The Power of the Internet

We recently took a snapshot of the locations of people in the U.S. who had posted messages on our blog. The snapshot appears above. It is quite interesting to note all the various locations. Only the internet could provide a way for people who are relatively far apart to communicate and share ideas. It is simply amazing.

NY Times Story on NAFTA Shows Sherrod Brown was Right

The New York Times, in an article in its The Week in Review section has a story on how NAFTA hasn't really slowed down illegal immigration from Mexico. According to the article, that's because NAFTA sponsors assumed that both governments and markets would act "rationally", ie, the way the sponsors thought they would act. It seems like they haven't and now immigration from Mexico is about 500,000 persons per year, 85% of it illegal. What's more, manufacturing jobs in Mexico have declined, partly because of competition from China. Farmers in Mexico are losing business because of competition from the United States.

When Sherrod Brown was running for the U.S. Senate this past year, a lot of editorial page writers called him a "protectionist" and took issue with his criticism of the NAFTA treaty. Well, guess what, as this article shows he was right to oppose NAFTA and he is right to oppose other trade treaties. This article makes clear that neither the US Government nor the Mexican Government did what they should have done with regard to infrastructure development before implementing NAFTA. Neither anticipated what would happen to Mexican jobs because of trade with China and neither planned for Mexican farmers losing income from American competition. In short, Washington needs politicians like Sherrod Brown who approach so-called "fair trade" agreements with skepticism.
You can read the whole NY Times article by clicking on the link in this entry's title. Free site registration may be required.

Flip-flopping George Voinovich Votes With Bush on Iraq

Okay, this is what Senator George Voinovich has done over the last two weeks. First he voted against ending the Republican filibuster on the Warner-Levin Resolution which meant that the Resolution couldn't come before the Senate for a vote. Then he signed a letter to both Reid and O'Connell grousing about the Senate not conducting a debate on the Resolution. Then, today, February 17, 2007, he again votes against ending the Republican filibuster on the Resolution that was passed by the House of Representatives. Now, we imagine that he will now issue some sort of statement about how he really doesn't support Bush on Iraq or some sort of statement to make it appear like he doesn't support Bush on Iraq.

This guy is, and has been since 2001 when Bubble-Boy took office, a Bush enabler. In the 1990s, when Clinton was President and he was Governor, he railed against deficit spending by the Federal government, then helped pass Bush's reckless tax cuts that plunged America into historic deficits. He has helped Bush put right-wing zealots on the Federal bench. He refuses to take a stand against Bush's war in Iraq. On every major vote, he has supported Bush, and yet the Ohio media keeps spinning the myth of good old "moderate" George Voinovich. Well, as they say in D.C., a Republican moderate is a person who if you were drowning 15 feet off shore, would throw you 10 feet of rope. (Click on the link in this entry's title to see how the entire Senate voted.)

Presidents and Intellectual Curiosity

President Bush doesn't come across as a man who has a lot of intellectual curiosity. This is not the same thing as saying that he is not intelligent. The two are not necessarily related. You can be a bright person and yet have no desire to learn about why things are the way they are. It is this lack of intellectual curiosity that distinguishes him from Bill Clinton, among other things.

Because Bush seems to lack intellectual curiosity, he is vulnerable to being misled by others. He seems to be a man who, if told something that meshes with his beliefs, doesn't question what he is being told. He doesn't seem to care about why things are they way they are.

Because he doesn't have much intellectual curiosity, he didn't ask the right questions about invading Iraq. He didn't take the time to find out what it meant for America that Iraq has two Islamic factions that don't necessarily get along. Or what would happen to Iran's influence in the region if you removed the Iraqi government which was comprised of Sunnis and replaced it with a government led by Shia politicians.

Intellectual curiosity in a president is a very important trait because it will led them to ask the right questions or question what they are being told. Yet, most political reporters never talk about this trait when discussing political candidates. They would rather talk about things like why Al Gore changed the color of his suits, or whether he was "comfortable in his own skin." Yet it is Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity that has cost this country thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars.

Human Compassion Goes Down as Number of Victims Goes Up

If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read an article about a study in human compassion. The author of the study concludes that as the number of victims goes up, human compassion goes down. He concludes that this is one reason why humans will respond emotionally to reports about one human in trouble, but not to reports of large scale suffering.

