The Radical Center

Through the wrestling that I have been doing on this blog (and outside it) with the liberal versus conservative debate, I have said that I have always found myself as a "middle-of-the-road" voter, and that I increasingly find Aristotle's Golden Mean to be valuable. This internal debate has led me to a discovery of work being done in 'the radical center'. It is sometimes called 'the third way'. In scholarship, one of the leading thinkers of the third way is sociologist Anthony Giddens (pictured here). I am going to pursue this line of thought in the months to come. I am very intrigued by it. The main point is that there are good ideas on the left and the right, but what is best for our society at any given time is probably to be found somewhere in the middle. The word "radical," represents rootedness. Being radically in the center is to be rooted in the center.

Wizards Win in Chicago

I was able to catch the second half of my hometown Wizards' game against the Chicago Bulls tonight, thanks to NBA League Pass. This was after playing five games myself at the gym. Great workout. I'm exhausted. As I tuned in, we were informed that the Wizards were 20 points down at the half. I guess they were just waiting for me. They went on a 22-1 tear in the third quarter, and ended up winning this game 96-91. It was a courageous win. I like this team a lot. They have three of their projected starters for this year out. Etan Thomas was informed he had a problem with his heart valve when training camp opened. He had to have heart surgery, and hasn't been able to play a game this year. The jury's out as to whether he'll ever play again, though he's practicing with the team now in non-contact drills. Gilbert Arenas, their superstar, hasn't played since their eighth game this season due to a second knee surgery. The first was during the off-season, but didn't get the job done. And their second star, two time All-Star Caron Butler, has now been out about 10 games with a torn muscle in his hip. He won't be back for at least another couple of weeks. Due to all of this misfortune, the Wizards have fallen to below .500. But they soldier on, and this win was pretty remarkable. Their defense was outstanding. Their rebounding was excellent. And they moved the ball well. They're a fun team to watch. (The photograph is of point guard Antonio Daniels driving on Kurt Heinrich).

The Scarlet Letter

Tara and I watched Roland Joffe's version of "The Scarlet Letter" this week. It was made in 1995. Demi Moore is always a pleasure to watch on the screen, but I didn't have high expectations for the movie or her acting. The result was actually better than I thought it would be. Joffe takes some liberties with the novel, but I have to say that I was pleased with the revisions. Native Americans play a significant role in the film, and when it begins, I assumed there was some influence from "The Last of the Mohicans" (1992). The filmwork is beautiful. The love scenes are hot. There is a scene where the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is preaching a sermon that uses language from the period about "the City on a Hill" that is moving. Gary Oldman plays the part of Dimmesdale in a sensitive and enticing way. I was unaware of him as an actor before, but I'll look for him now. (It turns out that he's played in a number of movies I've seen, but they were supporting roles.) Moore, playing Hester Prynne, gives a decent performance. What I especially liked about it was that she was convincing as a strong-willed woman who saw the evil that Puritanism had fallen into and she was rebelling against it. Robert Duvall gives an excellent performance (as always) playing the role of Roger Prynne/Chillingworth. He is superb as the sadistic and bitter doctor bent on revenge. Joan Plowright gives a memorable supporting performance as Harriet Hibbens, who likes to live naturally, rebels against Puritanism, and is accused of being a witch. The Native Americans are sympathetically treated. George Aguilar gives a strong supporting performance as the quiet leader of the "praying Indians" who have converted to Christianity under the minister of the kind-hearted Dimmesdale. When I taught American philosophy, one of the things that we went over were these two aspects of Puritanism: the idealism versus the reality of harsh judgmentalism that it degraded into. I don't normally mention these strong supporting roles, but they really grabbed me in this film. The film is far from perfect. But the rising crescendo of passion, the psychological struggle of Prynne and Dimmesdale, the frightening manipulation of Duvall's doctor, and the lush cinematography with warm lighting that reminds me of Zeffirelli (and yes, "The Last of the Mohicans,") swept me away and I enjoyed it a lot. And there's an altered ending to the story that I found more satisfying than Hawthorne's. Hawthorne was a genius and thank God for his work. (Coincidentally, I have cousins who are descended from Hawthorne, so I've always looked on his work with curiosity followed by great admiration.) But I very much approved of the changes Joffe made.

Obama Answers McCain

Let John McCain continue to patronize Barack Obama. He'll find out like Hillary has that Obama has some answers.

Bush and McCain See No End In Iraq

It seems clear that George Bush and John McCain do not see any end to our involvement in Iraq.

Bush has now said that

"It seems that no matter what happens in Iraq, opponents of the war have one answer: retreat. When things were going badly in Iraq a year ago, they called for withdrawal. Then we changed our strategy, launched the surge, and turned the situation around. . . . In the face of these changes on the ground, congressional leaders are still sounding the same old call for withdrawal. I guess you could say that when it comes to pushing for withdrawal, their strategy is to stay the course. It's interesting that many of the same people who once accused me of refusing to acknowledge setbacks in Iraq now are the ones who are refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq."

Everyone will acknowledge that the surge has been effective. If we put enough troops on the ground in Iraq, of course we can suppress the violence for a time. The real question is what our long-term strategy should be. Should we stay in Iraq forever because there will always be a threat that anti-American forces will grow there if we leave? Or should we begin a measured withdrawal so that Iraq can handle its own problems, and we're not continually fomenting anti-American sentiment around the world? We can't afford to stay there forever. Nor should we.

