Another Case of Lies & Propaganda by Bush & Co. Not Surprising, but Why Haven't the Media Picked up on this Story Yet?

I am a fan of Bill Moyers. I appreciate anyone who adds intelligence to the dialogue and enhances knowledge. Here come Bill O'Liely and Newt Gingrich, who label Moyers as "far left" and "impressed with those who hate America"! This because Moyers interviewed Rev. Wright. Sure, those "America haters".. as compared to those who love America by foolishly sacrificing American lives--here (no universal health care) and abroad (Iraq War). And, those who use code words, such as "limited government" to mean no protection (consumer, environment, health) and no empowerment (access to opportunities, like education, etc).

The people have a right to know, even if they choose not to know. Libraries should exist even if they're not used by everyone. Same with parks. Certain things are necessary even if most people don't use them. Insurance is a thing you buy, just in case... Same with the court warrants; they're almost automatically given to law enforcement for the asking, but they're a necessary condition of accountability and of creating a record for a particular action by our government!

There's a report that shows how the Pentagon paid "policy analysts" to go on national media and promote the administration's [note: the official views, not what many generals & experts are really saying about the Iraq war] views. The mainstream media swallowed this. Remember how BushCo would feed Judith Miller of the New York Times (formerly) and others who would publicize the lies & misleading information prior to the war? And, then BushCo would say, for example, "as the NY Times reported..." Yeah, that kind of situation whereas propaganda and the media's failure to uphold professional standards [you know, seeking the truth and the facts] was repeated again. It seems that we haven't learned from past gaffes.

It's illegal for the president to intentionally mislead Congress. It's illegal for the government to secretly pay people to propagandize. Since before the invasion of Iraq, BushCo hatched a plan to mislead the country. Part of this plan was to pay for surrogates [at least 75 former military officers, now consultants to the war machine] to "amplify the message" and insert them into the mainstream media as "analysts"! The media were duped, once again. This story has come to light, but the media is not covering it! Finally, News Hour (PBS) did a segment the other day. [Watch it here]

The Iraq war could not have been sold unless for the deceit perpetrated by Bush & Co. I think we deserve better than being lied to and treated like little children. You see, that's the conservative approach: all discipline and no nurture. I'm not looking for a nanny state, because many of us are happy to be adults and take responsibility for our actions. And, we don't want to defer judgment to Big Brother. We're confident enough and can deal with a challenging crisis.

But if someone insists on collectively treating us like a child, then at least they should provide all the benefits a child should have: health care, clean air, education, protection, safe food, adequate shelter, a healthy environment (and a healthy Earth to live on), daycare, and opportunity to success. We don't need reckless parenting--those disciplinarians who are only good at abuse. Even those who feel like kids today--unsure & afraid--should rise up and emancipate themselves. They'll be better off without the bullying and the deceptions of the self-appointed guardians, because those guardians' interest lays in keeping people immature!

I don't think we need guardians, Big Brother, or a messiah, as long as we mature, interested & engaged citizens of this great country. It's time we take control of our government [throw the bums out this November] and demand to be treated with respect. After all, they work for us!

Update 4/28

Elizabeth Edwards wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times on Sunday. Here are some excerpts:

• The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.



• The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles.



• If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie "Network" but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility.

Oh, by the way, Sen. McCain's health care plan wouldn't cover her or even McCain himself! [pre-existing cancer conditions]

The Mantra of this Imperial Presidency: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Quote from the Declaration of Independence

After a long series of serious abuses, amnesia might set in, or avoiding reality may be a natural response to deal with the pain. I hope that we are not completely numb and that we'll maintain enough energy to rise to the occasion this election year. We have to throw the usurpers out, hold them accountable, and ask for a better social contract from our new government.

I am not trying to saturate the senses or overwhelm the mind with whatever bungles it, but it's important to record the political offenses and the abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration. It's a patriot's duty to do so; it's common decency for common people to refuse to be indifferent and let the violators act with impunity.

There's hope, as long as people care and realize that the bizarro world of BushCo must end. Here's a recent example of the paranoia and the absurdity of this regime.

From Think Progress:

In a recent briefing with Canadian press (which has yet to be picked up in the U.S.), Chertoff made the startling statement that fingerprints are “not particularly private”:
QUESTION: Some are raising that the privacy aspects of this thing, you know, sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing.
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.

Gloves, anyone? We also must be crazy for throwing our DNA carelessly around! No privacy, said the Big Brother. Is this crazy or what?

The Fourth Amendment (you know, that one about warrants and proper cause) has been grossly violated under this imperial presidency. We don't need no stinkin' badges seems to be the new mantra. Oh, and since Congress insists upon passing new laws, el presidente has a secret weapon: his signing statements! He says, fine you want to play with me, I'll sign this law, but this what I think of it.... [the law doesn't apply to him!] And, who can forget this trick of ..redefining torture!



Here's another gem from a stalwart of conservatism:
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visited Drew University in New Jersey, where he took questions from 20 political science majors there. When one asked him how the government could justify stripping rights from Americans in such pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act, Gingrich said that the government has a “right to defend society,” and when under threat, “people will give up all their liberties"

Well, do you think Gingrich is right that most Americans would be willing to give up all their freedoms for promise of safety? I hope we're better than that. And, I hope if the answer is "no" is not because the people know how incompetent this administration is, but because freedom is an essential condition for us to remain a great country.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Franklin

The Politics of Tax & Spend and the Role of Government. Pay Your Taxes But Ask for Accountability too!

Should we pay taxes according to ability & earnings?

Ah, the tax-filing deadline is fast approaching. Have you done your taxes? You should file if you want to receive a "rebate" from our government, because this money (that we don't have but will borrow at great expense) will stimulate the slumping economy--or, that's the idea, they say, during this election year! Sure, why not. Our government wastes so much money anyway, what's a few hundred more billions of dollars?
What most people don't get is that our political system is responsive to those who get access to it--either to the multitude who decide to organize and participate, or to those who buy influence through lobbying and personal connections!

As humans see the benefit of organizing themselves into a civil society--hopefully with a good social contract--the question arises of what the role of the government should be. I think it should be to protect and empower the commonwealth, that is, for the benefit of the greatest number of people possible. Yes, of course, I recognize the principle of protecting the minorities, however small they are, so you can not exploit the few for the benefit of the many either.

This philosophical (and, I maintain, practical) approach to the role, scope and size of (our) government is one of the important differences between the progressives and the conservatives today! But, in order for our government to do all the good things for us, it needs money, hence the ..dreadful taxes. The reason to pay taxes is to establish such conditions as to give reasonable opportunities to everyone to reach his/her own potential. Empower & protect--that's my understanding of a good social contract.

