Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Caps Memorable "Lame Duck" Session

Today marked a historic day in American history, as another redoubt of prejudice and discrimination was breached. President Obama's signing of the repeal of the 17-year-old "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policy on gay service members, wherein some 13,000 serving personnel have been expelled after their gay or lesbian sexual orientation was found out, is a further step along the path that has led the nation through the abolition of slavery, the extension of voting rights to women and blacks and the outlawing of racial segregation. As the President said at the signing ceremony, "We are not a nation of don't ask don't tell. We are a nation of e pluribus unum; out of many we are one."

Once the new policy is phased in over the next year America's forces will see the same changes that have happened with the British, Canadian and Australian forces. That is, essentially nothing of any note will happen at all. Years from now people will wonder what all the commotion was about. Either that or they will look at it in the same way they do now when they think of such controversies as thirty years ago over whether women could serve as police officers or sixty years ago about whether blacks could play major league baseball.

In an interesting side note, there was a pronounced regional cast to the 65-31 Senate vote. In the former slave states the vote in favor was 12 out of 30, forty percent. Senators representing the rest of the country voted in favor 53 to 13, eighty-one percent. Those areas that historically denied people their rights continue to have a residual predilection for doing so. In terms of party, all 55 Democrats and the 2 Independents who caucus with them voted yes. 8 Republicans voted yes and 31 voted no, or twenty-one percent. Republicans as a group were thus twice as opposed to gay rights as Southerners as a whole. That is remarkable.


The rest of the "lame duck" congressional session saw stunning action on a number of Obama initiatives that had been given up for dead after the "shellacking" Democrats took in the November election. They passed by such wide margins it is apparent Republican delays were primarily political rather than over any real substantive issue. Once they had the tax bill compromise they wanted in hand they went ahead and let their members vote as they wished. These included approval of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia. It had been held up 13 times and then passed 71-26.

Another was the First Responders Health Bill that provides $4.2 billion for the police, firefighters, and others who worked ground zero after 9/11 and have developed all manner of cancers and lung diseases. That passed unanimously in the Senate and better than three to one in the House.


A much tougher regimen of inspection, essentially tripling the frequency and giving the FDA authority to order rather than request recalls, was approved in the Food Safety Act. It passed the Senate 73-25.


The lone defeat was over the DREAM Act. It would have provided a path to citizenship for an estimated 1.2 million children whose parents brought them to America illegally if they maintained a clean record and spent two years in college or the armed forces. It narrowly passed the House 216-198 but did better in the Senate, garnering a 55-41 yes vote. Unfortunately, since the GOP filibusters everything in the Senate, it did not get the 60% vote it needed for passage.

Politically, the break in the logjam shows the Republican strategy of obstinately opposing everything Obama and the Democrats have proposed for two years was a smart strategy for them. After yesterday's DADT signing and passage of the other measures, the President's approval rating improved from 41% to 56% in the overnight Opinion Research/CNN poll. Congressional Democrats got 44% approval; congressional Republicans 42%.

Five Years Cancer Free

On December 16, 2005 I went to Fresno Community Hospital to have my cancerous prostate removed. This week, five years later, my PSA test came back with a score of .000001, indicating no recurrence of the malignancy. As my surgeon Dr. Marty Prah said, "We can now consider you cured."

By the end of this year it is estimated that 217,730 American men will have been diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2010 and that 32,050 will have died from it. You can find these statistics and a wealth of information on the subject at the Prostate Cancer Site of the National Cancer Institute, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

The key to survival is early detection. I owe mine to my primary care physician, Dr. John Coffey here in Visalia. It's really important for men of 50 and over to get annual physicals. This is for a number of reasons, including cholesterol, blood pressure and heart function in addition to prostate health. He felt a bump on my prostate, which a biopsy determined to be prostate cancer. I had not been experiencing any of the usual symptoms such as difficulty urinating or having to urinate frequently or several times a night. My PSA blood test was not yet elevated.

Dr. Prah is one of the local pioneers of laproscopic prostate surgery. Fresno Community was the first hospital in the area to have a "Da Vinci Machine" that allows the surgeon to make the necessary incisions precisely by remote control. Instead of a long vertical scar down my abdomen as is customary in traditional surgery, I have five tiny marks a couple of inches below the belly button. I stayed overnight one night in the hospital afterward and was able to walk around a bit in a week. In two weeks I was out walking the neighborhood for exercise. The recovery time is about half that of traditional surgery.

At first the follow up appointments were quarterly but now they are down to yearly. The process helped make me more health conscious in general. I have improved my diet, lost some weight and am on a regular program of running, walking, weights and calisthenics. I feel better than I have in years.

So for all the men approaching 50, play it smart and start getting those checkups. Don't let fear or indifference put you in jeopardy, especially if you have people depending on you. You'll be glad you did.

American Public Gets it Right on Education

A new Associated Press poll released December 11 shows American adults have the right idea when it comes to assessing the blame for shortcomings in U.S. education. According to the survey, which got a lot of play in the press today, American adults direct their strongest criticism at parents. 68% assigned "a great deal" or "a lot" of blame to parents when it comes to "problems that affect this country's public schools."

There is no question that society, relatives, neighborhood, socioeconomic status, peers and teachers all have an influence on children, but none matches that exercised by the parent. Encouragement, mentoring and monitoring make a difference. So do time, love, and perhaps more than anything else, example.

As someone who taught at the middle school level for 17 years, I am encouraged by the result of this survey. The first step in addressing a problem is facing the truth. No doubt many of the respondents of the poll were parents themselves. So many of the problems of society at large are, my experience has led me to believe, the result of indifferent, irresponsible or just plain bad parenting.

The popularity of shows such as ABC's "Supernanny" may reflect a dawning realization that many have received virtually no parenting training, don't know what to do in many situations, and are looking for examples. A harmonious and productive society has to begin with a good upbringing of its children. A national conversation on the topic is long overdue.

Dems Should Bite the Bullet

It is clear that the economy needs additional stimulus. Demand remains too low. The national mood and political wind, however, is to rein in spending and work on the deficit. But following that prescription will only prolong the recession by further reducing demand.

That, I believe, is central to President Obama's agreement to compromise with the Republicans on the tax issue. Yes, the GOP get two more years of economically useless and fiscally irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthy who don't need them and one year of estate tax breaks for the wealthy who really don't need them. But Obama and the Democrats get an additional 13 months of unemployment checks for the out-of-work, two additional years of the lower-middle and middle class tax cuts passed in early 2009, and some breaks for actual small business rather than big business. On top of that, a two-year reduction in Social Security withholding by 2% will put an additional $800 to $1000 a year into the pockets of average workers.

The upshot of all this is more money for average folks that will be spent and result in better growth and employment. It's a $900 billion stimulus. This is not the way Dems prefer to do it, that is, with targeted programs and infrastructure spending, but none of that was going to happen with Senate Republicans unbudging. Yes, this will all add to the deficit, but it is projected to increase growth by .7%, 30% higher than the 2.5% annual rate we've been averaging, and reduce unemployment by an additional .5% to 1% over where it would be without this help.

Given that the Democrats could not agree on a larger or second stimulus before they lost their 60-seat filibuster-proof advantage in the Senate, what more could really have been done? And certainly nothing to their liking will get done after the New Year when Republicans take over the House.

There are some things seriously not to like in the compromise. But it will improve the economy and provide real assistance to regular working folks. Democrats in congress had a chance earlier to enact a more liberal set of tax policies but didn't get it done. There's really no one else to blame for that but themselves. They ought to stop crying and pass the compromise. Nothing better is going to come down the pike for a good long while.

Wikileaks Revelations Threaten U.S. Foreign Policy

Yesterday came the latest secret U.S. government revelations from Wikileaks. Last summer it was military communiques from Afghanistan and Iraq; this time it concerned cables from the Department of State. The release of these documents is potentially extremely damaging to American foreign policy. I'll try to shed some light on a few of the most asked questions I hear from people.

Why is this happening? It starts with the lessons of 9/11, when it was determined that American intelligence knew the information needed to prevent the attacks, but agencies failed to share what they knew with each other so no one was able to "connect the dots." Since then data bases have been made much more accessible by other government agencies, often by people of very junior rank. The young man who has been charged with downloading and passing along the military documents is a private, for instance. Information used to be too compartmentalized; now it is too open.

