DO SOMETHING!!

It's time to take action on health care reform.

I'm starting to fear that the public health care option is slipping away. I was not an Obama supporter in the early phase of the primaries specifically because I thought his stance on health care was not strong enough. I also thought he wasn't liberal enough in general, but that's another story. I came around because I thought he had leadership qualities and the ability to inspire people in a way that no other candidate had. Sadly, I'm starting to fear that I made a mistake and my initial feelings about him were right.

The power of right-wing talk radio and Fox "News" is so great that they are able to convince people of things that sound utterly ridiculous if you think about it for even a second. Does anyone REALLY believe that the government would set up "death panels" to decide who gets health care and who doesn't? Or that Obama's health care advisors don't value the lives of the elderly? Please. That's just silly. Why would you believe that? Particularly when there's so much evidence to the contrary. And if those things are not true, why would so many people be going to such great lengths to convince you that they ARE true? What could their motive be? I say they stand to profit in some way by keeping things the way they are. They are profiting, whether directly or indirectly, from the profit-based health care rationing system we currently live with.

They've also managed to convince people that the government won't do a good job of providing health care because government can't do ANYTHING right. Again, give me a break! Here's a list of just a half-dozen or so things the U.S. government does well. Big things. And I owe my dad (a lifelong Republican) thanks for helping me think of some of these.
1) The government doubled the size of the country with the Lousiana Purchase.
2) The government thought up and executed the Homestead Act, without which most of us wouldn't own property or a home today (and if you don't think the Homestead Act was socialism, go get a dictionary and check the definition!).
3) The government will come to your house, pick up a letter, and for $0.44, deliver it to the opposite coast, 2,500 miles away, in just a few days. And surprise! The U.S. Postal Service has not put UPS and FedEx out of business yet (the postal equivalents of private health insurance companies in this analogy).
4) The government built and maintains the interstate highway system.
5) Who do you think it is that answers the phone and sends an ambulance to your house in a matter of minutes when you're hurt or threatened? The government.
6) And I suppose you think the U.S. military sucks too. What?! You don't? You think it's the greatest military force on the planet? Oh. That's interesting. And who do you think runs the military? Ah, right. The government.
7) Speaking of the military, let's take a closer look at that argument that they can't do health care right. The VA health care system and Tri-Care, the health care system for our nation's military, are among the world's best. Who do you think runs those? The government.
8) Social security. No, it's not perfect, but jeez louise! The government sends you a check every month! Do you know what happens in lots of other countries when you get too old to work? Either your kids take care of you, or you die.
9) Medicare. Again, it's not perfect, but I personally know many people who would have died without it. My grandfather was one. Since the same corporations that are against public health care don't want to provide health coverage to their retirees, Medicare is the only option for most elderly Americans. Would you prefer that we got rid of this public option?

Today I sent copies of the letter below to my member of Congress, both my U.S. Senators, and President Obama. If you also feel that a public option is an important part of health care, please, please, write or call President Obama and your members of Congress. Don't send them an email -- a call or an actual letter is much more effective. It shows that you care enough about the issue to take the time to sit down and write a letter, or pick up the phone and talk to someone. Feel free to borrow from my letter if it helps.

Find your member of the U.S. House of Representatives & his/her address here; your two U.S. Senators here; and President Obama's address here (go to the bottom of the page for the mailing address).

JUST DO SOMETHING. Now. Please.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dear X,

I respectfully ask that you lobby forcefully for health care reform that includes a public option. To me, this is a moral issue. Under our present system of health care, Americans who can afford insurance have no choice but to purchase coverage through for-profit companies. These companies do not exist to provide health care; they exist solely to make a profit for the executives and shareholders. Therefore, the bureaucrats who stand between me and my doctor have a clear motivation to obstruct, ration or deny health care. It is morally wrong that Americans are forced to depend on this profit-motivated system.

Health care reform with a public option will offer Americans a health insurance choice that is not motivated by profit. To me, the fact that it will drive health care costs down by creating more competition among health insurance providers is a secondary benefit. There are, or course, other health care reforms that could and should be made:

1) Insurance companies should not be permitted to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
2) Insurance companies should be prohibited from dropping coverage when a customer in good standing is diagnosed with an expensive medical condition.
3) The government should be permitted to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for drugs provided under Medicare Part-D.
4) Medical records should be electronic, secure, easily accessible, and fully transportable.
5) Providers should be encouraged to cooperate in providing care, and to provide follow-up care.
6) Most important of all, there must be a public option for health insurance.

Don't let the Republicans stop this critical reform. Those who argue against a public option are either woefully uninformed, or are beholden in some way to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. If that means Congress must pass health care reform without Republican votes, so be it. That's a good long-term political strategy anyway -- when the public option is wildly popular and successful, the Republicans will look like obstructionist fools.

I have been a registered Democrat since I turned 18, and I have always voted Democratic. I must tell you, however, that this issue is so critical to me that I will not support a candidate in the 2010 or 2012 elections who failed to forcefully lobby for a public option. My votes and my dollars will go to other candidates in the primary and general elections.

Please, don't let this opportunity slip away. Pass health care reform with a public option!

Sincerely,

Universal health care: a first-hand account

This is a post by a friend-of-a-friend, an American living in Germany. She describes in detail the universal health care available there, and makes some interesting comparisons between the state of health care in Germany and the U.S. It's a good read and should dispel some of the unfounded fears about universal health care that seem to be floating around.

While we're at it, this is a good place to find out whether all the rumors floating around about the proposed government option are true or not. Politifact.com is run by the St. Petersburg Times and won a Pulitzer Prize this year for its investigative reporting in the 2008 election. They do a bang-up job of ferreting out the truth, half-truth and lies in what all sorts of politicians and talking-heads say, and they are completely nonpartisan. They rip President Obama just as often as Sarah Palin!

STFU or GTFO

UPDATE: This link was just too good to pass up. Or too bad. It's terrifying, is what it is.

This post has been brewing for awhile. This morning Hayley asked me to rein her in before she did an angry post on the teabagging anti-health care tools (from now just to be called "The Tools," because it's a lot easier to type), and I told her I was the wrong woman for that job because I was about to explode too. Fasten your seatbelts...please keep your hands inside the ride at all times...here we go...

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

I don't know who said it -- apparently not Thomas Jefferson, but maybe Howard Zinn? Anyway, it's been thrown around a lot lately by The Tools whenever someone objects to their highly objectionable behavior at the many townhall meetings that have been going on around the country. I happen to agree with this quote, regardless of its source. Dissent is patriotic. Democracy works best when everyone stands up for their own informed opinion [keyword: informed]. I lived by this phrase for eight looooong years as I watched W dismantle our Bill of Rights, engage in an illegal and unjust war, and cut taxes for the richest Americans in order to drive up the deficit in his attempt to kill government. And I respect any person who wants to offer a thoughtful and informed dissent to my opinions. I will listen, I will think about it, and who knows? Maybe I'll learn something or even change my mind. It's been known to happen.

But this is not dissent, it is not patriotic, and it is not democratic. It's rude and disrespectful, not only to the members of Congress who are holding these meetings, but to every person in the audience and every person who has to watch it on the news (like me). It is designed to inhibit the free exchange of ideas and honest questions by people who want thoughtful answers. The Tools are not dissenting; they are preventing dissent. I'll bet you all the money in my savings account (sorry, but it's not that much) that these are the same yahoos who were yelling "Kill him!" and the n-word at McCain-Palin rallies last fall. I know for a fact that at least some of them are the same @$$holes who held those dumb teabagger parties earlier in the spring, because I'm afraid that I'm related to a few of them and get their irrational and hate-filled emails. Or at least I did, until I marked them spam, and now gmail ever-so-kindly delivers them straight to my spam inbox and I never have to see them.