Have you noticed who has the strongest voice against taxes? Those who are better off! They usually get their way of tax breaks and lower taxation as a percentage and ability to pay. This week, NOW produced an excellent piece on the tax policies many states have embraced--policies that place most of the tax burden on those who can least afford it! See, for example, what NOW discovered in Alabama [click on the link to watch the NOW video] one of the most regressive states in the US, where a family of four with as low income as $12,600 [recently raised from $4,500] has to pay taxes. That's pay not file for taxes. The connection to poverty & hunger is crystal clear.

Next Friday, the farm bill expires and Congress is working on a new one. In light of our huge budget deficit, this farm bill is "the most lavish subsidies in American history" the Wall Street Journal has decried! Yes, that Journal--not exactly a marxist publication. The Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has acknowledged that the insurance companies and the commodities industry are the two most powerful groups that carry great influence with both parties in Congress. Most of the farm subsidies go to rich farmers, big corporations-- a practice which is both wasteful and unethical. This is one of the many cases where we have to stop and think, and ultimately call it as it is.

The smaller government advocated by conservatives means: a big enough government to maintain a trough that feeds the few, but small enough that cannot regulate, inspect, and ensure a more fair distribution of the public wealth! No safety net, because, hmmm, you should be "free from the nanny state!" This is the bottom line. Oh, OK, there's an exception regarding the size of the government: those conservatives that want the government to be strong enough to shove down our throats a particular religious morality they advocate. In this, you are a toddler and you need a ..nanny! Is this clear?

Why is there so much hunger in the US today? Why do we increase the farm subsidies to the rich farmers [there's a fight to limit payments to farmers making up to a $1 mil. instead of the present $2.5 ceiling] but we don't increase food stamps to poor Americans? Most rural poor that get food stamps have little food after the 3rd week of the month. We're talking about working people here, who simply do not make enough to feed their families. There's a great hunger in rural America, 35 million of out citizens, but this is not even an issue discussed in the current presidential race!

Bill Moyers has another excellent piece on the farm bill this week. Cash Cows and Cowboy Starter Kits from EXPOSÉ illustrates, some of the subsidies in the current iteration of the bill don't go to the stereotypical small American farmer — or even to farmers at all. See how the farm bill gives billions to people who don't farm, or "drought aid" to people who didn't suffer any drought conditions! Or, how people got money from the space shuttle explosion over Texas for a bogus "livestock compensation"!!! Poverty exists in the US and it's bigger than we want to admit or pay attention to. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) just slipped a pork-barrel subsidy to owners of ..race horses!

There's another class, the missing class, of the near-poor. Katherine S. Newman has a great book on this subject. This video explains more about those Americans who are also forgotten, who live on the margins of the mainstream economy, and on the edge of economic disaster. We can cut hunger in the US by half in one year by eliminating the waste in just one area: farm subsidies. But, we need leadership and political commitment. Oh, yes, we also need a politically educated public, and that Americans start behaving as they are in the economic scale not as they'd like to be or "see" themselves in the undetermined future.

I don't know if it's a short attention span or by choice, but we often focus on a few issues and forget others that are equally important--which actually make a big difference in most people's lives.

We should have a serious discussion on the role of the government and to dispel some misconceptions about the infallibility of capitalism. The free marketplace is a great but imperfect mechanism and like a good car needs to maintained and occasionally steered in the right direction. We have to examine ways make it work for the commonwealth and not to privatize the profit while we socialize the risk. There is no rational or moral argument to continue doing what we've been doing on many levels of public policy. We should start re-examining our intense focus on being a very militaristic country and the costs associated with such a strategy, and then re-evaluate the priorities of alocating the resources to benefit the commonwealth. Having a long-term strategy would also be quite beneficial for the next generations (remember them?).

Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968)

How do you think such statements would have been received today in our country? Without the benefit of hindsight...

America's Age of Unreason: When Matters of Faith Dominate the Social Discourse

Updated, 3/30/08, below

Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle!

When it comes to US politics, religion plays a big part, and, I guess, no one could be elected to a high office [well, maybe outside NYC, San Fransisco, etc] unless they profess their strong religiosity. Perhaps, it's not smart for me to start such a topic now, because this election should not be fought on who's a believer, i.e., who's on the side of the Christian God. Such a case would be a distraction at best. Seriously, unless the currency of understanding is reason & evidence, then not much can be discussed or minds changed.

Elections are not about educating the public on issues already decided in their minds. For, example, if you're convinced we're living in the end of times, with rapture around the corner, a political campaign isn't the appropriate time to talk you out of such a belief. Campaigns may inform on certain policy issues, but mainly they are a battle of ideas, of framing of the issues, and a candidate's personality & character. Rarely do they change any preconceived notions people have already formed based on an emotional decision.

I'm sure you know people who have an emotional reaction to an issue, thus forming an opinion, and then they look for any scraps of reason to support their view. The process of arriving at a decision is not important as much as how they feel about something. The scientific method & inquiry is the reverse of that. Here the process rules over the conclusions--which they follow based on evidence and reason. I'm in favor of such an approach to understanding the world around me, hence, my affinity for science & rational thinking.

However, there's a greater issue here about our national obsession with religion, and whether religious beliefs should guide our political actions. What happens in the US is actually the reverse than in most western European countries--where religion is mostly a private matter. Over there, atheists-agnostics actually are preferable to those who wear religion on their sleeves! Europeans think that an atheist/agnostic has no religious agenda to push and more likely to get on with the business at hand, for the state and the commonwealth. What a concept!

Often, many changes start slowly with a few voices, but it's important to stand up and be counted. I'm talking about maintaining a secular state here, not abolishing religion, but to stop the kind that wants to shove their brand down our throat. Yet, how can you deny that it is religion(s) that drive ignorance and intolerance? No, not all religious people are like that, but their most extremist elements are in control overall. If nothing else, their rhetoric reveals their prejudice & ignorance. How much of the world's suffering today (and for most of human history) is not "reasoned" by, promoted by, and spread through religious dogma?...

In the US, several states have an anti-science stance today! Why is it so? Is it because the facts aren't available? Is it because science hasn't given us answers? Why is there such a dumbing down? Is truthiness (how we feel about issues) our best way to understand? I recommend Susan Jacoby's latest book, Age of American Unreason as necessary reading on this topic.

I'm talking about teaching our kids science--you know, those theories that are based on facts not wishful thinking or on any hypothesis not supported by reason or evidence!

One in three Americans considers themselves "born-again" Christian fundamentalist, many believing in eschatology (the world is coming to an end soon).... I don't know if you realize it, but when the majority of Americans believe that, for sure (or think it's a good probability), Jesus will return in their lifetimes it has an impact on our politics! When so many people believe the world is going to end with Armageddon, does it not influence what we plan for the future? Heck, we have to look ahead--what the next several generations of our children and their children will inherit from us. The environment, energy needs, human health, the conditions for sustainable living, etc., are all very important. And, the window of opportunity to avert disaster is closing.