Although the author's conclusion is open to debate, it is a very provocative thesis. Of course, as the American aid response to Hurricane Katrina shows, there are millions of humans who are greatly affected by scenes of mass tragedy. Yet, news stories about events that affect one or a small number of humans do bring about intense responses.

Think of the emotional responses to the news story about the child who fell down the well back in the nineties and was rescued. There was an intense interest in that story. Or the story about the miners who were trapped down in West Virginia. That was also intensely followed.

Maybe its because we can see how are actions can affect one person, but find it much harder to see how our actions can affect a large number of people. Maybe there is something in our make-up that emotionally protects us from being overwhelmed by reports of mass suffering.

This study does have political implications. If you are interested in bringing about a societal response to a problem, like say the lack of health insurance for millions of Americans, don't cite statistics, rather tell a story about how the lack of insurance affects just one child or one family. Listeners will be able to make an emotional connection and once that connection is made, they will be able to then understand what the statistics mean.

Anti-Escalation Resolution Passes U.S. House, Ohio Republicans Support Bush

Seventeen Republicans voted against the Bush administration's escalation of troops in Iraq on Roll Call 99. You can view the results by clicking on the link in this entry's title. A quick review shows no Ohio Republican voting for the Resolution, which means that they all decided to stick with Bush, including Republicans who had tight races like Pryce and Schmidt. Congressman Regula, OH-16, voted against the Resolution.

Although earlier this week, commentators were saying that as few as 12 or as many as 60 Republicans might bolt and support the anti-escalation Resolution, in the final analysis party loyalty apparently won out. Of course, if this plan doesn't work, then it will be very hard for Republicans to escape responibility for the mess that is Iraq in 2008.

UPDATE: Our apologies to Steve LaTourette, who was one of the 17 Republicans to vote with the Democrats on this issue. What's interesting is that he didn't have near the close race that Pyrce had, yet he managed to support the anti-escalation resolution.

Turn Medina County Blue Project Report: Campaign Workshop

Around 40 Medina County Democrats turned out on Saturday, February 10th, to learn about campaigning methods and tactics. Speakers included Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman, Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack, Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler, Pat Walker, John Celebrezze, and Carol Gurney. The meeting was moderated by Mary Odgen, who moderated the Strategic Initiative meetings in 2005.

Attendees included candidates and campaign workers from Wadsworth, Brunswick, and other Medina County areas. Topics covered included message development, message, delivery, targeting, and fundraising. The speakers made presentations and took questions. Attendees filled out evaluation forms which will be used to develop future programs.

More Turn Medina County Blue Project meetings will be held during 2007 and 2008. If you are interested in attending, make sure that you send your email address to Medina County Democratic Chair Pam Miller at pam450@bright.net.

Website Devoted to John McCain's Flip-Flops

Click on the link in this entry's title to go to a website devoted to chronicling John McCain's flip-flops, which are many. Its mission is to take Americans off of the "Double-Talk Express."

Great Feagler Article on Kucinich in Today's PD

Click on the link in this entry's title to read a great column on Congressman Dennis Kucinich by Dick Feagler that ran in the February 14th, 2007 edition of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Gates Foundation Report on Ohio's Education Policies

If you click on the title of this entry, you can read a Cleveland Plain Dealer article on a report that the Gates Foundation delivered to the Ohio Board of Education yesterday. It says that while Ohio has made progress in testing students and requiring them to demonstrate that they have mastered certain subjects, much more needs to be done, particularly about funding. The report points out the obvious, that Ohio needs to change its reliance on local property taxes which forces local school districts to go back for money every two years. All candidates thinking of running for Ohio office in 2008, especially for the General Assembly need to track down this report and read it.

Fear of the Other in Politics

Newsweek had a short interview with the author of Why Good People Do Bad Things, which you can read by clicking on the link in this entry's title. The reason for the interview was the sad case of Lisa Nowak, the astronaut who is charged with trying to hurt a romantic rival. In this interview he noted that there are two basic fears that humans have: a fear that "the other" will overwhelm us, and the fear that "the other" will abandon us. According to this author, each of these basic human fears can lead to extreme and even violent actions. He goes on to theorize that it was her fear of abandonment that led to Ms. Nowak's actions.