Jail Time

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. has more people in jail than any other country in the world. Doesn't that indicate that something is wrong with the system?

More than one in 100 adults in the United States is in jail or prison, an all-time high that is costing state governments nearly $50 billion a year, in addition to more than $5 billion spent by the federal government, according to a report released today.

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars at the start of 2008, the United States leads the world in both the number and the percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving even far more populous China a distant second, noted the report by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.

It is shocking that China, which is condemned regularly for human rights abuses, has far fewer people in jail than we do. China has a quarter of the world's population, and still does not have as many people in jail as we do.

One problem pointed to in the article is that this is draining state budgets, limiting the funding they can provide for education. Spending less on education and more on incarceration can only lead to a downward spiral over time.

The Fact Checker and NAFTA

Michael Dobbs' The Fact Checker is a very interesting read. He has covered tonight's debate. It is clear enough that both Obama and Clinton want fair free trade. NAFTA would be all right, they argue, if we enforced its provisions properly. What this means to me is that NAFTA and other 'free trade' pacts require an administration that will actively protect the American worker. I'm not at all sure this will work. The fact is that other countries only have competitive leverage because their employees don't make much money, and the regulations over industry are practically non-existent. The principle they're aiming for is reasonable: negotiate trade pacts that are mutually beneficial. We should continue to encourage free trade while encouraging reform in the countries that we're trading with. Obama and Clinton are both intending to do essentially the same thing on this, it seems to me.

Aurora

Aurora is a vision of thousands of streams of light spreading through an otherwise dark night sky.

The grace of God is present in the world. It has been recognized in so many forms throughout so many cultures in the world. It is not new. It is as old as time itself. It need not be conceptualized as a personal being called 'God'. It is the life force. It is the vital energy of the universe. It is the source of all being. This power is beyond any representative abstraction.

It is the indescribable Tao of Laozi.
It is the inspiration of the Buddhadharma.
It is, more accurately, the Buddhidharma, for everyone has the Buddha nature within.
It is the content of true Islam.
It is the content of true Christianity.
Is the content of true Judaism.
It is the vision of Ueshiba who proclaimed Aikido to be "the art of peace."
It is ubiquitous. Yet so very underutilized and unrealized in the personal lives of most people.

It is the hope of being truly human.

Aurora is an open invitation to receive this gift, offered by those who have experienced it to those who have experienced it only slightly or who are not aware of having experienced it. The vital and guiding energy that is experienced as the Buddhidharma is available to all who seek it. The time is now.

Clinton's Inconsistency

Time and time again, I wonder who Hillary Clinton really is. Is she the nasty candidate who viciously cuts into her opponents? Or is she the nice woman who runs attack-campaigns on bad advice, and occasionally 'drops her guard' and lets her truer, warmer colors come through? I'd like to think the latter, except that just when I think it's authentic I hear that her dropping of the guard involved an almost verbatim quote of John Edwards' closing remarks mixed with an almost verbatim quote of a successful Bill Clinton closing remark. And this from someone who wasted her (and our) time accusing Obama of plagiarism.

Now she is giving me more pause for reflection on this matter. In Ohio, which she desperately needs to win and where a disproportionate number of workers have lost jobs to 'free trade', Hillary is taking up the John Edwards mantle and is proclaiming that NAFTA and other free trade agreements have hurt America. She is trying to paint Obama as the mainstream candidate Ohio doesn't need, while saying that she alone is for eliminating the tide of lost jobs to Asia and Central America.

I'd love to believe that Hillary means it. I'd love to believe that she has had a sudden conversion. As late as 2004, she was fully supportive of her husband's NAFTA agreement, and
said it was good for America. I'll bet she isn't campaigning against NAFTA in Texas where she's trying to hang on to the Mexican-American vote. She hasn't made it a campaign issue before now. Is it possible that Hillary, who has lost 10 states in a row to Obama, is trying on the fully progressive role as a last ditch, desperation move? The problem with that is that I don't know what she really thinks. I don't trust her canned 'emotional' releases. And I don't trust her waffling on issues such as these. I distinctly get the impression that she'll say whatever she needs to in order to get elected.

And an inconsistency such as that is very different than a consistent pragmatic strategy that is designed to unite disparate factions on a progressive course. I think Obama has done the latter. We need to elect Obama.

Nader and Voting "On Principles"

Susan Jacoby has promoted a discussion of the Nader candidacy through a short post this morning entitled "Ralph Nader: Enter the Spoiler Redux." Her article begins with the sentence, "Here he goes again. Ralph Nader, the egomaniac (as distinct from Ralph Nader, the distinguished consumer advocate) announced Sunday that he will run as an independent candidate for the presidency in 2008." She later writes: "I don’t know whether Nader is just a self-centered fanatic or whether he really believes that there is no difference at all between the Democratic and Republican parties." While it is rare for me to agree with Susan Jacoby, I couldn't agree with her more on this particular issue.