Can Wikileaks or the other press and media outlets who have printed or posted the data be prosecuted? Probably not. The Pentagon Papers case ruled that the First Amendment of the Constitution enshrines freedom of the press as a nearly sacrosanct right. If someone can get the material to the media the media is allowed to print it. That doesn't hold for those who steal the material from the government and provide it to the press. The young man who is charged with divulging the military documents will probably never see the outside of a prison again. The exception might be if Wikileaks can be proved to have "conspired" with people on the inside to steal the top secret material. Then perhaps someone there could be prosecuted. Attorney General Eric Holder said today his office would be looking for evidence to prosecute wherever it could.

What was the most sensitive revelation? That would likely be that several Arab leaders privately urged the United States to strike Iran and attempt to destroy its nuclear facilities. Arabs and Persians (Iranians) have been ethnic rivals for a long time. They also are religious rivals, with most Arabs following the majority Sunni branch of Islam and most Iranians the Shi'ite branch. A nuclear-armed, aggressive Iran is a nightmare for the Arab states in the region. This indicates a high level of Arab-American accord about Iran, but also underscores how the Arab leaders feel they have to keep these ideas from their people.

Why are some observers calling the release of these documents "a diplomatic 9/11?" That's because of the lack of trust in American confidentiality. If foreign leaders feel they cannot confide sensitive matters privately to the U.S. government without them becoming public, then they will be less likely to deal truthfully or productively with America. This is where the real damage could be done. U.S. security agencies will need to develop more effective protocols on sensitive information and better supervision and screening of access to it. Otherwise foreign partners will stop working with us on much of anything important. That would be the kind of coup that America's enemies would absolutely love to see.

Corporate Profits Up But National Well-Being Isn't

Wow, great news! The Commerce Department reported yesterday that in the third quarter of 2010, U.S. corporate profits surged to an all-time record high. They came in at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion. You can read all about it in the New York Times, or in this article from CNBC. Corporate profits have grown 11% this year. Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist for the Standard & Poor's 500 index says, "Profit margins for S & P firms are now above 9 percent - nosebleed territory."

This excellent news brings some questions to mind. First, aren't Obama and the Democrats supposed to be bad for business? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce just spent $200 million in the last election cycle to tell us so. Yet it certainly looks like the facts fail to support that assertion. The national economy grew at an annualized rate of 2.5% for the quarter while corporate profits were up 11%. A much higher percentage went into corporate coffers than into the rest of the economy.

Well, that must mean more jobs, right? No, it apparently doesn't. While the monthly losses of 700,000 jobs that greeted Obama's inauguration have been staunched, the turnaround that is cheering Wall Street hasn't fully translated to Main Street. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 151,000 private-sector jobs were added in October, but unemployment remains stuck at 9.6%. Job creation is lagging because much of the profit has come from increases in "productivity," i.e. getting more work from fewer people. Much of the rest comes from the nature of where the increased profits are coming from. Three-fourths of all these profits are coming from the financial sector of the economy. Much of it therefore comes not from anyone producing anything, but from betting on where the stock, bonds and commodities markets are heading (futures) and related gimmickry such as derivatives. And these games do not require a lot of workers to make them happen.

Well then, that makes it all the more imperative to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich to produce these extra jobs, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. If you have been paying attention you realize that these lower rates for the rich are currently in effect. They have been for years. And where are the jobs? They weren't being created in the Bush years, and with record profits now, they still aren't. What part of facts and results do people still not get?

The hard truth that many do not want to see is that corporations do not WANT to create jobs. They want to make profit, and if they can do that without hiring they will, for that will make profit higher yet. They do not WANT to provide health care or contribute to society. To a corporate entity these are costs. They did not, and still do not when they can avoid it, WANT
to pay workers a living wage, give them a forty hour week, vacations, lunch breaks, ventilation, safe working conditions or any other humane terms of employment until they were forced to do so by workers united together in strong unions and by labor and consumer legislation rammed down their throats by politicians more worried about losing the votes of an aroused populace than about losing corporate money.

Are they using this immense trove of cash, now estimated to be over $2.5 trillion, for the alleviation of national distress? Are they hiring? Are they offering to help pay down the national debt, contribute to the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, or make any other contribution to national life in return for the tax breaks and bailouts they have received? If society crumbles around them and people are unemployed they are not concerned. As long as profits are high and taxes are low they have what they want.

Why do you think they are always for this kind of "smaller government?" Think about it.

An Evening With Greg Mortenson

Last night my wife and I had the pleasure of attending Greg Mortenson's appearance at the Visalia Convention Center. Greg Mortenson is the author of the bestselling books "Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones into Schools" and the director of the Central Asia Institute, which has built over 140 schools in the rugged mountainous areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan. What began as the promise of one lost mountaineer to build a school for the villagers who saved his life in 1993 has turned into an ongoing mission to spread education and hope to one of the most remote and poverty-stricken corners of the globe.

What an inspiration this man is. He started as a nurse with no money of his own and had to raise it from scratch. The materials for the first school he built in Khorfe, Pakistan cost only $12,000 and teachers can be hired for $100 a month. He has been effective in an area notoriously volatile and suspicious of outsiders because he listens and lets the local villagers determine what they want--with the one rule that girls must be educated as well as boys. Experience has shown him the wisdom of an African proverb he uses, "Teach a boy and you educate an individual, teach a girl and you educate a community." That's because 2/3 of the schooled boys tend to leave the local community looking for jobs while 2/3 of the girls remain local. They also have much less infant and maternal mortality; since Bangladesh increased female literacy from 20% to 65% the average woman has gone from 8.5 children to 2.8.

Though much of his work is in areas with strong Taliban influence, not a single one of these schools has been bombed. Education is an effective antidote to extremism. And the local buy-in is a strong protective factor. While Mortensen raises the money, the local people must provide the land and most of the unskilled labor for each project. He showed lots of slides of the region, its people (especially the children) and the schools his organization has helped build. The conditions they live under have to be seen to be believed, high-altitude vistas of rugged beauty to be sure, but places with sparse vegetation where agriculture is difficult and herding on the scant forage a challenge made often perilous by the presence of lethal mines left over from the region's legacy of war.

I was impressed with Greg's demeanor. He is not a really adept speaker, which was reassuring. He seemed like a regular person of strong purpose rather than a glib salesman type. That made his sincerity evident. He related how he asked the Afghan minister of Education how much money he would need to revive a good national education system. $248 million a year, he was told. Greg commented that with 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and a war effort costing $100 billion a year, that works out to $1 million per soldier a year. Greg asked, "What if we withdrew 248 soldiers and used that money to completely fund the country's school system?"

Greg Mortenson has already been awarded the Star of Pakistan, the nation's highest civilian honor, by the country's president. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and I'm quite certain he will win it one day. He certainly deserves it. One of the most touching parts of the evening was pictures Greg showed of a group of elders touring one of his schools to see if they wanted one for their own community. These scary looking guys with black turbans, big beards, and toting Kalashnikovs dropped their weapons and turned into little boys when they got to the school's playground. Imagine the audience's laughter when we were treated to pictures of them playing on the swing set. "We were trained to hate and fight from an early age," Greg reported the leader saying. "I never got to be a child, to play and laugh and learn to read and write. Now I have the opportunity to give our children the chance we never had."

Just as the subtitle of "Three Cups of Tea" says, Greg Mortenson and his Central Asia Institute are truly "promoting peace one school at a time." If you have not read this book or looked into this worthy organization I heartily recommend you to click on the links provided here and spend a few minutes. This cause is really worth your support.

To Actually Balance the Federal Budget

This week the co-chairs of the President's Fiscal Commission on the National Debt released their joint recommendations to restore the federal government to long-term fiscal solvency. You can see the entire document here. Democrat Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, and Republican Alan Simpson, a former Senator from Wyoming, came forward with their own report because they considered it unlikely they will get the required agreement from 14 of the 18-member bipartisan commission to submit an official set of recommendations from the full group. While that is pursued, the co-chairs wanted to have something for the nation and its leaders to think about.

They propose about $200 billion a year in cuts and $100 billion a year in additional tax revenues to reduce the debt by $4 trillion by 2020 and as a percentage of GDP from 60% to 40% between 2024 and 2037. They call for a long period of discipline to slowly bring expenditures into line with taxes, starting slowly over the next couple of years due to the current weak economy.

