Gadflies and Choristers: An Open Letter to Andrew Sullivan

Dear Andrew,

I was thrilled to have the chance to meet you this week, at fundraisers for Immigration Equality (a fantastic organisation, by the way, doing brave and necessary work to overturn cruel and dehumanising immigration restrictions against gay and lesbian families). I was especially looking forward to meeting you because, as I mentioned, I've been a daily reader and fan of your blog for over 10 years now - since before you blogged for the Beast, or the Atlantic, or Time. Since back in the days when you were publishing in white text on a blue background (why did you do that?).

And I return to your blog compulsively each day not because I agree with everything you say but because you are the conservative writer I most respect. I admire the unflinching way in which you present opposing points of view - even those that are sometimes harshly critical of you, and I admire the intellectual honesty with which you acknowledge that you sometimes make mistakes. I also know that you command a huge and diverse audience - which became very clear when you linked to my Sarah Palin post and 20K of your followers clicked over to read it.

So by the time we met, I'd been following the twists and turns of your thought for a very long time, and I know where you're coming from. You're a gadfly. You don't want to be inside anybody's tent, you are not a joiner, you treasure your independence and I suspect (in classic Oxford debating tradition) you relish a good fight.

And when we met, and I introduced myself as representing Democrats Abroad you weren't telling me anything I didn't already know by declaring that you were not a Democrat. I was a little taken aback, though, when you said that you "don't like Democrats much."

Andrew, you endorsed John Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008. You've written beautifully about why you continue to support the President, and you've been rightly appalled by the turn towards theocratic extremism and away from reality-based policy making that the Republican party has taken in recent years. Almost every Democrat I know reads you and respects you. And you clearly like and respect a lot of Democrats.

It's not true that you "don't like Democrats." I reject the premise. I think what is true, and what you probably meant, is that you don't like Democratic fellow travellers. I know you have distaste for what you perceive as interest group politics. I know you blame Clinton for caving on many issues that he should have stood up for.

However, I should note that since our meeting I have looked into this issue, and I think you are wrong to say that Bill Clinton imposed the ban on immigration for people who are HIV positive - my research says the ban was imposed in 1987 and that Clinton PROMISED TO REPEAL IT but failed, due to opposition from Conservatives in Congress. Similarly, Clinton promised to overturn the ban on gays serving in the military but again wound up giving in due to pressure from the right and instituted the (in some ways even worse) "compromise" of Don't Ask Don't Tell. So, you're not a Clinton fan. I get that. But to blame "Democrats" for failing to live up to a promise you wanted us to keep without reserving greater loathing for the folks on the other side who are fighting tooth and nail to do the opposite of what you want seems perverse to me.

No, not perverse. It seems gadfly-like. You described yourself to me at dinner as an "ornery journalist". Bless you for it. I'm glad you are! We need folks who are naturally uncomfortable with feeling comfortable. I love people who have an instinct to pick holes in their own side, to challenge even (or especially) their closest friends, and to prefer the good fight to the quiet life. I love them so much I'm married to one.

But I want to make a cautious, limited and tenuous plea on behalf of those of us aren't gadflies by nature. Because, in a world populated by gadflies we'd achieve nothing but the sting. And for me, the kind of intellectual honesty that gadflies enable is useful as a TOOL to help us improve our ability to do something specific. I care about politics because I think we need to change the way things work. I want to defend my country and my world from the prejudice and bigotry, create more opportunities for more people, reduce poverty, improve education and access to education, create a healthier nation at a lower cost... I want to play some small part, however insignificant, in DOING STUFF. And very often the best way of doing that is to find a coaliton of other people who agree with you about the direction you want to move in, put aside your points of difference with those folks, put your shoulder to the wheel and start grafting. For me, that coalition is the Democratic Party.

Sometimes, it's better to sing with the choir than to shout from the back.

The choir metaphor is very close to what I mean, actually - a choir or people who all have their own voices can create, together something new and amazing that none of them could have done on their own. I might want to sing "I Heard it Through the Grapevine" as a bluesy number. You might want to reinvent it as a rock ballad. And that guy over there might want to sing it at half speed to bring out the sorrow of the lyrics. But if we all agree we want to sing the song, and we are willing to let a choirmaster direct us in the arrangement, we can sing a song that's different than how any of us would have done it, but satisfying to all of us.

When it comes to politics, people think this means selling out or giving up your principles, but I don't accept that. Every member of the choir does have their own voice, and the variation of those voices does matter. But by harmonising with others you can be heard by more people, and sound better.

I would never support a policy that I didn't believe in just because the Party asks me to. Nor would I keep silent about something I cared about because the Party wanted me to. But if the song we are singing today is "Let's create affordable accessible healthcare", I'm happy to chime in on the beat. I'm not going to stand at the back shouting, "I'd also like to legalise marijuana." Though I do. Nor am I going to arbitrarily shout "prison reform is badly needed" into the chorus. Though it is.