While his interview was about romantic obsession and why a person as accomplished as Lisa Nowak would do something that appears incredibly stupid, his remarks have application to politics. One thing that all political ideologues who preach intolerance and hate have in common is that they base their appeal on fear of "the other." Think of Hitler and Stalin. Both of them were able to convince followers that "the other" was a threat to those followers. Think of homegrown ideologues such as the KKK or the John Birch society. Each of them tell their followers that "the other" such as Afro-Americans or liberals are a threat to their existence, or at least the existence they have known. It doesn't matter that the threat may be trivial or even non-existent, what matters is that they are able to convince their followers that the threat is real. They are able to raise fears in the minds of their followers that have their origins in out primal past.

Listen to the statements of people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh and analyze them to see if they are based on appealing to a fear of "the other." "The other" being liberals, Democrats, feminists, non-Christians, or anyone else that isn't like them. They raise the spectre that their listeners will be overwhelmed by "the other" and that they have to aggressively resist "the other" to preserve their lives and the lives of their families. It is very hard to rebut such emotional appeals with reason or facts. The reasoning part of the brain isn't involved in processing such appeals.

Of course, fear of "the other" isn't always illogical. There are people in the world who do wish to destroy others, or harm their families. Think of people like Osma bin Laden who seem nothing wrong with killing people who have never met him or his followers, let alone harmed them.

This fear of "the other" explains the rise and fall of George W. Bush between 2001 and 2006. Following September 11, 2001, it was easier to convince Americans that "the other", in this case Islamic terrorists posed a direct threat to our existence than it was on September 10, 2001. It was easy to get political support for attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then, before emotions could subside, he started hyping the threat from Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
That's why it was essential to the Bush administration that Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.

Once, though, the invasion took place and no WMDs were found, then Bush's popularity began to fall. Although it had not yet caught up with him by 2004, it had by 2006. His administration's attempts to use fear of "the other" to gain political power weren't successful since now Americans had plenty of evidence that instead of increasing our security, the Iraq War was hurting our security. Unlike 2002 or even 2004, fear of "the other" wasn't enough to overcome the empirical evidence of the harm that Bush's policies were doing to America.

The political use of fear of "the other" also explains why the Republicans in the House of Representatives don't want to debate the merits of Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq. Instead they want the focus of the debate to be on Islamic terrorists because such a debate appeals to people's fears and not their reason. They can possibly win a debate based on fear, but not win based on reason.

All this is not to say that there aren't Islamic terrorists that present a threat to America and Americans. After 9-11 only a fool would think that such threats don't exist. It is to say, however, that use of fear of "the other" can be a tool for political manipulation and as a instrument for obtaining and wielding political power, one that the radical right-wing Republicans won't hesitate to use.

Senate Republicans: Too Clever by Half?

According to an article in the Washington Post, Harry Reid is no longer backing the Warner-Levin Resolution, which is 1500 words. Instead he is backing the House Resolution which is against Bush's escalation of troops in Iraq and reaffirms support for funding the troops that are already there. (You can read the WP article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.) Reid believes he can get the House resolution before the Senate for a vote in about a week or so. This, of course, will put the Republicans once again in the spot of having to either support Bush or respect the will of the American people, of whom about 60% or more are opposed to any troop increase in Iraq.

Those pundits who thought that the Republicans get the better of Harry Reid when they successfully fought off an attempt to end their filibuster of the Warner Resolution should think again. Now, Republicans are going to face another difficult vote. One that once more will put several of their at-risk incumbents on record as either supporting Bush, and thereby ticking off independent voters, or defying Bush, thereby ticking off the conservative base of the party. It would have been far better to have let a vote take place on the Warner Resolution and be done with it.

Is the Mainstream Media Helping Bush Start War with Iran?

If you click on this entry's title you will link to a great article in the trade magazine Editor & Publisher which points out how both the Washington Post and the New York Times are aiding the Bush administration in its efforts to start a war with Iran. Once again these two "liberal" media giants are pushing an idea promulgated by the Bush administration without any critical analysis. In 2003 it was the idea that Sadam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. In 2007 it is the idea that Iran is arming the Shia militia in Iraq and that such militia are using these arms to kill American soldiers.