The bottom line is that there will have to be shared sacrifice: of the $200 billion in cuts half would be domestic, including reductions in farm supports, freezing federal wages for three years, eventually reducing the federal work force by 10%, restraining medicare growth and raising the social security retirement age in stages to 69, and half would be in defense, including closing 1/3 of our overseas bases and stretching out procurements.

The additional taxes would include a modest fifteen-cent a gallon increase in the gasoline tax, lowering many tax rates but eliminating deductions, getting rid of the home mortgage interest deduction for second homes, equity loans and for mortgage amounts over $500,000. In total, about two-thirds of their projected savings would come from cost cutting and one-third from tax increases. It's interesting that no return to the tax rates before the Bush cuts was even considered; that alone would go farther toward balancing the budget than all the cuts they recommend.

Although I have said repeatedly in this space that slashing spending in a down economy is foolish, eventually when things turn around the borrowing will need to stop. We will be spending $1 trillion a year on interest by 2020 otherwise. Someone will have to tell the American people the truth: there will need to be higher taxes and budget cuts; we cannot provide services unless people are willing to pay for them. This blueprint is at least a reasonable place to start facing the facts.

National Tide Dissolves at California Border

Unlike the national results, Democrats did exceptionally well in California. They captured every statewide office from Governor to Insurance Commissioner and dominate the state legislature. Democrats control the Assembly 52-28 and the Senate 25-15. What is more, by voting for Proposition 25, California's electorate has given Sacramento the power to pass a budget with a simple majority vote instead of the two-thirds requirement that has produced gridlock in recent years.

The new dynamic will give the California Democratic Party a golden opportunity to stand as a national example. With Jerry Brown in the governor's chair and Democrats fully in charge of both houses they will be able to work their will without having to cater to Republican sensibilities at all. If they solve the state's budget mess and help usher in a recovery in the country's most populous state their example will be held up by liberals nationally as a blueprint for the rest of the country to follow. If they fail, of course, you can have no doubt it will be picked up by conservative media as validation of their criticisms elsewhere and across the U.S.A.

A problem exists, however, in other ballot propositions passed by California's voters as well, measures that severely restrict the state government's options for dealing with the current difficulties. The 2/3 requirement is still in effect for any tax increases, and now also for fees, thanks to Prop 26. The state cannot borrow from funds earlier committed to transportation or local government, thanks to Proposition 22. And it isn't getting back some $1.5 billion in corporate taxes, cut as the Republican price for agreeing to last year's budget, thanks to the failure of Proposition 24. So without the ability to increase revenues at all, the Democratic prerogative will consist mainly of making the cuts they prefer instead of the ones Republicans would have favored.

Still, it's a start. They will be held accountable now, as they should be. And with a Redistricting Commission now in charge of drawing election districts instead of the legislature itself, there are certain to be more competitive state legislative races than in the past. So between that and the national implications of the publicity generated by their success or failure, the Democrats who will now chart the Golden State's course will have a strong impact on whether the party will quickly recover nationally--or whether another lengthy period of Republican dominance is before us.

2010 Senate Races Previewed

The U.S. Senate is the big prize still to be determined in Tuesday's election, and it could go either way. The Senate is the arena that will decide whether President Barack Obama has an opposition congress in both houses or only one. It is already highly likely Republicans will gain the majority of governorships and take control of the House of Representatives. For the record, I forecast the GOP will enjoy a net gain of seven state houses, thereby turning a 26-24 Democratic advantage into a 31-19 Republican edge. In the House I see a 55-seat turnover which will change the present 255-178 Democratic advantage (with two vacancies) to a 233-202 majority for the GOP. But now back to the Senate.

Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate; Republicans have 41. Thirty-seven seats are contested this year, 19 held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans. Republicans will need a net gain of ten seats to win a 51-49 majority. It is clear they will pick up seats but can they get ten? Yes, it is possible, but the most likely result is tantalizingly close: they are likely to gain eight or nine. Let's look at all the close races in turn. Eleven Democratic seats are in greater or lesser degrees of jeopardy. By paying attention to these on election night you will be able to tell what is happening.

Let's start with the three Democratic seats in conservative states they are certain to lose.
1) North Dakota. With Byron Dorgan retiring, Democrat Tracy Potter is behind Republican John Hoeven by more than two to one.
2) Indiana. Popular Senator Evan Bayh is retiring. Dan Coats (R) leads Brad Ellsworth (D) by an average of 19%.
3) Arkansas. Incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) trails John Boozman (R) by 17.

The fourth likely Republican pickup endangers a three-term incumbent.
4) Wisconsin. Russ Feingold (D) is running behind Ron Johnson (R) by an average of 7.7% in recent surveys. It would be a small miracle for him to pull this one out now.

A third group of contests includes races for current Democratic seats where the numbers are close but favor the Republican.
5) Nevada. Majority leader Harry Reid (D) is down an average of 4 points to tea party favorite Sharon Engle. This one is still being called a tossup but is probably hers unless Reid's get out the vote effort is remarkable. Only 6% of voters say they remain undecided.
6) Pennsylvania. Former Republican turned Democrat Arlen Specter was defeated in the primary by Joe Sestak (D), who now trails conservative Republican Pat Toomey by 3.8%. In a normal year Sestak would win this state but this is not such a year.
7) Illinois. Mark Kirk (R) is up 2.8 points over Alexi Giannoulias (D) in an average of several polls for President Obama's old seat. This is a race where both candidates have flaws. The President will campaign for Giannoulias Sunday and Monday and 16% of the voters are still undecided, so it could go the other way. But a Democrat still behind in heavily Democratic Illinois at this stage is obviously in trouble.
8) Colorado. Ken Buck (R) leads Michael Bennet (D) by an average of 2.3% in recent surveys. Benet was appointed to complete the term of Ken Salazar, now Secretary of the Interior in the Obama Administration. Buck's lead is small but has been consistent in the last few weeks, indicating Bennet does not seem to have closing momentum.

The eight races summarized so far would get the Republicans close, to 49. What do they need to get them over the top? This next group of three races are their tougher opportunities. They need one to forge a 50-50 tie in the Senate, and two out of three to gain the majority.
9) Washington. Incumbent Patty Murray (D) is in a statistical dead heat with Dino Rossi (R). Washington is normally a pretty liberal state, which would seem to favor Murray, but Rossi has the recent momentum in the polls. Clearly this could go either way, but in this year's environment it is tough to bet against Rossi.
10) California. Three-term incumbent Barbara Boxer (D) has been a GOP target for years and this time they are giving her a real run for it. Wealthy former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R) is self-funding her challenge to Boxer. It appears she will fall short, though. The latest group of surveys has Boxer up by an average of 4.3 points. This has closed from six points in the past couple of weeks, but time is very short now. It's a probable Democratic hold.
11) West Virginia. The last reasonably possible Republican Senate gain is in the Mountaineer State, where popular Governor Jim Manchin (D) leads John Raese (R) by 4.5%. At this point Raese has only an outside chance. But in a socially conservative state in this election environment it's a chance that cannot be dismissed.

Are there any currently Republican-held Senate seats where Democrats might conceivably take one away? The three most possible are Kentucky, Missouri and Alaska, but none are very likely. In Kentucky, tea partier Rand Paul (R) is out in front of Jack Conway (D) by 9.8%. In Missouri Roy Blunt (R) leads Robin Carnahan (D) by 10.4%. Watch Kentucky, which should report early. If Paul is not coasting that would indicate the Democrats are going to do much better than expected this year. Alaska is a special case, where incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican nomination to tea party choice Joe Miller. She entered the general election race as a write in and has surged ahead of Miller 37 to 27. The Democratic nominee, Scott McAdams, lags behind both with 23. It is just possible that if Murkowski and Miller split the conservative vote down the middle McAdams might sneak in with a 35% win in the three-way race. Murkowski has another problem, in that a court has ruled people must spell her name correctly for her to get their write-in votes.

Realistically, a Democratic win in any of these three states is not at all probable on Tuesday. Republicans will most likely pick up eight or nine Senate seats and go into the next Congress with 49 or 50 votes in the 100-seat upper chamber. If they gain nine and the Senate is evenly divided, expect Vice President Joe Biden to be a busy fellow for the next two years. According to the Constitution, the Vice President casts the tie breaking vote in a deadlocked Senate.

Take the U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz

Here's an interesting item. Click on the link to take the U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz from Pew Research. Then compare your performance against the norm. Even though the U.S. is a highly religious country, the average American got only half the answers right.

