, candid advice. A shame that such advice will be virtually impossible to draft in future.

I'm Thankful for the Tea Party. Seriously.

I never feel more American than I do on the few days following Thanksgiving - here I sit, stuffed full of turkey sandwiches and leftover pie, I've had two Thanksgiving dinners this weekend, one hosted by arne and I right here at home and one - the traditional deep fried turkey and champagne festival - with some friends in Hampstead Garden Suburb. I've started a little bit of online Christmas shopping, and the cats are huddling close to me for warmth.

All is, more or less, well. And despite the setbacks and disappointments for Democrats in the midterm elections, I remain genuinely hopeful and optimistic about America. So although I have a long list of things to be thankful for personally (good friends and family, an interesting job, a husband who puts up with my quirks, the aforementioned cats...) I wanted to take a moment to mention some of the things I am thankful for as a Democrat - and as an American.


1) I'm Thankful for the Perfectibility of America: Obama in his famous speech on race in Philadelphia spoke thoughtfully of the nation as something that is not yet perfect, but is on a never ending journey to becoming more perfect. Not every step on that journey is a step forward, and sometimes it must feel like we've gone backwards as much as we've gone forward, but I think that view is short sighted. Read the biography of any man or woman of my parents' generation and you can't help but be struck by how far the country has moved in their lifetime. From a place where the simple notion that a black man might be allowed to cast his ballot in a state like North Carolina to a place where a black man can win the state in a Presidential election. From a place where gay men and women could literally be arrested just for existing to a place where federal workers enjoy job benefits for their same sex partners and it is legal for them to marry in 5 states plus the District of Columbia. From a place where the majority of senior citizens lived in poverty to a place where - almost none do.

2) I'm Thankful that the Tea Party is a Non-Violent Political Movement: I believe that most of the so-called Tea Party activists who have been getting so much attention in recent months are catastrophically wrong both on the facts and on the philosophy of politics. But I don't begrudge them their right to organise politically on behalf of their ideas (however wrong they may be) and in fact I am extremely grateful to them for expressing their opposition to the President and to the Democratic Party policy almost entirely through peaceful and non-violent political organisation. This may seem like something unworthy of praise, but it was within my adult lifetime that I can remember extremist right wing fanatics urging citizens to take arms against their own government as part of the so-called "Milita Movement", apparently mobilised by Bill Clinton's ascent to the Presidency. And, of course, for generations before that there was often some version of an extreme political movement that would go beyond political anger, and stir up some of the bloody kind - activists of both the right and the left. Think not only of the Ku Klux Klan, but also of the Weather Underground. Right wing populist rabble rousing has a long and shameful history in the US, going back to the radio rantings of Father Coughlin in the 1930's.

He drew 40 million listeners in the early thirties to his Sunday afternoon program, double the 20 million that Rush Limbaugh has claimed for his audience. But he didn’t just talk; he urged action — illegal and terrifying. By1938, increasingly unhinged and openly anti-Semitic, Coughlin was using his radio pulpit and his 200,000-circulation newspaper, Social Justice, to advocate for the creation of a violent hate group, the Christian Front. The group soon boasted members numbering in the thousands throughout the cities of Northeast. It has largely been forgotten that Coughlin’s “platoons,” as he called them, were responsible for a months-long campaign of low-level mayhem in New York City: They attacked Jews with fists and sometimes knives. They boycotted Jewish-owned businesses (guided by a “Christian index” of shopkeepers) and sometimes smashed their windows in the German fashion. This ugly episode culminated when 17 Coughlinites were arrested by the FBI in January 1940 and charged with planning acts of terrorism against Jewish individuals and institutions (and those deemed their allies).

3) I'm thankful for the It Gets Better Project: Which not only is doing something useful and constructive to help young gay men and women who are do devoid of hope that they might consider suicide, but has also inspired contributions from the highest levels, from President Obama himself, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and even from the Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron. Some might say that these contributions from leaders are purely symbolic, and it's true that no leader should be exempt from doing the right thing just because they are willing to say the right thing. But symbolism in this case is no small thing - for a young person who is on the point of taking their own life because they believe themselves utterly alone in the world to know that the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Britain is on their side and against the bullies who are attacking them is a very big deal. Sometime symbols actually do make a difference in the world.

4) I'm thankful for the excellence of our federal law enforcement services: They have by undying gratitude today for catching the 19 year old would-be bomber who was, chillingly, determined to blow up the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, OR. I'm trebly grateful in this case because my Mom and her husband live just outside of Portland so this feels very close to home. However, the FBI was constantly in control of the situation, and gave the man a fake phone number that he thought would detonate the bomb. In a win-win scenario, we have not only stopped this man from perpetrating a terrible crime, but we have done so in a way that ensures he can be clearly and quickly prosecuted for his crime. Praise to the calm, decisive and effective work of the FBI in this case and in the many other instances we will probably never hear about in which they are quietly keeping us safe.

5) And finally, I'm Thankful for Health Care Reform: A year ago at this time, I was hopeful about the prospects of passage, but things were still up in the air, and it got scarier. In the end, as much through sheer bloody minded stubbornness as for any other reason, we passed the first ever comprehensive reform of the US Health Care system, guaranteeing a right to coverage for every US citizen. And, in timely fashion, part of the promise is being fulfilled now - as of this week, insurers will be required to spend at least 80 cents of every health care dollar that they take in on delivering actual health care.

And if anyone out there is reading this - I'm thankful for that too! Would love to hear your own "I'm thankful fors" in comments.