I look around at my fellow Democrats Abroad, and we are working very hard indeed to register overseas US voters and get them to the polls. It's hard work. It's not glamorous. It's often frustrating and rarely wins us fame, or glory. I honestly believe that for every person that we register, for every new voter we reach, we are a tiny little bit closer to building, over the long term, a country that is a little better.

But I also believe our presence in the choir changes the choir. Changes the Party. Hopefully for the better. To give you just one example that should be meaningful to you, Democrats Abroad are a tiny state chapter within the Democratic Party. But we are a tiny state chapter that is nearly universally in support of immigration equality for our many members. Our voices on this subject are loud and clear. And increasingly our fellow Democrats are in harmony with this.

We need both gadflies and choristers. In fact, I think we should all aim to be a little bit of both.

Again, it was great meeting you in London. And thanks again for over a decade of being an essential, infuriating, enlightening, astonishing, inspiring and challenging daily read.

Very best wishes,

Karin

More Great Protest Signs! Occupy Wall Street People Can Spell and do Math!

These two are making exactly the case I made in yesterday's blog, but with cardboard instead of pixels. Yay for cardboard.

This one is accurately describing some of the reprehensible behaviour of the financial markets that the rest of us are still paying for:

This one combines a subtle Harry Potter reference with Paul Krugman fandom and a bit of economic theory for the complete nerdly package.

Thanks to Ezra Klein (and to his commenters) for the slideshow and additional links. I totally heart you guys. You are like the Justin Bieber to my 13 year old girl's heart.

Or something.

UPDATE: And don't miss this wonderful post by the man who originally wrote the the words in sign three, then accidentally discovered that someone had made them a sign. Sweet.

Best Protest Sign Ever?

I have to agree with Matthew Yglesias: This is a huge step forward in protest sign communications...

Basically, this conveys the key point - for the overwhelming majority of Americans, the income growth that was enjoyed by earlier generations has not been a reality in our adult lifetimes. Wages have actually been stagnant for most Americans, which underplays the problem because the cost of essential things like housing and (most notably) health care have gone up drastically.

It's a reality that families have coped with as best they could for decades now - and because many of us now live in 2 income families instead of relying on a sole (male) breadwinner, because we have relied extensively on formerly cheap and easy to access credit, and because we've been willing to work harder and longer hours than ever before, the average American has just about gotten by.

Until the bottom fell out of the economy a few years ago, unemployment levelled off at over 9 percent and government gridlock put us in a position where we couldn't do anything about it.

But there is another story of America, as represented by that sign. A story of wealthy people who became insanely rich. Money that begat money that begat money forever and ever amen.

And a lot of these people - the wealthy 1% who spiralled into stratospheric income growth - are decent people who did good things. Many of them are people like the late lamented Steve Jobs or the affable Warren Buffet who got rich because they were smart and visionary and knew how to turn their smarts and vision into something useful or interesting (another bunch of them got rich by legally but unethically cheating the financial system - but for the sake of this argument, let's leave those out of this discussion as they are not relevant to the point I am making here).

The problem is not that some people are wealthy. The rising tide has not lifted all boats - the ratio between the  workers who labor in companies and the CEOs who lead them is not only higher than it's ever been in America - it's higher than it is anywhere else in the world.

Look hard at that chart above. Now think about the people in question.

Let's take a specific example: the CEO of a major Japanese car company. Let's say Toyota.

The Toyota corporation has over 317K employees. Last year it produced 7.3Million cars and generated $236Billion in revenue.

The President of Toyota is Akio Toyoda. He earns the equivalent of $1.7Million per year, not including stock options.

Now let's compare him to the CEO of a major US car maker. Let's steer clear of all companies that were recently rescued by government dollars and choose Ford, the only one that was profitable without federal intervention.*

Ford has 164K employees, about half what Toyota has.  Last year it generated about $129Billion in revenue - again, roughly half of Toyota's.

The President of Ford is called Alan Mulally. Last year he made $17.9Million dollars.

That's astonishing. (I had to research these numbers, by the way - they are worse than I thought...

Let's put that into a table, actually:

The American CEO earned ten times the salary for running a company about half as big. How does that make any sense at all?

Now, Ford would probably argue that they need to pay top dollar to get the best people. And there's some truth in that. (Mind you, sometimes companies also pay top dollar to get mediocre-at-best people...) The economic arms race at the very top levels has led to a kind of ever increasing mine-is-bigger-than yours cycle of insanity.

But I find it hard to image that there isn't someone out there who could run Ford Motor Company very well indeed for the knock down price of a mere $1.7M  per year. For $1.7 million a year you can send your children to the best schools, you can live in the most lavish home(s), you can eat out ever night if you want at the finest restaurants - you are rich.

And I can't help but think that if they DIDN'T need to spend that extra $10Million per year on making their already-very-rich CEO opulant-to-the-point-of-insanity rich instead, maybe they could have used that money in some other way that would be useful.

They could raise their workers wages, of course.