You can also check and see a number of results, such as the finding that Jews got the highest average score of 65%, followed closely by atheists/agnostics at 64%! You might be surprised who scored low, and which questions were the toughest and easiest.

As a pluralistic society ourselves and one heavily involved in many parts of the world, it would behoove the American populace to have a reasonable understanding of major world faiths. Though this survey shows we are not completely ignorant, it makes clear we have a ways to go.

Sad Appeal to "Little Guy"

This morning's paper carried an Associated Press article titled "Palin Says 'little guy' Key in Vote." "Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said Friday that the country needs to elect business-minded candidates who will not sell out their principles for the sake of bipartisanship." Oh. And the "regular" Republicans these past two years have been models of the infection of bipartisanship?

She went on, "This election is about the little guy, the common man, independence, and the middle class--those forgotten and ignored for too long, and now they're fighting back." The Tea Party of late and Big Conservatism in general for the past 40 years have done one of the best jobs of ironically effective misdirection of angst in modern times. Notice how she knits together a list of identifiers that describe the majority of society and links it to disaffection and defensive umbrage--yes, she's talking about me, and look how abused we are--and then continues with, "We want those business-oriented folks in Washington not to be there singing 'Kumbaya' with the people who caused the problems in the first place."

And what problems are those, that affect the little guy of the middle class so strongly? First would be the Wall Street meltdown and foreclosure crisis, caused by the reckless unregulated practices of big business. Next would be the jobs crisis, caused by big business outsourcing all those middle class jobs overseas. Third might be an opportunity crisis, characterized by such things as the college cost crunch, public school deterioration and infrastructure decline, fueled by the success of big business and the wealthy at getting their tax burdens reduced so that more and more has to be borne by "little guys" who cannot afford it. Now in the wake of the Citizens United court ruling, $50 million in secret contributions from big business is pouring into the election campaign on behalf of the Republican cause. No doubt we are expected to believe their largess is donated not to further GOP support for corporate interests but due to the multinationals' concern for the 'little guy.'

Disaffection in the white working and lower middle class is real and understandable. Their standard of living has been getting inexorably squeezed for the past thirty years. The Koch brothers, Coors family, Rupert Murdoch and a handful of like-minded rightist billionaires have been working assiduously for at least that long to misdirect the chain of causation for that away from themselves for even longer. All the poor, aggrieved little guy has to do is turn ever more authority over to the tycoons who have rigged the system against him and require less and less of a societal contribution from those who have been driving him to desperation and all will be well. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragically sad.

California Budget Challenge

I'd like to invite you to the next public forum at 210 Connect, the monthly public affairs presentation that's sponsored by the Visalia Times-Delta and held at the 210 Center in downtown Visalia. I'll be on the panel. It's called "The California Budget Challenge: The People Show the Politicians How." Times-Delta Opinion Editor Paul Hurley will emcee the event that goes from 7:00 P.M. to 8:30 on Monday, October 11 at 210 Center Street. Also on the panel with me will be fellow COS Historian Stephen Tootle, COS Economist Christian Anderson and Tea Party member Deanna Martin-Soares.

A California budget program will be projected on the big screen. You can preview it and try to balance the budget yourself by going to ww.next10org/budgettool/site/thesim/flashcheck.html. There will be audience discussion and the people will vote on things, item by item. We panelists may be asked to comment from time. As the simulation makes clear, balancing the state budget is not an easy task. Try it yourself and see. Still, it is possible and I've done it a couple of different ways.

The important thing to me is to think long term instead of short term. For instance, Governor Schwarzenegger is reportedly going ahead with his shortsighted plan to sell an estimated $1.3 billion in state-owned buildings to help bridge the current deficit. The plan is foolish because state agencies would then need to lease them back from the private owners, and the 20-year cost has been estimated to be $5.2 billion in rent. Source. That's what I mean by short-term thinking winning out over responsible long-term planning. Sometimes you need to spend or invest now to save in the long run. It seems few look at things that way any more.

Anyway, come on out if you're free Monday night and we'll have a stimulating and hopefully instructive evening.

November 2010 Propositions

People are getting their sample ballots and vote by mail ballots this week, so now is a good time to shed some light on the California propositions for this fall. Here's how I'm voting.

Proposition 19 Marijuana: No
I'm voting no on the marijuana initiative. Call me old fashioned. I just don't think more intoxicants is a good thing.

Proposition 20 Congressional Redistricting: Yes
This extends the mandate of the redistricting commission to draw the lines for Congressional Districts in addition to State Legislature seats as already enacted by Proposition 11. The panel of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 of neither party and acceptable to both is a good idea. We have a much better chance of getting more moderate and competitive districts than under the current system in which the legislature draws the lines to protect incumbents. At least three of each group has to vote yes on a plan.

Proposition 21 State Parks Funding: Yes
Adds a surcharge of $18 to vehicle licensing to raise $500 million a year to fund state parks. I love and support our state parks but would rather they were simply properly supported than set up a new revenue-expenditure link. Yet the vehicle registration fee's cut by Schwarzenegger takes $6 billion out of the budget. This would restore half a billion. A little is better than nothing, so I'm voting yes.

Proposition 22 Transportation or Local Government Funds: No
This would prohibit the state from "taking" transportation or local funds for state uses. Unfortunately, when the budget is out of whack and needs balancing it is not wise to restrict the ways it might have to be done. I'm therefore against this requirement.

Proposition 23 Suspends Air Pollution Laws Based on Unemployment Figures: No
This Texas oil-industry bankrolled initiative is as self-serving as the insurance and electric company special interest propositions that voters rejected in June. It is specious to suggest that meeting clean air standards causes unemployment. To the contrary, this could hold back the state's burgeoning solar and wind industry.

Proposition 24 Repeals Special Tax Breaks for Big Business: Yes
Would provide about $1.7 billion by closing loopholes enacted to get Republican votes to pass previously stalemated budgets.

Proposition 25 Simple Majority Budget: YES, YES, YES!
This allows the legislature to pass a budget by a simple majority vote instead of two-thirds. By passing this the era of budget gridlock and late budgets will end. This is the most important proposition on the ballot.

Proposition 26 Mandates 2/3 Vote to pass fees: No
This ties the legislature's hands more than already.

Proposition 27 Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting: No
This is a last-ditch proposal by the politicians to let them keep drawing their own district lines. It is transparently self-serving.

If you are voting by mail be sure to mail it in time to be received by Tuesday, November 2. If you miss that, take the ballot to any polling place on election day. There is a list of local polling place addresses in your voting materials.

Special Note: If you want to make a comment you may have to use Mozilla Firefox as your browswer. When using Internet Explorer some readers report it does not show the security password you need to type in.

Health Debate: Asking the Right Questions Matters

Finally. Six months after the Health Care Bill passed a scientific survey actually asked people what they thought about the health care debate in a way that illuminates popular opinion on the issue. What it found out is that twice as many people feel the government should be doing more on health care, not less.

Yes, you read that right. You probably remember hearing that government sponsored health care assistance is unpopular and that most people oppose it. Surveys have indeed shown pluralities opposed rather than supported the Affordable Health Care Act that congress passed and President Obama signed in March. But what they didn't tell you was why. I kept asking that at the time.

I suspected that not all who were against the specific bill were against the nation helping out those without coverage or requiring insurance companies to stop denying or terminating coverage based on one criterion or another, but that many were for a more progressive approach, i.e. a single payer plan or one that would cover all those currently left out of the system. The new survey, undertaken by the Associated Press in conjunction with Stanford University, bears this out. You can see all the raw results here. In fact, it finds that twice as many feel the bill does not go far enough, rather than feeling government should do less or nothing on health care.

The survey found 30% said they favor the law, 40% oppose it and 30% are neutral. But more importantly, 40% agreed "it should have done more" while a hard core of of only 20% say, "The government should not be involved in health care at all." A solid 75% favor extensive changes in the U.S. health care system. Republicans who feel they can count on an enormous outpouring of support for their promise to repeal the measure may be in for a rude awakening. See the AP's own article on the survey here.

Thank a Liberal

I got a good email today from Tom, a reader of this blog. He sent me a fine piece called "Thank a Liberal." You can see it in its entirety on the following Daily Kos site. It includes 38 items that liberals have introduced, most of them over strenuous opposition from conservatives. The societal improvements range from civil rights to personal liberties, from national programs to consumer and workplace protections, or sometimes just reflect the more enlightened popular attitudes liberal thought has brought to the public forum. I'll share a few items as a sampler.