What are The Tools trying to achieve by this disruption? They want to make sure that nobody gets to hear just how sane, rational, affordable, humane and practical a government-sponsored health care option would be. Why don't they want us to hear those details? Because they know we'll like it, and we'll want it, and we'll make sure we get it. So who would be opposed to a government-sponsored health care plan? Uhhhhh, the health insurance companies? That's the obvious answer. They're the ones who stand to lose. A competitive government-run option would be appealing to a lot of people, and I imagine many of them would dump their hella-expensive private insurance that refuses to cover most of their health issues anyway and snap up the government option. I heard a tool on the radio yesterday saying, "We're just ordinary people who don't like this idea. How many health insurance executives or lobbyists do you think there are in those crowds? None." True. They wouldn't want someone to step on their Gucci loafers now, would they? And yet...I found it fascinating that a former insurance executive is organizing and funding The Tools. Read about it yourself here.

Another tidbit I found fascinating, yet perplexing: Obama's health care proposal is least popular among senior citizens. Hmmmm...don't senior citizens have Medicare? What is Medicare? Single-payer government-sponsored health care! GTFO, hypocrites. It's good enough for you, but not for the rest of us? You can have universal government health care, but the rest of us can go without? It reminds me of this. Jon Stewart is brilliant. He actually got ultra-conservative talking head Bill Kristol to admit that the government runs a "first-class health care system" for our military (gasp! a conservative admitted that government-run health works!), but that the rest of us don't deserve it. Tool.

So, you tools of the ultra-right, of the growing American corporatocracy, go home. We don't want you at any more town hall meetings. Some of us actually want to discuss the merits and flaws of universal, government-run health care. We want to hear varying opinions, criticism, praise, and analysis. We want to make up our own minds. We want to have a hand in shaping what eventually comes out of Congress. But we can't hear over all your shouting! In other words, we grownups are trying to have a conversation, and your two year-old hissy fits are preventing it. STFU, or GTFO.

FOR SHAME.

I've been hearing about these "TEA Parties" all day today, and I am disgusted and frankly rather pissed off. TEA is supposed to stand for "Taxed Enough Already." Whatever. This is pure-t greed. Thanks to Shrub, the idiots these people worship haven't been paying their fair share for the past eight years. I'm talking about the Rush Limbaughs, the Bill O'Reillys. [Most of the yahoos who are participating in a TEA Party today don't realize that their own taxes didn't get cut by Bush, and may have even gone up. But they don't know that, because they don't bother to scrape off the propaganda to get at the reality underneath.] 

Those days are over. Thankfully we finally have a leader who understands what fundamental American values are, and has the guts to stand up and demand change. Part of that change is demanding that everyone help pay for it. 

What are you people protesting anyway? Do you oppose affordable health care? Do you oppose education? Do you prefer our roads and bridges crumbling as opposed to safe? I imagine you think all the people who've lost their homes and jobs thanks to the Bush administration's refusal to exercise appropriate oversight on the financial industry DESERVED IT. Right?

Know what I think? I think these TEA Parties and demands for "revolution" are un-American, unpatriotic and undemocratic. That's right, I said undemocratic.  We are a nation of laws, and we have a democratic process that you can utilize if you disagree with the policy choices our leaders are making.  I think the right-wingnuts are sore losers. For eight years you told us "Elections have consequences." Well, it doesn't feel so good when those consequences don't go the way you want, does it?

Go home you crybabies. Pay your damn taxes. Oh, and when you get a tax cut from Obama (because almost all of you will), send it back. Don't take the improved health care that will be available soon, and make sure you keep paying too much for it like you do now while the rest of us pay less. Make your kids enlist & look forward to their emails home from Iraq. THAT is how you stand on your beliefs, not by standing in a park and holding a stupid sign saying "Revolution." Ass****s.

I am MAD as hell again.

Things that surprise me

1. Wyoming is windy. I know, everybody knows this and I shouldn't be surprised. But did you know that the wind starts blowing literally at the moment you cross the state line? I drove up to Cheyenne today, and the instant I crossed the border, a gust of wind came out of nowhere and nearly blew me into the next lane.

2. I watched Ted Haggard on Oprah the other day, and felt pity and grudging admiration for him. What's that? You're surprised to read that I watch Oprah? I do. I'm rarely home alone when she's on, but if I am, I usually try to watch. I like her. I know that's not popular to say in some circles, but it's true. But I digress. You remember Ted, right? He's the evangelical ex-preacher of a Colorado Springs mega-church who was revealed to be a gigantic hypocrite and liar when a gay prostitute outed him in 2006. Ted was brutally honest, self-critical, and apologetic on Oprah. He made a point that I think was a good one: we all have thoughts we don't like, and sometimes we are driven to act on them even when we know it's not right. Most of us cruise through life ignoring these thoughts or wishing they'd go away, and are lucky that they never become compulsions we cannot resist. Ted was forced by the publicity to face what he regards as his dark side, and has come to terms with it. He's been through therapy, and come clean on the gay sex and drugs to his family, friends, and church. He's realized that the lies were killing his soul, and admitted to his hypocrisy. All of that takes a person with some courage and strength. I also found his grown kids to be very likable and well-adjusted, although I didn't like his wife so much. It was mainly because she repeatedly implied that homosexuality was a sin, and that her husband could choose to be straight.

3. People in Illinois are still talking about how great ex-governor Blagojevich is. COME ON people. He's a liar and a crook. It's certainly admirable that he's done great things for poor and working-class people in Illinois, and from what I hear his expansion of the state's health coverage for kids has helped many people. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he failed to live up to our shared basic values and ideals. He's scum, and it's sad that people keep saying they're so used to corruption in Illinois politics that they aren't really shocked by what he did. I hope somebody steps up to the plate and fixes things in Illinois. Maybe they need Reverend Haggard up there.

4. I recently observed a floor session in the legislature of a state that shall go unnamed, and they actually had a lengthy debate over whether or not smoking is bad for your health. Hello?! This was capped off by a long and impassioned speech in which a legislator implied that only Nazis would ban smoking. I have to admit that although the guy's arguments were ridiculous and frankly insulting, his speech was very eloquently delivered and also highly entertaining and at times funny. Points for delivery, dude.

5. B has grown an inch since December. A full inch in just one month! No wonder his pants all look like highwaters lately.

6. Not a single House Republican voted in favor of the economic stimulus package yesterday. Not one! I honestly find this shocking. Not a single Republican had the guts to buck the party line and support the American Citizen Bailout Bill, as I have decided to call it. Their discipline as demonstrated by this adherence to orders from above is admirable, but dudes, c'mon! We're sinking here. I think that 20 years of Reaganomics-inspired governing led by tax cuts have provided ample evidence that IT DOESN'T WORK. Quit your whining and DO something.

7. I enjoy hanging my laundry out to dry. No, that's not a metaphor for spilling all my dark secrets and revealing the skeletons in my closet to the world at large. I actually enjoy hanging my laundry out to dry. I don't mean the cost savings on our utility bill from not running the dryer, or my small part in saving civilization from the threat of global warming. Don't get me wrong -- those are nice fringe benefits, and are in fact the reasons that I started line-drying our laundry to begin with. I'm saying that I'm surprised to find that I enjoy the act of hanging our clothes on the clothesline. Think about it: it's always done on a fairly nice day -- it has to be at least 40 degrees outside and sunny, which is at least 75% of my laundry days, probably more. It's nice to be outside on a day like that, to hear all the midday noises in our neighborhood. I hear the birds, an occasional dog, a siren in the distance every now and then, the neighbors behind us talking about everyday life. It's peaceful. I also find that I do a lot of my serious thinking while I'm hanging out the laundry. And our laundry smells great after it dries in the sun. It's all just enormously satisfying to me for some reason. However, I'm sure that if for some reason I had no choice but to line-dry all our laundry -- say if our dryer broke or something -- I would instantly hate it with a passion.