An American friend who lives in France commented on my Nader post by saying: "I really hate to go against the grain here, but...I...well, voted for Nader during the election when people told me that I was taking votes from Gore. But, I felt that I ought not "play the game" of strategic voting, but vote for the right person: a person who would implement universal health care, call a spade a spade, and not worry about tired communist slander (for example). Now the dems have a real candidate in Obama (he is not a savior, but much better than I could ever imagine in the current climate). All in all, I want to think that Nader and his supporters are thinking nothing other than what an essential candidate he is for the country. Democracy has some crazy, but passionate, fringes...thank God!!"

I am reading a "voting on principles" argument here. There are many people who believe that every American ought to vote for the person who represents their views whether they have a chance to win or not. I could not disagree more.

In the Democratic primaries, Dennis Kucinich best represented the views of many progressives. I'll grant that. But were his true, personal views much different than Obama's or Hillary Clinton's? I doubt it. To take one issue as an example, Kucinich knew he didn't have a chance to win. He could say anything he wanted without a concern in the world for the general election. He could say he was for full, free universal health care. Obama and Clinton (especially Clinton after what she went through in the 90's, know that they cannot possibly get enough support for free universal health care with about 50% of the population being center-right, fully right-wing, or extremely right-wing. So, they make the pragmatic decision to try to move the government in a progressive direction. They can't get the whole deal done in one go, so they are pragmatic enough to try to get what they can get.

Kucinich, as well as Nader, could say that on principle he must run against Obama or Clinton because they've sold out on the ideal. Then we'd have not only Nader but Kucinich as well draining off votes from Obama and Clinton. Why not throw John Edwards in here, too? He stood more firmly for the American worker than either Obama or Clinton, and he legitimately had a chance to win. He could say that Obama and Clinton have not done enough for the American worker, and so, on principle, throw his hat into the ring as an independent candidate, too. Then we'd have Nader, Kucinich, and Edwards draining votes from the eventual Democratic candidate. But Kucinich and Edwards are pragmatic enough not to do that. Thank God, indeed! Edwards and Kucinich must realize that Clinton and Obama represent the best chance we have to move the country in the progressive direction they'd like to see achieved eventually. They must know that they lost at least in part because the country is not fully ready for the ideals they presented during the primaries, so the country would be even less ready for them in a general election.

A little pragmatism is called for on the part of Nader supporters for the same reasons.

I'm all for high ideals and principles, but there are limits to Kantianism. According to Kant, on principle, we should never lie. But the obvious critique of his ethics was the example of the mad man with a knife. If a mad man with a knife is after a loved one, should you honestly tell him where the loved one is hiding? If one's moral principles suggest that one should not lie, then (on Kant's theory) you should tell the truth no matter the consequences. But most of us would say that's nuts! To me, it's the same here. The Nader supporter seems to be saying, "I don't care if my vote helps to elect someone who is diametrically opposed to everything I believe in, and will set causes I support back for another 4-8 years. I refuse to vote for someone who (largely out of pragmatism) won't say they support fully implementing my ideals tomorrow."

For that reason, I not only think the argument is a weak one. I think it's morally unconscionable to act upon.

Univeral Health Care: Clinton and Obama

A comment on one of my previous posts deserved a new post, I thought. So here it goes.

Both Clinton and Obama want universal health care. As Obama said, the difference is in the path they're proposing.

Clinton's plan does NOT get us to free universal health care. It gets us, supposedly, to MANDATED universal health care. And there's a big difference. I'm lucky to have insurance through my employer (California State University). If my only employer was the community college, I couldn't afford health insurance.

Neither Clinton nor Obama believe they can pass free universal health care in our backwards political environment where they'd be labeled "communists" if they pushed it. So, Clinton wants to mandate our participation in health insurance. She'd make me buy insurance whether I can afford it or not. Thanks a lot! And if I couldn't possibly afford it, she'd fine me for not getting it. I'd be even worse off.

Obama is at least kind enough to say that if I can't afford the health insurance, he isn't going to make me buy it.

Both Clinton and Obama are planning to subsidize the purchase of insurance for the poorest of us. The question is what to do about those who make too much to be subsidized, but who are not well enough off to then afford health insurance. Clinton says she'll make them buy it anyway. Obama gives them a break while trying to move the country toward more universal health care.

I prefer Obama's plan. I don't need Hillary using the power of the government to make me pay for insurance I can't afford.

Ralph Nader

What can Ralph Nader possibly hope to get out of running for President again? If I were an investigative reporter, I'd "follow the money!" There's absolutely no chance he'll win. And he must know that. So what's in it for him? It has to be they money. I'm not going to say the Republicans are behind this. But if they aren't, it sure would be the best chance they have to beat Obama or Hillary. Every vote for Nader will be a vote for McCain in the last analysis... unless the vote is coming from someone who wouldn't have voted otherwise. Suppose Nader cuts into the Democratic vote by 5%. After the last election, does anyone doubt that this is a dream come true for the Republicans? Now we need a right-wing extremist to run as a 4th party candidate to do some equal damage to the Republican vote. Someone tell Howard Dean to get busy funding such a campaign. (I looked for a photo of Nader and ran across this political cartoon by Gary Markstein. It's the same thing as 4 years ago. Does anyone wish Nader hadn't run 4 years ago? I know I sure do. Talk about a spoiler.)

Oliver!