Now, the point of the article isn't whether Iran is or is not arming such groups, it is that the mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from the Iraqi War experience. In the case of the New York Times the author of its article was the co-author with Judith Miller of a series of articles on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that has been totally discredited. Why in the world would a newspaper that trumpets its "excellence in journalism" assign a reporter to cover this story on Iran whose work on Iraq was so shoddy? Why in the world does the Washington Post allow officials to make claims that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government are involved in giving weapons to Iraqi insurgents without them going on the record?
Are they trying to out-Fox Fox News? Don't we deserve better from our media? If they can't or won't hold critically analyze this administration's claims, then what are they adding to the public debate that we couldn't get from a Bush administration public relations handout?

Obama Takes on the "Mainstream Media"

One of the charges leveled against Obama is that he doesn't have enough experience to be President. His response to that charge is interesting. He points out that the "mainstream media" doesn't cover his policy proposals, but covers burning issues like what sort of swimsuit he wears. According to his aides, he is very much against the kind of celebrity driven news coverage we have seen too much of in America. (You can click on the link in this entry's title to read more.)

There could also be another reason why he is criticizing the media. He has seen the GOP get away with it for years and has watched while it has been able to intimidate reporters with cries of "liberal bias." He has watched what Eric Alterman calls "working the refs". Just like a good coach will work the refs to get calls for his team or against the opposing team, Republicans have been working the refs for a generation or more to get favorable news coverage or critical news coverage for Democrats. They have successfully built a myth that news organizations are biased against them and that therefore people shouldn't believe what they read about Republicans unless it is favorable to them.

The attack that Obama is launching, that the media is too frivolous is actually much better than accusing the media of a "conservative bias." First of all, it is true. Second, the media would use charges of such a bias to tell the public that they are not biased. "See", they will say, "both sides claim we are biased, that is proof that we are not biased." Then, they will, with considerable self-satisfaction, go back to being just the way they have always been.

It is much harder, though, for the media to blow off the charge of being frivolous. In an age of celebrity driven journalism, when networks are cutting their news departments, when newspapers are forsaking investigative journalism of corporations and government to cover the shenanigans of Paris Hilton, it is hard to refute such a charge. Who knows, if all Democrats start doing this, it might just actually lead to better journalism.

Bush Incompetence: Thousands of Army Humvees Lack Armor Upgrade

The Washington Post has an article in its 2.12.2007 edition on now thousands of Army Humvees need armor upgrades. The lack of these upgrades make these vehicles vulnerable to roadside bombs that are favored by Shia militia. This story illustrates once again the incompetence of the Bush Administration. We have been in Iraq since 2003 and have been fighting insurgents for about as long. That is four years to figure out what our troops need and to get it to them. Yet, here we are, four years later, and American troops are still dying because of this administration's incompetence. Democrats need to remind Americans over and over that when you entrust your government to people who hate government, this is what you get: incompetence, lying, and thievery. (The WP article can be read by clicking the link in this entry's title.)

Republican Congressman Raises Question Whether Dinosaur Flatulence Caused Global Warming

This really speaks for itself and there is not much we can add:

"During the hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) — one of the 87 percent of congressional Republicans who do not believe in man-made global warming — questioned the authors of the report about a period of dramatic climate change that occured 55 million years ago. “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?’"

To get the full effect, click on the link in this entry's title.

See Obama Announcement

Click on the link in this entry's title to see a video clip of the Barack Obama announcement that he is seeking the Democratic Presidential Nomination for 2008.

Karl Rove: "I don't want my 17 year old son picking tomatoes."

Karl Rove allegedly said that at a meeting of GOP House members when asked to explain Bubble-Boy's immigration policy. The meaning is pretty clear: "my son is better than that, and therefore that kind of work should be done by immigrants." That is how the conservative National Review took his comments when one of their staffers blasted Rove for making such an elitist statement. Here's a news flash for King Karl: When the National Review, a magazine started by William Buckley, is attacking you for your stupid statements, you are in big trouble. (Click on the link in this entry's title to read more)

Why Paul Krugman Likes John Edwards' Health Insurance Plan

Click on the link in this entry's title to learn why New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman likes the new healthcare proposal made by John Edwards. It is a very interesting analysis on the Edwards plan.

Vanity Fair Article on Neo-Con Planning for War with Iran

From the people who brought you the Iraq War: War with Iran! According to an article in Vanity Fair, the neo-cons, the people who advocate wars that the children of others will have to fight, have been pushing for war with Iran since the 1990s and especially since 2001. The question is: is the Bush Administration going to start such a war? The article argues that the views on that are mixed. Check this out, it is a fascinating article. You can link to it by clicking on this entry's title.