8. AIG is giving bonuses to their brokers this year, averaging $1.13 million per person to over 400 people. These are the people who were selling the mortgage backed securities, the Exact. Thing. that got us into the economic sinkhole we're all drowning in right now. Way to go guys, you deserve a cash reward for that! (Yes, I hear it's actually paid in cash. What -- do they hand out briefcases full of unmarked bills at a secret meeting held at a resort or something?) AND AIG received a massive infusion of federal cash late last year to "save" it from financial ruin. So, um, doesn't that make it OUR money they're using to pay bonuses to the assholes who got us into this mess? Bastards. I know this is a family blog and I try to watch my language, but I can't help myself here. Dirty bastards. The government should demand that they either cancel the bonuses or immediately repay the money (our money!) that we generous taxpayers so kindly invested in AIG last year. I am SO glad, so very very glad, that Bush and his cronies are gone. I have absolute faith that while Obama and the people he's chosen to work with him may not be able to undo this particular evil perpetrated by the Bushies, they will not allow another one like it to happen on their watch.

9. I have kept my promise to myself and avoided the toxic bloggers. Why does this surprise me? Because they are an irresistible magnet to me. They spew nonsensical lies and half-truths to support their mean-spirited ideas, use "I'll pray for you" like a weapon, and hurl insults at me and anyone else who disagrees with their loony ideas. I have a very hard time letting that kind of thing slide by me without speaking up. But I've done it. I haven't visited a single toxic blog since I made that vow back in November. It's liberating, I tell you.

Why nine things, and not a nice round number like 10? I dunno. I ran out of ideas. Plus, Jon Stewart has been on for 7 minutes now, so I'm missing the news (he calls it "fake news;" I say it's better than the "real" news). You could tell me something shocking and I'll add it as #10. Or you could just tell me what has surprised YOU lately.

Attention Radical Right

Please step back and resume your rightful place as a minority fringe in American politics. Karl Rove, you can step even further and go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned.

America has spoken: we reject your policies and your campaign tactics, and we rejected your candidate. For too long, you have dominated American politics. You are frightfully good at motivating your followers to get out and vote. In fact, we Progressives should study your tactics. But you are not a majority, you do not represent the majority, and you never have.

Tonight, I am laughing and crying at the same time. I have literally gotten up and done a little dance of joy. I can't wait to see my kids in the morning and tell them the news: I have real hope for your future today.

Finally, America has a president who makes me proud. President Obama will help America regain its image in the world. Once again, we will be seen as a leader, a defender of peace, democracy, freedom and tolerance. There is once again a chance that we can improve what used to be the world's best free public education system so that our children can compete in the world economy. Perhaps we will figure out a way to develop a sane health care system that looks out for children, the elderly, and the mentally and physically disabled, and makes fair demands that those who can afford to pay their share do so without forcing the rest of us to pay outrageous fees and premiums. Our soldiers who have fought so honorably to defend us can come home from Iraq, and Iraq can start paying for their own defense out of their ridiculously flush bank accounts, while we try to pay off our debts and balance the budget. We can re-focus our military policy to address the real threat to our safety: Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Families like mine will see a tax cut, while those who can afford to pay more in taxes will. Our tax policy might be restructured so that it favors corporations who provide jobs for Americans, instead of giving breaks to companies that move off-shore. Energy independence will now get more than lip-service, and we can start providing the incentives producers and entrepreneurs need in order to boost wind, solar, and other clean sources of energy.

Thank you America, and thank you Barack Obama. Now I can't wait until January when he can get started.

Buh-bye Bushies, don't let the door to the Oval Office hit you on the arse as you head back to Texas.

FURIOUS

Last night, we got a robocall that I wasn't able to pick up because I was putting Z to bed. They left a message on my answering machine. It said that Barack Obama:

"pledged to relegalize tax-funded partial birth abortion, which pierces the skulls of pain-sensitive late-term babies during childbirth."

It went on to spout some nonsense about parental notification for abortions for minors (yeah, the teenaged girl who's raped by her father should have to get his permission before she aborts his baby; it's only fair, right?)

HOW DARE THEY? Does B need to hear that? Should I have to explain what abortion is to a four year-old? I.AM.OUTRAGED. They have no right to leave such a graphic message on my answering machine. No right.

The call came from the National Pro-Life Alliance (please see sub-rant below about the term "pro-life"). I think I'm going to call a local news station about this, because it is so totally inappropriate to be leaving these sorts of messages on family answering machines. I'm also going to write the Alliance, and call them too. Join me if you'd like --

Martin E. Fox
President
National Pro-Life Alliance
4521 Windsor Arms Court
Annandale, VA 22003
(703)321-9200

Now let's talk about the content of this ridiculous and infuriating phone call.

1. "Partial-birth abortion" -- the medical term is actually intact dilation and extraction (D&X). It was renamed "partial birth abortion" by abortion opponents because that sounds scarier. I prefer the less judgment-laden term "late-term abortion." Let's just call it LTA for short, OK? So why would a woman have an LTA, and why would a doctor perform one? The procedure is rarely used -- it accounts for less than half a percent of all abortions performed. It is also most often performed "postviability" -- in other words, when it is too late to save the baby anyway. Something has gone so terribly wrong that the baby would not survive. In other cases, the mother's life is so severely at risk that she would not survive the pregnancy. Sometimes both are true. Bottom line: it's rarely performed, and it's a desperate life-saving measure. NOBODY wants a late-term abortion. Nobody does it just because they don't want to be pregnant. Nobody. Prohibiting it would cost some women their lives, and would force others to carry a baby they know to be dying for weeks or months. What an awful thing to do to women.

2. Barack Obama on LTA -- He thinks that LTA should be available, but properly restricted. Obama is not pro-abortion. His stance is much like my own: abortion is a sad but often necessary choice, and instead of prohibiting abortion, our society should do a better job of making sure it's less needed than it is today by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies. The bottom line: He thinks women should be trusted to make the appropriate choice for themselves in conjunction with their doctors, their families and their clergy.

3. On the term "pro-life" -- It's a load of bullshit. How many of those people do you think are opposed to the death penalty? Not many, I'll bet. How can you be pro-life, yet support the death penalty? And why do so many "pro-life" politicians and citizens oppose government-funded health care for poor children? Or food stamps? School lunch? Head start? They're "pro-life" for fetuses, but think kids need to get it together and earn their own way, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or maybe go shopping for better parents.

I'm pro-life. I love life. I love being alive. I'm also anti-abortion. I cannot imagine many circumstances in my own life when I would choose an abortion. If I had to, it would be devastating. I'd mourn it for the rest of my life. But I'm also pro-choice. I don't believe anyone should tell me I can't choose a particular medical procedure for my own body, and I certainly don't want to force any other women to live by my moral values instead of their own.

Can you tell I'm done being bipartisan? I can't do it anymore. The stakes are too high, and it's gotten too ugly. The other side is spouting lies about Obama and leaving hateful messages on my answering machine. The McCain website is making me sick -- it's all anti-Obama crap, empty Republican talking points, and minimal useful content. Sarah Palin is a mean, vindictive woman who was ill-prepared to take the role she's been given. She has succeeded in setting women back at least a decade in our hopes to someday occupy the White House.

I simply do not understand the other side in this election. Usually I'm pretty good at seeing both sides, but this year, I just don't. There is only one choice. Obama.

PSA #5: Energy

Barack Obama on energy
John McCain on energy

It's a little harder to do this one point-by-point, because the two candidates' websites don't address exactly the same issues. I'm going to try though.

Gas Prices

Obama
He wants to provide short-term relief to American families by:
- enacting a windfall profits tax on the oil & gas industry in order to fund a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate for American families
- cracking down on energy speculation
- using oil from the strategic preserves to help bring down prices.