We watched “Oliver!” this weekend, and it’s the one I think everyone should take the time to see. It’s a musical based on Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. I remember when this came out when I was a boy. Mark Lester (Oliver) and Jack Wild (The Artful Dodger) were huge sensations. Their photos were in all the magazines. For some reason, I never got to see it. Better late than never! This film is fabulous. In the workhouse, where the film starts, we see the words “God is love” written in large letters on the wall, but it’s clear that the house is filled with anything but love. The boys march down the dungeon-like stairs carrying bowls and approaching their ‘gruel’ singing “Food, glorious food,” and dreaming of eating like their caretakers. Oliver asks for more, and gets dismissed from the workhouse while his keeper sings “Boy for sale.” Oliver gets put to work for, and abused by, an undertaker’s family until he’s thrown into and locked up in a cellar. He looks out the window and sings “Where is love?” This is all great stuff.

He escapes and heads to London, where he meets The Artful Dodger. Through him, Oliver is introduced to Fagin (played Ron Moody), one of the most memorable villains you will ever see anywhere. Oliver thinks he's finally found a soft spot to land as they sing "Consider yourself at home. Consider yourself... part of the family." I didn't know that's where that song had come from. Fagin introduces Oliver to his new line of work with “You’ve got to pick a pocket or two.” You’re hoping that Oliver won’t get caught up into it, but as you see the huge contrast between the rich and the poor, you understand it as well.

The entire film is outstanding, but it’s Fagin who stands out as the unforgettable highlight. Forever ingrained in my feelings are his expressions, his dancing, and his theme song (sung twice), “Reviewing the Situation.” This song is so hilariously funny. I laughed and laughed and laughed. He wants to get out of his villainous ways, but in the end sings “I think I’d better think it out again.”

Oliver Reed (whom I remember most from “The Three Musketeers) was excellent as the lost soul Bill Sykes.

If you haven’t seen this, you’ve got to see it.

Giant

Tara and I are avid movie fans, and see as many as we have time for. I've decided it's time to start blogging about the ones we see. I've only mentioned a couple along the way so far.
This week, we watched the very long, very much too long “Giant,” which runs nearly three hours long. “Giant” is famous as the last film made by James Dean before he died. The film actually stars Rock Hudson as Bick Benedict, a Texas rancher who inherited his family's 500,000 acre cattle ranch called Reata. Elizabeth Taylor costars as Leslie, a young woman from Maryland (even though Edna Ferber’s novel has her in Virginia) whom Bick meets and marries on a trip to buy a prize stallion. It also costars James Dean as Jett Rink, who works on the Benedict ranch.

I actually expected a better film than this turned out to be. I remember having read at least part of the book as a teenager, and knew this to be a classic in many people’s estimation. In the end, Tara and I were both disappointed with many aspects of the film. My own view is that the film was directed poorly… especially in terms of the editing. The first half of the film drags on and on with character development that could have been abbreviated. Then we’re suddenly thrust forward in time at least fifteen years. Not only are we left wondering what happened in the meantime, but the make-up job on Hudson and Taylor that is supposed to make us think they’ve aged is not very convincing. They did a better job on James Dean, who was the youngest of the three of them. Tara and I were very surprised and not real happy with the way the film ends either. I expected more… and less (in terms of film time)… than what we got.

There are some outstanding aspects of this film, however. It was very easy for me to get caught up in the dynamic of the Maryland girl marrying the Texan and having to adjust to life there. After all, I’m from Maryland, and Tara’s from Texas. I saw the film through Leslie’s (Elizabeth Taylor’s) eyes. I couldn’t identify with Bick (Rock Hudson), who was supposed to be a typical, arrogant, big, macho Texan. He was prejudiced and bigoted and misogynistic. Jett (James Dean) was no better. He was a Bick-wannabe. He resented the wealth of the Benedict family, and told Leslie that their family was no better than his. The only difference was that they were “foxy” enough (as he put it) to take advantage of the Mexicans in a way that his family hadn’t been. The battle between Bick and Jett was representative of the battle of between poor whites and landed aristocracy in Texas at the time. This was a very interesting aspect of the film. I only wish it was developed better. Another undercurrent was the ethnic battle between the poor working Mexicans and the whites (both rich and poor). Leslie is chastised for treating the Mexican servants like human beings. Bick’s son ends up marrying a Mexican woman, and this puts the family in some uncomfortable situations. What I think I liked best about the film was that Leslie was quietly working on Bick through the whole film, and by the end, he’s willing to accept his children for who they really are, and because his grandson is half-Mexican, he finally can see the world through Mexicans’ eyes, and defends their equality.

All of this makes it somewhat thought-provoking. I just wish it had been done better.

The African-American Vote

Colbert King (pictured below left receiving a Pulitzer Prize) has a nice column this morning that the front page of the online edition of Washington Post labeled "The Truth Hurts," though the article itself is entitled, "A Truth the Clintons Can't Handle." He said that the typical white politician's approach to the black voter is condescending. And he believes
it is typified by the Clinton's words and actions in their race against Obama. Polling among African Americans, just a few months ago, indicated that Hillary Clinton had a substantial lead over Obama. As King puts it, Obama was as black then as he is now. The surge has come because voters have gotten to know Obama, and they like what he has to say. African Americans aren't voting for Obama because of race. And he is succeeding in this election across demographic lines.