But they could also take that cash and pay a dividend to shareholders if they wanted - many of whom are just a different set of insanely wealthy folks, but many more of whom are smaller investors or 401K holders who could take that money and invest it in their own businesses (putting people to work), or upgrade their home (putting consturciton workers to work) or buy consumer goods (putting people who make them to work).

Or, they could take that $10M and invest it in more equipment, putting the manufacturers of that equipment to work.

Or, they could use it to hire more people directly. Or design a new car that will finally be better, cheaper and more fuel efficient than the ones Toyota produces, so that maybe someday it will be Ford that is twice the size of Toyota - putting some Japanese workers out of work. (Oops, sorry.)

Basically, they could do almost anything with that money other than let it sit in the bank account of  Alan Mulally, where it sits there earning interest and turning into even more money (all of which is taxed at a very low rate as capital gains).

But they can't. Because they think if they don't pay Alan Mulally $17.9M per year, they won't be able to find anyone good enough to do the job. They have their backs up against a wall - this is what CEOs expect to earn in America and they want to be company that hires the best CEOs available.

What can be done? Well, the government can take that decision out of their hands. If we increased the upper rate of taxation, one of two things would happen. Either:

1. CEO's would stop expecting or demanding insanely high salaries, freeing the companies to spend that money on something else. Or:
2. They would actually pay that money in taxes, leaving the government free to spend that money on something else. Like educating future workers for Ford. Or funding scientific research that can later be used to benefit Ford. Or building a highway on which the cars that Ford produces can drive. Or, if God forbid it should ever become necessary, bailing out the car industry yet again to keep Ford in business.*

The people who have taken to the streets in the Occupy Wall Street Protests in America are making a fair, important and too often ignored point: Income inequality in America is terribly out of control and it is hurting us all. 

* By the way, the bailout of GM and Chrysler that took place 2 years ago almost certainly also wound up saving Ford as well. Not to mention the $5.9M government loan they took at that time to help shore up the industry. If you don't believe me, believe Forbes. 

Will Elizabeth Warren be the Next Senator...

for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? After seeing this video, I'm REALLY hoping she will.



Superb. I've got chills.

Be afraid, Scott Brown. Be very afraid.

DADT ends today...

The US Military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy - under which gay men and women were allowed to serve, as long as they were duplicitous and secretive about their personal lives, has finally come to an official end today.

I blogged on the Huffington Post and article in which I interviewed a gay former US Airman (and friend) who was discharged a decade ago under the policy.

"We walked down to the Colonel's office. I knocked. I had to salute, and then he read me my discharge orders. I didn't say anything at all."

Woltkamp's Colonel told him that he had the right to an attorney, and that they would help him find one. But he was informed that he had to sign away all other rights to representation. He was presented then and there with a paper to sign.

"I don't know why, I just signed the waiver. I thought I had to..."

Read the full article here.

Not a Hypothetical Question

During the last GOP debate, there was a chilling moment when Wolf Blitzer asked candidate Rob Paul whether a hypothetical man without health insurance should be allowed to die. Someone from the audience shouted "yeah" and the audience applauded. Paul stumbled and was unable to answer.

But when we talk about whether people without health insurance should live or die, whether we should let them die, that's not a hypothetical question. It's very real, and very painful and actually applies to people here and now. People like Steve:



Our current law says that if someone shows up at an emergency room in need of urgent care, it is illegal to turn them away - whether they can pay or not. But what if they need chomotherapy for cancer? Or what if their diabetic? What if they're HIV positive - and there are expensive but effective drugs that could keep them alive.

The GOP answer is that the person should take personal responsibility for their health. But that's precisely what the Affordable Care Act calls for - it insists that if you can afford health care, you must purchase it so that your medical casts won't be an undue burden on your fellow taxpayers if (when) you need it. It says to insurance companies that they must offer insurance policies to everyone - whether they have a pre-existing condition or not. And it says to those who can't otherwise afford coverage, that the rest of us will chip in a little bit in the form of health subsidies to give you the insurance you need so that you can get preventative care and early treatment that you need to stop your health from deterioriating so that the cost to us, the taxpayers, of saving your life is as low as possible.

But in the end it says: No. You should not be allowed to die. It says, America is a country where easily preventable deaths should not take place because we simply turned our back on the suffering. It says we're all better off if we know that health care is not a luxury for the wealthy. It says that because every single one of us is at risk of losing our job, our savings and our health, we want to take some measure to protect ourselves from the consequences if that happens.

That's reasonable, it compassionate, it's economically sound. That's the Democratic policy. It's my policy.

What's yours? Ask yourself "Would you let him die?"