McCain
- He supports the current investigation Congress is conducting into energy speculation, and thinks we should punish any abuses that turns up. He also advocates reforming the laws governing the oil futures market so that they have the same degree of clarity and effectiveness as the laws governing stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.
- McCain opposes a windfall tax on oil companies.

Dependence on Foreign Oil

Obama
His goal is to save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined within the next 10 years, thus relieving us of the need to import oil from these sources. Obama would:
- increase fuel economy standards
- get 1,000,000 built-in-America plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015
- create a new $7,000 tax credit for purchasing alternative-fuel vehicles
- reduce the level of carbon in our fuel by 10% by 2020, and phase 60 billion gallons of biofuels into our fuel supply by 2030
- require oil companies to develop & use the 68 million acres of land (40 million of these are offshore) that they already hold leases for but do not drill on
- promote responsible domestic oil production strategies, including the identification of obstacles to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

McCain
McCain is strongly committed to expanding domestic oil and natural gas exploration. He specifically advocates:
- maintaining current fuel economy standards, but doing a better job of enforcing them
- encourage the American auto industry to produce more efficient cars by creating a $5,000 tax credit for Americans who buy zero-emissions cars, with lower credits for low-emissions cars
- offering a $300 million prize for developing plug-in hybrid and fully electric cars with batteries that cost 30% of what the batteries for these cars currently cost
- drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf
- he believes alcohol-based fuels (like ethanol) have great promise, and that flex-fuel vehicles should play a great role, but has no specific policies or programs targeted at these on his website. However, he does support the eradication of tariffs and price supports that benefit corn-based ethanol only.

Renewable Energy

Obama
Obama wants to create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. He would:
- make sure we get 10% of our energy from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025
- weatherize 1,000,000 low-income homes each year
- develop and use clean coal technology
- prioritize the construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
- implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050
- re-engage the U.S. in global discussions in climate change and establish the U.S. as a world leader on the issue

McCain
McCain would:
- invest $2 billion annually in clean coal technology to speed up its commercial availability
- build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, with the goal of eventually building 100
- he thinks alternative low-carbon fuels like wind and solar are a good idea, but does not present a specific proposal for advocating their development and use.
- establish a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse emissions with a goal of reducing emissions by 60% of 1990 levels (66% of 2005 levels) by 2050
- establish higher energy standards for new government buildings, and retrofit older buildings to make them more efficient
- improve the national electricity grid

The bottom line:

Both candidates appear to have a serious interest in the issue. Both have quite a lot of detail on their websites about the policies and programs they would support, as well as their philosophical views on the issue.

There is some similarity between the candidates here -- both advocate tax credits for zero- and low-emissions cars, and both would encourage the U.S. auto industry to produce more efficient cars; both want to encourage domestic production of oil and natural gas, although Obama takes a more cautious approach than McCain; both see speculation on oil futures as a problem and would attempt to regulate it; both would invest more in clean coal technology.

There are also some key differences: Obama favors a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, while McCain opposes it; Obama favors raising fuel economy standards while McCain would leave them as-is; and while both favor a cap-and-trade system, Obama's goal is more ambitious.

PSA #4: National security

John McCain on National Security and Iraq
Barack Obama on National Security and Iraq

First off, I wanted to point out that while Obama lists issues in alphabetical order on his website, McCain does not. I presume that they are in order of importance. He lists national security third (after the economy and energy), so I presume that in his eyes, this is one of the most important issues we face.

Iraq
McCain -- "John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred." (a direct quote from his website)

Obama -- He believes that we need a new strategy for three reasons: (1) the security and political progress in Iraq have been inadequate; (2) U.S. involvement in Iraq is putting an unacceptable strain on our military that jeopardizes national security; and (3) the diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq has allowed the Taliban to regain strength in Afghanistan, and that al Qaeda has taken advantage of our reduced presence there to begin retraining for a new attack on the U.S. Obama's plan would leave a residual force in Iraq (he doesn't say how many) to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel, conduct counter-insurgency operations against al Qaeda in Iraq, and to support and train the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism. Obama wants to withdraw the remainder of our troops from Iraq in a phased and responsible manner -- he says that military experts believe we can redeploy 1-2 combat brigades per month for 16 months and safely accomplish the withdrawal from Iraq.

The military
McCain -- McCain says we need a larger and more capable military, but offers no specifics on how much larger he thinks it should be, or what he believes would make it more capable. He wants to modernize and adapt training, tactics and doctrine. He thinks we need more emphasis on civil affairs in our military, more special forces, and more forces that are highly mobile. He supports reform of the military contracting process. He is most specific on the topic of military funding. He wants to end the way we currently fund the military through special appropriations, and put it back in the regular appropriations process. He says this would allow Congress to better scrutinize military budgets and make sure we are spending wisely. He also says this would prevent the administration from spending in excess of budget caps, as they now do.

Obama -- Obama thinks our military is caught in the Cold War, and wants to modernize it into a "21st century military." He plans to increase the number of troops (the Army by 65,000 and the Marines by 27,000) and properly training and equipping them. He also wants to make sure we treat our soldiers well, and will end the stop-loss policy implemented by the Bush administration and establish predictable deployment schedules. He seems most focused, however, on changing the bureaucracy within the military, which he sees as too rigid. He wants to strengthen special operations forces, civil affairs and information operations, increase emphasis on foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence operations. He wants to improve our military's ability to train foreign security forces, so that they can do a better job of protecting themselves without our intervention. Last but not least, he wants to reform military contracting, creating transparency and accountability in the process and clarifying the legal status of contract employees.

National defense
McCain -- McCain wants to fight the war against terrorists intelligently, but does not describe specifically how that should be done. He believes that when the U.S. government impinges upon the rights of U.S. citizens in the process, we hand a victory to terrorists. I presume this is his way of saying that he does not support some aspects of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, but he does not come right out and say that. McCain strongly supports the creation of a missile defense system.

Obama -- Obama thinks that properly equipping our troops is very important to our national defense. He specifically mentions body armor, armored vehicles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. He would review all current major U.S. defense systems in light of current needs as well as future threats like September 11. He believes we need to preserve the strength of our air and naval powers, and invest in new technology in both areas. He supports a missile defenense system, but wants to make sure it's pragmatic and cost-effective.

Diplomacy
McCain -- McCain's website mentions "working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries."

Obama -- Obama wants to renew and strengthen America's traditional alliances like NATO. He also wants to emphasize humanitarian aid operations in order to build friendships and alliances and "win hearts and minds."

Now discuss amongst yourselves...

PSA #3: Education

Oops! I missed a day. Sorry -- things get very busy for me at work this time of year.

Barack Obama's Education Plan
John McCain's Education Plan

Early Childhood Education
Obama: "Zero to five" plan places key emphasis on early care and education for infants, and providing support to parents as well. He would create early learning challenge grants to help states move toward voluntary universal preschool. He would quadruple Early Head Start, increase funding for Head Start, and improve the quality of both. He also hopes to provide affordable, high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families (visit his website through the link above for more details on how).
McCain: He believes that current federal funding for early childhood is adequate, and that we should "leverage and better coordinate" existing programs. He wants to make sure that the neediest children have access to federally-funded programs. He believes that many Head Start centers are lacking in quality, and would like to create Centers for Excellence in Head Start. There would be at least one in each state, and each would receive $200,000/year, depending on the availability of funding, to disseminate their best practices and improve coordination of early childhood education in their region.