Obama Wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii

Obama has won in Wisconsin, and in Hawaii where he spent part of his youth. It was reported today that some polls had him with only a 1 point lead over Clinton in Wisconsin, and that was part of why she turned up the negative campaigning. She thought she had a chance. But as it turns out, Obama won handily with 58% of the vote there, compared to 41% for Clinton. Obama won 76% of the vote in Hawaii, compared to 24% for Hillary Clinton.

With those kinds of margins shaping up for Obama, it's hard to see how the super-delegates could turn this election in favor of Clinton. It would be a subversion of democracy if they did.

But Clinton has to see Texas and Ohio as her last chances. Obama has now won 10 states in a row. Clinton has to win Texas and Ohio in order to help her super-delegates feel that they can vote for her. If Obama were to take either Texas or Ohio, it's hard to see how Clinton can even stay in the race. And it's my understanding that Obama has a real good chance in Texas, despite Clinton's support among Hispanic voters. Obama polls very strongly in the parts of the state that have the most delegates--Houston, Dallas, and Austin.

Clinton Gets Nasty... Again

Hillary Clinton is doing the only thing she can to stop Barack Obama: she is attacking in the nasty way that she does best. She is now accusing Obama of plagiarism, as if there's a politician alive who doesn't make plentiful use of language they approve of from a variety of sources, and she is saying that Obama's campaign is all about rhetoric without substance. She says that it's "just words." If she succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination, I'd have a hard time supporting her for the presidency.

Obama has defended himself against her viciousness by asking if phrases like "I have a dream..." and "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" are "just words."

It's not like Obama is unintelligent, and can only make speeches. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is brilliant. People relate to his speeches because they do not come across as mere speeches lacking substance. People see Obama as someone who has the optimism and vision to carry out the essence of his fine words.

I don't see that in Hillary Clinton. She so readily falls into this vile scratching at her opponents, and the dirty attacks that the Clintons have become notorious for. One could argue that it's effective. I'd rather not have another Cheney or Rove running the country; whichever way their political inclinations may tilt.

McCain has Flip-Flopped on Taxes

Just read an interesting article in the New Republic's "The Plank" that is related to my last blog post, below. They say that McCain is a very recent convert to supply-side economics. He was quoted in South Carolina as saying that "Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues." That's because that's the mantra that conservatives want to believe.

But the New Republic calls him on this and points out the lie. They show how tax revenues fell after Bush's 2001 tax cuts, and when revenues have grown with tax increases. It's very interesting to see, because the numbers don't lie. And we need this kind of raw data in the face of the conservative believers who accept the supply-side myth on faith.

There are times when supply-side works. No doubt about that. But this religious conviction that we have to always cut taxes, even in the face of the need for more spending, is absurd.

Taxes

The fact is that our government has a deficit. There are many things we need our government to do, and all of it costs money. To say we're going to do these things and then underfund them is negligent. That strategy has long been part of the conservative attempt to derail the federal government.

I admired McCain for standing up to Bush about cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans when we can't afford that. I admired McCain for refusing to make the tax cuts permanent. I admired McCain for leaving open the door to raising taxes when it's needed. But McCain is going further and further right in his run for the presidency. Today, he has taken the "no new taxes" pledge that is the conservative mantra.

Obama apparently saw it the same I did. In response to this news, Obama said, "I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his conscience to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war. But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for those same tax cuts."
We have to elect Obama, and we have to stop stupidly saying we want government services without paying for them. That doesn't mean we should give the government a blank check. They have to be watched, because Lord knows they'll find ways to waste money. But to insist on spending money while insisting on not raising money is the road to ruin.

McCain-Feingold

One complaint about McCain on the right is his co-sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold Act that limited spending by big money on campaigns. A prominent rallying cry against the act is the claim that it is unconstitutional because it restricts freedom of speech.

The courts have given us, and have upheld the notion that campaign financing is an act of Freedom of Speech, protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. But where do we draw a line between "buying an election" and "free speech"? McCain-Feingold answers the call of the people to stop the practice of big business and big money buying elections. This is clearly, on the face of it, a good thing to do. Does it really make sense, in the face of this, to label the practice of spending large amounts of money on campaigns a matter of "free speech"? It doesn't to me.

It is also said that this act was passed into law in an effort to protect incumbents. That makes little sense to me either. True, there is the threat of the self-financing candidate, and McCain-Feingold does a lot to limit the self-financing candidate. But that's a good thing to me, because I don't want to see millionaires buying their way into office anymore than I want them buying someone else into office. For the most part, however, it's the challenger who is helped by this act. It's a lot easier for someone in office to be selected as the beneficiary of corporate influence than it is for an unknown to be.

Corporations should no right to free speech protection anyway. They should not be considered "persons," even though a corrupt Congress established them as such through the 14th Amendment in 1868. Seeing this coming, Abraham Lincoln said:

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Today, the top 20% of wealthiest Americans own over 80% of the nation's wealth. Persons need protection from corporations, and corporations do not deserve protections from persons. There is a balance to be found, of course, in considering the people who are share-holders in, and people who work for corporations. But corporations should not be able to, amongst other things, use the shelter of "free speech" to buy elections and votes.

As for the individually wealthy, most of whom have benefited from corporate welfare, protection, and vote-buying, they do have a right to "free speech." They can say anything they want. They can argue anything they want. They can influence us through the use of reason. They can even influence us through their advertising schemes and rhetoric. But the buying of elections and votes should never have been protected as "free speech."