On civil rights: If you have never been lynched, or had your children firebombed in a church, thank a liberal. If you are not a land-owning white male, but have voted, thank a liberal. If you oppose political parties starting massive wars to destroy America because they lost an election, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the process; if you just don't have that much hatred for Lincoln's policy of restricting slavery to states where it already existed, thank a liberal.

On personal liberties: If you grew up in a family of less than 12 kids, like the idea of being able to choose if you have 12 kids or not...thank a liberal. If you ever drank a beer or a glass of wine without being thrown in jail, thank a liberal. If you have ever done anything that is a religious or superstitious taboo without being stoned to death or cast out as a heretic, thank a liberal. If no woman you know has died or been maimed in a back alley abortion, thank a liberal.

On national programs: If you're a Native American and have not been killed or died in a concentration camp, or if you live near Native Americans and are not at war with them, thank a liberal. If you have ever eaten food (agricultural subsidies), flicked on lights (rural electrification) or benefited from the Tennessee Valley Authority, thank a liberal. If you or your family have ever benefited from the GI Bill of Rights, FHA Mortgages, Medicare, Social Security and so forth, thank a liberal. If you've ever seen a national park and it hadn't been strip mined and clear cut into a desert wasteland, thank a liberal.

On consumer and workplace protections: If you do not have skin cancer, and have ever stood outside without having a peeling sunburn within moments, thank the ozone layer, thank the ban on CFCs, and thank a liberal. If your workplace is safe and you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights without being lynched, thank a liberal. If you have not died from tainted meat, been prescribed something useless or poisonous by a quack doctor, have not given your children cough syrup which turned out to have heroin as its secret ingredient, thank a liberal.

On popular attitudes: If your children go to school instead of working in coal mines, thank a liberal. If you have ever sat on a public seat, drank from a drinking fountain, stood on a bus, or done anything in public without worrying about being beaten up for being in the wrong section for your skin color, thank a liberal. If you have never been raped, and then had the rapist escape punishment on the grounds that he marry you, thank a liberal.

To see the rest of these pithy aphorisms click here. I'm sure you could think of many more to add to the list.

History Provides Guide for Ending Recession

Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008, has written a cogent and timely op-ed in the New York Times illuminating what is currently going on at the nexus of economics and politics. For Krugman's biography click here. What is especially fascinating is his analysis of how reminiscent the present situation is of the dynamics existing in 1938 during the New Deal. Then as now, the United States stood at the crossroads of deciding whether to continue or contract government stimulus of the economy.

Krugman's piece, "1938 in 2010," begins with a setting up of the parallel scenario: "Here's the situation: The U.S. economy has been crippled by a financial crisis. The President's policies have limited the damage, but they were too cautious, and unemployment remains disastrously high. More action is clearly needed. Yet the public has soured on government activism, and seems poised to deal Democrats a severe defeat in the midterm elections." Sound familiar? It ought to. The situations facing Franklin Roosevelt in 1938 and Barack Obama in 2010 are eerily alike.

Krugman goes into how FDR listened to the deficit hawks in 1937 and pulled back New Deal expenditures, only to see the economy begin to soften alarmingly. He was able to rush some emergency funding through, which stabilized the situation, but public opinion had begun to set against any more deficit spending-just like today. The Gallup poll in March 1938 found that 63% favored cutting taxes on business and only 15% favored additional spending to improve the economy. In the midterms the Democrats "lost 70 seats in the House and 7 in the Senate."

Fortunately for the economy, the situation was retrieved by the need to rearm as the clouds of war began to gather over Europe in 1939. You ought to take a look at Krugman's piece to see how massive this government stimulus on an epic scale really was. For in economic terms, that is what the war footing essentially was from 1939 to 1945, an immense government spending and jobs program that achieved full employment and actually reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP as the national economy exploded.

Today we are again faced with the same dynamics, though there appears to be little chance of an overwhelming set of circumstances arising (such as the need to prepare for and fight WWII) to fortuitously restore the consensus for government spending to prime demand and end the Recession. In that sense, Krugman is right to make the case that we seem too often not to learn from history, that too many politicians and economists have been "unlearning the lessons of the 1930s" and appear ready to commit "all the same mistakes."

Krugman is right on the mark in closing with, "But always remember: this slump can be cured. All it will take is a little bit of intellectual clarity, and a lot of political will. Here's hoping we find those virtues in the not too distant future."

Can Democrats Hang On to Congress?

All signs point to Republican pickups in Congress this November. The RealClearPolitics average of polls gives them a 5.3% edge over Democrats in a "generic" congressional race. If the Democrats are to minimize their losses, there is an avenue of opportunity. This is because the voters' current electoral preference for the GOP is not because people like the Republicans or what they have to offer. The Democratic Party has an overall 32% favorability rating while the Republicans' is only 24%.

Voters are frustrated that economic growth and job creation are sluggish, and the Democrats are in power. They, therefore, are set up to take the political hit. The numbers indicate no groundswell of support for Republicans or their solutions, just a level of exasperation with the status quo. Given an approval level of only 24% the lack of confidence is actually more pronounced against the GOP. Most people do not seem to be buying their customary message about cutting taxes and shrinking regulation and government help.

The strategy for Democrats to adopt in the coming weeks should therefore contain a heavy dose of raising skepticism about Republican ideas. Going negative, if you will. Certainly Democrats ought to defend their own policies, such as successfully saving GM and Chrysler, preventing financial implosion, passing health care improvements that will help the average family, wrapping things up in Iraq and taking credit for the up to 3 million jobs the non-partisan Government Accountability Office says the stimulus has produced.

But it will be, in the current environment, much more effective to call into question GOP positions which are essentially the same ones that many blame for precipitating the recession in the first place, or others that would have denied relief to those hard-pressed by economic turmoil. The Dems will have to bank on the idea that most voters will agree with them that doing nothing is not the way out of present difficulties.

Yes on Proposition 25

The most important election race in California this November is not the hotly contested contest for Governor between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman. No, it isn't Carly Fiorina's attempt to unseat U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, either. In fact, it doesn't even concern a candidate. Instead, it's Proposition 25. If you want to end the state's recent budget pattern of deficit and delay, vote yes.

The passage of 25 will do more to resolve the state's now-chronic budget woes than the victory of any candidate possibly can. Residents of the Golden State will remember that former Governor Gray Davis was recalled in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. One of Arnold's popular tag lines was that he would "fix the crazy budget in Sacramento." Davis faced a $6 billion debt his last year. At this the Governator has failed miserably. Every budget has been late, most of them out of balance by over $20 billion. A current budget is already a month late with no resolution in sight, and faces a $19 billion shortfall between revenues and expenditures.

The sad fact is that it isn't really Schwarzenegger's fault. It's the state's budget process. Specifically, it's because California is one of only three states to require a two-thirds vote to pass its budget. The other two are Rhode Island and Nebraska. This doesn't cause a problem in the Rhode Island legislature because that state is so overwhelmingly Democratic. In the General Assembly there are 69 Democrats and only 6 Republicans. In the State Senate they dominate 33 to 4 with 1 independent. It doesn't cause a problem in Nebraska's unicameral legislature because that state is so decisively Republican.

In California the Democrats are in the heavy majority but they don't have two-thirds. This allows 14 Republicans to block action in the 40-seat Senate and 27 to do so in the 80-member Assembly. The result is constant gridlock. When a deal is finally worked out, long after IOU's have been issued and money has been borrowed at interest, the Republican price is usually new tax reductions for business that ensures the next year's revenue will be short even more. No one is accountable. It's not a Democratic budget or a Republican one. The Republicans say the budget is a mess because the Democrats spent too much. The Democrats say it is a mess because the Republicans slashed revenue too much.

If Proposition 25 passes that will change. The Democrats will be able to pass their budget. They will pass it easily and on time. It will be the will of the solid majority. If it works they can claim all the credit. If it doesn't the Republicans will be able to assign them all the blame. The voters will have a clear record and choice upon which to base their votes for the next election, not a muddled situation in which each side can justifiably point fingers at the other. It's time to end the gridlock, restore majority rule (also known as democracy) and establish accountability. Vote yes on Prop 25 this November.

Pesticide-ADHD Link Indicated

Recent studies in the United States and Canada show that the presence of pesticides in the food of children doubles the incidence of ADHD--Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder--and that many foods show detectable amounts of such insecticides as were linked to the findings.