K-12 Education
Obama:
- No Child Left Behind (NCLB): He would fully fund it as promised by the Bush administration. He would improve assessments so that teachers don't have to teach to a test all year. He would also improve NCLB's accountability system so that under-performing schools are helped, rather than punished.
- Charter schools: He would double current federal funding for charter schools. The expanded funding would go only to states that improve accountability of charter schools and commit to closing down underperforming charter schools. They would also support expanding the best charter school programs.
- Math & science: Obama wants to recruit math and science graduates into the teaching profession, and would make these curriculum areas a priority in their education policy.
- Dropout crisis: Obama would provide funding to schools to invest in middle school strategies to prevent dropouts, things like teaching teams, parent involvement, and mentoring.
- After-school programs: He'd like to double federal funding to existing programs to serve an additional 1 million children.
McCain: McCain has very little in the way of specifics. He says he will enact "meaningful reform," but does not say what that is.
- Vouchers: While he never uses the word "vouchers," he talks a lot about "equality of choice," which is an often-used buzzword when talking about vouchers. He also wants to increase the funding for Washington D.C.'s voucher program from its current level of $13 million to at least $20 million.
- Tutors: He wants to have the federal government certify tutors, rather than local school districts, and allow tutors to market themselves to parents independently of the school system.
- Homeschooling: $1 billion in current federal funding would be reallocated to home schooling under McCain's plan. He would reallocate $500 million in current federal funding for education to develop online courses for home-schooled children. He would also reallocate an additional $250 million of current federal spending on education to states for the purpose of expanding online educational opportunities. Last but not least, an additional $250 million of current federal funding for education would be made available as scholarships for children to study online. A student could receive up to $4,000 to take courses, study for college entrance exams, or receive tutoring online.

Higher Education
Obama: As mentioned in the tax policy post, Obama wants to create an income tax credit of up to $4,000 per year for college tuition. He believes that this would make community college tuition cost-free, and would cover 2/3 the cost of tuition at the average public college or university. In return for claiming the credit, the recipient would have to perform 100 hours of community service. He also wants to streamline the process for applying for federal financial aid, so that all a family has to do is check a box on its tax return in order to apply.
McCain: He would reduce federal regulation of higher educational institutions (I wish he offered specifics, because I really don't know how the federal government regulates colleges and universities.). He wants to make the information that colleges and universities report to the federal government each year more accessible to parents (again, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what sort of information this is). He wants to simplify existing tax benefits for higher education, without providing any new benefits. He believes we should simplify the federal financial aid program by consolidating many programs into one. He would eliminate earmarks for research.

Teachers
Obama: Obama has a plan to recruit, prepare, retain and reward teachers. He would offer scholarships for a four-year college education in return for four years of teaching in public schools. He advocates a national performance assessment for teachers. He would expand mentoring programs for new teachers, and provide for common planning time so that teachers can collaborate. In cooperation with teachers, he wants to promote innovative ways to increase teacher pay.
McCain: He would like to invest in alternative methods for new teachers to be licensed. He would devote a small portion of current education funding to recruiting teachers who graduate in the top 25 percent of their class, or who complete alternative teacher recruitment programs like Teach for America. He wants to provide bonuses to high-performing teachers who work in challenging environments. He would focus funding for professional development on technological skills.

So let's talk.
McCain wants to create a lot of new programs for vouchers and homeschooling without increasing federal funding. Is that realistic?

On the other hand, Obama proposes new funding for education at all levels. Is that realistic?

Under whose plan do you think you could achieve the education plans you hope to provide to your children?

PSA #2: Tax policy

John McCain on taxes
Barack Obama on taxes

I'm going to organize this one a little differently than the last one. It just lends itself to this organization, and I think it will facilitate comparisons. There have been shameful half-truths and outright lies spread by one of the campaigns on this topic. Please pay attention to what both the candidates really say about their own plans, not what they say about each other's. I promise that's what I've put here, the candidates' own words about their own plans.

1. Top individual income tax bracket
McCain: keep it at 35% (I thought it was 36%? What do I know though -- I certainly don't pay taxes in the top income bracket!)
Obama: increase it to 39% for any income above $250,000; keep it the same for income up to $250,000 (so if you earn $260,000, you pay 35/36% on the first $250K, then 39% on the additional $10K)

2. Other individual income tax brackets
McCain:
a) for a family with two children, a $125 tax cut, through an increase in the dependent exemption
b) a new tax imposed on your employer-sponsored health benefits (the rate is not specified)
c) a $5,000 tax credit for health care (not sure how the new health benefits tax and health tax credit would interact, whether families would come out paying more or less, due to the fact that the new tax on health benefits is not specified)
Obama:
a) a tax credit of $500 for individuals or $1,000 for couples for working families that earn less than $250,000/year
b) in addition, for families earning less than $75,000/year: a $500 mortgage credit, and a credit of up to $4,000 for college tuition
c) eliminate all income taxes for senior citizens earning less than $50,000/year
d) increase child tax care credit from $5,000 to $6,000
e) expand eligibility for the earned income tax credit
f) $7,000 tax credit for alternative energy vehicles

3. Taxes on capital gains
McCain: keep the tax on dividends and capital gains at 15%
Obama:
a) get rid of the capital gains tax for investors in small businesses
b) keep the current capital gains rate for families earning less than $250,000
c) establish a new capital gains rate of 20% for families earning more than $250,000 (currently it's 15%, but is due to go back up to 20% automatically in 2010 unless Congress changes it)

4. Corporate income taxes
McCain:
a) cut the rate from 35% to 25%.
b) establish a corporate tax credit equal to 10% of wages for money spent on research and development
Obama:
a) repeal tax breaks and loopholes (no further specifics on which) that reward corporations for taking jobs overseas
b) use the savings from (a) above to lower the corporate income tax rate for companies that operate in the U.S.
c) tax credit for up to 50% of health care expenses for small businesses to help them provide health insurance to employees
d) make the research and development tax credit permanent

5. Estate taxes
McCain: no info on his website
Obama: get rid of them except for estates worth over $7 million per couple, and for those, retain the current rate of 45%

6. The tax code
Both candidates say they would like to simplify the tax code, and make it easier to file taxes.


So what do you think?
Which candidate's plan will help your family's taxes?

PSA #1: The candidates on health care

Barack Obama goes first this time; John McCain will go first in the next one.

Obama's Health Care Plan
McCain's Health Care Plan

OBAMA

Obama believes that the characterization of health care as private health care run by unregulated, or minimally regulated, insurance companies vs. government-run health care funded by taxpayers is a false dichotomy. He intends his plan to be something in the middle of the two. The important points in his health care views are:

1. Health care should be accessible to all Americans.
2. We should build on the existing health care system, using existing providers, doctors and plans.
3. Insurance companies should be required to cover pre-existing conditions so that all Americans can get insurance, regardless of their health status or history.
4. Obama would push for the creation of a Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses afford to provide health coverage for their employees.
5. Government should help lower insurance premiums for businesses by paying a portion of catastrophic health costs.
6. Insurance companies should be prohibited from overcharging doctors for malpractice insurance, and we should invest in proven strategies for reducing instances of malpractice.
7. Large employers should be required to contribute to the costs of health care by paying a percentage of their payroll toward employees' health care costs.
8. He would establish a new National Health Insurance Exchange with a variety of private insurance plans, as well as a public plan modeled on the health insurance that members of Congress receive, that will help individuals and small businesses purchase affordable health insurance.

Now, about the money:

- Obama says the average family will save $2,500/year under his plan, primarily through reduced prescription drug costs and reducing the costs of catastrophic illnesses.
- He also says his plan will cost the government between $50-$65 billion. He will pay for it by increasing income taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000/year. If you currently earn over $250,000/year, you pay a 36% income tax. Under the Obama plan, you would pay 39% on any amount over $250,000.


MCCAIN

McCain's health plan centers on his "Four Pillars of Reform:"

1. Affordability - we can make health care more affordable by ensuring competition in the health industry, rewarding quality, promoting prevention, and being more effective and efficient.
2. Access & Choice - American families should make health care choices, not the government or insurance companies.
3. Portability & Security - you should be able to keep your health insurance if you switch jobs, and you should have more options to save in case of an "unforeseen health event"
4. Quality - should be strengthened by promoting research and development of new treatments, promoting wellness, investing in technology, and empowering Americans with better information.