In a free society everybody can say & belief whatever he wants. But, it is frustrating to see so much ignorance and prejudice in this 21st century. Perhaps we are still very primitive in our thinking and behavior. On many levels, humanity does not live in or experience the same universal age. The less we know (or want to know) the more conservative we are.... We tend to conserve ideas, beliefs, culture, behaviors--even if they're impractical or outright primitive--when we don't know how to deal with change, especially the rapid changes of modernity. The sense of identity an individual has is extremely important.... and, it's has a personal definition. The more secure and confident a person, the more likely to think about change!

So, maybe we have our answer to this: How come people don't leave their congregation when their religious leaders make incredible claims? Or, that God is so angry & vengeful that he destroys everything in order to punish sinners and several of his faithful alike? Why the Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, Hagees, and all the others who preach hate and stupidity still remain relevant in an advanced society like ours? Well, they're relevant because they have millions of blind followers behind them! Their coffers bulged from donations when they pronounced that God punished New Yorkers on 9-11, New Orleans with Katrina, etc, etc.... Absurd, yes, but it's normal that people hold contradictory ideas in their head.


You've heard already about the comments Obama's pastor made and the hoopla that ensued. What's the problem here? Rev. Wright didn't say anything remotely worse than what those bigots I mentioned above have been saying all along. [see sidebar on the Hagee endorsement of Sen. McCain and the latter's elation for such!] Obama handled the situation well enough. Here's a good article by linguist & activist George Lakoff on this. Here's Wright's comments: video

The problem is with those people who are so convinced that they know the mind of God--what he wants and stuff--and are ..hell-bent in killing others in his name! It's rather unsettling to me that the religious fanatics here have so much influence on public policy--in a very negative way.

America and those successful countries where humans have achieved liberty and a higher standard of living owe their success largely on the conditions and the socio-econo-political environment. The three "Tees" are necessary: Tolerance, Talent, and Technology. Now assuming these are good things to have and maintain, the question is, what are we doing about protecting and enhancing those conditions that made us great? Or, are we so weak to buckle when we face the various crises and give up those conditions that made us great?

Think of the present--what's going on in our country--and of the future, where we're headed, where our children will be. Then watch this video. Hopefully, if you haven't done already, you'll stand up and oppose ignorance and intolerance!

UPDATE, 3/30/08

If there was a choice between Xenu, or those who support sacrificing young virgins to the sun god, and Sen. McCain, I'd choose the latter. But, to my relief, there are much better choices this year. Of course, this election is about the direction of the country. I'm a progressive liberal, and my the choices I make reflect what's pragmatic and what party, or politician comes closer to my beliefs.

Pragmatism, scientific approach (instead of voodoo), are some of the qualities I'm looking for in a US president. I understand that before someone wins the nomination and even the general election they have to say things they don't believe, especially in the case of religion. But, what do you make of the following?

* McCain supports Bush's policy: preach abstinence only; no other methods of contraception and/or counseling. [NYT, March 16, 08]. He takes advise from Dr. Coburn--the Rep. Senator from OK--who advocates the death penalty for women and doctors involved in any abortion under any circumstances! And, thus, McCain supports the stupid policies that don't work regarding sexually-transmitted diseases. Like saying in Africa, AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse!

* McCain is happy to have the endorsement and support of Rev. Hagee. [check this video]

* McCain wants to take America back to the 16th century. [Is this video evidence of his major flip-flop?]

A Sad Anniversary for a Costly War That Has Made us Poorer & Less Safe

From "Mission Accomplished" to Mission Impossible. Deception meets incompetence: A deadly combination!

It has already lasted longer than World War 2, five years today and counting. This week in 2003, president Bush gave an ultimatum to Saddam and promptly invaded Iraq. By doing so, he misused the opportunity of the century to unite the world against terrorism after 9-11, and make the US a leader and a defender of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights! Mr. Bush made the US & the world less safe; he gave more power to the extremists in the Middle East, and surrendered the moral high ground.




We've lost at least 4,000 soldiers according to the official count, but this includes only the combat deaths in the battlefield. Those killed in accidents, diseases, suicides, or died in hospitals weeks later, are not part of this count. We also have at least 30,000 injured, many so severely that they'll always be dependent on others & long-term medical care. Of course, the numbers climb to hundreds of thousands if we include non-Americans! [do they count?...]

The monetary cost estimates vary. The Iraq War Counter here shows the actual expenditures so far. It does not include long-term health care for the 30,000 plus injured veterans, or the interest on the borrowed money [you knew we didn't have the money for this war, didn't ya?], or the wear/tear/replacement of military equipment, or the Pentagon's annual budget of $500 billion, and the $500,000 paid to the families of those killed in action. It doesn't include the indirect taxes & costs Americans are paying because of the skyrocketing of the price of oil.

The estimated cost per month in 2008 is $12.5 billion. Don't listen to those neocons that say this money is pumped back to our economy. Yes, it's our government doing the spending [talking about welfare for big corporations, some of which don't pay any taxes], but it's about priorities for the stuff we need--spending to benefit the commonwealth! As an example, for the projected costs in 2009, this money is enough [more than enough if we actually reform the health care system] to pay for the health care of 41 million Americans!

Or, New Yorkers will be responsible for $12.5 billion [not including the future costs as described above] in 2009. With this money we could do some of the following:

• 2,306,150 People with Health Care, or
• 2,040,679 Scholarships for University Students, or
• New Elementary Schools, or
• 4,369,925 Children with Health Care, or
• 144,842 Elementary School Teachers

Since the beginning up to 2007, New Yorkers' share of the cost is $41 billion. For that money [not including long-term costs as described above], we could have done some of the following:

• 7,545,445 People with Health Care, or
• 2,153 New Elementary Schools, or
• 14,297,868 Children with Health Care, or
• 2,153 New Elementary Schools, or
• 6,676,857 Scholarships for University Students

When you go to vote this November don't forget those who supported the war and still maintain a stupid attitude of "stay the course!" Just as a reminder, this is what they told us, and they haven't yet apologized!

When our country must sacrifice, our leaders should do their best to see that this burden is widely shared not based on the shoulders of the least privileged, nor should war be one of choice and an opportunity for a transfer of wealth. Patriotism shouldn't be defined by long & hyperbolic speeches but rather by doing what's best for the commonwealth.

Patriotism is standing up for the truth, and questioning our government. Patriotism is to defend those conditions and civil liberties that have made our country great--not by becoming more like our enemies! Patriotism is to go to war on a necessity (not on a choice based on deception & lies) and when doing so to give our soldiers what they need to accomplish their mission!

