February 2005 Archives

Robert Reich uses the WalMart example to find a "third way" to support a consumer's desire for low prices while preserving a worker's need for a good-paying job in a stable and diverse community:

The only way for the workers or citizens in us to trump the consumers in us is through laws and regulations that make our purchases a social choice as well as a personal one.

A requirement that companies with more than 50 employees offer their workers affordable health insurance, for example, might increase slightly the price of their goods and services.

My inner consumer won't like that very much, but the worker in me thinks it a fair price to pay. Same with an increase in the minimum wage or a change in labor laws making it easier for employees to organize and negotiate better terms.

I wouldn't go so far as to re-regulate the airline industry or hobble free trade with China and India - that would cost me as a consumer far too much - but I'd like the government to offer wage insurance to ease the pain of sudden losses of pay. And I'd support labor standards that make trade agreements a bit more fair.

These provisions might end up costing me some money, but the citizen in me thinks they are worth the price.

You might think differently, but as a nation we aren't even having this sort of discussion.

Instead, our debates about economic change take place between two warring camps: those who want the best consumer deals, and those who want to preserve jobs and communities much as they are. Instead of finding ways to soften the blows, compensate the losers or slow the pace of change - so the consumers in us can enjoy lower prices and better products without wreaking too much damage on us in our role as workers and citizens - we go to battle.

Hey Democrats -- there are lots of people working and shopping at the WalMarts in those red states...

::::::::::::UPDATE::::::::::::::::

Well lookee here: the Montana state legislature is considering a bill that establishes a "big box store tax." State Senator Toole is the sponsor.

Let Matt Singer pick up the story:

...[T]he argument that Sen. Toole makes is that Wal-Mart has a national price menu and that menu doesn’t seem to correlate at all to local tax/rent conditions. In other words, the costs of adjusting their price menu is high enough that they’re better off just setting it nationally.

That means Montana can impose a tax and not even have to pay for it. But it also means that Wal-Mart will be forced to pay part of the costs they impose on the state. Additionally, since it is a statewide movement, it undermines Wal-Mart’s ability to simply pack up and move to a nearby city...

(HT to Ezra Klein)

I've talked a lot about framing the debate over reproductive freedom as a battle between those who advocate prevention and those who advocate punishment.

Some of you may have misunderstood or underestimated what I meant by the word "punishment." Perhaps you thought "punishment for doctors who perform abortions." That's bad enough.

But what if I told you that there are public officials out there who are serious about punishing women who choose to have an abortion?

What if I told you it was already beginning to happen?

Attorney General Phill Kline, a [Kansas] Republican who has made fighting abortion a staple of his two years in the post, is demanding the complete medical files of scores of women and girls who had late-term abortions, saying on Thursday that he needs the information to prosecute criminal cases.

Advocates on both sides of the abortion issue said the broad investigation, backed by a judge's subpoena, is the first of its kind in pursuit of criminal charges, although the federal Justice Department has unsuccessfully sought similar records in its defense of a ban on a procedure sometimes used to end pregnancies after the first trimester that doctors call intact dilation and extraction and that critics call partial-birth abortion.

These people are serious. And they have to be stopped. Now.

Apparently, only the Supreme Court can stop them.

Here's the thing: I don't think it is possible to overstate the horror I feel in contemplating a world in which my daughter may have to grow up, if it is run by people like Phil Kline.

If you still don't understand why I want to reduce abortions through prevention, it is simply this: I believe in a woman's right to be free and to be free to choose -- to choose what happens to her life, to choose what happens to her body.

I am in favor of anything that represents more freedom of choice, not less.

And in an enlightened society, when it comes to reproductive freedom, that free choice belongs to the woman, not the police, not the judge, not the jury, not the legislature.

And not, God help us, to Phil Kline.

Kevin:

With the exception of the conservative victory (so far) on taxes, conservatives have succeeded in rolling back only a tiny portion of the liberal victories of the post-World War II era.

Social Security is bigger than ever, Medicare has just been expanded, anti-discrimination laws still rule the land, environmental laws have cleaned up the country, and to prevent themselves from being voted out of office en masse Republicans have to pretend that they enthusiastically support all this stuff even while they're trying to quietly tear it down in the background.