Jobs Growth Since Obama Inauguration

Blog stats data tells me that a number of people are finding this site through a search for "Jobs Growth Since Obama Inauguration". That's a good thing to be searching for (both Google-wise and, you know, as a thing to want...)! Let me make that just a little bit easier for you - here's a chart that shows US jobs gained or lost through July this year:




A few points to note:

• This chart is missing a month of data - in August, the Economy gained zero jobs as a whole. To be more exact: Number of private sector jobs gained in August, 17,000. Number of public sector jobs lost in August: 17,00.
• Even if the public sector had not shed those jobs - the private job growth would not be enough to keep up with the increase in population, let alone recover from the jobs lost during the recession.
• It is in this background that President Obama has called on Congress to urgently pass the American Jobs Act. Sitting around and waiting isn't going to create those jobs. Here's a few things that will: 
• Cutting the payroll tax cut in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.
• A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).
• A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.
• Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
• Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
• Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.
• A New “Project Rebuild”, which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations.
• Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation’s spectrum.
• A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
• Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
• Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.
• Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.
• Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket.Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandy says that the American Jobs Act will create about 1.9 Million jobs and 2% growth for the economy.
• Source: White House Fact Sheet

The White House has published loads of helpful information about how the American Jobs Act will work. For instance:

• Here you can find out what impact it would have in each state, if passed.
• Here you can find a list of Twitter office hours, when administration officials will take your questions about the proposals. (Today, David Plouffe! Tomorrow, Stephanie Cutter!)
• Here are responses to the Jobs Act from state and local officials.

The American Jobs Act uses a mix of ideas that have been supported by both parties over the years, and which economists think would be effective. Congress should pass it now.

And the President told them so.

A 9/11 Reader

There has been a flood of remembrances, reflections, and reporting on this 10 year anniversary of The Events. I've been pretty selective about the things I chose to read or watch - there's only so much mourning a person can do. But a few things stood out as unmissable - I pass them along to you:

• The Washington Post reports on the 2 F-16 pilots who were scrambled to take down United Flight 93. The only problem was, they had no artillery or missiles. The plan, therefore, was to ram that plane with their own. 
• The Boston Globe reports on the workers at Logan airport in Boston who, on that morning just like every morning before, checked in their passengers with a smile. A decade later they're still reeling from the shock and guilt. How would you feel to know you'd helpfully checked in four hijackers? That because you called in sick someone died in your place? That because you handed over Mohammed Atta's luggage to the FBI you might be on an Al Qaeda target list. Riveting and disturbing.  
• The edition of The Onion that was published 2 weeks after the attack (one week after they published nothing. Nothing was funny for the first week, so that's what they published) remains the most cathartic funny-because-it's-true laugh-out-loud-to-release-the-tension thing I've ever read. I remember the photograph of a woman with a cake labelled, "unsure what else to do, woman bakes American flag cake." But the article, "God Angrily Clarifies Do Not Kill Rule" bears ample rereading. Make sure you read through the final two words.

If you want my thoughts on the anniversary, have a look at either:

• Yesterday's post: Everything I Need to Know About 9/11 I Learned at the Last Night of the Proms  
• My 2009 anniversary post: 9/11/09

Stay safe. Be well. 

Everything I Need to Know About 9/11 I Learned at the Last Night of the Proms

I am sitting here tonight watching the Last Night of the Proms - a great, if bizarre British tradition, and I am relishing the absurd costumes of the punters, the buzz in the hall. I remember that 10 years ago this event, formerly as imperterbable as the seasons, was overcome with a mood of sobriety. Instead of noisemakers, St. Andrews flags and the Fantasia on Sea Chanties, they gave us a program of slow and sombre reflection. Beautiful, stirring, mournful and utterly, utterly heartbreaking.



It couldn't have been further from the "posh people go wild" nonsense of the usual Last Night tradition, but we were only a week out from the watching the twin towers fall, and even here - even in London - we didn't know if we would ever laugh again.

I'm glad to report that we are. The singer currently performing "And This is My Beloved" is wearing more mascara than Dolly Parton gets through in an entire world tour. One man at the front of the Royal Albert Hall is wearing a lei composed of orange carnations, and someone has just blown a kazoo.

The fact that rich people in the West can shout along to classical music doesn't mean we have defeated international terrorism. Or that we will forget the lives lost - over three thousand on September 11th. Thousands more since then in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But at this moment, hours from the exact 10 year anniverary of the attack, as I watch Britons bouncing up and down in tune, wearing absurd waistcoats... with Osama Bin Laden unceremoniously slain and dumped into the sea after a decade hiding out with his pathetically predictable porn collection, I watch the prommers and I tell his ghost this:

We win. You lose.

And now the Chinese virtuoso pianist Lang Lang is playing Chopin's Grand Polonaise. His fingers are flying faster than the eye can see. The woman in the audience holding the yellow balloon animal is suddenly still and intently listening. Lang Lang's bright pink carnation is slightly askew on his chest. His final, solitary note rings out and the audience holds its breath for three long seconds before they applaud. Rapturously.

Because a young man can travel from his home in Communist China and exercise his talent with dignity in the midst of chaos. That's why we've won. That's why you've lost.

Later on, a soloist appears wearing an illuminated Viking costume bedecked with a rose on her shield, daffodil on her chest, and giant thistles and shamrocks on her headgear.