Maryse F. Bouchard of the University of Montreal in Quebec states, "I think it's fairly significant. A doubling is a strong effect." The research is published in the journal Pediatrics. To see the abstract click here. She gave the following advice to parents: "I would say buy organic as much as possible. I would also recommend washing fruits and vegetables as much as possible."

For example, according to the National Academy of Sciences, in 2008 measurable concentrations of malathion were found in "28 percent of frozen blueberry samples, 25 percent of fresh strawberry samples and 19 percent of celery samples."

It should not be surprising that chemicals used to kill other life forms by attacking their central nervous systems might also have adverse effects on our own. Indeed, it would be surprising were it otherwise.

So, buy organic whenever you can, wash that produce, and support reasonable regulation and inspection of foodstuffs. In the European Union new chemicals intended for use on crops must first demonstrate they are safe. In the United States chemicals are presumed harmless unless proven otherwise. Which approach do you feel would better protect you and your family? Which would you rather see in place?

New York Mosque Controversy

President Obama was, of course, right to say that a Muslim group has a right to build a mosque in New York City two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center towers. Our First Amendment right to freedom of religion guarantees this. Whether it's two blocks, ten blocks or fifty blocks is irrelevant. If people want to build a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, ashram or any other religious structure anywhere in America that isn't on public land they are allowed to do so.

Most Americans apparently do not agree. A CNN poll this month found that 68% "oppose this plan" while only 29% "support" it. Because of the wording of the question that may include people who may agree the Islamic group has a right to do so but don't think it is a good idea. The President himself said his defense of the right to build the mosque does not necessarily mean he thinks it is a good idea. "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there," he said. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."

When you have rights and freedoms you have to stand behind them. You cannot withhold them from entire groups because some extremists or fanatics committed an outrage. Consider this event from Middle Eastern history.

On July 15, 1099 forces of the First Crusade broke into Jerusalem. After eliminating the last pockets of armed resistance on the Temple Mount, Crusader knights and soldiers began a massacre of Muslim and Jewish civilians. According to Christian eyewitness Fulk of Chartres, "In this temple almost 10,000 were killed. Indeed if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared." Estimates of the civilian toll throughout the city range from 10 to 30 thousand.

How many Americans do you think would agree that Christians should not be allowed to build churches in Jerusalem after such a massacre? That's right, none would. You either believe in freedom of religion or you do not. It is one of the cardinal principles of American civic values, which is why it is in the very first article of the Bill of Rights. And it has to apply to everyone.

Greg Mortenson's Amazing Story

I recently finished reading one of the most remarkable true stories of recent times, Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. The book, which spent three years on the New York Times bestseller list, tells Mortenson's story of surviving a disastrous failed attempt to climb the notoriously dangerous Himalayan peak K-2 in 1993 and stumbling into the mountain village of Khorfe in northern Pakistan where the villagers took him in and nursed him back to health. In exchange for their hospitality Mortenson promised to build them a school.

Not a wealthy man, Mortenson went back to the United States, working as a nurse, and raised the money. What makes the story so interesting are the cultural aspects of dealing with people in that part of the world. Mortenson found he had to learn local languages, respect and follow local customs, listen to local concerns and hire and work through local people to get anything done, and often indeed, to stay alive. His approach has been so successful he and his Central Asia Institute has now built over 155 schools, insisting that girls be admitted as well as boys. As he likes to quote an African proverb, "Teach a boy and you educate an individual, teach a girl and you educate a community."

Beginning in 2004 he began building schools in Afghanistan as well, after initially having been invited to do so by Kirghiz tribesmen in the Wakhan Valley who heard of his efforts across the border in Pakistan. I am currently reading this story in a sequel book, Stones into Schools. His nonideological schools are a welcome alternative to the fundamentalist madrasas often funded in the region by Saudi Wahabis which all too often preach the kind of xenophobic and sexist extremism that inculcates a Taliban or terrorist perspective. Three Cups of Tea is said to be required reading at the Pentagon these days.

I really recommend you pick up Three Cups of Tea if you haven't done so yet and treat yourself to this amazing story. This is the way to spread peace and goodwill in the world. I'm thinking Greg Mortenson will win a Nobel Peace Prize someday. And if you live in my area you even have an opportunity to see him this fall. He will be appearing at the Visalia Convention Center at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, November 16. For tickets you can contact the Convention Center or Tickets.com. I hope to see you there.

An Interesting Week

It's been an interesting week. The Gulf oil spill remains staunched and a more permanent fix may be near. In related news, former BP chief Tony Hayward is receiving his wish about getting his life back. He's currently even casting himself as the victim. See the Wall Street Journal on this here.

Ag Department official Shirley Sherrod's image went from racist to lightning rod to wronged party to hero in the span of three days. News now is she is planning to sue right wing blogger Andrew Breitbart for intentionally and falsely maligning her by doctoring that speech of hers to the NAACP many years ago. See Breitbart defending himself on Fox News here. It'd be fun to see the would-be character assassin get what he deserves in court. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

Private First Class Bradley Manning is being held in Quantico, Virginia on charges of leaking classified material. He may well be the primary suspect in the 92,000 pages of Afghanistan War reports recently sent to WikiLeaks. The Washington Post reports evidence this young man was a rather troubled fellow already, having already been busted down in rank. Liberal sources are making much hay over the numerous references to heavy civilian loss of life there as a result US and coalition action and pointing to that and the hushing it up as causative of the ongoing conflict there. Conservatives rage about the leak of classified materials they fear will help insurgents in the war. Both are right to be upset. I'm disturbed that one 22-year-old PFC has access to so much of that kind of information. Who the hell is in charge of security over there?

The performance of GM and Chrysler is vindicating the Obama Administration's decision to extend them stopgap loans over a year ago. Both have returned to profitability and GM has paid its back four years ahead of schedule. If the Republicans had had their way both companies would now be defunct and another 400,000 workers in the two corporations and their suppliers would now almost certainly be unemployed. Good move.

Meanwhile, the slow recovery continues. The second quarter GDP grew at an annualized rate of 2.4%. The pundits are painting this negatively because a higher rate was widely forecast. Still, given where we have come from, another quarter of positive growth is, well, positive. If an economy were to grow at 2.4% every year its overall output would double in less than 30 years. Revised figures also point to a worse recession than previously thought. CBS News reported the economy contracted 2.6% from the last quarter of '08 through the middle of '09. Expect to see better job growth return fairly soon. Soon enough to help the Dems in November's midterms? We'll see. A lot of that depends on whether the media reports the glass half empty or half full.

July 20, 1969: One Giant Leap

Forty-one years ago my family and I sat transfixed before our television set and watched history being made. On July 20, 1969 we saw Neil Armstrong, garbed in a bulky protective suit, descend a short ladder and become the first human to set foot on an alien world. "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind," he memorably stated.

Goose bumps caused the hair on my fourteen-year-old arms to stand on end. Even at that age I was clearly aware I was witnessing an event of epochal importance. People had dreamed of such a moment since the dawn of human consciousness. It was potentially every bit as significant as Columbus making landfall in the West Indies.

President Kennedy had electrified and mobilized the nation in 1962 by setting a moon landing as a national goal. "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." See Kennedy's entire speech here.

Three quarters of a million Americans were involved in the space program at its height. We were inspired because we are adventurers and explorers at heart. Our more distant forebears explored and settled these continents; our more recent ones gave up kin and country to strike out on their own in search of new opportunity. We were inspired because we love a challenge, and the tougher the better. We were inspired because we love competition. The rival superpower, the Soviet Union, had beaten us off the mark into space and we were not to be outdone, not by anyone, and especially not by them. In those days, with triumph over the Great Depression and victory in World War II still fresh in the memories of all Americans over 30 and that can-do attitude imbued into us, their offspring, there was no doubt in anyone's mind we could accomplish anything we set out to do.

America embraced NASA and the space program for a number of reasons: national pride, scientific curiosity, Cold War one-upsmanship and pioneer spirit among them. It made little difference that a prime unnamed reason was to develop heavy-thrust intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear Armageddon on Soviet Russia should that prove necessary.

As a spinoff dividend, the scientific advances needed to reach the moon buttressed America's economy and defense technology and kept them foremost in the world for decades to come. These included the computer revolution and major breakthroughs in communications, avionics, metallurgy, plastics, miniaturization, nutrition, optics, electronics and physics, just to name a few.