In other words, conservatives (execpt maybe Grover Norquist) are satisfied to nibble around the margins.

And another thing...

...40 years ago Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan could speak plainly about their dislike of Social Security, while today George Bush has to pretend to be the second coming of FDR before he proposes his plans to subtly undo FDR's legacy.

If conservatives have really won the national debate, why is it that they so carefully avoid saying things that they talked about openly a mere four decades ago?

I might quibble with that last point -- one might argue that the conservatives have just gotten smarter, have realized the value of being really good liars. In other words, the ends are the same, but the means are different (and more successful).

But even that tells you where the real power lies: with the American people. They, we, agree with liberal and progressive ideals like fairness, opportunity and family.

Kevin:

With the exception of the conservative victory (so far) on taxes, conservatives have succeeded in rolling back only a tiny portion of the liberal victories of the post-World War II era.

Social Security is bigger than ever, Medicare has just been expanded, anti-discrimination laws still rule the land, environmental laws have cleaned up the country, and to prevent themselves from being voted out of office en masse Republicans have to pretend that they enthusiastically support all this stuff even while they're trying to quietly tear it down in the background.

In other words, conservatives (execpt maybe Grover Norquist) are satisfied to nibble around the margins.

And another thing...

...40 years ago Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan could speak plainly about their dislike of Social Security, while today George Bush has to pretend to be the second coming of FDR before he proposes his plans to subtly undo FDR's legacy.

If conservatives have really won the national debate, why is it that they so carefully avoid saying things that they talked about openly a mere four decades ago?

I might quibble with that last point -- one might argue that the conservatives have just gotten smarter, have realized the value of being really good liars. In other words, the ends are the same, but the means are different (and more successful).

But even that tells you where the real power lies: with the American people. They, we, agree with liberal and progressive ideals like fairness, opportunity and family.

From Think Progress:

Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. [And recently, kos got hold of a copy.] Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back.

Here's what Frank Luntz is hoping the opposition will not do:

• Economy
  • Talk about the economy using “facts and figures.”

  • Talk about the overall size of Bush’s proposed tax cut.

  • Describe how repealing the estate tax protects America’s wealthiest families.

  • Talk about the economy without bringing up 9/11.

  • Recall how Bill Clinton produced balanced budgets in the late 1990s.

• Budget
  • Remind people that conservatives want to make painful cuts in vital government services.

  • Talk about the deficit without bringing up 9/11.

• Social Security
  • Remind people that the financial services industry has been embroiled in scandal and corruption.

  • Note that money contributed to private accounts will “go into the hands of greedy Wall Street fat cats.”

  • Point out that proponents of Social Security privatization “lack factual discipline.”

  • Tell people that the push to privatize Social Security is about partisan politics.

• Energy
  • Tell people what ANWR stands for. [Note: "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."]

  • Say, “We should rely on American ingenuity and not the Saudi Royal Family.”

  • Talk about how drilling for oil harms the environment.

  • Always say “Drilling for oil"; Never say “Exploring for energy.”

  • Give specific examples of safety and security problems at nuclear power plants.

• Patients’ Rights
  • When talking about trial lawyers don’t use words like “creeps, bottom-feeds, overpaid and evil.”

  • Say, “When innocent people who are injured seek compensation from those who cause their injuries it’s anything but frivolous. When a preventable careless medical error forces a child into a wheelchair for the rest of his life, it’s anything but frivolous. And when someone close to you suffers due to doctor negligence, their right to a day in court is anything but frivolous.”

Bookmark this link. Go back often. They'll have more as they work their way through the conservative playbook for 2006.

From a Q & A with Richard Clarke, counterterrorism expert, author of the book Against All Enemies and new columnist for The New York Times Magazine:

Q. 4. How should the average urban and non-urban U.S. family prepare for another major terrorist attack?
— George Karayannis, Carlsbad, Calif.

A. The best way to think about it may be to consider a range of surprises that could happen, not just terrorism. Last month, for example, a chlorine gas rail car jumped a track in rural South Carolina, emitting lethal fumes, killing nine and causing the evacuation of over 5,000.