The protection of the buying of elections and votes under the guise of "free speech" is a transparent attempt to maintain a culture of corruption in our political system.

(You can enlarge the bar graph by clicking on it, or checking out its website of origin.)

Potomac Sweep

Well, I'm happy to say that my home region voted for the best two candidates in the Potomac primaries (which covered Maryland, DC, and Virginia. Barack Obama won on the Democratic side and John McCain won on the Republican side. Senator Obama has gained momentum since the Super Tuesday tie. Actually Obama won more states on Super Tuesday, but it he had only the slightest lead in terms of delegates won. The next big event is the contest for Ohio and Texas. Supposedly, Senator Clinton has an advantage in Texas due to the Hispanic vote. Were it not for the Hispanic vote, Obama would be putting this election away at this point. Based on anecdotal evidence, I can only surmise that most Hispanics remember things going better for them under Bill Clinton, and they're just not as familiar with Barack Obama. Tensions between Hispanics and African-Americans around the country can't help, but it's difficult to say how big of a role that's playing. Obama has done well everywhere voters have had a chance to get to know him. I am hopeful that things will continue to go well for him. But I do fear that the Democratic Party might pull this away from him at the convention. There's little likelihood that this will be settled before then.

Conservative and Liberal Straw Men

I keep harping on this theme: what does it mean to be conservative? What does it mean to be liberal? The terms are like caricatures most of the time. In logic and critical thinking, I like to talk about how people from both parties like to commit the Straw Man fallacy by exaggerating their opponent's stances. There are many times when the candidates aren't really very different from one another in what they'd actually do, but they like to make their opponent seem either radically right or radically left by painting them as too "Liberal" or too "Conservative."

Part of my point on this matter is that it's not good to be "too" anything.

I get that to Sean Hannity, for instance, to be conservative is to worship Ronald Reagan. I get that to be conservative, for them, to be against big government, tax increases of any kind, activist courts, and abortion. I get that it's to be on the side of religion against absolute secularism. I get that it's to be strong on defense.

The fact is that they think that Democrats are too "liberal" because they are thought to be the opposite of these. "Liberals," to their minds, want to increase the role of Big Government (read Federal Government), increase taxation, interpret the Constitution in an activist (non-strictly constructionist) manner, and they support a woman's right to choose. "Liberals," they believe, favor a secular trajectory for our nation over against religion, and are weak on defense.

I believed all of this from the time that Ronald Reagan ran for president to the time that George W. Bush too the Republican Party to the Dark Side. I supported Clinton enthusiastically in the meantime because he was middle-of-the-road in his policy-making, was extremely intelligent and articulate, and he appealed to us "Reagan Democrats."

But I've had to rethink all of that over time.

The real point is to have the "right" size government, and not to be ideologically for or against everything the Federal Government does. That's a point I learned a long time ago from E.F. Schumacher. I just never learned to put it into this context until now. The point, again, is to have the "right" amount of taxation and neither to be ideologically for or against taxation of any sort.

I do favor an interpretation of the Constitution that honors the intent of the law. I don't think the Court has a Constitutional right to make up stuff as they go, in effect becoming legislators. But the fact is that you can't get away from "interpretation," and sometimes Republicans sound like they think you can. The "strict constructionists" are often so ideological about this that they are blind to the fact that they can't eliminate interpretation from judicial judgments. We call these "interpretations" because that's exactly what they are. We should interpret wisely and in the spirit of law.

I am against second and third term abortions. I agree with Republicans that abortion got way out of control in our country. But I believe it's very difficult, if not impossible, to say when a "human" life begins. If we mean by "human" that human DNA constitute a person, then, life begins at conception, and all abortion should be banned. If we mean by "human" that a person isn't really there until some development of the embryo occurs, then it's difficult to say exactly where the magic moment of "becoming human" or "becoming a person" really occurs. I think that's there's enough doubt about it that people ought to have the right to choose during the first trimester. So, I'm neither with the ideologues on the right or left who say that abortion should always be prohibited or that it should always be allowed. The real point is to find a middle way that deals with the ambiguities and difficulties while respecting the rights of both mother and child.

I am against the secularist oppression of religious practice that would occur without resistance from those who practice religions. But I am also against the conservative religious-right's movement to conflate fundamentalist Christianity and American governance. We were never intended to have a theocracy. We have a secular government informed by Judeo-Christian as well as Greco-Roman principles. We have a secular government that was intended to respect the right to practice religion without favoring one over the other. That does not mean that the founders intended to practice governance with no regard for religion, or to legislate religion out of the public sphere. The real point is to have a religiously, spiritually informed body of legislators who do not favor their own religions over others.

Finally, the real point is to have the right amount of "Defense." If the Republicans keep up their current crusade, they might as well change the name of "Defense Department" back to its original, "War Department." We changed the name to emphasize our "defensive" posture as opposed to an aggressive one. So, I say let's act like we mean that. I'm all for a strong defense. I'm against being overly aggressive in making war with the rest of the world. It's bad for them. And it's bad for us.