About the money:

McCain's website does not offer much information about *specific* changes he would make (he seems to be more philsophical, looking at the big picture policy rather than discrete policies and laws), so there is understandably no information about what his health care plan might cost to implement.

If you currently have health insurance through your employer, you don't pay any taxes on the value of that insurance. Under McCain's plan, you would start paying taxes on that, although he does not specify at what rate he would tax those benefits. His website also does not specify what he would use that new money for.

You would also receive a tax credit of $2,500 for an individual, or $5,000 for a family under McCain's plan. This is intended to help families who do not currently have insurance purchase it. McCain's website does not offer any information on what the cost of a health insurance policy for an individual or a family might be, or whether $2,500/$5,000 would be enough to cover it.

SO LET'S TALK

Whose plan do you think makes the most sense?
Who's thought it through the most?
Which plan most benefits you and your family?
Is it true that Obama wants to take away your right to choose your own doctor?
Would McCain's tax credit give you enough money to buy health insurance?
Do you think Obama's claim that families would save $2,500/year is accurate?
Is McCain right in saying that encourage competition will reduce health care costs?

Taking it to a higher level

I have an idea. I'm tired of hearing about whether or not Obama is a Muslim (or an Arab!), and what his association with William Ayers might be. I'm also tired of hearing about whether Sarah Palin can really see Russia from her house, and all the nefarious financial dealings McCain's campaign advisers may have been involved in. These aren't the things that really matter. They are red herrings. They are arguments thrown out there with little regard to the truth, intended to distract us all from talking and thinking about the things that matter in this presidential election.

What matters? Education. Health care. National security. Energy independence. Tax policy. Faith. Values. Our country is in crisis, on the brink of disaster. The policies of the past eight years have brought not only the American economy to its knees, but the world's along with us. Terrorism remains a serious threat, here and in many other parts of the world. This is the most important election in my life so far. We need to stop arguing about the peripheral stuff and focus on the big stuff. And we need to be sure we understand where both candidates stand on these issues, and what the fundamentals of their values really are, before we decide.

I'm not saying the peripheral stuff doesn't matter at all. If Obama did in fact hate America and "pal around with terrorists," who in their right mind would vote for him? And McCain's character is forever ruined to me (and I used to respect him) after I've seen how he has conducted his campaign this time around. These things matter, of course, but there are many, many things that matter much more.

So here's what I'm going to do. Call it my Public Service Announcement Series. I'm going to devote a post a day to the candidates' views on the issues that we should be talking and thinking about. I think people are interested in this stuff, since my hits go way up on the days I do political posts. Perhaps you don't care to hear about it from me, and that's fine. There are plenty of other sources you can go to. I do encourage you to go straight to the candidates themselves though. Don't let either Fox News or the New York Times tell you who to vote for.

Here are my promises to you, my readers and friends:

1. I will not post any second-hand information. I will rely primarily on the candidates' own websites, and will use as secondary sources direct quotes from them in interviews and the debates. I will not post anything a journalist, pundit, blogger, or any other third party says about either candidate's views and plans.

2. I will be unbiased. You all know I'm an Obama supporter, but I will do my very best not to let that show in my reporting on the issues. If you spot any bias in my PSA posts, feel free to call me on it.

3. I will document my sources. I will link to everything I use, so that you can check the facts I post. Again, if you think I'm wrong, please call me on it.

The issues I'm thinking of covering are those I mentioned above, plus whatever else I can think of -- feel free to suggest anything you think is important. Off the top of my head, in no particular order, I want to write about:

a) education
b) health care
c) national security
d) energy policy
e) taxes
f) abortion (even though I personally don't believe this should be a big issue in a presidential race, I know a lot of other people do, so I will post about what both candidates have said about their views on this topic)

So who's in? Who wants to have a civilized, thoughtful, and informed debate about the real issues America faces, and where both candidates stand on them?

Stay tuned, the first one is coming later today.

Politics and race

There is a controversy brewing over on Hayley's blog. She's drawn a new regular commenter who likes McCain because he's anti-choice. This woman's latest gem is a new argument for McCain: there exists a photo of Obama taken during the singing of the national anthem, and he (gasp!) doesn't have his hand over his heart. Never mind that the Snopes page this woman offers as evidence to support this incident also goes on to explain that this custom is outdated, and then shows two photos of him with his hand over his heart during the anthem, as well as two videos of him reciting the Pledge of Allegiance on the Senate floor. This is the only thing that matters to this woman in choosing a president. Not education, not health care, not tax cuts for us instead of big corporations, not national security, not honor, honesty and ethics. It's all about putting your hand on your heart during the national anthem, and making sure women are taken back a half-century in terms of the rights they have to make their own health decisions.

But the part of this woman's post that really chaps my hide is this: she says that people who support Obama are racists, and that we're supporting him only because he's black. How dare she! If she wants to make a logical, intelligent argument about why McCain's tax policy or education plan are better than Obama's, I'll listen, and I'll respect her opinion (although I'll disagree with it). But to base her vote on one issue (abortion) and ignore the things that really matter, then throw in this facile hand-over-the-heart argument, then call white support for a black candidate nothing more than "reverse racism," well, that's stupid, and it's just plain racist. Not to mention insulting.

I don't support Obama because he's black, but hell yeah, it matters. I think it's incredibly important that America might elect a black president. Know why? Because it will mean that FINALLY, racists like this woman are a minority in our country. It would be better if they weren't here at all (or at the very least weren't allowed to vote), but the fact that their ignorance can now be drowned out by a non-racist majority will be something to celebrate indeed.

BTW, does that mean this guy is a racist too? Because I hear he's an Obama supporter:


(Thanks Hayley -- I borrowed the picture from you!)

Can you tell I'm started to get mad? Really, really mad? Presidential elections always do this to me, but this year, my blood pressure is through the roof. I wish Election Day were tomorrow, because I'm not sure I can take two more weeks of this crap.

The Muslim argument

The whole argument that you shouldn't trust or vote for Obama "because he's a Muslim" embarrasses me. It makes me ashamed of the ignorance and hatred of my countrymen. When I hear Democrats make the counter-argument "No he's not! He's a Christian!" it makes me cringe. The appropriate response to the statement "I won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim" is "So what if he's a Muslim?"

Know what people? This kind of ignorance is the very thing that makes the radical, hateful nutjobs like Osama bin Laden and his followers hate us. Many of the people in Al Qaeda are poor, uneducated, unworldly men. Most never travel outside their hometown, much less outside their country or to Europe or the U.S. before they join Al Qaeda. All they know about America is what they're told by people like bin Laden, and what they may see on their satellite TV. And when they see people like the woman described below, well, no wonder they hate us.

I saw this clip on CNN this morning and it made me feel physically ill. At a McCain rally last week, an older woman told McCain she didn't trust Obama because "I have read about him and he's an Arab." Uh, hello? First of all, "Arab" does not equal "Muslim." "Arab" is an ethnicity. It refers to people who are from the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and just off the coast, Bahrain) and speak Arabic. Barack Obama is an American (if you must talk about ethnicity, he's half-Caucasian and half-African American, but again, who cares?), and he speaks English. Someone please find this woman and take away her voter registration card!

A lot of talking heads are calling McCain's response honorable. I beg to differ. Here's what he said "No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man ... that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." OK, it was honorable to defend Obama instead of using it as an opportunity to stoke the fires of anger and hate (ask yourself: what would Palin have done in this situation? hmmmm...). But his response implies that "Arab" and "decent family man" are mutually exclusive. What a horrible thing to say.