Lastly, we have to be honest among those of us who oppose the Iraq war. We are against it because it was a very bad mistake from the beginning, not just because this administration is criminally incompetent. The disaster that ensued is obviously another important reason to end this war, but unless we look ourselves in the mirror and examine the causes that led us into this incredibly costly expedition, we will repeat such a horrible mistake again.

Please visit the following links for a better perspective on the war

Iraq Memorial on line (iraqmemorial.org) Family testimonies on the human costs of the war.

The architects of the War--Where are they now? Good question..

Faces of the Fallen. See our dead soldiers' faces, names and brief bios.

A Story of Bears, Bulls, and BS. Or, How the System Really Works.

It's Spring break, but I'm already planning my next week's classes! See what some free time does to me... (looking for trouble). It's fun, coming up with stories and exam questions..

Class exam: Analyze the concept: socializing the risk and privatizing the profit. Include examples. You should also reference the ideological framework as to the role of the state (gov) in a modern capitalist system. Does the marketplace need the government to operate, or does the latter function as an impediment to the former?

Now, the following is a story I just made up but will use in class to ease the students back into rigorous learning, and, of course, to ..indoctrinate them.

Once upon a time, there was a small club of friends who dined and played (golf, bridge, etc) together no matter what happened in the world. They were considered wise men by their peers, and had advised other people to be aggressive in their investments--normally with other people's money!

They all made millions in salaries & bonuses, because they deserved it--and because a small group of their peers agreed that those who move lots of money around have lots of stress. Money always shows how much a person is appreciated was the dictum.

There are certain story tellers who convinced the majority of the village people that welfare--often called, the social safety net--for the working & indigent classes is a very bad thing. They also said that the government is a necessary evil and that, for our sake, it should be so small as to be drowned in a bathtub... Private companies, usually after huge over runs of the original estimate, would provide the bathtub and the taxpayers would gladly buy it.

On the other hand, assisting the hard-working and money-making businesses (ie, corporate welfare) was is a good thing they told us. The preferred to be mum, retreating in the quiet of the backrooms as they made their deals. After all, who needs all those statistics, numbers (oh, the horrors of ..math), and the legaleze--all very boring. Who could argue against this: American companies are patriotic and would never deliver inferior products, waste taxpayers money, put any American in danger, and charge us higher prices through no-bid contracts. The free market would never allow that, would it?

Those who have more money, wealth and power got even more money & legal benefits since apparently they deserve it. They owed their success to their own efforts alone, something like pulling their own bootstraps. Of course, they needed bigger tax breaks too! They had more expenses you know!... End of this little story.

So to better understand all this, I brushed up on Adam Smith recently. I had to discuss his ideas in class too--Moral Sentiment, and Wealth of Nations. I understand that profit is the engine of capitalism. Smith said something about competition and how it's good for the marketplace, but measures had to be taken to prevent predatory markets and companies. Ah, well. I'm sure the modern capitalists and those in power know that.

I also read, Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston, and watched him on Bill Moyers Journal. [here's a clip on YouTube]. I suggest you check those short videos. Very informative. Anyway, I'm wondering why we those who demonize the (our) governmnet often turn to it for help & salvation when they screw up?

Do you have an answer?

The Sordid Story of Governor Elliot Spitzer: Being a Moral Crusader Can be Hazardous...(to the public and to themselves)

Clean shaven but not as clean as he presented himself in the past. The governor saying he was sorry for being untrustworthy [3/11/08].


When political leaders we support make serious mistakes, we have to ask for accountability. I supported Eliot Spitzer for governor of New York. He was a progressive and much, much better than the alternatives presented to us--when he ran as state Attorney General and later for governor. But, he betrayed the public trust by putting himself into a compromising position. He exposed himself to what he had previously described as "organized crime," money launderers, and human traffickers who could--who knows--demand special favors from him.

He also may have broken the law by using campaign funds to pay for sex. The so-called Mann Act [a century-old law regarding ..transporting women for immoral purposes; this was before women got the right to vote] could be invoked in this case against him. His moral failure and his betrayal of his wife is something he has to deal with in private, and it shouldn't be of public concern, except that it affects all of us. I understand human frailties, but when you ask for the public to entrust you with lots of power, you have an added responsibility to be clean.

People enter in all sorts of private arrangements and relations with spouces and friends. I'm not judging that and I don't really care about it. But, Mr. Spitzer also happens to be my governor, an elected public official who should be an example of a good public servant. He has failed on this account. We don't deserve this. His private actions were utterly reckless for a chief executive of a great state.

Yet again, I'm always rather suspicious with anyone who self-describes himself as a moral crusader. It bothers me when they want to appear as "holier than thou." Often they have something to hide as well. It was just a short time ago when Spitzer was going after prostitution rings and part of his rhetoric was how women were being exploited by their bosses and rich customers! How ironic.

It shows great arrogance to be on a public crusade while he was privately violating the very ideals, principles,and possibly laws, he was promoting in public! It takes a big hypocrite to do that.

If I believed in divine justice, I'd say he had this coming, but it serves him right to fall on his own sword. When a politician (or any leader) is telling us a story, he better have his facts straight and that he's not hiding anything in the closet.

You can take this as a free political advice. If you're trying to tell a story of how ethical or moral person you are, make sure you are indeed! Otherwise, campaign on competency, the "economy, stupid," charisma, vision for the future, etc. Don't carry the Bible in public while partying with the devil in private! The devil leaks the story, eventually...

Reading the Political Tea Leaves and Seeing Good News!

Just a few things to clarify following the results from Texas, Ohio, R. Island, and Vermont.

• The Democratic contest goes on and this is good for the eventual nominee. It gives him/her the opportunity to set the agenda on the issues and get more public exposure. They learn to fight tough (something they'll need against the Repubs in the Fall), and they get more time to be vetted of issues now that by the time the general election comes around "it's old news."


• The dreaded phone call in the middle of the night could be coming from Bill Clinton calling. Yeap, definitely you need the right person on the other end of the phone line. I suppose part of the advertised experience was hanging around the phone to ring as the First Lady.


• Reminder to Sen. Clinton: A Democrat won those big & important states you're talking about. Your supporters, (and Democrats of all stripes for that matter), will support the eventual Democratic nominee. You'll endorse him and campaign with/for him, right? Democrats have come out in greater numbers than the Republicans even in the so-called red states. That's good news, no? And, it's Obama who brings greater numbers of newcomers & crossovers. In Texas for example, the Democratic primary voters yesterday exceeded John Kerry's total vote in that state in 2004!


• Both Obama and Clinton beat McCain in national polls. Obama does better though. This lead can be solidified unless the Dems make it ugly and manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


• The spilled blood will fade by November. I'm counting on the short memory span and the lack of serious attention by most Americans right now, so unless someone is sent to the hospital, all the bruises will be healed by Nov. 4th.