The labels "Liberal" and "Conservative" are used in ways that aren't especially helpful to most of our debates. If every Democrat is to be labeled as a caricature-Liberal, then individual Democrats aren't given fair analysis. If every Republican is to be labeled as a caricature- Conservative, then individual Republicans aren't given fair analysis. The question should always be who we think will bring us the right amount of good governance with regard to all of these issues, regardless of party. Let's not sweep that debate aside with the all-too-easy labels of caricature-Liberal and caricature-Republican.

I am classically liberal in that I believe in freedom from authoritarian rule. I am liberal in the modern sense in believing there are some things that the Federal Government can do well. I am also liberal in the modern sense in believing that government has a responsibility to regulate the free market to the extent that justice requires it. But I have my conservative aspects, too. I think that the Federal Government can get too big. I believe it has interfered too much with the free market at times. I believe that it's possible to overly tax people. I think we should always strive to attain a just level of taxation, and that it should not be increased above that. I think that the courts have become overly activist at times, and that we should strive to find justices who are not driven to activism or callous to the needs of people who seek protection under the law. I defend the right of the religious to practice their religion, even in public forums. And I believe we must maintain a strong defense. Let's just make sure that we're truly keeping it defensive.

It's too easy and it's ultimately inaccurate to label oneself as liberal or conservative in an absolute manner. The real point is be more or less liberal or conservative when and where it's called for.

It is wise to find the middle way, being more liberal when and where one believes the government has become too constrained, and more conservative when and where one believes that the government has exceeded a just restraint. It's not easy to find the right way. It's much easier to embrace black-and-white ideologies. It's just not right.

Redskins Hire Jim Zorn as Head Coach

I made a couple of posts on Jason La Canfora's Redskin Insider blog today regarding, first, the hire of Jim Zorn as the new head coach, and second, the administrative structure of Redskin football operations.

Regarding the process of hiring Jim Zorn and the result:

(1) I was out of patience with the process. But I love the way it turned out. And I believe Snyder's story. It helps that Gibbs verifies that story, and surely you don't believe Gibbs would lie about it... whatever you think about Snyder. Cerrato really liked Zorn, from the combine on.

And Zorn was recommended by both Fassel and Williams. They thought they had found their offensive coordinator and not the head coach, because Zorn has only been a quarterbacks' coach before. Snyder said he would go through the process of interviewing all of the potential candidates thoroughly, and that took them beyond the Super Bowl to accomplish. I really think they were trying to find someone with some of Gibbs' better characteristics. It is said that after every interview, Cerrato said 'Zorn'. Snyder told Gibbs that Zorn would make a great head coach. If they were really taken with him, one could easily see why they'd go through the whole interview process weighing him against everyone else on their list. They had to do that, because he is inexperienced. I'm ultimately pleased with what they've done, and I, like they, hope it turns out well. As Zorn said, it's up to him now to earn our respect. But like many fans, I'm behind him and want him to do well.

(2) And in reaction to one fan's complaint that there seemed to be a contradiction in saying that Cerrato was in charge of football operations, but then saying at the press conference for Zorn that the head coach has final say over the roster:

Why the demand for an absolute hierarchy? If you don't trust Cerrato absolutely, you should be happy. This was the structure that Gibbs put in place: people actually working together. Cerrato supervises the personnel department and makes recommendations, but doesn't cram them down the coaches' throats. Why should Blache have a player on defense that he doesn't think would fit? Why should Zorn have anyone on the team that he doesn't think would fit. Shouldn't they have veto power, and the power to make recommendations as well? Shouldn't a grown group of men be able to go into a meeting and come to a consensus? Why is this so hard to accept?

Conservativism and Liberalism

What is conservativism? What is liberalism? Most people, seeing that I support Obama, and seeing the other things that I write in my blog, would naturally think I'm very liberal. But what does that mean?

I voted for George Bush in 2000 because I believed what he was saying, and Al Gore seemed too unstable a personality for the job... at the time. What was Bush saying? He was going to restore dignity to the White House. By that, he meant that Clinton, through his personal actions, had brought shame on the Presidency and the White House. As much as I liked Clinton's policies, and his ability to deal with problems, his personal problems with chasing women were, in fact, pretty embarrassing. Bush also said that Clinton had been too adventurous, sending troops into Bosnia and Mogadishu. I wasn't highly critical of Clinton for those moves. I was generally supportive. But I believed Bush when he said that America shouldn't be in the business of "nation-building." I agreed with Patrick Buchanan when he said that America shouldn't be in the business of empire building. Isn't it a conservative sentiment to be strong on defense, but to reserve that strength for defending the homeland rather than being adventurous and aggressive overseas? Bush also represented, in 2000, a Christianity that sought to defend itself against an onslaught of secularism that seemed bent on denying our right to express our faith in this country. I agreed with that. Bush also said that he stood for a "compassionate conservativism" that helps people rather than alienating them. I was all for that. Finally, Bush was for modernizing the education system so that "no child would be left behind." Very inspiring words.

But now I despise Bush. Why? Because he lied to us. And he hasn't fulfilled any of this promise.

I was a middle of the road voter who swung Bush's way rather than Gore's NOT because I was a fanatic right-wing nut, but because of the above points. But soon after the election, it became clear that the administration, and the party, was not in the hands of George Bush. It was in the hands of people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. It was in the hands of neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. The decent Republicans like Colin Powell were soon marginalized. And I began to realize that George Bush was either an idiot that was being used (which might be true) or he was a lying S.O.B. who was in cahoots with the above mentioned Gang of Four.