This exchange is playing all over the world now. I saw it on BBC this afternoon. I am SO EMBARRASSED. First, it makes Americans look like ignorant fools, not to mention racists. But even more importantly, it makes one of the two men who want to be president look like an ignorant racist.

Now let's talk about what makes someone a Muslim. I am not a Muslim, nor do I claim to be an expert on Islam. However, I like to read about the Middle East, I enjoy learning about religions, and I have picked up a bit here and there about Islam that contradicts the common knowledge as held by many Americans. Contrary to what some idiots in this country seem to think, Islam has nothing to do with turbans, beards or machine guns. There are five pillars to Islam:
1. Declaration of faith -- you have to say you believe in God
2. Prayer -- five times a day
3. Charity -- people have a responsibility to care for the less fortunate
4. Fasting during Ramadan (a month meant for practicing patience, sacrifice and humility, and for extending forgiveness)
5. Pilgrimage to Mecca

Some of these sound a little familiar, don't they? Take this into consideration too: family is central to the Muslim faith. Education and travel are encouraged and highly valued. Muslims believe in Jesus. What?! Yep. They consider him one of the prophets of Muhammed, they believe he is in heaven, and they believe there will be a second coming.

In short, Islam bears many similarities to Christianity and Judaism. It is a peaceful, family-centric religion that values education and charity. Human life is sacred, and violence is abhorred. The people who attacked our country on September 11 were not Muslims. They claimed to be, but they did not practice the tenets of that faith. Many Muslims around the world have spoken out against the September 11 attacks, and against violence in general. There are ignorant morons in the Muslim world too though, and unfortunately they are the people who too often end up on U.S. TV, burning flags and shouting "death to America." They are not the majority. Osama bin Laden is a Muslim in the same way that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. Both believe perverted versions of their religion, views that are not shared by the majority.

So, for the record, here's what I think about this stupid argument: Obama is not a Muslim. But if he were, why would it matter?

Why McCain's afraid to debate

He doesn't want you to be thinking about him so much right now while this economic crisis is eating up your retirement savings, further devaluing your home, and generally scaring the bejesus out of us all. It's why he pulled his campaign ads (come on, who really believes that running ads would keep him from doing his job as a senator this week?), and it's why he's afraid to show up tonight. See, if the media spends too much time talking about McCain in conjunction with this debacle, you might start learning something about him that you may not have known, and you may not see him so favorably.

Facts:

1. Mr. McCain has admitted publicly on more than one occasion that he doesn't know much about economics.
2. Mr. McCain surrounds himself with advisers who bear a very real burden of responsibility for putting our economy into the crisis it's in today.
3. Mr. McCain himself has been directly involved in nefarious dealings that led to an economic crisis in our country's recent history.

Let's explore each of these a little more fully. First, his admission that he doesn't know much about economics. Instead of me explaining this one, why don't you just get it straight from the horse's mouth. Do you really think this guy can provide leadership in tough economic times if he doesn't understand WHY they're tough, much less HOW they're tough for the average American (Mr. Seven Homes and Eleven Cars)?

Next, McCain's advisers: three of the biggies are Phil Gramm, Carly Fiorina, and Rick Davis. If you're mad about our collapsing financial markets, a good person to direct your anger at is Phil Gramm. In 1999, then-U.S. Senator Phil Gramm sponsored and passed a sweeping deregulation of the banking industry. He followed that up in 2000 with a second new law that forbade the Securities and Exchange Commission from regulating certain kinds of commodities trading. The lack of regulation in the banking industry, specifically in commodities trading and mortgage lending, is what really got us to where we are today (aka deep financial doo-doo). Thanks Phil! I bet a lot of CEOs just love you, but I don't so much.

What did Mr. Gramm do when he left the U.S. Senate? Well, he went to work as a lobbyist for banking giant USB. Wasn't that a convenient turn of events for Mr. Gramm? And what does Mr. Gramm do now, you ask? He recently had to resign as cochair of Senator John McCain's election campaign because people objected when he publicly called Americans a "nation of whiners" and said we were only suffering from a "mental" recession. This is one of the main sources McCain goes to for economic advice. Do you think he's looking out for you and me in his off-time from lobbying for USB and schmoozing for McCain? I doubt it.

Another person McCain relies on for economic advice is Carly Fiorina. You remember her -- she's the one who nearly ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground a few years ago and had to lay off 20,000 people. Then she took a severance package when they let her go that was valued at somewhere between $21 million and $42 million, depending on who you ask. Apparently four union pension funds are suing HP to get that back, by the way. I hope she goes broke and her house goes into foreclosure.

Then there's Nr. McCain's third favorite economic adviser, campaign manager Rick Davis. He's the guy who said McCain didn't need to "write down" an economic plan. Apparently winging it is good enough for the guy who has openly claimed he doesn't know a lot about economics. Guess what Mr. Davis does when he's not busy with the McCain campaign? He's a lobbyist. He owns a firm that has been on retainer with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to help them avoid government regulation. Well, that turned out well for us, didn't it? He said yesterday that it's been over a year since he did any work for the mortgage giants, but records found by media outlets including NPR have shown that the retainer fee was paid as recently as last month. Liar liar pants on fire.

And last but not least, let's talk about the Keating Five. Remember our last big banking crisis? In 1989, a bunch of savings and loans went under and the federal government had to come to the rescue. One of them was the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, headed by a "gentleman" by the name of Charles H. Keating, Jr. When that particular bank went under, it came out that five U.S. senators had been improperly aiding this guy in his illegal behavior. He gave them a total of more than $1 million in campaign contributions, and in return, these five senators went to work to keep federal regulators' noses out of Mr. Keating's business. These five guys came to be known as the "Keating Five." Guess who one of the five was? John McCain. He was one of two guys among the five that were ultimately cleared of blatant illegal behavior by the Senate Ethics Committee, but was admonished for exercising "poor judgment."

Isn't that what it really comes down to here? Judgment? I don't know about you, but I think Mr. McCain has a serious deficit when it comes to judgment on this subject.

So this is why Mr. McCain wants you to be thinking about things other than him this week. It's why he pulled his ads off TV, and it's why he doesn't want to debate tonight. Even though this debate isn't supposed to be about the economy, he just doesn't want to stand up in front of the American people as the guy who not only doesn't know how to solve this problem, but had at the very least an indirect hand in creating it and openly seeks advice from people who had a very direct hand in causing it. Coward.

A joke for you

Q. What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney?

A. Lipstick.

Sorry. I guess that's more scary than funny, isn't it? But seriously. They share a wicked vindictiveness. Both have a history of vicious retaliation against people who have "wronged" them.

I guess there's one other big difference: experience (John McCain's favorite word until he picked Palin as his VP, when it mysteriously disappeared from his vocabulary). But Dick Cheny is living (allegedly -- he could be undead, or a droid) proof that experience doesn't always equate with judgment, isn't he?

Has America lost its mind?!

I don't know where this originated. M emailed it to me yesterday, and I heard Randi Rhodes read it on air yesterday afternoon. Maybe she's the original source; I'm not sure. But seriously folks, when you look at it this way, it seems a little crazy, dontcha think? [material in brackets was added by yours truly]

-------------------------------

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack, you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, and you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School, and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a constitutional law professor, spend 8 years as a state senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state senate's Health and Human Services Committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs Committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl [I thought she was a sportscaster?], 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, and 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters [note that we plan for B to marry the younger daughter, so all the rest of you with young sons can forget about it -- she's promised], all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you advocate teaching responsible, age-appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control [and educating kindergarteners on how not to be the victim of a sexual predator], you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence-only sex education in your state's school system, with no other option, while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

And just to reward you if you're still reading -- George W. Bush eats kittens!!

I don't get it

With the DNC in town this week, I can't help but get a little political. Here's the thing I don't get: why are all those Hillary supporters bitter? Sure, the primary was very close, but she lost and he won. What is there to be bitter about?