Besides being a thrilling human adventure, putting Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon stood also as a supreme national achievement. It showed the kind of relentlessly awesome competence of which a resolute, motivated and unified United States of America is capable. I will remember it with pride for the rest of my life.

Trip to Oregon

My wife and I have been on vacation since the sixth and got back home yesterday. We went north to Oregon to try to avoid some of the San Joaquin Valley heat for ten days. We did run into some temperatures over ninety in Ashland but most of the trip was pretty comfortable.

We started in Ashland, home of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. We actually stayed in a very nice bed and breakfast in Medford called Under the Greenwood Tree, about ten miles up the road. The prices there are a lot lower than in Ashland itself. The first play we saw there was "The Merchant of Venice," Shakespeare's intense study of revenge and intolerance. We next took in a production of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" that was very funny. Our final performance was a musical, "She Loves Me." This entertaining musical debuted on Broadway in 1963. It's based on the story "Parfumerie" from the 1930's by Miklas Laszlo that was remade into the 1940 Jimmy Stewart movie "Little Shop on the Corner" and more recently the Tom Hanks-Meg Ryan film "You've Got Mail."

As a postscript, if you ever go to Ashland you really must spend a little time in Lithia Park. It's right downtown next to the three Festival theaters and has wonderful trails that follow Ashland Creek through the woods. Between plays we kept cool by dangling our feet in the snow fed creek. Also nearby is historic Jacksonville. It's worth a visit for its pioneer buildings and annual musical Britt Festival. If you're interested in a gourmet dinner you might try the Jacksonville Inn. Very good!

We next visited some friends in Albany, just south of the state capital of Salem. While there we all went over to the coast to Newport to see the Yaquina Head Lighthouse and the Oregon Coast Aquarium, which was surprisingly good. Particularly effective was a glass tube you can walk through to see the sharks swimming around you on all sides. Next day we took in the Oregon capitol building. You can see some pictures here. The "Golden Man" on top was so bright up close we could hardly look at it directly. They have a part time legislature that only meets every other year unless called into special session.

We spent the last three days in Oregon at a cabin at the Cedarwood Lodge on the McKenzie River, about 45 miles east of Eugene. This remote location was good for some peace and quiet in the beautiful forest. Mike, the proprietor, is a joy. The McKenzie is a great trout stream and nearby there are good hikes to waterfalls, a hot spring, a nice golf course and the road up to breathtaking views of the Cascades. It is remarkable how volcanic the Cascade Range is. Lava fields and volcanic cones are everywhere evident. At night, far from city lights, thousands of stars glistened like jewels spread across black satin. This was a great getaway.

Why Won't Conservatives Accept Global Warming?

I have been mystified by the resistance of many conservatives to the scientific consensus on global warming. The data is overwhelming that the overall temperature of the earth is rising and the climate scientists are nearly unanimous in concluding that humans' putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the primary cause of it. I've been at a loss to understand why intelligent people who do not argue with the idea that they need to cut down on cholesterol to reduce their chances of heart disease become apoplectic to the point of hostility when the atmospheric facts of life are presented to them.

You see, liberals do not regard this as a political issue but a scientific one. You either accept science and reason or you don't. If you don't that puts you in the same category as witch doctors and astrologists, that is, without any credibility. Yet the numbers indicate something else is at work here. 90% of Democrats believe in human-caused temperature rise but only 30% of Republicans do. Why the difference by ideology?

I suspect the Republican reluctance to accept the findings is indeed based in ideology, and the ideology of limited government. In the cholesterol example I gave earlier, the individual can do something decisive about the problem. But the planetary climate change problem would take massive international action and include requirements and mandates on all kinds of products, processes and activities. And that is precisely the kind of approach modern American conservatives hate. I feel that lies at the heart of conservative resistance to science on this one.

Re-Examining Afghanistan

The dismissal of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his replacement by the celebrated Gen. David Petraeus has engendered not only discussion about whether his counterinsurgency efforts will be more effective, but whether our intervention in Afghanistan should be continued at all. There are many persuasive considerations that point to the conclusion that it should not. Let's take a look at the rationales behind our continued presence there.

The first is to fight terrorism, specifically the Al Qaeda organization that masterminded the 9/11 attacks back in 2001. Yet CIA Director Leon Panetta reports there are only an estimated 50-100 Al Qaeda operatives in the country. There are very few terrorists there. 100,000 troops to look for less than 100 enemies? For nine years? It is thought the Al Qaeda leadership is across the border in Pakistan, where they are by the same intelligence estimates thought to number less than 300. The whole cadre is estimated to be fewer than 500 in the entire Middle East. Trying to defeat them with a large army in one country is futile. They simply disperse and set up shop somewhere else. They are in Pakistan, but also Yemen, Somalia and various other places. They are much more a law enforcement than a military problem.

The second is to support the "legitimate" Afghan government. Yet by all accounts President Hamid Karzai stole the 2009 election that kept him in power. His brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is reputed to be one of the biggest opium dealers and influence peddlers in the country. Others in Karzai's ruling coalition circle are similarly unsavory, including the notorious Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. Are these the kinds of people to win the allegiance of the Afghan people or to send young Americans to die for?

A third justification given is to keep the Taliban out of power. Mindful of what he may need to do to stay in power once his foreign props are gone, Hamid Karzai has been making increasingly explicit overtures to coming to a modus vivendi with those selfsame Taliban. It appears likely they will enter the coalition soon anyway. Fighting to stave that off for a couple of more years hardly seems worth the cost. And speaking of cost, how long can the U.S. continue to spend $100 to $130 billion at a time of economic recession and deficit at home?

In short, the enemy is no longer there, the government is not worth fighting for and we cannot afford the expense. It is time to begin winding down this rather pointless and tragically costly exercise. The July, 2011 target date for beginning a withdrawal is none too soon.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

A big part of the reason behind the financial crash was a lack of sensible practice within the industry. Here's a rundown on the consumer protection provisions in the new financial reform bill. You can read more in this New York Times article. Yahoo News has a good synopsis here.

A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be created, housed in the Federal Reserve. It will consolidate the functions of numerous existing bodies, and its sole responsibility will be to safeguard the interests of consumers. This was a key element championed by consumer groups such as AARP and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren, Congressional watchdog over TARP funds.

Financial institutions and instruments such as banks, mortgage lenders, credit card and private student loan companies, payday lenders, community banks and credit unions will be subject to new rules and transparency requirements. People can get a copy of their credit report annually by going to AnnualCreditReport.com. Lenders will have to actually check people's income and assets. There can be no prepayment penalties for adjustable rate mortgages and no bonuses can be paid to salespeople based on the interest rate the customer gets. Origination fees will be capped at 3%.

Banks will have to keep a stake in the loans they make. They will not just be able to sell them all off once made, thus giving them an incentive to make sure they are extending good loans to credit worthy customers. Trading in such exotic instruments as derivatives will not be banned, but banks will be able to commit no more than 3% of their assets to them and at least they will all have to be conducted openly will full public disclosure. If banks fail the industry itself will pay the costs rather than a federal bailout fund. (Depositors' money will still be guranteed by the FDIC.)

In addition to the significant credit card reforms already enacted last year sellers will be able to offer customers discounts for paying cash but will not be able to offer discounts for using one credit card over another.

There were setbacks for consumer protection in the agreement. For one thing, auto dealers were excluded. For another, annuities escaped some of the strong scrutiny other instruments will face. But in total, these developments represent a gain for consumers and a bit of a brake for some of the recklessness that led to the latest meltdown.

It is an achievement that never would have happened under the other party and that Obama and the Democrats will tout as the midterms approach.

Obama Shows Leadership, Sacks McChrystal

Today President Obama did what he needed to do. In accepting the resignation of Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal the President asserted civilian control of the military, showed himself to be a strong leader and served notice that disrespect verging on rank insubordination cannot be tolerated.

Revelations that came out yesterday about a story in an upcoming issue of Rolling Stone Magazine appeared to show the general and his staff openly contemptuous of the authority of the Vice President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ambassador to Afghanistan and the National Security Advisor. A reference to the President himself was in a similar vein. The quotes have to be seen to be believed. Click here for a synopsis.

An attitude that would not be acceptable for a lieutenant with respect to a captain or major certainly cannot be permitted with respect to the top members of the chain of command. Obama would have been seen as weak beyond redemption had he not reined in such public humiliation.