Guess who's arguing for a third Bush term?

I and others have been crunching the numbers and it seems that Sen. Clinton will not be able to catch up to Sen. Obama's delegate count, even if Michigan and Florida get a re-do. This is because, unlike the Repubs (winner-take-all system), the Dems have a more proportional system, so Clinton will have to be scorring 70% or better in the remaining contests to rise to the top. Obama will win several remaining states and he only needs to keep it close in the ones he'll lose.

Now, the super-delegates will play an important role, but I can hardly see them voting as a block to overturn the elected delegates' verdict. The worst-case scenario would be a repeat of the 1980 Dem convention and the ugly fight between Carter & Kennedy. Unfortunately, both contenders won't give up their fight if they believe they're a few delegates short of winning the nomination. But, I don't see this happening.

Finally, I think it's the Repubs that have the bigger problem. They're not unified and they're not excited about their nominee and their prospects in the general. The vast majority of the Dems (especially outside the small groups of the party activists) like both remaining candidates, and will coalesce behind the nominee. After all, there's a much bigger price out there and they're hungry for it!

Amnesty for the Real Bad Guys. Guess Who Those are...

El Supremo Presidente
[has anyone checked if there's there a "signing statement" somewhere in the constitution document?]

The Executive has grown to be the most powerful of the three branches of our governmnet, but Bush has broken the law in expanding presidential power. Another tricky Dick, Nixon, tried to do this but was caught and the rule of law restored. But, back then Congress and others within the administration had the guts and the honor to be patriots first.

Obviously, this president doesn't have much credibility left, and most Americans can't wait for him and his cohorts to leave for good. The incredible thing is that Congressional Democrats still behave like little puppies seeking to please the master. The US Senate with the help of several Dems passed a FISA/spy/limit civil liberties bill Bush had asked for. The House recessed without taking any action.

Bush has said he'd not sign just an extension of the present legislation, because he wants to protect Americans from the bad guys. Yet, he's willing to leave them ..unprotected instead of a temporary fix! Yeah, whatever. I'm sure you've heard much about this debate already, but do you know why Bush is adamant about giving retroactive amnesty to the telcos which surrender everything they had on us to the Bush administration? Why should they get amnesty? I thought the Republicans and all other patriots were against any amnesty. Or, are they only against giving amnesty to immigrants who've worked for American companies (and many other well-to-do Americans) and have lived in the US for many years as law-abiding people after their initial trespass? Do you see a double standard here?



Why is it OK to give amnesty to Blackwater? To corporations that rip off the US treasury? [check this Bill Moyers Journal on overisight and waste] This is not even touching upon the fraud perpetrated on the American public as the necessity of war... I hope the latter is resolved after the election in November, and I'd like to see some serious criminal charges leveled against the evil doers!

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Everybody knows that when the government wants a warrant it gets one. It can also get an indictment as well. But, this creates a record, it gets due process take its course. The records are very important as we can go back, re-examine, and correct our current law & policies. We know, for example, that the FBI had spied on John Lennon, not because the Beatles or Lenon were revolutionaries (actually they were businessmen) but perhaps because Lenon sang, "Imagine there's no heaven"...

There's evidence that suggests Bush had started the illegal spying even before 9-11-01, and that the lawsuits against the telcos will reveal that if no amnesty is given to them. That's why Bush wants not only the extra (and probably unconstitutional) powers but amnesty too.

As far as I know, the constitution has not been amended, so the government must obtain a warrant "by oat and affirmation" before it spies on us. Since it's an automatic procedure (they ask, they get court permission) to obtain a warrant--even days after the spying has started--then why Bush didn't bother doing so?

I'm sick and tired of being treated as a little child with impressionable mind by the Bush government. The politics of fear get me agitated instead of docile.

What Kind of Change are You for? Super Tuesday Shows the Choices We've got.... and, There's a Huge Difference!

I just voted--five years to the date (Feb 5th, 2003) when Collin Powell used up his credibility to tell the world (via the UN) that he knew! This is a good thing about democracy--that we can change things and our leaders too. Obviously, great care should be exercised to avoid disasters like this imperial presidency under Dubya.

This election is about change, unlike the one in 2000. Back then, the country enjoyed peace and prosperity, and most Americans that voted for Bush [actually the majority voted against him] just to preside, not to do anything specific. But, he turned into an evil doer. In 2008, it is almost a universally accepted wisdom that we need change, and all the candidates on both sides talk about change. Here's what I think of change.

• More Americans participating in the affairs of our nation because they care. They register and vote, and they keep a close eye on their representatives.


• The nation is inspired to achieve greatness through education, civil rights, science, and a new age of reason. We can finally put racial politics in the dust bin of history.


• We come together as a country to show that we can take care of each other, that not everything is decided by selfishness; that a progressive culture of life means education and healthcare for all, not only for those who can afford it. It's Americans helping Americans.


• That being a world leader today doesn't mean brute force. Many battles can be won by ideas (if you've got them) than by bullets. We must be physically strong and able to defend ourselves, but without being smart, without moral leadership, and without wisdom, we will fail. We need leaders who understand that the age of military empires has passed.

I often said that the Republicans leaders speak a language I don't care for. They are not progressives. Actually, they're not for real change. Basically, they're for staying the course only they'll be more competent than Bush, they argue. The GOP presidential candidates appeal to very conservative voters in the primaries. Today, the GOP leadership is more conservative than their greater political base that. Hopefully, after another resounding defeat in November, the GOP will become more moderate and, thus, more reasonable. If Mr. Obama is the president they'll lose their hate-everything-Clinton as their cause.

I'm keeping my eyes on the big picture here. Either Obama or Clinton will be improvements over the current regime and what the GOP has to offer. I don't want to live in a theocracy, in a country where scientific illiteracy is encouraged! Where instead of moving forward with civil rights & liberties we turn back as the result of a few people (5-6) dressed in black robes who'll make decisions fit for the Dark Ages! These life-tenured appointees will have the chance to shape our lives for many years well after the next president leaves office! I'm talking about the Supreme Court. Yes, this election is also about SCOTUS!

I had to make a choice today in the voting booth, and I picked Obama. It felt good to vote for change. But, this is only one step in exercising the rights & obligations of citizenship. I picked Obama because I believe he'll be the stronger candidate in the general election. He can help the "ticket" down the line giving us stronger majorities in the Congress. I don't know if there's "a spirit of JFK in the air" [I wasn't around then] but impressions and perceptions do matter. Obama seems to bring more Americans out to participate & vote. If he brings out the best from within us, we will indeed make a great leap forward. And, boy, do we need one great leap to get out of this bog....

Why do the Rich & Powerful Get a Free Lunch from Our Government While We Pick up the Check?