Consider these five steps:

1. check the news on TV or radio a couple of times a day or have someone who will do that and call you if there is a problem;

2. know how to get in contact with your family members quickly if you have to;

3. keep a week or so of food supplies and a first aid kit in the house;

4. have an emergency supply of cash hidden somewhere;

5. talk about where you would all meet up if something happened to your house.

Terrorism is unlikely to involve you directly, but a hurricane, tornado, train wreck or plane crash could.

Speaking of Clarke's column, here's why he thinks the Iraqi war is off-target:

President Bush's democracy-promotion policy will be appropriate and laudable at the right time in the right nations, but it is not the cure for terrorism and may divert us from efforts needed to rout Al Qaeda and reduce our vulnerabilities at home. The president is right that resentment is growing and that it is breeding terrorism, but it is chiefly resentment of us, not of the absence of democracy.

The 9/11 Commission had a proposal similar to the president's, but more on point: a battle of ideas to persuade more Muslims that jihadist terrorism is a perversion of Islam.

This is more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.

I'm just saying.

P.S. Turn up your speakers.

Mobile PC Magazine has compiled the list. But before I ask you how many of the gadget you've owned...

...What constitutes a gadget?

• It has to have electronic and/or moving parts of some kind.

• It has to be a self-contained apparatus that can be used on its own, not a subset of another device.

• It has to be smaller than the proverbial bread box.

You can see the entire list here.

OK, here's the thing -- how many of these have you owned at one time or another?

Rule: you have to have owned the actual brand-name version of the gadget.

Here's my ownership list.

Note: The dates are for the year the gadget was invented and not necessarily the year I bought it -- I'll let you guess which is which.

And it's amazing that almost half of these are toys that I bought for my kids.

98. PEZ DISPENSER, 1927
89. RUBIK'S CUBE, 1974
86. TAMAGOTCHI, 1996
82. ALLIANCE GENIE GARAGE DOOR OPENER, 1954
77. HASBRO LITE-BRITE, 1967
75. LASER POINTER, 1980s
72. MASTER LOCK PADLOCK, 1924
67. LEATHERMAN PST, 1983
63. MAGLITE FLASHLIGHT, 1979
57. MATTEL MAGIC 8-BALL, 1946
50. ETCH-A-SKETCH, 1960
46. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEAK & SPELL, 1978
43. HANDSPRING VISOR, 1999
38. SANDISK COMPACTFLASH CARD, 1994
25. NINTENDO GAME BOY, 1989
20. SWISS ARMY KNIFE, 1891
19. IBM THINKPAD 701C, 1995
15. HP-35 POCKET ELECTRONIC SCIENTIFIC CALCULATOR, 1972
13. SONY TR-63 TRANSISTOR RADIO, 1957
11. POLAROID LAND CAMERA, 1948
3. SONY WALKMAN, 1979

“You know,” I said to Miss Julie, on the night before I met her for the very first time, “tomorrow could actually bring the end of a beautiful friendship.”

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me go back to the beginning of the story.

The following open letter is from Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, to "the Right-To-Life Movement."

For years, your groups and ours have waged one of the country's most divisive political wars over a woman's right to choose....

We will never resolve our differences on this basic question. But we should agree on an equally fundamental point: America would be a better country if no woman ever faced the difficult choices posed by an unintended pregnancy. What better way to end the debate over abortion rights than by eliminating the reasons women seek abortion?

The time has come to join together in a new campaign to reduce the number of abortions.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid -- who disagrees with us on the issue of abortion -- has offered a commonsense bill called the Prevention First Act (S. 20) which would help reduce inintended pregnancies through better access to birth control. This landmark legislation represents a serious first step in addressing the problem, and I hope you'll join pro-choice Americans and me in offering your support....

Here's some facts and a quote from Harry Reid:

Rather than offer an explicit argument that women have a right to utilize birth control, the Prevention First Act calls for increased access to family planning services and birth control, including emergency contraception, as a means to combat the country's rate of 19 million annual sexually transmitted disease infections and 3 million unwanted pregnancies.

"The United States has the highest rate of unintended pregnancies among all industrialized nations," said minority leader Senator Harry Reid's (D- Nevada). "Half of all pregnancies in this country are unintended and nearly half of those end in abortion. By increasing access to family planning services, Democrats will improve women's health, reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies, and reduce the number of abortions, all while saving scarce public health dollars."