Because we can combine the ridiculous and the sublime. Because we allow for joy and sorrow and silliness and solemnity and patriotism with a healthy dose of scepticism, and because all of this can happen in the same evening.

That's why we've won. That's why you've lost.

Somewhere in London right now, a blogger is no doubt writing that the Proms are a decadent display of upper class privilege. But an event where millions sing Climb Every Mountain in swaying unison (a display which made me actually physically cringe) isn't upper class anything, it's as close to mass popular culture as we get these days.

I'm a believer in pop culture. Trash has redeeming social value. I remember as a pre-teen watching Labyrinth - as cheesy a fantasy film as you'll ever see - as raven haired Jennifer Connolly tells flame haired David Bowie in her moment of realisation that, "You have no power over me." And with those words she is free.

Pop culture tells truths.

This weekend I am supposed to be reflecting upon where I was 10 years ago. I'm supposed to be feeling the pain again that I felt as I huddled with colleagues around the grainy television to watch the towers come down. I'm supposed to relive the fear as I waited, one by one for my loved ones to check in, counted my friends in DC and New York, wondered if we were at war.

Instead, I choose to watch as a man in a sparkly purple bowler hat bounces along to Auld Lang Syne, arms linked.

On September 11, 2001 a pathetic group of misfits inflicted damage beyond their wildest dreams. And in the years that followed, we chased them down the rabbit hole, doing ourselves even more damage than they could do on that terrible day.

But the worst they could do didn't damage our economy even a fraction as much as the actions of a handful of our own  bankers and financiers. The President they attacked served out 2 hapless terms and was replaced by the son of an African ex-Muslim immigrant, who took down Bin Laden in a meeting sandwiched somewhere between solving the debt crisis and having dinner with a gay Congressman. The jihadist fantasy that they could by violence do anything that would wipe the grins off our absurd faces turned out to be just that. Absurd. Fantastical.

Which is not to say that the Arab world might not someday supplant the West. Life is long, and the world turns, and America will not always be a global superpower. It may be that an Arab nation will someday threaten the USA for economic and political supremacy - but if so it will not be because of any plan hatched in a secluded complex in Pakistan, but in the streets of Cairo, and Tripoli, and Damascus.

Because 10 years on from the greatest so-called triumph of the cult-of-death fanaticism that falsely claimed to represent the people of the Arab world - the actual people of the Arab world have stood up to their long-serving masters and demanded, in their own names, the right to be heard.

We don't know what the final outcome of the Arab Spring will be, but we do know that the people of these nations now have an opportunity - an opportunity that violent jihadism never gave them - to make their own fate.

I hope that someday they too will be able to gather together in a September night and sing patriotic songs, badly. I hope that they will be able to wear silly hats, and laugh and bounce, and take their freedoms for granted.

And I turn to the ghost of Osama Bin Laden and laugh in his face.

And I say, "You have no power over me." And with those words we are free.

Does Michele Bachmann Think Slavery Was A Good, Christian Thing?

Now that Michele Bachman has won the Iowa Straw Poll and is officially a credible candidate for the nomination of the Republican party, I sincerely hope that someone will follow up on on the outstanding reporting done in the New Yorker digging into her intellectual background. For instance, in view of this:

While looking over Bachmann’s State Senate campaign Web site, I stumbled upon a list of book recommendations. The third book on the list, which appeared just before the Declaration of Independence and George Washington’s Farewell Address, is a 1997 biography of Robert E. Lee by J. Steven Wilkins.

Wilkins is the leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North. This revisionist take on the Civil War, known as the “theological war” thesis, had little resonance outside a small group of Southern historians until the mid-twentieth century, when Rushdoony and others began to popularize it in evangelical circles. In the book, Wilkins condemns “the radical abolitionists of New England” and writes that “most southerners strove to treat their slaves with respect and provide them with a sufficiency of goods for a comfortable, though—by modern standards—spare existence.”

African slaves brought to America, he argues, were essentially lucky: “Africa, like any other pagan country, was permeated by the cruelty and barbarism typical of unbelieving cultures.” Echoing Eidsmoe, Wilkins also approvingly cites Lee’s insistence that abolition could not come until “the sanctifying effects of Christianity” had time “to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom.”

In his chapter on race relations in the antebellum South, Wilkins writes:
"Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.
For several years, the book, which Bachmann’s campaign declined to discuss with me, was listed on her Web site, under the heading “Michele’s Must Read List.”

This is clearly appalling. But the point here is not to just read that and say, I'm shocked, SHOCKED. The point is that this is so outside of the mainstream, so beyond what most people think is a reasonable interpretation of slavery and the Civil War era, that it requires an explanation before Bachmann should be heard on any other issues. So here are the questions I would like someone in the media to ask Michele before they give her a platform to expound on any of her other vaguely deranged talking points.

1) Does she agree with Wilkins that slavery was a largely benign, Christian institution? If not, what about his historical theories does she find so appealing?