There's a problem with the US economy these days and our leaders are talking about an economic stimulus package. They have to appear to be doing something even though their actions aren't going to help all that much; yet, they'll add hundreds of billions to our huge debt. It's a political decision more than an economic one. Impressions matter, often more than the facts, and this being a big election year, no politician wants to be accused of not helping Americans. Paul Krugman has the details here.

I just finished reading Free Lunch. Have you heard David Cay Johnston these days on a few programs --like PBS (on Moyers Journal) & NPR--talking about the many ways that the profits go to individuals while the risk is socialized? His new book, Free Lunch, is a must-read. He writes in plain language and provides many examples of how the system is being fixed to serve those who have power and money. Another self-identified Republican, Kevin Phillips, has written extensively about the "game" that's being played here. His book, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich is an excellent source to understanding how things work when (if) someone wants to know what it means to be rich in America.

Only 11% of US taxpayers make more than $100,000 a year, yet, there's this popular myth of upward economic mobility. The best predictor of one's financial situation is his/her parents. The vast economic center of American society has seen very small steps of financial improvement, while the poor have been worse off, and the very rich have entered a new Gilded Age. Most people will never make that much. Who, nowadays, has the power to make the government spend money to help the very rich? To maintain a system that shrinking the government and cutting services means having an adverse impact on the vast majority of Americans who depend & need those services from their own government? Robert Reich [former Labor Secretary] has made a very important observation: Unless the system allows the people to practice citizenship, then you can kiss democracy good-bye.

There are lots of problems with the government. I've spent my life exposing all sorts of problems with government. But government is fundamentally essential. Government is what creates for us civilization. We created this country so that we could be free, so that we could pursue our lives the way that we want to pursue them. And wealth is a byproduct of that. But the government is being turned into a vehicle not to ensure our liberties and create a level playing field but instead into a vehicle to take from the many to enrich the few. David Cay Johnston

Representative government is a cornerstone of democracy. The debate among the conservatives and the progressives has been centered on the role of the government. Is it our government's role to: 1. Protect, and, 2. To empower? If so, then the next question is, who should be protected and empowered? Those who need it the most or those who only need government to keep the game fixed?

January 20th 2008-2009: One Year Left in Bush's Presidency.

Waving good-byes?

As I'm writing this, one year from this moment, there will be a new president in the White House. I've been running the Bush countdown clock (on the sidebar) for a long time, but I finally sense the end of this disastrous presidency is near--not soon enough though. I can't wait for November 4th... Obviously, I have preferences over the current field of candidates, but, I'll repeat, any Dem is way much preferable to any Repub at this point.

I've been watching the contests for the nomination. It's exciting and gives me hope for the future. The Republicans are confused and looking for an identity while most of their choices leaves them with much to be desired. Back in the early summer, I thought that the Democratic race would be between Hillary Clinton and the "anti-Hillary." For a while it seemed that there would be a 3-way race and that Edwards's populist appeal would be the counterbalance to the "establishment" candidacy of Mrs. Clinton. The grass-roots, progressives, the blogosphere and party activists had considered Edwards as the best one [absent Gore] to head the Democratic ticket in November.

Obama managed to capture the imagination and the momentum instead and be the only one able to challenge Mrs. Clinton's inevitability as the party's flag bearer. It seems more so now with the deflation of John Edwards--whose South Carolina is his last chance to survive as a player (not a serious contender though)--and his supporters moving over to Obama, as it was shown in the Nevada caucuses.

By the way, what the hell is going on with the caucus system? It's not very democratic; it's rather inefficient, and unnecessarily complicated. In addition to changing the order states hold their contests and the front-loading, the caucus system has to go too. It can be replaced by a primary. If states want to maintain some of the characteristics of a caucus, the voters can be given a ballot whereas they can indicate on their ballots, choice 1, choice 2, and choice 3, etc.

As for the runors that Mike Bloomberg (the billionaire mayor of NYC) could run as independent, I think this guy is looking but won't make a decision until the two parties have their nominees. The Dems will have a strong ticket and the winds of change. It'll depend on the Repubs. If they nominate someone who won't have a freakin chance, Bloomberg may run. I don't think he's got any chance. Third-party/independent candidates have had absolutely no chance in presidential politics. Even Teddy Roosevelt (a national figure and a past president) couldn't get elected as an independent in 1912. *

I still think there's lots of progressive reforms needed in the way we recruit, select, and eventually elect the president of the US. The caucus system is not very democratic system and should be replaced with an open primary, that's held from morning to evening. By the way, the primary is paid by the state whereas the caucus is paid by the party. Maybe this explains the arcane rules and the limited access to the ballot box (or device that records the votes).




*T. Roosevelt served as US president, 1901-1909. He ran as a progressive against the Republican incumbent president, W.H. Taft, and won most of the primaries where states had open contests. Most of the states (then and in the past) selected their nominees through state conventions where party bosses dominated. The open primaries was the result of the progressive movement at the beginning of the century and Roosevelt's efforts opened up the party nominations to the membership, gradually breaking up the political bosses' control. Yet, those bosses had control of the party and gave the nomination to Taft. Roosevelt took his delegates from the Republican convention and formed his own party. Taft was the first sitting president to come in third in a three way race, behind T.R. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won that election with 42% of the national vote in 1912.

The Unbearable Lightness of Republican Beings

The Greeks had a word for this, hubris!

When I recently said that all the Republicans running for president this year could might as well be speaking Klingon, I meant that they're clearly not speaking to me or any progressive person. It would have been funny, except that obviously they're saying something that many Americans like to hear. For me, the problem isn't how we get things done--at least in such instance, we could debate the better course of action. No, the Republicans [leaders and much of their base] identify the wrong demons. Thus, the proposed policies do not solve problems and do not benefit most Americans. What has the Republicans done in the last many years except to make things worse for most of us? This is the bigger issue here--let's not forget it!

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is what a Republican front runner should be trying to do; but then again, he doesn't even accept the strongest scientific theory we've got, that of evolution! [note to Huckabee: a scientific theory is supported by facts, it's verifiable, and can be amended if better evidence is discovered; it's not an opinion, guess, gut feeling, wishful thinking!]:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

Mike Huckabee to a cheering audience, 1/14/2008

These words were not taken out of context. Huckabee is running as a preacher and has made similar statements in the past. Actually, I'd welcome a discussion on the merits of changing our Constitution. Let's see what needs to be changed and debate why. But, this discussion will have to have reason as the platform for a meaningful discussion. Sadly, I don't think Huckabee--and all those who want to impose their religious dogma on the rest of us--are capable of a reasonable discussion without justifying their arguments on what they believe their god commands. Otherwise, we enter into a childish argument, like my god can beat the crap out of your god...