While we're at it, here's what Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) had to say recently:

"Improving access to contraception should be a shared national goal... access to family planning services is a human right and an essential tool in protecting public health. For most women, including women who want to have children or already have them, contraception is not optional -- it is a basic health care necessity."

So far, the response from the other side has been, well, predictable:

"This sex-drenched omnibus bill steamrolls several bad ideas from Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion entities into one big promiscuity-promoting nightmare," said American Life League’s STOPP (Stop Planned Parenthood) national director Ed Szymkowiak stated... "This is a prescription for promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease and abortion."

Conservatives in Congress have offered two competing bills to S.20: One in which physicians are required to advise their patients that anesthesia for the fetus is available and another making it a crime to transport a minor over state lines to obtain an abortion.

Given these choices, it now seems to me that the argument over abortion boils down to those that favor prevention and those that favor punishment.

Dr. Lisa Littman is a board certified Obstetrician/Gynecologist from New Jersey. She works primarily in family planning. She writes this at the Rockridge Institute web site:

Would you rather reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce abortions, and reduce sexually transmitted diseases while protecting the health of women and men, or do you want to deliberately increase unintended pregnancies, increase abortions, increase sexually transmitted diseases and harm the health of women and men in order to punish them for having sex?

That's the real debate. Every discussion on abortion needs to be about this question.

Understanding the values, policies and goals of both sides will allow people to support the policies consistent with their goals.

Prevention policies result in fewer pregnancies, fewer abortions, and fewer women dying.

Punishment policies result in higher pregnancy rates, higher abortion rates, and more women dying.

Those who take the side of increasing risk to accentuate punishments will have to defend their views. And that's an abortion debate worth having. It's the abortion debate. It's definitely an abortion debate we can win.

I like Reid's bill. I like Nancy Keenan's gambit. I agree with Dr. Lisa Littman. I expect to hear more about this from Dr. Howard Dean.

It reminds me of what Bill Clinton recently said (and I'm paraphrasing): the Democrats don't have to move to the center -- they have to move to their center. Speaking of the Clintons, I'm reminded of what Hillary Clinton said recently about abortion.

P.S. I'm especially interested to hear what my friends down here in "Red Lousiana" have to say about S. 20.

Just press "play," spend 3 minutes watching Mardi Gras 2005 while listening to The Preservation Hall Jazz Band. I dare you sit still!

I am -- how shall I put it? -- a loud person.

It's like Mel Brooks says:

Look, I don't want to wax philosophic, but I will say that if you're alive you've got to flap your arms and legs, you've got to jump around a lot, for life is the very opposite of death, and therefore you must at very least think noisy and colorfully, or you're not alive.

Miss Julie, bless her heart, has learned to live with it. The stories are numerous and told with great relish. The boys even call me Shrek. Heh.

Anyway, my reputation for loudness has apparently finally reached the Internet.

(HT to Big Dan)

BTW, these pictures are all from the Zulu Parade. Some Mardi Gras history for y'all:

The Zulu Social Aid & Pleasure Club (founded 1916) is a New Orleans Carnival Krewe which puts on the Zulu parade each Mardi Gras Day. Zulu is New Orleans' largest predominently African American carnival organization.

The Zulu parade grew out of an older small working-class African American marching club called The Tramps in 1916. The members decided to satirize the conventions of white New Orleans Mardi Gras, particularly the Rex parade.

Zulu also satirized white society's attitudes towards and stereotypes of blacks. While Rex arrived at the foot of Canal Street in a yacht, the early versions of King Zulu arrived on Carondolet Canal in a coal barge, wearing a tin crown made from a lard can and holding a ham-bone, in parody of Rex's jeweled crown and scepter.

Members of the Zulus used black and white makeup on their face in an even more highly exagerated style than the blackface makeup of the minstrel show performers of the era. The Zulu court wore grass skirts. Back when the New Orleans police force was exclusively white, a contingent of Zulus paraded wearing accurate duplicates of New Orleans police uniforms.

Trust me when I tell you that you've probably never seen anything like the Zulu Parade.