Is it that they wanted a woman to be the candidate? Me too, but it has to be the right woman. Believe me, I will fall down on my knees and cry the day a woman enters the White House as president. It's something I never used to think would happen in my lifetime, but I now do. I honestly don't believe that her losing had anything to do with her gender. She's just not the person the majority of the country's Democrats (myself included) are looking for right now. We want a breath of fresh air, someone who inspires us and makes us want to believe in ourselves again. Clinton, whether it's right or fair or not, carries too much baggage from her and her husband's past to be that person. She is too much a part of the machine. I know many people didn't see her that way at all; I'm just telling you how I saw her.

Is it that she is somehow entitled to the nomination because of the fact that her name is Clinton and what that means in today's Democratic party? I don't buy that for a second. That would make us just like the Rs, handing out favors to the privileged few.

Or do these people somehow think Obama stole the nomination, that the primaries were rigged, that the nomination is rightfully Clinton's? C'mon now. That's just plain silly.

But the one thing I REALLY don't get is this: how can anyone who calls him or herself a Democrat, liberal, progressive, or whatever you label you want to put on those of us who hold those sorts of views, vote for McCain? That's just sour grapes. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face, as my mom would say. And I apologize in advance here for being blunt and unkind, but it's also stupid. You can't seriously tell me that having a particular individual in the White House is more important than the welfare of our country, can you? I can't believe that anyone who is a true supporter of Hillary Clinton would cast a vote for John McCain. That doesn't make any sense.

If anyone reading is one of those so-called "bitter" Hillary supporters I keep hearing about, please tell me what it's all about. I ask in all seriousness. I want to understand.

Childcare rant

I know, usually it's all kittens and puppies, rainbows and unicorns, look-at-the-cute-pictures-of-my-kids over here on my blog, but today I'm detouring from la-la land to go off on a little rant.

What is wrong with our country????? We place so little value on early childhood education and child care. I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of families are like ours, where both parents *have* to work. No, we don't live in a fancy house or drive expensive cars. We haven't been on a vacation in two years. So we're not both working to support an unrealistic lifestyle; we're both working to pay for our (average) roof over our heads, keep our kids in clothes (mostly second-hand or outlet sale finds), and eventually send them to (public not private, unless they're geniuses and get full-ride scholarships) college. Actually, we're probably luckier than most two-income families, because we can afford for me to work part-time -- I'm only in the office three days a week.

For B, we're paying $154/week for preschool, slated to go up to $170 in the new year. For E, it will be an additional $215/week. So we'll be shelling out about the equivalent of our mortgage payment each month for childcare. Without going into our personal finances, let me just tell you this: that is a SIGNIFICANT percentage of our take-home salary. We will not be saving a penny until B starts kindergarten, and we may well take our savings down to near $0 by then. And no, it's not a hoity-toity fancy expensive private preschool. It's run by a non-profit, so the fees are CHEAP by our city's standards. It is a great school too, and B has really blossomed there. So changing childcare providers is not really an option for us.

Before we chose this particular school, I must have looked at at least 30 others. And I would not have sent my kid to a single one of them. They were either just disgusting dumps, or creepy, or understaffed, or obviously just babysitting kids without any effort to educate them or contribute to developmental progress in any way. After I visited one particularly creepy place (it was in an old 7-11 store, so it had no windows or doors other than the front--all the back rooms were like cinderblock cells), I later ran into the staff person who'd been working in the infant room when I visited. She was actually at the school we eventually chose, interviewing for a job. She took me aside and told me not to send my baby to the place I'd first seen her, where she currently worked. I told her I wasn't even considering it anyway, but thanks for the heads-up. A couple months later, the guy who owned it was arrested for molesting the kids in the center. And this was after he'd already been convicted of child molestation several years before and ordered not to go back into the childcare business. WTF??

Just for fun, let's compare France and the US on a couple of points here:

1. Parental leave.

In France, it is the law that a mother is entitled to a minimum of 16 weeks paid maternity leave, and fathers get a minimum of 2 weeks paid leave. Plus, both parents can take up to three years of unpaid leave after the birth of a child and their job must be held for them. After a second child is born, a working parent who decides to stay home receives an allowance from the government. For the first three years, it is an amount equal to half the national minimum wage. So in France, the government pays you to stay home with your kids.

In the US, the Family Medical Leave Act requires your employer to give you leave, but they don't have to pay you. Maybe you're lucky like I am, and your employer will choose to give you paid maternity leave even though they don't have to -- I'll get 12 weeks. M will get none.

2. Child care.

So let's say you're a French mom who would rather go back to work than stay home with the kids. You can choose between a licensed and government-subsidized: child care center, family home child care provider, or in-home babysitter. The centers are run by local governments, non-profits, or parent associations, and parents pay only a small fee, based on income. The average amount a parent pays is $11/day/kid; actual operating costs are more like $50/day/kid. Oh, and I'll just throw this out there -- basic healthcare, such as vaccines, is provided at these centers and included in the basic fees. All care providers must have a bachelor's degree, and there is always a nurse on the staff and a doctor and psychologist make regular visits. Or if you do stay home with your kids instead of going back to work, but you need a little me-time, you can drop your kids off at a licensed, government-subisidized short-term child care center, where you pay about $1 per hour.

3. Preschool.

For kids aged 3-5, France has universal free preschool. Nearly 100% of the kids in the country attend. In the US, unless you're lucky enough to live in Florida or Georgia, you'll be paying for preschool out of your own pocket, or maybe your kids will just continue in a childcare setting until kindergarten without ever even going to preschool. Do you still wonder why the math and science skills of American students are declining in comparison to those of kids in other countries?

So let's tally up this scorecard:

France: 16 weeks paid leave, plus up to three years of unpaid leave with job protection

US: zero mandated paid leave for childbirth or adoption

France: $110/week for two kids

US: $385++/week for two kids

France: Free preschool for everyone!

US: Preschool? We don't need no stinkin' preschool. Kindergarten is good enough. They can just fingerpaint and play with playdough until they're five.

Yes, I know it isn't really free. You pay for it with your taxes of course. The average French family pays about half of their income in taxes; the average American family pays about 42%. I wonder how what percentage of our income we're paying on childcare and healthcare, things French families get for free? I haven't calculated it, but I know it's more than 8%. Try more like 25 - 30% for our family. Call me crazy, but I think the French family is getting more bang for their income tax buck than my family is.

But it's not even really about how much we pay in taxes; it's about our priorities in spending that money. Given the choice between funding an occupation of a foreign country or high-quality childcare and universal preschool for all American children, I think it should be obvious which choice has more long-term benefit for our nation. And it really is that simple. Education matters. Health care matters. Poverty matters. These are not just liberal touchy-feely attitudes held by naive people who don't understand national security. More poverty = more crime, more spending on prisons, more drug use, more child abuse, less education, less civic engagement. In short, poverty = social decay. How is THAT in the long-term good interests of our nation and our security? Oh, and poverty in France and the US? Based simply on wages and earnings, about 25% of the kids in both countries would appear to live in poverty. However, after you consider the child and health care services, as well as free preschool, available in France, only 6% of French children actually live in poverty, versus 21% of American children.

The bottom line is that our national priorities are forcing parents to choose between bad and worse for their children. We must change our priorities, and we must elect people who not only share our priorities, but have the moral fiber to actually make hard choices and force change. Or we could all just move to France. Damn, I wish I'd paid more attention in high school French!

So are you a little surprised to see all this here? The truth is that I am actually a very political person with pretty solid background in politics and government, and I have A LOT to say about this kind of stuff. I have kept it off the blog until now, but I can't really say why. I think I will be talking more about politics and society here in the future. Interspersed with cute baby pictures and funny stories about B, of course.