2) Does she think that africans sold into slavery were fortunate to find themselves in this situation, as it afforded them a chance to convert to Christianity?

3) Does she agree that abolition could not have been brought to the deep south sooner because the slaves themselves had not yet been prepared by Christianity for the demands of freedom?

4) If no to all of the above, how WOULD she describe the institution of slavery? Can she understand what in Wilkins views would be considered offensive by African Americans?

5) How influential was this person, and the other extremist philosophers cited in the article, to her own intellectual development? She has hinted that they were very important to her, can she explain in detail how?

Obama answered similar questions about his own religious influences. If Michele Bachmann wants to be a mainstream candidate, she needs to explain, defend, or refute her extreme influences. And the media needs to ask her.

(PS: On a side note, can I say how much it pleases me that some of the most informative research done for the New Yorker Article was simple old fashioned desk based research? The reporter read her website, then he looked up the references - how about that? We used to call that reporting.)

Anti-Social Behaviour...

Greetings from London, my blog friends. While I've been on an extended blog holiday I realise that many of you will have been following the news and will be as shocked as I am by the mindless destruction that has risen it's ugly head in our society.

I have heard many say that this behaviour should be put into context, that it reflects a sincere, if misguided, objection to the societal status quo in which they feel that their voice has not been heard.

I say bollocks to all that. The destruction that these people have sown has caused immeasurable harm to the people within their own communities - hard working people who deserve better. Can we excuse this by saying that there were cultural factors at work here? Well, certainly these men and women have been influenced by a pernicious and dangerous culture, one that has quietly insinuated itself into our world over the past decades, but which seems to have found it's culmination in this terrible summer.

I am referring, of course, to Congressional Republicans and their appalling willingness to take America and the global economy to the very brink of economic calamity. The damage they've done, which resulted directly in the Standard and Poors downgrading America's credit, will take years to recover from.

As the President said in his weekly address, "while there's nothing wrong with out country, there IS something wrong with our politics."



Oh, did you think I was talking about the London rioters? Well, their behaviour is equally repellant and inexcusable. Fortunately, London - this amazing city in which I am so proud to live - has immediately come together to put this problem right. We've seen spontaneous community cleanups organised within hours - we've seen floods of people coming together to help. And we've seen the entire community state its determination not to allow these thugs to pretend that the represent us.

We should take the same approach with the thugs who came so close to tearing down our global economy once and for all.

Not in my name.

Scenes From My Saturday - Guitar and Government

Every Saturday morning, a nice Swedish man comes to my house and tries to teach me to play the guitar. I say "tries" because I'm a bit old to learn, and my fingers are clumsy and I don't have a great natural sense of rhythm. But he's patient and we do the best we can.

Today, as he was getting his guitar out of the case and while I was making him a cup of tea, he asked me out of the blue, "So how's Barack Obama doing?"

Me: Oh... Pretty well I think. I mean, the economy isn't as good as we'd like. So he's got a lot of work to do there. But then, the Republicans are doing worse. 

Him: Oh really? 

Me: Yes, well you see they don't really have a plan to make the economy any better. All the things they want to do would just make it worse.

Him: Yes, it's always very easy for the opposition to say "it should be this way" because they don't have to do anything." 

Me: Well, that's the interesting thing. You see, in the last congressional election REpublicans actually took control of the House of Representatives. So they have started actually passing all these really unpopular bills. But they don't become law. Because they don't control the Senate of the Presidency.

Him: [Confused look.] 

Me: Ok, basically, Republicans control the House of Representatives. But not the Senate. And Democrats control the presidency. But not the Supreme Court. So Republicans have been using their majority in the House to pass lots of really unpopular bills. Like eliminating Medicare - that's the government programme for health care aimed at the elderly.

Him: But didn't Barack Obama recently pass a bill that does the opposite? 

Me: Yes, Obama's health care bill last year offered health care for all through a combination of private and public sector providers. Republicans want to do the opposite, and that's becoming more and more clear to the voters.

Him: It sounds like the people who created the US Government were very clever. It's not good to have the same Party in control of everything. 

Me: Yes, it's called the Separation of Powers. The President has to have his nominees confirmed by Congress. Congress can't pass laws without the President's signature. The Courts can rule Congresses laws unconstitutional, but the judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  

Him: It must make things very stable.  

Me: Well, yes. But it's better if you are happy about the status quo. If you want change, it makes that really hard to achieve.  

Him: Yes, I suppose things could easily get... constipated.  

Me: Yes. Constipated is a good word for it.

Being the Media: A Cautionary Tale

As the 2012 Presidential election very slowly starts to ramp up, with the shape of the Republican field now starting to chrystalise (Pawlenty, Romney, Santorum - IN. Donald Trump - OUT.) the media is starting to make judgements about who they will choose to cover. Early media attention to a fledgling primary campaign is like gold, and a lot of the candidates have relatively low name recognition. So the decision the media takes about who to focus mainstream television coverage on in these early races can be very influential in setting the stage for the race.