I mean, I myself have had private divine revelations. I know what God wants, and let me tell you, Zeus really doesn't like anyone who believes in false gods. Eternal damnation in Hades awaits those who disobey Zeus. If we were to amend the US Constitution, Zeus has told me, we should establish a theocratic state according to the old Hellenistic religion. Get ready for lots of nudity and a god of wine!

I believe one the best things we've got here is the secular constitution, and the "establishment clause" that separates church and state. In a recent post, I analysed why the US was founded upon this principle and why we must be 1st Amendment patriots.

PS. I have to point to another religious fanatic running for president:

"It is as if they [non believers] are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong." Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate

[Addendum] A few years ago, I thought that the US would go through a serious struggle, a fight between religion and science/modernity. It has started, and, unless you've been under a rock, it has intensified under Bush & Co. When I wear my political communications hat, I understand that elections are not about educating the public; it's about a battle of ideas and of framing issues. A person makes up his/her own mind after being exposed to myths, ideologies, and the cultural environment usually over a long time. Some myths are so strong that people do not examine them at all. A long and complicated discussion--especially one that challenges strong & long-held impressions--cannot take place in the heat of a political campaign.

Campaigns are ran by appealing to already preconceived notions of the electorate. Image, code words, behavior, are all meant to paint an image of the candidate--an image that re-affirms and identifies with the popular sentiment.

However, the progressives and any person who has a fondness for the truth, have to take a stand to defend against the forces of darkness and regression. We have to contribute to the debate about the conditions in our country today and about the future of humanity. The level and depth of misinformation, scientific illiteracy, and plain ignorance in the US is a serious problem--for a country so influential on the world stage. I don't think any topic should be off limits. A new renaissance, a new Age of Reason is due here.

Lastly, we have to re-open the topic of morality, because I'm sick & tired of being lectured about morality by ignoramuses, theocrats, social authoritarians, and charlatans of history.

editor's note: Religion made simple by Jesus & Mo (sketch above; click to make it bigger)

The Citizens can be the Winds of Change but Our Next Captain Should Also Have a Good Sense of Direction!

Hopefully in this election, we're changing direction too not just the driver.

Everyone talks about change, but aren't the two winners in New Hampshire part of the establishment? Especially if you see the teams Clinton and McCain have assembled. Anyway, usually I don't really pay much attention to those who say they're for change. Even the conservatives are for change these days--even though the prescribe the same poison as Bush. Unless, someone specifically explains not only what he/she wants to change but also how, then I look for other clues in evaluating the candidate. On the other hand, we have seen real change in these first two presidential contests: a black and a woman have won! Never before such persons had won state presidential contests (for a major party in the US).

The polls got it wrong about the Democratic race. Way off. Now everyone is talking about an upset that Hillary delivered. I see it differently. Clinton was ahead in N. Hampshire by double digits for ever. Obama was poised to deliver an upset after his win in Iowa, but couldn't. The difference (39% to 37%) between Clinton and Obama was very small; a different, harsher weather might have flipped the result. The vote count may be attributed to the independents that chose to boost McCain, perhaps thinking Obama had this thing wrapped up.

The race will go one for a while longer, and in more diverse states. With a Bill Richardson [Hispanic roots] dropping out, the Hispanic vote in Nevada (and elsewhere) will be very important. Here's the Democrats' schedule for the next few weeks:

• Michigan, Jan. 15th
• Nevada, 19th
• South Carolina, 26th
• Florida, 29th
• 23 States, Feb. 5th
  

This site has all the state-by-state count, dates, poll numbers, etc. Great resource.

There's a fight going on, with the Dem. National Comm. (DNC) penalizing Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries so early against the wishes of the DNC, but they are important states in the general election, so the DNC may give in and seat their delegates at the national convention in Denver. Clinton (and anyone with a budget and name recognition) favored a short primary season--the earlier the better. But, I hope this system is re-evaluated, including the order of the states in the process.

I'd prefer a system that gives a chance to candidates who are lesser known, and without big bank accounts. A group of 5-7 small states, on a rotating basis, to start the presidential race for the nomination. Then we should move on to another group of bigger states, and so forth. This way, small and big states could be important players in the process.

Opening up the system with greater access to voting is necessary. Such measures would include, same-day voter registration, absentee balloting (hence, eliminating the caucus!), and, of course, reliable methods of balloting! Those who don't know it, the airwaves belong to the public. Part of the licensing requirements is that media should serve the public interest! Wow, that's a good idea, isn't it? In a democracy, elections are important, just as the need of the public to be informed. Therefore, I'm suggesting a legal obligation of that media to provide free airtime to all candidates who meet some minimum qualifications.

NOW (on PBS) just aired an interesting segment on Dirty Politics. As the South Carolina primary is approaching, watch what happened there a few years ago [when Bush destroyed McCain using dirty tricks].

I clearly dislike dishonest politics, and I do want to see smarter politics, not appeals to the lowest common denominator, use of fear, or campaigns that rely on pushing the emotional buttons. Since I'm not running for public office, I can say that it comes down to the individual citizen to have the interest in the affairs of our country and invest the appropriate time before making his decision at the ballot box. Further, people don't like negative ads, but they exist because they're effective. Let's be honest here, why should it matter if McCain had an Asian child out of wedlock, or Hillary was a lesbian, or Obama Hussein was not a Xtian? [watch NOW's video, link above, on these claims]

To me, it's more relevant to ask a candidate whether he accepts the scientific method, and whether he accepts the theory of evolution or does he prefers something else? Does he confuse the meaning of scientific theory with any view, or a guess, or a feeling? And, whether this candidate will promote creationism, alchemy, astrology, and phrenology...

On the other hand, the public has to have access to information, and the system should provide the framework & the safeguards for free and accurate information. Smarter people produce smarter politics. We should take ownership of our government, should we not?

The quality of government says a great deal about the citizens and the conditions that exist in a particular country. Does it not? Several countries (i.e., in Scandinavia) have managed to have rather efficient government, no serious corruption problems, with strong social safety net, while maintaining a very free & democratic system!

In the US, the Republicans see the government as the problem and the enemy that needs to be "drowned in a bathtub." What kind of a government such a party can run? More often than not, the GOP has no well-laid plans to make the government work for the people. "Cut taxes, cut services, shrink the government," they tell us. No ones likes taxes, but, then, who needs the services government can & should provide?!! Under Bush and the neocons, we've gotten the worst of conservative medicine: they've cut the taxes (guess who's benefited?), cut services, but made the government bigger than ever before! Oh, and they did it while accumulating the biggest debt ever!

Boy, it is time for some radical change around here!


Comics by Ziggy

And They're Off. The First Votes for the Next President are Being Cast!