Gosh, all of this was such a good time. My only wish is that you could hear the music, too. Mardi Gras (and especially the Zulu Parade) without the music is only half the show.

P.S. Among our beads and boodle, I got a Zulu spear and several rare and highly-coveted Zulu coconuts. Alas, only one coconut survived the trip. Don't ask what happened to the others. Just don't.

As soon as I can, I'll post some more.

P.S. I did these with a Treo 600 and some minor tweaking with Picasa.

Bull Moose is an unofficial blog sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council and Marshall Wittman, its author, purports to be "independent in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party of 1912." Be that as it may, he has an interesting suggestion for Democrat tacticians:

Democrats should move to the right of the Bushies on deficit reduction. Embrace the spirit of the betrayed Republican Revolution of 1994 and call for the closing of Federal departments. The Moose suggests two Federal behemoths to put on the chopping block - the Departments of Commerce and Energy.

Commerce and Energy are the targets because they are primarily conduits for corporate welfare. Along with these two agencies, the donkey should launch an "end corporate welfare as we know it" campaign. Then, Democrats can hold news conferences at the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute and urge Republicans to join them in this great cause to cut welfare for the comfortable.

Although I don't favor moving anywhere near conservative Republicans, I'd make an exception in this case, because conservatives "aren't there" anymore.

What do you think?

(HT to Kevin Drum)

Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader:

...after we worked so hard to eliminate the deficit, his policies have added trillions to the debt -- in effect, a 'birth tax' of $36,000 on every child that is born.

That's how you properly frame an issue.

(HT to kos)

In a provocative interview, Naomi Klein (not Al Gore's Naomi Wolf) talks about Bush, the Iraq war and the need for progressives to “answer the language of faith with the language of morality.”

Some excerpts:

• The Democrats didn't fully understand that the success of Karl Rove's party is really a success in branding. Identity branding is something that the corporate world has understood for some time now. They're not selling a product; they're selling a desired identity, an aspirational identity of the people who consume their product. Nike understands that, Apple understands that, and so do all the successful brands. Karl Rove understands that too...

• You don't answer the language of faith with the language of more effective bureaucracy, which is the image that John Kerry's campaign presented: more effective administrators, more effective bureaucrats of war. You have to answer the language of faith with the language of morality. You can speak in powerful moral terms about the violence of war and the violence of an economic system that's excluding ever more people...

• I think there was a lot of disdain in the Kerry campaign. The disdain that bothered me more was the disdain that they showed for the Iraqi people in their total unwillingness to condemn the basic violations of human rights and international law. He didn't mention Abu Ghraib. He didn't ever mention civilian deaths as one of the problems in Iraq. He was too busy showing how tough he was. They clearly made a decision that speaking about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would seem to be critical of the troops. And to speak about Iraqi civilians and international law would be to appear soft on the war on terror...

• I believe that an anti-war campaign could have won the election. But even if you think I'm crazy, I believe that an anti-war campaign would have done a better job at losing the election (laughs). Elections are also moments where issues get put on the national agenda. If there had been (an anti-war) candidate with courage, for instance, it would have been impossible for Bush to name Alberto Gonzales as his candidate for attorney general. It was Kerry's silence more than Bush's win that allowed Bush to make such a scandalous appointment...

• We need to develop an agenda based on the demands coming from Iraq for reparations, for total debt erasure, for complete control over the oil revenues, for a cancellation of the contracts signed under the occupation, and so on. This is what real sovereignty would look like, real self-determination — we know this...

(HT to Ezra Klein)

The next time a Bush conservative challenges you to "come up with something better," give them this (from the American Progress Action Fund):

Over the last four years, President Bush's tax schemes have made the system more complex, shifted more of the burden to the middle class and exploded the federal deficit.

We can do better. Today, American Progress is releasing a plan for progressive tax reform that proves it. The American Progress plan is fiscally responsible reform that significantly simplifies the system, restores fairness and increases economic opportunity. Here are the highlights:

1. Simplicity – reduce the number of tax brackets, close loopholes
   
2. Fairness – tax all income the same, eliminate regressive social security taxes
   
3. Fiscal responsibility – reduce the deficit
   
4. Opportunity – incentives for all Americans to save, increase take home pay for low-income taxpayers

All the details are here.