So it's worth pointing out that while former Republican Governor Mitt Romney was announcing his candidacy for office, to respectable and appropriately fact-checked coverage, much of the media was spending their time doing this:

As they left the clambake she attended Thursday in New Hampshire, Palin’s two-SUV caravan traveled at 52 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone as it peeled away from the hosts’ neighborhood. Both cars blew through a stop sign about a mile later. They did 70 mph in a 55 mph zone on I-95 — and then, after they got off, without signaling, flew right past a flashing sign informing them they were going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone...

On Tuesday, the bus nearly hit a biker turning off of Pine Street in Philadelphia.
On Wednesday, after a police escort led the bus through a closed section of the Lincoln Tunnel, the bus ran at least two red lights racing up Sixth Avenue and through Columbus Circle in Midtown Manhattan. Before long, a cop pulled up, pointing out to the first reporter trailing the bus how many lights they were running. The reporter apologized — but begged to stick with the bus. The perplexed cop let him go. 

On Thursday, the story was much the same. Palin’s two SUVs — used for minor events and tight spaces — braved the tiny, winding streets of Boston’s North End. And when the bus joined them, the trailing car in the entourage ran two red lights after the bus barely made it through the yellow, as did the media caravan, leaving behind a traffic jam for the locals. 

The reporters who are speeding, tailgating, cutting off other cars, blasting through roundabouts and passing on the right in an effort to keep up, say they have no other choice since they never know what Palin’s up to or where she’s headed — and aides typically won’t tell them anything. Once they’re on the road, they’re filing urgent updates by phone and figuring out unorthodox bathroom breaks, like the reporter who pulled over to relieve himself on the side of the highway going from Gettysburg, Pa., to Philadelphia — drawing notice from both Palin aides and the rest of the trailing press.

The reporters say they, "have no other choice". I can think of at least one other choice they could make. Hypothetically, they could not cover Sarah Palin's family holiday. 


Bear in mind, unlike Romney, Sarah Palin is not a Presidential candidate at this point. She's a reality TV star, former half term governor and Fox News commentator. And she refuses to release details of her bus tour to reporters - that's fine. She's not making speeches to define policy on important issues, she's not meeting with party leaders, she's not even spending time talking to voters and constituents about the issues. She's just driving around, visiting tourist attractions and occassionally mangling American history. 



But the media just eats this stuff up like candy.

And you know, I think I understand why. Time for an embarrassing personal revelation.

Here are this blogs most visited posts of all time and the respective number of hits:

I've written 51 posts about Health Care reform policy, an issue very near and dear to my heart and the single most important legislative debate of the past 2 years. I've written about the Supreme Court, Gay rights, women's issues, and a lot about politics and polling in general. None of them could break into the top 10 by popularity.

In total, I've written 554 blog posts since my first post three years ago. And if you took everything ever written on this blog that ISN'T about Sarah Palin - that's 545 out of 554 posts that didn't even mention her name - and added them together, they equal collectively about a tenth of the total readership of my famous Sarah Palin Facebook page investigation. I'm not sorry I wrote that post, nor am I sorry it got a lot of attention - let me be clear about that.

But every day since then, literally hundreds of new visitors come to the blog to read that one post. It's probably the most read thing I have ever written, maybe the most read thing I will ever write. And I like being read - it's why I write. So even though I'd rather not be writing about the former Governor of Alaska, I'm dealing with this niggling temptation - I could draw people to my page with just a few disparaging references to her. It's comparatively easy. Then, I tell myself, I could weave in the things I really want to talk about - enthusiasm for the President and his policies, the case for voting Democrat. The case for voting AT ALL, especially as an American Abroad (don't forget, US citizens living overseas can vote from abroad in all federal elections - that means any election for Congress OR President).

The clicks could be mine. And I want them. I REALLY want them.

But at the end of the day, I'm just me. I don't have employees to pay, or investors to satisfy. I don't accept advertising on the blog, and I am lucky enough to be able to make a good living outside of my blogging-and-politics hobby. So the only pressures on my are internal - wanting to build a readership - and not instituational or financial.

Imagine what it's like for MSNBC. Or CNN. If they know that they can get viewers or clicks with an easy to acquire cutaway shot to Sarah Palin mangling a Paul Revere reference, and they equally know that they will have to work hard to build an audience for any coverage that investigates the reasons why, for example, the May unemployment figures took a discouraging downward turn, of course they're going to go with the Palin footage every time.

She knows this. The media knows this. And it doesn't matter what they think of each other - Palin can throw out all the "lamestream media" quips she wants, but she needs them and she knows it. Fortunately for her, though, she also knows that she'll always have them with her. Careening down the road, blowing through stop signs, and panting to stay in site of her magical mystery tour.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama's administration has been  orchestrating an almost miraculous recovery of the US Auto Industry - which after federal support at the crisis hour has now fully repaid the government investment, and is profitable for the first time since 2004.