[with updates, below the main post]

It won't be until January 20th, 2009, when Bush 43 will finally vacate the White House, but for all practical purposes this 2008 is his final year. Unfortunately, his terrible policies will leave a toxic residue for a long time. But, elections have consequences. The higher the office, the more care the citizens should exercise in rendering a decision. As I'm writing this, the very long presidential campaign is about to be tested with actual votes in the caucuses and primaries. Soon, the field will be whittled to 2-3 candidates of either party. Tonight, it's the Iowa caucuses, so I'll be updating this post frequently as results come in.

Back in the early 1970s, the Democratic Party thought it would be a good idea to have a new way to start the contest by having a small state, or two, go first, so candidates & voters could partake in "retail politics." Generally, this has been a way for lesser known candidates with less money to have a shot at the nomination of their party. This idea appealed to the Republicans too, so their party also picked Iowa to go first in their contest. The rules, however, are different. The Democrats have been using an incredibly complicated system that requires lots of time & effort from every participant. The Republicans make it easier: just show up, vote their preference and go back to their warm homes.

Democracy is a work in progress. The system is frequently tweaked, while better educated citizenry with more interest in the affairs of the country can produce better politics. Politics reflect the people, especially in a democratic society. But, what we have in Iowa is not very good democratic politics.

First, the cost is enormous--not only in Iowa, but everywhere. In the year before a single actual vote is cast, candidates are deemed viable not on the basis of their qualifications, policy proposals, etc, but on their ability to have a big bank account. Second, the Iowa caucus system is exclusionary! The voting takes place in the evening and lasts a couple hours. Those who work the evening/night shift can't participate. There's no absentee balloting. Those Iowans serving in the armed forces are de facto excluded. Third, there's no one-person-one vote. Precincts are allocated delegates based on part turnout rates. Or, having 1,000 people vote for you in this pricinct may give you 1 delegate, same as 10 people voting in another! (The rules book is like a telephone directory of a big city)

It's no surpise that the turnout is only 5-10% of eligible voters of Iowa! Yes, it's this low. This year, I've heard that close to 200,000 (maybe even more) Iowans will participate. Let's see. On average, some 60,000 Dems and 90,000 Repubs turn out in January to cast a vote. That's not good, especially if you put this into the perspective of the money spent, the disproportionate impact on the race, and--not to forget--the non-representative sample of America Iowa has. It's a very rural state, 95% white. Nevada, the Carolinas, for example, can be better representative sample of the US.
.....
[continued...]

I don't really care who does what on the Republican side. I've said it before, their candidates speak a different language than I, and, obviously, have the wrong priorities & policies. On the Democratic side, as I've been hinting all along, my preference is Edwards, even though I will support the eventual nominee as a far better choice than whomever the GOP puts forth. My ideal ticket would be Edwards/Obama in November. Edwards can be a good president that can bring the country together at a time when the US has no more margin of error and must immediately begin the recovery effort on January 20, 2009, a minute past noon! Obama can be a great VP for the next 8 years, and possibly the next president of the US; he's young and talented enough for this, and, by then, there would be a forgone conclusion that our country can indeed elect a non-white to the highest office.

I also believe that Edwards will be a very strong candidate in the general election, stronger that the other 2 Dems. Faux News is scared of him, as they've never aired hypothetical math-ups between him and other Reps, while they've done this with both Clinton and Obama! I'd never take anything for granted in politics, but a very strong Democrat may turn victory into another tide of electing more Dems to the US Senate. This is very important too, because part of the renewal process will be to remove some of the regressive & obstructionist senators while pushing for needed changes. We have to make Lieberman (I-CT) irrelevant. We have to have the votes to get sensible justices to the Supreme Court. This body--one of the 3 branches of our government--is extremely important when it comes to issues of privacy, human rights, civil rights, education, science v. theocracy, democracy, freedom of expression, and basically on all matters that concern life in the US. Because of GOP presidents, we got extremists and regressives on SCOTUS. This generally conservative court has, on a few cases, held back the conservative assault by a 5-4 margin.

Things can drastically deteriorate in our country if we don't get some new sensible justices on the high court soon--especially with 3 of its most liberal justices half a step from retirement. Let's not forget this important aspect when votes are cast on November 8th, 2008.... Despite disagreements on policy with Mrs. Clinton, I do think she'd make a far better president than the Bushes or any other Republican. But, if she leads the Democratic ticket in the general, Republicans and all those who for whatever reason don't like her, will be more likely to come out to vote against her. This may boost the support of other GOP candidates. Even hardcore Repubs have told me that they know the presidency will change hands in the next election because they admit Bush has been a royal screw-up. Their only hope is that Ms. Clinton runs, so there might be a close race. In other words, I want to see the strongest possible Dem going into the general, and winning not just the White House but enough popular support and with a coattail that results in bigger majorities in the two chambers of Congress.

----
Final Update 1/3/08
The numbers are in. Obama has won by 8 points (38%) over Edwards (30%) & Clinton (29%). All three move on to New Hampshire's primary on Jan. 8th. The rest will soon drop out. The biggest loser on either side is Romney (25%) who outspent winner Huckabee (35%) by many millions of dollars. The Republicans are still searching for identity. I expect most of the Repubs in the field to continue on for a while longer.

I think it's been an amazing night for Obama, who may win in five days too. Increased participation as a whole, and among the young and the independents helped him win big. Iowa is a white (95%) conservative state, but at least the Dems there are willing to give a black man a chance to win the nomination!

As I said in my previous post, a higher turnout wouldn't be good for Edwards, because he relied on seasoned, experienced caucus goers. But, he is still a good contender, although he must do well in NH, Nevada, and South Carolina to have a realistic chance. Clinton was hurt more in Iowa, because her inevitability is crushed. The spin that will follow may inflict more damage--if the focus is on her poor return for her investment of many million dollars in Iowa--estimated, $200 per vote. Her "firewall" is Feb. 5th--the super-duper multi state primary date--when her money (wich includes field operations) and name recognition will be a great asset.

Turnout appears to be much higher than before, but still way too low for such an important decision. There are about 1.2 million Iowans registered to vote, almost evenly split between the two parties. The Repubs almost always turned out in greater numbers as their voting procedure has been a simple matter, unlike the Dems. This year is was very unusual. The Repubs increased their numbers by 1/3, but the Dems went from 60,000 to over 235,000! That's huge.

Obviously, Obama benefited from this turnout of young and new voters. This may be his key to success--to do what others hoped, promised, but never managed to deliver: huge blocks of new voters. I'm surprised that Edwards held on to second place based on this numbers and being outspent by alot.
More numbers: According to the Entrance Poll, 57% of attendees were first time caucus goers! This is incredible. Obama won that group, by 41% to 29% Clinton and 18% Edwards. It also appears that Edwards received the majority of second-choice votes.

editor's note: I'm ending this post here, revised & updated. Of course this thread will be picked up again in a couple days...