To truly modernize the education system so that no child would be left behind, we would have needed to fund the programs. But the right-wing ideologues wouldn't dream of funding a government program properly. In fact, everything they did pointed to a strategy bent on destroying the federal government by underfunding everything. Except the war machine, of course. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was also doomed to failure, because it, too, was underfunded. People began leaving the program about as soon as it was established, because they realized that it was an empty promise. Rather than defending Christianity's position in this country, Bush further marginalized it by bringing to the fore its worst features. Eight years later, I believe Christianity is in a far worse position in this country than it has ever been before. I'm almost ashamed to associate myself with Christianity. Who with a conscience would want to associate with Christianity if its use of power includes lying about weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, launching a preemptive war against a country that was little or no threat to our national security, doing everything possible to enrich the rich and dispossess the middle class and poor, underfunding programs to help the poor and elderly, breaking the Constitution out of fear by authorizing illegal wiretaps, ignoring the principle of habeas corpus, doing everything in its power to break the principle of checks and balances, and even hiding and then defending the use of torture? This is the United States of America? It's the not the U.S. that I was raised to believe in. Something went terribly wrong, and unfortunately the Christian right, which is the loudest segment of Christianity in this country, has defended this treason and treachery to the hilt. Bush was against nation-building, but his entire administration turned into one of not only nation-building, but empire-building. And far from restoring dignity to the White House, he has single-handedly made the presidency ridiculous. At least Clinton could think and talk. At least Clinton was an impressive figure on the world stage. World leaders liked Clinton. They admired him. (If only he could have realized that for as long as he was in office, he needed to behave with some sexual restraint, his presidency would have been highly respected.) But Bush? He's horrible. He doesn't seem very bright. He can't think on his feet, certainly. He can't give a speech. He has alienated most of our allies throughout the world. He has lied to us and to the world. And he has been continually deceptive about what he is doing. It's so bad that he has even established a precedent for Putin ("I have looked into his eyes") to thumb his nose at democracy while saying, essentially, 'if you can do it, I can do it, too'.

Am I a horrible "liberal" for wanting education to be funded and for us to have a decent health care system? Margaret Thatcher wanted those things for her country, so give me a break! Am I a horrible "liberal" for not wanting my country to torture people? For not wanting the system to be set up in a way that disproportionately favors the rich and dispossess the middle class and the poor? For not wanting to launch unnecessary preemptive wars? For not wanting to build empires? For not wanting our kids to be killed in the process thereof? Bush has killed more of our people through his policies than the terrorists ever dreamed of killing. I am a progressive conservative in the classical liberal tradition that supports freedom. I think that's what Obama is, too. I used to think McCain was, too, but his rhetoric is either just pandering to the right (in which case it's a lie), or he's a selfish right-winger who will bring shame to America and Christianity as well... following in Bush's footsteps.

Another Cheney?

The Republicans started making noises about a settlement with McCain by getting a "true conservative" in as Vice President. That scares the heck out of me. I am afraid that what they mean is that they want a Vice President like Cheney who will run things their way under the nose of the President. At least McCain won't countenance torture. And I don't think McCain would lie to us. I believe he's a man of integrity, even if I don't think he's right about keeping troops in the Middle East.

Darrell Green and Art Monk

Darrell Green and Art Monk were elected to the Hall of Fame today. Monk had not made it for the first several years that he was eligible, and this stirred quite a bit of controversy. Green made it in his first year of eligibility.
Monk was the most important piece of Joe Gibbs' Super Bowl teams, even if John Riggins was more important in the early years of the run. Monk ended up playing on 4 Super Bowl teams for the Redskins. He was the all-time leading receiver in the NFL when he retired with 940 receptions for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns. So, it would seem that his election to the Hall of Fame would have been automatic. But two things seemed to hold Monk back. One, he was a quiet and humble man rather than being brash and egotistical like Michael Irwin. This led to him not getting as much media attention while he was playing. Second, he wasn't particularly known as a deep threat. He was a possession receiver who made catches when it counted and kept the chains moving. Gibbs has always pointed out that he was an exceptional blocker who helped out with the running game as well.
Darrell Green will be remembered as the fastest man in football while he played. He was one of the game's best cornerbacks. He finished his career with 54 career interceptions. He also returned punts. Green's durability and longevity amazed all observers of the NFL. He played his entire 20-year career with the Washington Redskins, and played on three Super Bowl teams.

Wilbon

I have been hit with high blood pressure over the last couple of weeks, and it's going to result in some big changes for me, mostly dietary... for now. But I am lucky... so far. The worst part of it is the concern that this can lead to stroke, kidney failure, heart disease, etc. But at least I didn't have a heart attack. Now, I read in the Washington Post that the nationally acclaimed sports writer and co-star of PTI (Pardon the Interruption), Michael Wilbon, had a heart attack while out in Arizona covering the Super Bowl. He is 49. I'll be 49 next month. I definitely can relate to that. He has written a column about the ordeal and the responses he has gotten from sports figures around the country. Puts things in perspective for me. It also makes me realize how close to the brink I walk. I'm taking it very seriously.
Michael Wilbon is a fine writer, a good thinker, and a significant voice for African Americans in the sports world. I admire his accomplishments and wish him a fast and full recovery.