Memorial Day

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Joseph Stalin

On this memorial day, it doesn't really feel appropriate for me to say much of anything at all - this day is about remembering the men and women who have been sent into battle in our name. Thousands of US soldiers have died overseas in the past, terrible decade. With the numbers so large, it would be easy for these men and women to be just nameless statistics. I think the very least that we can do for them is to learn some of their names and listen to some of their stories. 

So here are a few first person accounts from the widows of the fallen.

My daughter never met her father, Spc. Hoby F. Bradfield Jr. I was seven months pregnant when he was killed on July 9th 2005. I have never lied to my daughter. When she asked where he was for the first time I told her that he died and that he was in Heaven. Later when she asked what Heaven was I told her it was a place in the sky where the angels are. To this she looked up and goes I don’t see him. When I finally convinced her that she couldn’t see angels she asked where she could go to see her daddy. He is buried in Arlington and she is terrified to go there because everytime we do she hears ‘boom sounds’. So instead we look at pictures of her ‘Daddy’s stone’. The other day we were driving in the car with my niece. I overhear them talking about daddy’s (This is normally a weekly conversation). Emma looks at Kloe and says, “No Kloe, your daddy is just in Heaven with my doggie”. Kloe turns and looks at her, a light-bulb goes off and she goes “OH I KNOW, we can just go to my daddy’s stone, dig him up really really fast, I’m a good digger, and pump him back up with air. That could work!”. It was at that moment that I had to stifle a laugh and explain to her why that could not happen. Of course she doesn’t believe me, so today we will be thankful for ‘boom sounds’ so I don’t have to worry about any after school digging projects. Only from the mind of a four year old! 

Let's take a moment to remember Spc Hoby Bradfield, Junior. 

My husband, Tim, shot himself on July 26th, 2008.  We knew each other since high school; we were married for 11 months and 1 day on the day he died. He was my whole world. He is a Veteran of the Iraq War.  He was a 1/5 Marine.  He was very active in the Veteran Community in town. I miss him tremendously and I struggle every day.  

...

The death certificate says he suffered from clinical depression, and that he died from an apparent suicide, gunshot wound to the head.  His Vet Center therapists have told me that they didn’t see any red flag signs that he was suicidal, I didn’t either.  I was with him when he died. We were having a normal afternoon on the day that he died.  On July 26th we went to a wedding reception up the street from our townhouse and left early, around 9:30 PM he took a generic Ambien, which I didn’t know about until we were walking the dog and he started to stagger.  Instead of going to sleep he insisted upon walking the dog again and walking to the store to buy cigarettes, we argued about this.  He started acting unlike himself; his eyes were “funny”.  His therapists say he was probably sleep walking and sleep talking.  We think Tim was sleep walking, dreaming, not in his right mind b/c of the medication when the gun went off around 11:00 PM, he didn’t know what he was doing, or thought it wasn’t real.  Suicide or accidental self-inflicted fatal gunshot wound to the head doesn’t make me feel any more or less better about Tim being gone from my life, his family’s life his friends’ lives.

We didn't do right by you, Cpl Timothy R Nelson, USMC. I'm so sorry. 

My husband, Daniel James Johnson, was 23 years old when he was killed when an IED detonated in his vicinity. He was and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician for the United States Air Force.
...
I am not sure that I will ever be the same person I was before Dan’s death. I am not sure that I will love again with all of my heart, or that I can begin to think of a future without him in it. But I do know that I have to try. Dan would be so upset with me if he knew that I was letting this beat me. I have to survive, for him. I have to move on, for him. So I will continue on this rollercoaster ride that is my new life. I will return to work in a few short weeks and I will attempt to get my life back. Key word: attempt. 

Thank you for your service, SrA Daniel James Johnson.

I was married at 19 and widowed at age 20….not even old enough to go to the bar to get a drink. Life has been so incredibly difficult yet also rewarding, learning about my grief and cherishing the time I had with Ricky. Almost three years later I’m just now feeling like my head is above water and I can breath a little deeper.

A widow by 20. Just too much, too young. Anyway, you are not forgotten, CPL Richard Nelson.

You can read more stories from the widows of fallen soldiers here: http://www.americanwidowproject.org/

And here, Michelle Obama and Jill Biden talk about Joining Forces, a new program that they have just launched to call upon people to give service members and their families support within their communities.

Blog Housekeeping: Installing Disqus Commenting Tool

Hi all, just a quick heads up that I am making an effort to install Disqus commenting on the blog - I'm hoping this will make things a little easier for you guys and might encourage more of you to register before commenting. I know that a lot of you post anonymously just because it's easier than registering with Blogger's tool. Please let me know if this works better. Or if it works at all! Entirely possible I may permanently break my blog at this point.

Fingers crossed...

UPDATE: So the Disqus installation seems to have worked, but I now need to wait for the import of old comments to take effect. Nervously waiting to see if when the hundreds and hundreds of previously posted comments will come back. Come back comments! I miss you already...