Would The Economist endorse a socialist?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people call Barack Obama a socialist (today on two separate occasions). I'm baffled. Is rational healthcare policy socialism? Because if it is we're about the only rich industrialized country that wouldn't qualify. Does investment in energy innovation count? Is Marx's ghost whispering in Obama's ear... "educate your children so they'll be more competitive in global markets"?
Well today, that ugly socialist rag, the Economist, came out and endorsed Barack Obama. They write...

"For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence."

Click here to read the entire text.

Let’s talk about voter fraud and suppression

Mark Crispin Miller, author of “Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000–2008” was on Democracy Now! last week talking about the Republican efforts to steal yet another election. His most interesting theory is that the Republicans are setting up an excuse for Obama’s win by promoting the idea that ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is perpetrating mass voter fraud, so theoretically, if Obama wins, it will be illegitemate and can be challenged aka 2000. On the other hand, the story of the “Bradley Effect” (voters telling pollsters that they will vote for Obama, only to pull the lever for the white guy) is also being pushed in the media so if Obama loses, it can be contributed to this phenomenon, thus negating an investigation of massive voter supression. The following is a movie by Brave New Films about the attacks on ACORN.

The Moral of the Story: Don't Elect an Old Dude

Derek Waters has done a number of films in which he interviews actual historians retelling historical incidents while completely drunk. This is the story of William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States. I think you'll agree it has a message for us today.



If you liked this, you may enjoy other films in the Drunk History series.

Fixing Government: Looking Past the Next Election

You may know Lawrence Lessig's work in intellectual property issues. He's the guy behind creative commons licensing. Last year he left the media reform movement to focus on making government work better. He's involved with a new group called Change Congress. You can check them out at

http://change-congress.org/

Here's a powerpoint presentation that argues that the U.S. Congress has basically failed its constitutional mandate--consistently making bad public policy because of it's reliance on campaign contributions. It's got the usual horrible powerpointy stuff going on (bad art, excessive text, clever puns, etc.) but I find it well worth the attention investment. If you're sick of the way government is run but still unwilling to give up, throw up your hands in disgust, and hunker down into a cynical anti-social bliss, then check this out.


Safari users can see the full video here.

Colin Powell explains why he's endorsing Barack Obama

Let’s talk about poverty and under representation

The following is Merriam-Webster’s definition of Democracy:
1 a : government by the people; especially: rule of the majority. b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Now here is the definition of Oligarchy:
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes

Which defines the current U.S. system of government? Sadly (but not surprisingly) it’s the poor who fall by the wayside when a handful of corporations and pocket-lining oilmen and war profiteers make the laws. The conservative agenda has always (in my memory) been about taking away from the poor and giving to the wealthy. Taking away money by revoking entitlements or taking away power in the form of increasingly harsh offenses for non-violent offenses and voter suppression. Just today, the 6th U.S. District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld a ruling in a case brought by Republicans who argued that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s methods of verifying new voter registrations is insufficient. Voter registration information in Ohio is double checked through the Ohio DMV and Social Security records. The appeals court, in essence, said that Ohio DMV and Social Security records cannot be trusted. Things like this are going on across the country in an attempt to invalidate the voice of new and existing Democratic voters, whose candidates we know typically fight for the rights of the poor.

Another egregious tactic is the Republican effort to smear ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN is a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care, and other social issues. The organization added voter registration to their efforts in 2004 and is subsequently being accused of submitting tens of thousands of false voter registration forms and discarding forms of people who indicated they are Republican. Several investigations across the country have found these allegations, outside of a few isolated incidents with individual staff, to not be true. You also may remember David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney of New Mexico who was fired for refusing to pursue voter fraud against Democrats when his investigation showed there was no evidence to support the allegations. That's right, the investigation was of ACORN.

My advice to help those stricken by poverty in this election season is to 1) donate to your local food pantry, and 2) call your friends in battleground states and encourage them to become poll workers. I fear (and am sure) that we will again see disproportionately few voting machines in poorer voting districts and those less educated on election law being turned away for invalid reasons. Today is Blog Action Day 2008 (see link below). Take a minute to join the chorus of those who see the war against the poor and who want to turn the tide.

Let’s talk about the uninformed electorate

This video was taken outside of a Sarah Palin rally:



Sadly, this combination of vitriol/ignorance mixed with Republican voter suppression efforts may very well take the day on November 4th. Having strong opinions about the issues and voting for the candidate you believe will be the best president for the country and all of its citizens is one thing; accepting propaganda as fact, voting for a candidate based on their personality, and voting against the other candidate instead of voting for your own, is another. This uninformed electorate would be happy to vote against their own self-interest and go back to listening to their favorite pundit tell them that everything is fine while the world crumbles around them. I, for one, would be happy to see this segment of the population suffer under the burden of foreclosure, loss of civil liberties, stagnating salaries, and perpetual war. The problem is, they’re dragging the rest of us down with them. While trying to enlighten the uninformed electorate is difficult, there are baby steps we can take. For example, get familiar with www.snopes.com and help shut down the ignorant propagandistic e-mails forwarded to you by friends, or check out http://www.gregpalast.com/sbyv/ and help educate people on their voting rights. Smart voters unite!

Oh yeah, and for the reverend’s spiteful minions – BOO! Abortion!

Let’s talk about ideology

Here is my generalization of the difference between progressives and conservatives: While the conservative says, “You need to do what I believe is right, period.” the progressive says, “I’m going to do what I believe is right, you do what you believe is right, and we’ll both respect the others’ decision.” In other words, conservatives believe that one standard should be used for everyone, regardless of their needs, beliefs, or circumstances. Progressives, on the other hand, believe that everyone should have the right to live their lives as they wish. While these are, again, generalizations, I believe the record (and rhetoric) prove my theory. Let’s take perhaps the most divisive issue between the two, abortion. Conservatives believe, to varying degrees, that all women should be prevented from having abortions. Progressives believe that if you’re against abortion, fine, then don’t have one, but at the same time, don't infringe on my right to do so. The Utah legislature is another shining example. Its archaic alcohol laws, and its attempts to ban gay marriage, gay clubs in high schools, and violent video games are all decisions that limit personal choice. The fact is, time marches on and attitudes change accordingly based on scientific discovery, technological advances, and what I call the maturation of acceptance. Progressives realize this and attempt to grow and modify social mores to incorporate these transformations. Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer to drag society back to a time that, quite simply, no longer exists. And to that time of blatant and systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia - I say good riddance.

Do You Like These Odds?

This AP story appeared today on the Huffington Post. Whether you're a mathmatician or gambler those are pretty scary odds given who will be the commander-in-chief if he croaks. Please, I'm begging everyone, get out there and VOTE!