Fortunately, the highly respected and proven effective counterinsurgency leader Gen. David Petraeus was available and willing to take a step down from theater commander to take McChrystal's place at the head of operations in Afghanistan. But even if he hadn't been, Obama would have needed to make the change. A soldier who doesn't know enough to act like one cannot be trusted in a position like McChrystal held. Obama correctly acted without delay in getting rid of him. This was a job well done.

Star Wars in Concert

Thursday night my wife and I went to see "Star Wars in Concert" at the Save Mart Center arena in Fresno. An 86-piece orchestra played the epic John Williams music, a 60-foot screen showed accompanying footage from the six films and the whole was narrated by Anthony Daniels, who played C3PO though the entire 28 years of the saga. (Yes, he really talks like that!) It was a tour de force, well worth 4 stars on my entertainment rating scale. You can see images from the Fresno Bee here.

Though there were many, many families present among the crowd of thousands, it may be difficult for some younger people to appreciate the immense impact the inception of the Star Wars franchise had with the first film in 1977. I suppose the more recent Harry Potter phenomenon might be the closest parallel. Star Wars was truly transformative.

The initial release in 1977 wasn't that well publicized. I had heard about the film but was reluctant to go, afraid of being disappointed by yet another sci-fi dud. Then I heard one guy at work talking it up. He said he had "seen it again last night." Again? I asked him how many times he'd seen it. "Seven," he replied. OK, I figured, this is worth a try.

For one thing, it was the first space film in which the special effects were believable. In fact, they were more than that. They were, for the time, awe-inspiring. They hold up well even today, for that matter. The first scene in which Princess Leia's ship crosses the screen (the beginning of Episode IV as they are now numbered) followed by the immensity of a pursuing Imperial star destroyer left all audiences slack-jawed in amazement. The music, too, was incredible. Inspiring, haunting, romantic, funny, action-filled, celebrational, sinister, you name it, the compositional genius produced masterworks so integral to what was happening on screen they were seemingly felt rather than heard. If more classical music was like that symphony halls would be packed all over the world--and not just by the upper sliver of the social pyramid.

George Lucas's classic tale of good vs. evil told against a backdrop of heroism, sacrifice and personal redemption came during the post-Vietnam era when Americans craved a clearly defined and spiritually based affirmation. Yet its international popularity also demonstrates the universality of its themes across the human family.

It is a modern statement of that oldest of Western themes, The Quest, that goes all the way back to Gilgamesh and The Odyssey. Honor and justice matter. There is power in evil but good will overcome it if it remains steadfast and true. And no one is so far gone that they cannot atone and once more be made whole.

It was a grand show. If you get a chance and it comes to your locality I heartily recommend getting some tickets and losing yourself in the magic.

Supreme Court Blocks Arizona Clean Money Campaign

It was bad enough when the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that corporate money could be spent on political speech without limits. But now it has really gone over the line in issuing an immediate stay against Arizona's 10-year-old campaign finance system.

Though I don't agree with the first ruling, I can understand it. If you grant that a corporation is a "person" entitled to First Amendment protection and that society has no interest in trying to maintain fairness in political campaigns (two very big ifs) then I can see where the conservative court majority is coming from. They say you can't restrict advertising from any quarter.

Yesterday's intervention in Arizona's clean money system is a different animal altogether. Before even hearing the case, they issued an emergency order to prevent the state from disbursing matching funds to candidates already entitled to it under existing law in the middle of a campaign. Somehow they seem to feel that "First Amendment free speech rights of wealthy or well-heeled candidates are violated when extra money flows to their opponents." The Arizona system results in a greater amount and more balanced speech, not less. And talk about "judicial activism." Governor Jan Brewer, who had $1.4 million in matching funding pulled from her by the ruling after her primary opponent Buz Mills had already spent over $2 million, lamented, "It is extremely unusual for the judicial branch to change the rules of an election while it is being held."

The current court is more and more brazenly favoring corporations and the wealthy over any and all attempts to level the playing field. This shows how crucial appointments to the high court truly are. Without a countervailing check soon, America is headed ever more inexorably toward an unabashed plutocracy.

I have two digressions to make here at the end. First, you might have noticed I have had to go to moderated comments recently. I started to get comments with links to pornographic sites and I want no part of that kind of stuff in my blog. So please go ahead and post, but just be aware that I'll have to take a look at it and approve it before it appears. Secondly, yes, I was elected to the Democratic County Central Committee in Tuesday's election. Many thanks to everyone who gave me your vote, your encouragement or recommended me to your friends. I will work to be worthy of your trust.

Weaponized Botox?

I picked up a copy of the June, 2010 edition of Scientific American yesterday; thought I'd catch up on some of the interesting goings on in the world of science and technology. There's a lot of fascinating stuff in it, but one thing that truly caught my attention was an article by Ken Coleman and Raymond Zilinskas called "Fake Botox, Real Threat."

It seems illegal labs are producing the botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) and selling it to unscrupulous doctors and cosmeticians. Irvine California based Allergan has the patent and there are only seven companies in the world licensed to make the popular substance that, injected in tiny amounts, reduces wrinkles. They estimate that up to 90% of the Russian market and a third to a half of the botox in some other countries are black market produced.

The problem is that BoNT is "the deadliest substance known to science." One ten millionth of a gram is a lethal injected dose for a 170 pound person. One gram could be lethal to 14,285 people if ingested, 1.25 million if inhaled and 8.3 million if injected. And they say that anyone with a master's degree in biology would have little trouble growing the anaerobic botulism microbes and harvesting their waste product, which is the BoNT. Chad Livdahl and Zarah Karim pleaded guilty to doing just that in 2006 and received sentences of nine and six years, respectively. Illicit production seems to be extremely high in Southern China and Southern Russia, possibly including Chechnya.

The ramifications for terrorists taking note of this are terrible to contemplate and probably just around the corner. If it's easy to grow and just a little bit of it can kill a whole lot of people it sounds like a mass murderer's dream-and everyone else's nightmare. It's just one more thing for the world's security agencies to worry about in our increasingly dangerous world.

What Rand Paul Means

You may have heard this past week about the big win for tea party favorite Rand Paul in the Kentucky Republican senatorial primary contest. You may also have heard about the controversy engendered by his comments that he has some philosophical problems with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'll try to provide a little clarity.

Paul's win this past Tuesday, a nearly two to one shellacking of Trey Grayson, Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's handpicked candidate, was part of a larger narrative that saw insurgent Joe Sestak beat Arlen Specter in the Democratic senatorial race in Pennsylvania. It seems adherents of both parties are going for hardliners rather than moderates.

Beyond that, Paul, the son of Texas congressman and former Libertarian presidential nominee Ron Paul, created some waves by saying he'd have trouble voting for the landmark Civil Rights Act today. He said he opposes any kind of racism and supports enforcing non-discrimination in public facilities, but is against government telling private business how to run its operations. You can see his interview on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow here. She asked, "Do you think a private business has the right to say, we don't serve black people?" He answered, "Yes. I am not in favor of any discrimination of any form...but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way." He also complained against President Obama's "Unamerican" criticism of BP corporation running its business in the way it sees fit.

This kind of thing sums up the arch conservative to Libertarian wing of conservatism nicely. They have near-absolutist views on property rights. It is my restaurant, they feel, and I can discriminate if I want to. It is my business, they say, and if I cause pollution or noise that harms other people in the vicinity, my property rights trump their health and safety. They have a similar "to hell with everyone else" view of civil rights. My right to treat other people in a dehumanizing way outranks their right to be treated as worthwhile human beings. They hold these views sincerely, and feel they are productive of freedom.

Such a perspective is, of course, terribly flawed. The right to dehumanize people is never justified. Where does it end? Does someone's right to be secure from rape end when they step onto the rapist's property? That is where Paul's reasoning leads. Segregation and discrimination are crimes. We have declared this as a nation in the 14th Amendment, the Brown v. Topeka ruling and the Civil Rights Act. As such, there cannot be selected areas where criminals who violate them are sheltered from the law. The tea party-Libertarian elevation of property rights over human rights marks them as extremist, inegalitarian and un-American in the most profound sense. The elevation of the "right" of the abuser to abuse over that of the intended victim to be treated fairly marks them as inhumane. The utopia envisioned by people like Rand and Ron Paul would devolve into a nightmare of protected racism and exclusionism of all types. As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson surmises, when it comes to Libertarian theory, "purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense."