O-Governance

With Barack Obama, the numbers are always astounding – I mean, they are not just a hair better than the other guy, a whisker away from possible defeat, a tad more than the precedent set last year. They are numbers that make you go wide eyed and open mouthed, fall off your seat in amazement: a $600 million dollar campaign, 1 million plus donors, 70 million votes, etc. The online campaign was no less impressive: 280,000 people created accounts on barackobama.com, over 6,500 grassroots volunteer groups were created, more than 13,000 off-line events were organized through it, and over 15,000 policy ideas were submitted.

And that was the campaign. Less than two weeks after the election, he’s moved on to governance. On his transition site, change.gov (following Sarah’s post below) the new administration is urging people to share their stories and voice their concerns. The Washington Post hails the forthcoming administration as the youtube presidency in light of Obama’s online video address to the nation on its aptly names Clickocracy section. And here’s Christina Bellantoni pondering what a big leap this will be from the current whitehouse.gov site.

The evidence is all there on change.gov. Dr. D.C. Misra, who has studied e-governance for many years, boils down the most noteworthy aspects of the strategies being debated by the new administration here.

Making government data available to citizens is a good start, considering the fact that we’ve had eight years of arguably the closest, most secretive government in U.S. history. These data include federal grants, contracts, and the now infamous earmarks. Taking this one step further, and getting ideas from the people on issues of daily concern to them might be a proposition. London’s mayoral office did such a thing last year, in conjunction with the police department, and harnessed the power of the people to create “crime maps.” The U.S. could also take a page out of the playbook of New Zealand’s government, which is doing some truly groundbreaking stuff through wikis – what could be a better example of distributive government than urging people to change and edit laws online?

The new administration has certainly expressed an interest in actually listening to the people – not to private conversations through wiretaps – but to get ideas and suggestions on policies, bills, and proposed legislation. The British Foreign and Commonwealth office started a similar exercise last year, where it invited ideas and suggestions on foreign policy from civilians. That sure would have been helpful for the Bush administration; now, if only Dubya could log onto the Internets.

The appointment of a chief technology officer was mentioned by Obama several times on the campaign trail, and was probably his biggest selling point among technology geeks (not to mention the fact that our future president might actually be capable of checking his own email), and the site elucidates on the roles of such an appointee: overseeing an interagency effort to ensure that all departments use and share the best technology practices. We could get lessons from our northern neighbor, who has been conducting a government technology conference these past two years to get top officers from various public sector departments to enhance the workings of “Government 2.0,” as they call it.

Change.gov’s emphasis on network neutrality had me drooling – not allowing Internet Service Providers to bias Web searches by privileging some sites over others would reinforce open competition on the Internet. The new team also outlines an ambitious plan for next-generation broadband, which if implemented, only portends good things –I don’t have to rely on my studies in technological crowdsourcing (though it helps), to conclude that the one thing hindering the democratic nature of Web-centric participation is the seemingly insurmountable digital divide. People are willing to contribute toward society’s common good (isn’t Obama’s election proof enough?) as long as you provide them a way to do it. The fact that Obama understands how huge this problem is and wants to do something about it sure is comforting after eight years of a president who was clearly on the wrong side of the divide himself.

Regardless of whether these strategies achieve true citizen participation, or allow civilians some role in the legislative process, they are certainly steps in the right direction. E-governance has been implemented in several different countries and I’m curious to see it in the U.S., where the Internet probably has a greater and more widespread influence than anywhere else. Talk of next generation broadband makes the possibilities truly endless, allowing a distributive Internet junkie like myself to smack her lips in anticipation.

(cross-posted)

It's Hard Out There For A Cracker

It's real hard to be a racist white these days. We have a black man as president of the United States. Black people are president of our universities. We have to listen to hip hop blaring on campus.

And now a good clean cut white fraternity can't even wave the Confederate flag.

It's hard out there for a cracker.

Mike Adams has already shifted to pushing white resentment in the face of the Obama election (although he probably was before the election too.) Not only does Adams tell the sad story of a University of North Carolina-Wilmington fraternity that got in trouble for flying the Confederate flag, but he says that it is less offensive than hip hop. Hip hop uses the "n" word after all. And of course, Adams says the real reason they got in trouble is because the United States elected Barack Obama as president.

Adams uses this sad, sad story as a metaphor for the decline of white privilege throughout America. And I know, it's tough. Pretty soon, white men won't make up over 90% of CEOs of top corporations, most of the U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court, and control an enormous amount of the nation's wealth. And what kind of a nation would that be?

Probably a pretty good one.

Via Anti Neo-Confederate

Historical Image of the Day

Page from the 1900 census, Berwick, Illinois

I Don't Buy It

William Rhoden claims that what the Jets have needed to beat the Patriots was a different mentality. It's all psychological he claims.

I would argue that the Patriots dominance over the Jets in recent seasons is about having better players, coaches, and management.

Then again, if our sports writers couldn't fall back on pseudo-psychology and trite analysis, what would they have to write about?

Historical Image of the Day

Neo-Nazi rally. Toledo, Ohio, 2005

RIP - Fire Joe Morgan

On the heels of the previous post, a sadder baseball post: the guys at Fire Joe Morgan have decided to hang it up. In a world full of internet snark and well-reasoned thinking confronting bad journalism, the guys at FJM were a beacon of reason and snark. In what is probably a testament to the shallowness and emptiness of my life and/or my efforts to not write the dissertation, I often looked forward to their posts, laughing and loving it as they thrashed Bill Plaschke, as they revealed the idiocy of Jon Heyman, as they took on the stupid contrarianism of many of sports journalisms' best-known (and often laziest) personalities. It was just another great way the internet traditions had manifested themselves. Thanks, FJM, for all the great laughs.

Totally Useless but Mildly Interesting Baseball Trivia

Thrilled in the confirmation of Cliff Lee winning the AL Cy Young yesterday, I got to wondering when the last time one team had two different pitchers win back-to-back Cy Youngs like the Indians did (Sabathia, '07; Lee, '08). I suspected it may have been some combo from the Braves back in the Maddux-Smoltz-Glavine era, and I wasn't far off - Maddux-Smoltz won in '95-'96.

What did surprise me was the number of teams that actually have accomplished the feat of having two different starters win Cy Youngs back-to-back. My initial suspicion that it was the Braves wasn't far off, but it was wrong - the Blue Jays were actually the last to have back-to-back winners, when Pat Hentgen got it in 1996 and Roger Clemens followed in 1997 (and 1998). And more teams (8) had done it than I would have expected, with a majority (5) being from the American League, of all things. In addition to the Indians, Blue Jays, and Braves, the Yankees accomplished the feat in '77-'78 with Sparky Lyle and Ron Guidry; the Orioles followed in '79-'80 with Mike Flanagan and Steve Stone; and the Breweres followed them in '81-'82 with Rollie Fingers and Pete Vuckovich. In the NL, prior to the Braves, the Phillies won in '82-'83 with Steve Carlton and John Denny, and the Dodgers won (back when there was only one Cy Young award for all of baseball) in '62-'63 with Don Drysdale and Sandy Koufax.

Like I said, it's not really worth anything, but it is interesting that what I (erroneously) thought would have been a relatively uncommon occurance (back-to-back Cy Youngs for one team with two pitchers) is actually not that uncommon at all (though not normal, either).

Predictions about the Obama Years

Given the nature of punditry, media, and especially 24-hour cable news programs, a lot of predictions about what America during Obama might look like. I'm going to join in on the fun, offering periodic predictions before and during the Obama Years of what exactly America can expect during Obama's administration. And so, without further ado, my first in what may be a series of predictions about AUO (America Under Obama).

Sean Hannity has already published two books featuring his calm, assured and smiling visage. If he publishes a new book during the Obama years, he will be looking stern, angry, and/or fearful.

Mr. Trend's Random 10

1. "I Got to Cross the River of Jordan" - Blind Willie McTell
2. "Get Away" - Big Bill Broonzy
3. "Damn Redskins" - Peter LaFarge
4. "Infinite Spirit" - Albert Ayler
5. "Flores" - Titas
6. "Horses In My Dreams" - PJ Harvey
7. Matthaus-Passion: Ach, Golgotha - Johann Sebastian Bach
8. "Blame it on the Tetons" - Modest Mouse
9. "The Very Thought of You" - Billie Holiday
10. "Sad Hours" - Little Walter

Historical Image of the Day

Charles Eliot Norton, Gilded Age literary critic and reformer.

Auto Bailout

While I am personally mixed on the idea of bailing out Detroit, the Republicans sure seem to be trying to dig themselves the deepest grave possible in their intransigent opposition to it.

Vote Republican--we destroy iconic American companies!

Colony to Superpower: Proclamation of 1763 and Western Settlement

In our discussion of From Colony to Superpower, Rob asks this:

I wish Erik would expand on this point:

Also, I think westward expansion as a real reason for Revolution has probably been overhyped since 1776.

It's not that I disagree; I'm just curious about the nature of the argument. Is Erik suggesting that the British would (eventually) have been just as comfortable with expansion as the colonists? This would seem plausible, although it's fair to say that the gains from expansion (territory and property) would have been distributed much differently under a different relationship between the colonies and the metropol. That difference in distribution might well have produced a civil war or revolution by itself.

The basic answer to Rob's question is I think, yes. The British were not uncomfortable with their colonists expanding their territory. Again, we are getting into counterfactuals here and so we can't know. But the British were never opposed to their colonists expanding their territory until they couldn't pay for the wars anymore. Now the question for the future was this--would the increasingly centralizing British empire continued trying to limit colonial expansion in order to push a more imperialist economic agenda?

I don't think so.

The settlement of Australia and New Zealand lends to me to believe that the British were happy to continue the expansion of settlement in North America. My sense is that the distribution of land would not have been wildly different either, also based upon the history of Australia and New Zealand. While I am certainly not an expert on the histories of these two nations, although of course I am aware of the prison colony aspect of Australia. But even if, let's say, Britain decides to use Alabama as a prison colony, this doesn't significantly alter the long-term settlement patterns of immigrants.

Now of course things would have been different. Would the British cracked down on German immigrants settling the interior of Pennsylvania? Would the American colonies become a dumping ground for Irish criminals? Who knows.

But I do want to reiterate that I think the role of westward expansion is overrated in the leadup to the Revolution. We have this jolt of anger in 1763. And there is no question that Americans moved across the mountains as soon as they could, starting conflicts with the Native Americans and forcing the British to fight in the West as well. But after 1763, none of the major areas of conflict revolve around westward migration. I just don't see strong enough evidence to argue that western issues were really central to the Revolution.

To conclude, I think that the West could have played a major role in future colonist-empire conflicts, although I think both sides might have worked something out. But I remain unconvinced that the West is really what we need to be looking at when we talk about the beginnings of the Revolution.

Barack Obama - the Lula of the U.S.?

The Christian Science Monitor has an article up that raises an interesting comparison/question - will Obama be to the U.S. what Lula has been to Brazil? It's a tough question to answer, primarily because Lula has 6 years of presidential administration behind him, while Obama has, well, none. As a result, the article focuses more on what Lula has accomplished. Still, given that, like Obama, Lula inherited a government whose economy was in trouble (though not like the global economy today) and who had come from his country's political left (yes, Obama isn't "left," but in terms of our party system, it's as close as we've had in a long time).

At first, I wanted to reflexively disagree with the article's suggestion that Obama is the U.S.'s Lula, but the more you look at things, the more similar they are: both were raised by single mothers out of relatively difficult positions; both were "outsiders" to the traditional party systems who managed to overcome the entrenched political aristocracy to become leaders of their respective countries; both advocate social change, but with a methodical, steady approach, rather than an "all the chips on the table" method; and both are big proponents of diplomatic relations to resolve their own country's and other countries' issues. What is more, both Lula and Obama mark a major social shift in an office that had traditionally been held by white elites; Lula, as a worker who rose up through the metal factories to become a union leader before entering politics; and Obama, an African-America. Finally, like Lula, I suspect that Obama will have to lead from the center-left, creating real social change but still disappointing his more progressive and radical supporters (though certainly, after eight years of Bush, many of Obama's supporters, while perhaps disappointed in the future, will also have a fairly good grasp of the alternatives). Despite my initial reflex, reflecting further on the issue, there seemed to be more in common between the two men than I at first wanted to admit.

I think the major differences between what the election of Lula meant to Brazil and what Obama's election means is not the differences (or similarities) between the two men, but rather the differences in the context of the two. Brazil's electing of Lula was a major watershed, because it did prove you did not have to be part of the elite to attain higher office. Lula is a man who never had a college education, and who had to work in his youth instead of going to school, just to help support his family. He lost a finger working in the factories, and gradually rose up through the labor structure to become a major union leader, gaining fame in fighting both for greater workers' rights and fighting at the head of a new coalition of opposition towards Brazil's military dictatorship in the late 1970s (Lula was even briefly arrested and tortured). Yes, by the time Lula was elected in 2002, the PT had been active as a political party for over 20 years, and Lula had won in his fourth attempt to become president (having run unsuccessfully in 1989, 1994, and 1998), so he was far from a political "outsider." Nonetheless, he marked the first time Brazil elected somebody who was not from the economic and political elite, and thus marked a major breakthrough in the classism of Brazilian elections. Indeed, it was his very background as a laborer and union leader that has caused so much animosity, hatred, and slander from many sectors of the middle class (many of my in-laws included).

Likewise, as many people have observed, Obama's election was a breakthrough, in that the U.S. elected an African-American. The historical import of this cannot be overstated, and there have been plenty of anecdotes, images, and historical reminders of just how huge it is that Obama won, ranging from the fact that only 54 years ago, Brown v. Board was decided; the Civil Rights Act is only 44 years old; Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed 40 years ago; and if those reminders didn't say enough, the tears flowing down Jesse Jackson's face last Tuesday night said more than enough. In many ways, what Lula did for class barriers in Brazil, Obama did for racial barriers in the U.S.

But, as I said, I think the social and historical context of the two countries makes Obama's victory and Lula's presidency more different symbolically. Simply put, I think Obama's victory is more symbolically important than Lula's, and the reason is simple: I think racism in the U.S. is structurally stronger and more severe than classism in Brazil or the U.S. The reasons for this are multiple: in the U.S., class and race are closely (though not always) tied together, so that often statements of class really are statements on race. What is more, our notions of "middle class" are so vague and open-ended that virtually anybody can and does claim they are "middle class," from the family of four making only $50,000 collectively per year to the lawyer who pulls in $300,000+ and considers herself/himself "upper middle class." Because of the ways race has historically operated in this country, we simply base many of our judgements based on one's racial qualities, and I think it's fair to say that, in the most general terms, racism trumps classism in how we view our fellow citizens. And I realize that's a huge, charged statement. I want to make absolutely clear that there is, without question, classism in the U.S. too. The very fact that virtually everybody identifies as "middle class" shows the stigma towards being "poor," and we often make fun of "white trash" and "rednecks" and "shitkickers," with class being a central part of those criticisms. Nonetheless, the number of times that we lynched a poor person, prevented a poor person from voting, or hired a poor person based simply on class and not on race, is relatively small compared to the number of times those things were done based on race.

In Brazil, it's not so clear-cut, and I would suggest that racism and classism are far more muddled in Brazil than they are even in the U.S. Ever since Gilberto Freyre's work in the 1930s, Brazil has culturally refused to acknowledge its racism, claiming that because Brazilians were historically "forced" to mix between Portuguese, indigenous peoples, and African slaves because of the colonial context in Brazil, there can be no racism. The logic goes that, because of all of those generations of mixing, there are too many skin tones to be able to simply categorize somebody as one race or another, and since there's a whole lot more "brown" in Brazil, there can't be racism like there is in the U.S., where there is the "black/white" dichotomy based on the one-drop theory. What is more, Brazilians have often reinforced their argument of being incapable of being racist by pointing directly to the U.S. They have suggested (in a foolish argument that found support both in Brazil and the U.S.) that slavery was somehow "worse" in America, and the fact that America legally codified racism via Jim Crow laws (in addition to very public lynchings) just further reifies the arguments made in Brazil that American racism is worse than Brazilian racism.

What this thinking has done has allowed Brazilians by and large to deny the existence of racism while further encoding it in other categories, such as "culture" and class. In many of the elections, Lula constantly faced criticisms based on his education, class, and birthplace (the Northeast of Brazil, generally viewed as "inferior" by the Southern Metropole in Brazil, in no small part because of the concentration of Afro-descendants in the Northeast). Each of these criticisms carried heavy overtones of barely-hidden racism. Yet the racial content of these critiques wasn't really broached, or even confronted. Thus, even while Brazil, like Europe, has applauded the U.S. in its ability to (temporarily) overcome its racism enough to elect an African-American (and to be clear, I am in no way saying that now the U.S. is less racist than the rest of the world simply because Obama won this time around), but like Europe, Brazil has failed to reconcile itself to its ability to have an Obama-like figure in its own society. And that's exactly where the symbolic difference between Lula and Obama appears: Brazil may one day have somebody who shatters barriers like Obama did, but Lula, for all of the barriers he himself shattered, is not that person.

To sum up what is admittedly a rather long post, there are a lot of similarities between Lula and Obama. However, I think this similarities do not overcome the major symbolic difference each man represents to his own respective culture and society. The major difference between Lula's 2002 victory and Obama's 2008 victory is the social monoliths which they have challenged. Lula's victory did indeed break through the elitism that had dominated Brazil's political class since the colonial period, and the "elephant" of classism in Brazil's room was very real. But racism was and remains the larger proverbial elephant in Brazil; chipping away at classism did not erode the deeper-seated ways that racism operates in Brazil. Thus, in terms of what the event of Obama's election represents to the U.S. vs. what Lula's represented to Brazil, the comparison simply does not hold up - Obama's symbolic importance has done things for American society that Lula's has not done and never could do in Brazil. For that to happen, Brazil will need its own "Barack Obama."

Journey? Really? Them?

Who's crying now? Not these guys.

According to The Guardian, the 1981 Journey song Don't Stop Believin' is the most downloaded track, and the first digital download to hit 2 million purchases on iTunes.

Journey? iTunes sold $2 million worth of Don't Stop Believin'? Really?

The Guardian article indicates that a spike in downloads occurred after the song was featured in the last episode of The Sopranos. I'm not sure I buy this-- I would guess that most people watching The Sopranos would have heard this song before-- I don't know, maybe like 4,249,394 times before?

Of course, we'll never know the song that was truly downloaded the most; Don't Stop Beleivin' is simply the song most downloaded and paid for. Back in the Napster-era lawlessness of the early 2000's (when you could have had it any way you want it), I'm sure there were songs that far surpassed 2 million downloads (though we probably don't want to know or remember what they were).

Congrats Journey, but I'll be alright without you.

More on Beating Saxby Chambliss

Anyone in Washington, D.C.?

Feministe has info on phone banks to pro-choice voters in Georgia to send Jim Martin to the Senate and get rid of Chambliss.

I've emailed to see if there are any plans to do these phone banks anywhere else, or if we can do it from home. I'm hoping to find some way to do it and if/when I do, I'll set it up here.

At least one of my Obama-people from Philly is headed south this week to work for Martin.

Take that, Michigan!

Riverside and San Bernardino counties (the two sprawling counties that make up Southern California's Inland Empire) now have the country's highest unemployment rate, tipping in at a robust 9.1%. To be fair, The Detroit suburbs had the second highest, and Michigan overall is worse off than California overall.

The Inland Empire is one area where public works projects could help immensely. The downturn in the construction industry has contributed greatly to area unemployment. There is, however, a fantastic opportunity here. If the goverment were to invest in public works projects (say, I don't know, mass transit, bridge and road repair, solar / wind energy [this is the desert out here, after all]), they would find a large number of willing, experienced, and trained workers. Win-Win.

Seriously, that would be better than another $700 check.

Here is a graphic tracking the rise in unemployment to the male suicide rate, via The Economist's View (one of the economic blogs I've been reading to try to figure out what the hell all of this stuff means).

They Make 'Em Special in Georgia

A special kind of stupid, that is:

In July, Barack Obama proposed a “civilian national security force,” an idea backed by President Bush and intended to expand AmeriCorps and other national service
programs. But today in an interview with the AP, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) compared the idea to a Gestapo-like force:

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Maybe it's because I've learned a lot more about Georgian politics since my sister moved there, but this doesn't surprise me nearly as much as it probably would have a year or two ago. Nonetheless, I still remain amazed that a human being who clearly has at least enough brain capacity to breath, eat, go to the bathroom, and use sounds to form words can simultaneously accuse somebody of being like a Nazi AND a Marxist. And a little memo to Rep. Broun: Obama's not leading us down some genocidal road where the government kills millions based on racist ideologies that Obama himself drew up in not-too-well-written manifestos back in 1997. And finally, don't try to get out of it by saying that there's "potential," but you're not comparing Obama to Hitler: you are. Otherwise, there would be that "potential" under Bush, and a lot of other presidents, too, but I don't think Broun's brought this up before. So, sorry, Rep. Broun - the effort at a linguistic turn to get yourself out of trouble doesn't hold up. FAIL.

Having this follow Georgia's Republican incumbent senator Saxby Chambliss complaining that there's a runoff because of "high minority votes" and failing to get "our [white] folks" out - truly, an above-average day for Georgia's politicians to reveal their stupidity, ignorance, and racism.

RIP - Herb Score

Herb Score has died at the age of 75.

While Score probably isn't really known outside of Ohio, but he was the main color commentator/analyst for the Cleveland Indians radio broadcasts across 35 seasons after being forced to retire early when he took a line drive straight to the face (only 2 years after finishing his rookie year 16-10). He was, quite simply, the best radio color commentator I've ever heard, providing equal parts remarkable, detailed analysis, great stories, and insightful comments alongside radio partner Tom Hamilton (who continues to do Indians' broadcasts). In the days when you couldn't expect to catch many Indians games on television (before the dawn of 1700 cable channels, one of which would have a game every week), Herb Score was a constant in my life as we listened to him and Hamilton work their magic on the airwaves. Score saw some truly terrible baseball in his time with the Indians, but he never lost his sense of humor or perspective on life. In an era when whiny, obnoxious, "it's not fair!" broadcasters are the norm (see: Cincinnati's radio broadcast), Score (and Hamilton) were paragons in their field, commenting on clearly terrible strike zones or bad calls, but also blaming the Indians if they weren't playing well.

My favorite example of Score's knowledge/humility combo was one night way back when (I can't remember the exact year). One of the Indians' pitchers had thrown a sinking ball that sunk so much, it bounced before it hit home plate. Hamilton was joking, asking Score what happened if a player hit it. Score told Hamilton that not only is it still in play, if a pitcher hit a homer off a pitch like that, it would stand. Hamilton, joking, asked if Score had ever seen that in all his years, and Score said he had. Incredulous, Hamilton said, "Really? Who threw the pitch?" Score suddenly grew very quiet, and bashfully said...

..."Me."

Rest in peace, Herb. Thousands of Indians fans have missed you since you retired, and your death is a true loss for generations in the Indians family.

Brazil's Caipirinha Guidelines

Now this is governmental action I can fully support:

Brazil's government has published legal guidelines for the popular caipirinha, the most common and extended alcoholic drink of the 190 million population country, and which becomes mandatory as of this month.[...] The purpose of the bill is to establish the guidelines of “identity and quality” to which all caipirinha elaborated in Brazil for domestic consumption or export must abide.

This may seem like a silly thing for governments to be doing, particularly when your military and police forces are out of control, but it's actually a small-but-decent thing the government can do without too much difficulty or effort. Caipirinhas in Brazil are generally delicious, but it's not completely uncommon to come across some that are extremely weak and watered down, or to find cachaca that's clearly not made the way it's supposed to be and whose taste reveals this. This bill seems to address that issue. Additionally, I suppose it's good to try to regulate and make uniform the packaging of cachacas (buying cachaca in a syringe??!?).

Anyhow, the difference between a good caipirinha and a "not good" caipirinha is actually enormous, and I agree with the bill and the Ministry of Agriculture that those who make "illicit caipirinhas" should most certainly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Prior Conditions

Health care in this country is almost abysmally stupid.

Last year I was diagnosed with high blood pressure. Nothing too bad but a little high. Somewhat distressing for a person of my age. Anyway, insurance covered all of it, no big deal.

This summer I did not have insurance.

This fall I am back on the insurance. Same employer, same insurance. I go back to the doctor so he can check me again and get a new prescription.

Now the insurance company has declared this a prior condition and refuses to cover it.

It's not that much money. It's basically an extra $66 every 6 months. It sucks but it doesn't destroy me. And maybe I can figure something out. I've been too angry about it since I found out yesterday to do anything.

But what if I had diabetes? What if I had cancer? Would they not cover me then?

It's just utterly disgusting that we have to go through this indignation and humiliation every time we get sick. Why do we have to be worried constantly about whether our insurance will pay for anything? Why do we have such a wealthy nation and leave not only millions uninsured but millions more with poor insurance that don't help you when you need it?

This is one of so many reasons why I am glad Barack Obama is president. Maybe now, after all these years of talking about national insurance, something can be done. With the obstructionist Daniel Patrick Moynihan long gone from the Senate, maybe, just maybe, there will be the political will to resist the insurance lobby and take America in a new direction.

I'm less than thrilled to know that Max Baucus of Montana is the chair of the relevant committee on health care. He's kind of a weird guy and hardly a shining light within the Democratic caucus. If he doesn't come through on health care issues, we should seek to get rid of him.

Historical Image of the Day

Virginia Brewing Company, Roanoke, VA, 1912

Veterans' Day

In honor of Veterans' Day, here are the lyrics to the great song of the same name by Tom Russell, as well as a You Tube clip of Russell playing the song back in 1991. Not a great video quality but an amazing song.

verse 1
                                         
Well I used to hang out down at the local VFW hall
                                  
And stare at the photographs up on the wall
                                                       
Of the neighborhood boys that died back in World War II
                                                    
And the hand lettered sign that said remember our Jimmy McGrew


verse 2
                            
Well Jimmy went away back in 1965
                                                           
But there's a lot of men here that think Jimmy McGrew's still alive
                                                
Though they carved his name on a stone in Washington DC
                                                   
His brother said that stone don't prove a damn thing to me



CHORUS:

                                 
It's veteran's day and the skies are gray
                                                    
Leave the uniforms home cause there ain't gonna be a parade
                                                      
But we'll fill up a glass for the ones that didn't make it through
                                           
And leave a light in the window tonight for Jimmy McGrew


verse 3

There's a hot rain fallin' on the back streets of Saigon

There's an old soldier stumblin' down the alley with his mama-san

Lord his eyes are cloudy and his arms are black and blue

He's just hangin' by a thread and he looks like Jimmy McGrew


CHORUS:

More on Summers's suckitude

And yet so far the debate over Summers has been largely confined to two outrageous moments in his career: his 1991 World Bank memo calling Africa "UNDER-polluted," and his more recent declarations, while serving as president of Harvard, about women's genetic inferiority in math and science. By themselves, these two incidents might be dismissed as merely provocative in a maverick-moron sort of way, as many of Summers' supporters argue; but in the context of Summers's track record, in which he oversaw the destruction of entire economies and covered up cronyism and corruption, his Africa memo and sexist declarations aren't exceptions but rather part of a disturbing pattern.

From The Nation, "The Summers Conundrum." Read on about Larry's time in Lithuania, in Reaganomics, and cronyism.

Man, I hate this guy.

Dean

With Howard Dean stepping down as the Democratic National Committee chair, it's worth remembering what a great leader he has been over the past several years. Remember back to 2000, or even 2003. The DLC was in control of the party. Democrats were supposed to run like Republicans. The party only focused on a small number of states where they could pour a ton of money into on a 50% + 1 strategy. Dozens of Republican congressmen ran unopposed as the Democrats didn't figure it was worth running an opposing candidates. The Democrats played defense all the time.

In 2008, everything is different.

Of course, Dean played only one part in that transformation. But it was such an important part, both mentally and strategically. Although I was not a Deaniac in 2004, mostly because I thought he was too conservative on several policies, I respected the hell out of him for being proud to be a Democrat. His 50 state strategy has been genius, and he should be credited with revitalizing the party across the nation. The old DLC-James Carville strategy of hiring Dick Morris and being Republican-lite is fading fast.

In some ways, I'm sad that Dean is moving on but I guess playing second fiddle has never been his strong suit and Obama is in charge of the party now. I hope he moves on to continue playing a major role in our party.

Olbermann made me cry

OK, those of you who've been following me on Twitter or elsewhere might have realized that I've become sort of a sap since Tuesday's victory. I cried then, of course, and several times since. I cried at The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants yesterday, damnit.

So while I'm blaming Barack for my newfound connection to my emotions, I must say that Keith Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8 might have made me cry in any case.

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

You can read the rest, but I recommend the video. Both are here.

(cross-posted. yeah, you know it)

Response to Rob (I)

As part of our Herring book review, Rob and I will be responding to each other's posts so long as it seems useful.

One thing that Rob emphasized that I want to build upon is the role of trade in the Revolutionary ferment. The Revolutionaries believed the British mercantile system no longer served their interests. They were probably right. And in many ways they were ahead of their time, given that these systems throughout Europe fell apart beginning in the 1830s. But to me this still doesn't make sense as a reason for full revolt. Of course it was more than that--the obstinacy of Parliament (even though the British were fundamentally right) certainly did a great deal to push the colonies away. The revolutionaries fundamentally did not understand the mercantile system they faced; many of them legitimately believed that they could trade with the whole world once they were freed from British "oppression." Again, they were right that the mercantile system didn't make a lot of sense, but they severely underestimated how difficult it would be for the U.S. to find trading markets, a situation that led to the near financial collapse of the 1780s.

Quite a bit of Rob's post and the majority of comments on both of our posts have had to do with my counterfactual of the Revolution not being the best thing for the world, or even potentially for the Americans. The great thing about counterfactuals is also their problem--everyone likes to talk about them but they are incredibly easy to refute by other counterfactuals. The reality of course is that we can never know whether the Revolution was a better thing for the world or not. Nor will we know what would have happened with slavery after a failed revolution.

Rather than address each and every comment about this point, let me just make one quick point. I want to reiterate how the British could eliminate slavery in colonies where it was much more entrenched than the American colonies. Why could they not do the same in the American colonies? Although no one brought this up, I can only think of one legitimate reason--the dispersion of slaves among many white families. Whereas in Barbados and Jamaica, slaves were concentrated on enormous plantations owned by very few whites, in the South, millions of different people owned slaves. This could have potentially made it much more difficult for the British to eliminate the institution.

Also, when the British abolished slavery in 1838, they did so not because of foreign policy reasons, but because of widespread moral disgust from the British population. At least this is my understanding but I am not a British historian. Anyway, while it certainly is possible that the South could have revolted over this issue, it is unlikely the northern colonies would have joined them and it is even more unlikely that the continued ownership of slave colonies in today's American South would have changed the moral position of the British public that led to manumission in the first place.

I also want to expand a bit upon the Native American issues. As a couple of commenters point out, the native peoples had a variety of different foreign policies as they were many peoples. Of course this is true. This is one of those complex situations where one has to generalize. However, we can safely say that most of the peoples of western New York and the Great Lakes region understood damn well what an American victory meant for the future, and it was not pretty. As soon as the Revolution ended, the Americans poured across the Appalachians; by 1815 most tribes in the region were either destroyed or forced west, starting the process by which native peoples would be conquered across the United States by 1890.

Related to this, Rob points out that the British were much more conciliatory toward the Indians than the colonists wanted. This is true, but only in the short term. The British clearly were far more pro-conquest than the French had been. They had to put this aside though because the Seven Years War nearly bankrupted them. Plus they knew what would happen if they let the colonists move west. They would start wars that the army would have to finish up. This is in fact what happened during American expansion in the 19th century. Many of the worst atrocities were committed by either citizens or state militias. The U.S. Army would then have to respond to the Indian revenge upon these massacres. Not that the British had particularly enlightened policies toward the people they conquered, but the American position was morally bankrupt and wrong from a policy perspective. Whether I should be judging their morals 230 years later is questionable, but the British were undoubtedly right that it was in their interests to keep the Indian wars to a minimum while their empire regrouped.

Also, I think westward expansion as a real reason for Revolution has probably been overhyped since 1776.

Historical Image of the Day

Carole Lombard tobacco card. I don't have a date, but I'm guessing it is the late 30s. It is certainly no later than 1942, when Lombard died in a plane crash.

Another Case of Extreme Military Violence in Brazil

Long-time readers to the blog know that I often have harped on the fact that torture and police repression in Brazil did not go away with the military dictatorship. This weekend offered a particularly gruesome reminder of this fact, as in Rio a youth in the military barracks who was caught smoking marijuana was set on fire (story in Portuguese, but the picture says enough). While the youth's condition is "stable," the burns were severe enough to cause him to be heavily wrapped, and his eyes were apparently affected.

Of course, some councilpersons in Rio have already taken a stand and demanded this issue be dealt with, but nothing will come of this - it never does. Until the Brazilian governmental systems at all levels begin to thoroughly and completely crack down on these types of military and police violence, until not one single state agent, from the lowest-ranking policeman to the highest-ranking general, retains impunity for these actions. And neither governmental leaders nor civil rights groups nor the police themselves have shown any sustained interest in making these changes. Maybe things will change some in the next 20 years, but quite honestly, I doubt it.

Football in Mexico!

There is an excellent article over at the LA Times from a couple days ago about the rising popularity of American football in Mexico. I have not yet personally seen a Mexican football game, but it is definitely on my list of things I need to do in Mexico. One of my greatest experiences watching a football game was in Mexico about two years ago. There is a movie theatre just outside of Mexico City that shows Monday night football games, so I went to see the Bengals and Colts play. I was not expecting much, who could possibly like those teams in Mexico City? My perception was that most Mexicans only like the Cowboys or the Raiders, but I was completely wrong. The theatre was packed, there was a huge line to get in, and most people in line had Bengals or Colts jerseys on. Once we got into the theatre, it was like a giant party, with theatre staff walking around serving beer, nachos, and other kinds of junk food. Not only was it great to get beer in a theatre, but also to watch a game with several hundred other people having a great time. I would definitely take this over going to some lame sports bar to watch a game in the U.S.

From Colony to Superpower, Part I

Over the next 20 Sundays, Robert Farley and I will be reviewing George C. Herring's new overview of the history of U.S. foreign relations, From Colony to Superpower. Published by Oxford University Press, this tome surpasses the 1000 page mark including end matter, and provides and excellent opportunity to think about American foreign policy, past and present. This is particularly true given the recent centrality of foreign policy to our lives, especially the Bush failures and the Obama victory.

Each week we will discuss one chapter. I am certainly not anticipating this as a review per se. The book is thorough and quiet excellent. Far more interesting to readers will be our thoughts about America's relationship with the world. So the book review aspect of this is really a jumping off point for this kind of debate.

Therefore, you should discuss these issues in comments.

I have a wide definition of foreign relations. Looking at the interactions between governments is vital. But a full view of interactions between peoples and nations casts a much wider net, examining the relations between states and non-state actors in other nations, consumption and globalization (the latter term I also define broadly), the role of environmental change, how transnational advocacy networks in the first world affect the third world, etc., etc. My comments throughout this series will try to push some of these ideas.

This week, we are going over the introduction and Chapter 1, which covers the period between 1776 and 1788.

What is clear to me from the introduction of Herring's book is that the Bush years are already influencing how we think about the past. Not surprising I suppose, but telling because Herring is a senior scholar who has been in the field for decades. For example, Herring takes the idea of the United States fulfilling a special destiny to task, writing that "this sense of a special destiny has at times also spawned arrogance." Herring centers race in his narrative, saying that racism reinforced Americans' "sense of cultural superiority." Our sense of cultural superiority and arrogance certainly came to life in the Bush administration, particularly in the run up to and beginning of the Iraq war. And arrogant racial superiority served us about as well as it has in the past, i.e., very poorly.

Herring also explores the American idea of the city upon the hill and its providential mission to do good in the world, however we define it at the time. From missionaries and capitalists to Wilson and W, Herring promises to explore and critique this tendency which has had a mixed legacy at best for the world. Related to this mythology is American unilateralism, which Herring seems to have mixed view of. He certainly is critical. of the idea in the 20th and 21st centuries, a stand that I assume is an implicit criticism of the Bush administration. I'll be curious to explore these points later in the book.

He also takes the idea of American isolationism to task, calling it "a myth...used to safeguard the nation's self-image of its innocence." I can't agree more. Americans have been engaged with the world since before they were a nation. Our so-called isolationism was usually a self-serving attempt to subvert world trading systems to the advantage of the U.S. Herring states "few nations have had as much experience at war as the United States," a point all the more true when we consider the Indian wars of the late 18th and 19th centuries as part of our history of foreign relations.

Finally, Herring says that the U.S. has been incredibly successful in their foreign policy but that this success and the superpower status of the nation after World War II created more limits of the nation, something that the population with its belief in American power, had trouble dealing with. I think this is certainly true, given the domestic reaction to both Korea and Vietnam, as well as the ability of figures such as Fidel Castro, Osama Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to defy the U.S. in recent decades.

Onto the meat of the book.

The first chapter covers the American Revolution. Reading it reinforced my belief that the Revolution was incredibly stupid. That the United States survived the Revolution took a tremendous amount of luck combined with the diplomacy of Benjamin Franklin in France and the leadership skills of George Washington in the field. The British should have crushed us. The U.S. was completely unprepared for self-government. The nation had no unity and upon independence the states immediately fought amongst themselves over control of western lands. The Army could barely feed its troops. The Articles of Confederation were worthless. The U.S. could not pay off the many loans it needed to survive. Like future generations of Americans, the revolutionaries thought of themselves as the greatest people on earth. While this provided self-confidence to a young nation, it also blinded leaders to the realities of the world and led them to overestimate their ability to shape their own destiny.

I have argued before that perhaps the American Revolution was not the best thing for the nation. Essentially, this comes down to the idea that a defeat in 1776 would have led this part of the world to become a Canada-like place over time. Core to this argument are two points. First, that American nationalism and exceptionalism have been a negative force in the world. Second, slavery would have been abolished earlier and without significant violence. The first argument I will touch upon again and again during this series. The second I will deal with now. The British abolished slavery in their empire in 1838 without violence. This despite the fact that they had many territories where slavery was far more entrenched than it ever was in the United States. The advantage of slavery in what became the U.S. South for the economic system of 19th century Britain would not have been great enough to delay abolition significantly. They needed cotton for their mills, like they needed other products from their colonies. But the British understood that chattel slavery was not necessary for this aim.

Nevertheless, the United States did survive and eventually prosper. Why? One thing the revolutionary generation did remarkably well was exploiting the insecurities of major European powers before 1789. They took advantage not only of the French desire to get back at England for the Seven Years' War but also of Britain's fears of what American-French alliance might mean. Thus the U.S. got French arms but bailed on the French before the Spanish could get Gibraltar back, something the revolutionaries didn't care about.

But of course the years after 1783 were exceedingly brutal in the new United States. Kicked out of the British mercantile system they thought oppressed them, Americans were shocked to find that they couldn't trade with all the European powers equally. The British surely weren't going to give them any advantages and the Spanish closed Havana and New Orleans to American ships. Even the French were relatively indifferent to American trade. To his credit, Thomas Jefferson worked very hard to open up France, even trying to convince American farmers to grow products the French wanted. But he ultimately failed. A significant economic collapse ensued.

By 1787, the new nation was falling apart, both domestically and in foreign affairs. American credit with vital foreign traders was in shambles. The British remained on American soil in the Great Lakes region. No one respected this little piss ant republic in the Americas. Combined with domestic problems such as Shays' Rebellion, it was clear to many leaders that the nation needed a new form of government. The Constitution was obviously a massive success and saved the nation from destruction during the French Revolution, which we will discuss next week.

One thing I do like about the book thus far is that Herring pays a reasonable amount of attention to Native American issues. The American Revolution was the worst thing that ever happened to the Indians. As Richard White shows in his book, The Middle Ground; Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815, Indians were able to operate on a fairly equal basis with both the French and English during the first half of the 18th century. This wasn't through any benign policy from the Europeans. Rather, neither the French nor the English was strong enough to force the other out and thus the Indians had leverage between them. Ultimately though, the Indians knew that they were better off with the French because that power was less interested in colonization. They rightly feared the American colonists and mostly fought with the French during the Seven Years War.

Of course, after the war's conclusion in 1763, the British were in terrible financial straits and needed to cut costs. The Indians feared the loss of the French would mean rapid English invasion of their land. The colonists certainly had this in mind. But the British, wanting to avoid expensive Indian wars, implemented the Proclamation of 1763, essentially banning settlement beyond the crest of the Appalachian Mountains. This infuriated colonists and played an important role in fomenting opposition to Parliament. While it's wrong to overstate the importance of the Proclamation in the revolutionary ferment, a further exploration of colonists' views toward Native Americans would be nice.

It is also important to note that Native Americans were actors who exercised plenty of agency over their own foreign affairs. They rightly understood the evolving situation they faced and acted accordingly. They felt betrayed by the British after the end of the Revolutionary War and certainly did not accept American sovereignty over their lands in the West. Throughout their history, they did their best to shape their lives in the face of overwhelming American population and military power.

The one major criticism I have so far is the lack of any substantial discussion of the slave trade. The slave trade was one of America's first entries into foreign relations. Slavery was introduced to the colonies in 1619 and the southern states demanded the slave trade exist until 1808 before they would sign on to the Constitution. Herring mentions this last part. Again though, to me this book ideally should be a history of American foreign relations, as opposed to just policy. Americans had a lot of interactions with people from around the world before 1776 and this changed little in the intervening 12 years. Although the United States played a very small role in the overall slave trade, millions of slaves still ended up on our shores. The slave trade of course changed Africa rapidly. Again, this was hardly the central focus of U.S. interactions with the world during these years, but it does deserve a mention. I hope there is more on these issues in the next chapter.

Petition against Larry Summers

Pass it on. (via bastard.logic via shakesville)

Say NO to Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary.

This was my note:

I, along with thousands of American women, worked tirelessly to elect Senator Obama. I campaigned against the possible first woman president because I did not want a return to Clinton-era policies that contributed to our current economic crisis.

To appoint Larry Summers to the treasury would be a slap in my face and a slap in the face of all the women who campaigned for Senator Obama. Not only a return to Clinton-era economic policy, but a man who thinks that women are inherently less gifted than men.

There's got to be somebody better.

Oh my god...Change.

Via hilzoy at Obsidian Wings:

"Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team." (from WashPost)

The specific changes said to be under consideration include lifting limits on embryonic stem cell research, lifting the ban on international family planning groups counseling women on abortion, "the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles", and "declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries."

These are wonderful changes. After the last eight years, the very idea that they might occur not as the result of a long drawn-out battle, but just like that, is amazing.

Just yesterday I read this post at Hoyden About Town about the One Thing that Obama should do right away. Yep, the Global Gag Rule. And to think that they're already preparing to do that.

I don't think it's a small thing to say that every bit of time I spent volunteering on this campaign will be worth it for just that one thing. Throwing in more?

This cartoon may just be right:



(cross-posted)

Historical Image of the Day

Mouth of the Arkansas River, 1846-47

The Future's So Dark, I Gotta Wear Giant Light-Gathering Telescopes

Colleges across the nation facing severe crisis accompanied with hiring freezes and outright cutbacks.

Picked a hell of a time to be on the academic job market, didn't I?

Time to start making backup plans I guess.

Just How Important Is Obama's Victory in African-American History?

Watching Inside City Hall on NY1 tonight, I was struck by one (African-American) commentator's comments. He declared that Obama's victory is the most important thing to happen in African-American history since 1865 and the end of the Civil War/abolition.

Really?

Obama's victory is more important than Brown v. Board? More important than the Civil Rights Act? More important than Birmingham, or Selma, or (in the negative column) Plessy v. Ferguson?

I'm not saying this just to be contrarian - maybe the commentator was right. And in no way am I trying to diminish even one iota the importance of Obama's election. But is it really more important than anything since the end of the Civil War?

Bag Tax

Kudos to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg for proposing a 6 cent tax on each plastic bag used when shopping. Plastic bags are one of those totally worthless conveniences that have real negative damage on the environment and are easily replaced.

But as this Times article suggests, Bloomberg is wrong to assume that the bag tax will create the $16 million a year in revenue for the city he hopes for. People will quickly switch to cloth bags that they own and bring with them. This has happened in European nations with bag taxes such as Ireland.

This is the core of the problem with sin taxes. They work OK for generating revenue when the product in question is actually addictive, like cigarettes. But with easily replaced consumer items like plastic bags, most people will make a quick change. This is what we should want to happen but when such plans are sold to the politicians and the public as revenue generators, the actual reason for their existence are obscured and the cities no doubt will be disappointed.

Reason #546 I Hate the University of Texas Football Program

It is no secret that I really hate Texas football. Few people outside of Lubbock were happier than me last Saturday. Here is yet another reason I hate UT football.

Apparently, Longhorn center Buck Burnette (who along with Colt McCoy have the most "Texas-y" names ever) was kicked off the team for a very offensive comment posted on his Facebook page. The Yahoo! Sports article linked above doesn't contain the comment, but this site has the alleged "Status Update" scrawl:

"all the hunters gather up, we have a #$%&er in the whitehouse"

Talk about putting the 'offensive' in the 'offensive line'. Texas football has, of late, had a lot of problems with arrests; this just adds to the tarnish on the program. But here's what really pisses me off: take a look at the Daily Texan, the student newspaper on campus. No mention of what he said or even why Burnette was removed from the team. In fact, the paper only says "The reason for Burnette's dismissal was not given by the team".

Here's Burnette's apology:

Clearly I have made a mistake and apologized for it and will pay for it. I received it as a text message from an acquaintance and immaturely put it up on facebook in the light of the election. Im not racist and apologize for offending you. I grew up on a ranch in a small town where that was a real thing and I need to grow up. I sincerely am sorry for being ignorant in thinking that it would be ok to write that publicly and apologize to you in particular. I have to be more mature than to put the reputation of my team at stake and to spread that kind of hate which I dont even believe in. Once again, I sincerely apologize.

First of all, did he text message this apology to someone? Proofreading apparently isn't taught at UT. Second, does anyone buy it? I grew up in a small town too (population 400), Buck, where lots of people are very racist (which is what I think he means by "it" [racism] being "a real thing"). That is not an excuse and I'm tired of people playing the "small town" card.

I must, however, give props to Mack Brown for doing the right thing in kicking him off the team. As a degree-holding alumnus of the University of Texas at Austin, I would be exceedingly, righteously pissed if this guy had been just slapped on the wrist.

Some people are already flapping their jaws about how he was a victim of liberal academia, etc.; I'd just like to remind everyone that he plays football. This is a privilege, not a right (even in Texas). The University has every right to ensure that the (sadly) most visible part of the institution is representing said institution well. This is not an academic or free speech case-- this is the University sending a strong message that participants in extracurricular (read: nonessential, optional, enhancement, tangential to the educational process) activities are bound to reflect the core institutional values-- diversity, inclusion, and civility being three important ones. Don't like President-Elect Obama? Fine-- post a Facebook blurb about how you fear socialism or you are crying to see Sarah Palin leave the national stage. But dropping the N-word and rather explicitly threatening race-based violence? No University should tolerate that out of their optional programs.

Rip Van Loomis

Hello. My name is Rip Van Loomis. I just awoke from a 20 year sleep. How can you trust this? Look at my giant beard that clearly shows I have not shaved in 2 decades.

I'm looking around at this new society. And I'm finding one thing quite striking.

Did we just elect a black guy president?

Did I wake up in bizarro America?

To be serious, I simply can't get over the fact that the United States has elected an African-American president. This is the most shocking event of my life. Much more so than 9/11. I was sure that the only way we would ever elect a minority or a woman as president was if it was a Republican. To have elected a left of center Democrat with a weird Muslim-sounding name is unbelievable. Really really amazing.

I am wondering if one of the unintended consequences of this election is that it is going to be harder rather than easier to discuss race in this country. Now my students can easily buy into ideas that race doesn't matter, that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and that there is no such thing as institutionalized racism. That Obama played down race and because enough Americans now think that having a black leader is an OK thing, this will lend credence to these myths and make teaching these issues all the more challenging.

Well, I am sure getting sleepy. When I wake up in another 20 years, I am expecting an openly gay president. Which I actually think is not all that unlikely by 2028.

Historical Image of the Day

Agnes Mary Clerke. Irish immigrant, astronomer, pioneering woman scientist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

A more interesting map of the 2008 Presidential Results

 Here is a rescaled map of the U.S. based on population proportions. You can find more maps that better represent the results here, as well as an explanation on how this was made.

NFL @ Week 9: AFC

After election night and election hangover day, I nearly forgot that there’s a football game on tonight. It must have been a big week when I almost forget about the Broncos on national television (albeit NFL Network). The only downside is I have to consider the possibility of losing to the Browns; those are truly dark thoughts.

AFC EAST:
At this point, the Bills look worse than they did last year. With a three way tie for the lead with the Patriots and the Jets, they’re going to devour each other to allow the Dolphins to win the division…Wildcat style. They aren’t that talented a team, but they sure beat the Broncos and they sure are fun to watch. They’re far more interesting than the crap-fests in New York and New England.

AFC NORTH:
Even though the Steelers look as inconsistent as ever, they laid a beating on the Redskins by the rejuvenated arm of Byron Leftwich. I spent a lot of time making fun of him while he stunk up Jacksonville, but he looked very strong. The Cowboys could easily have signed him but, with the stellar play of their QBs lately, I’m sure they have no regrets. Joe Flacco is looking good, but I want to see more Troy Smith passes to Flacco. Reasonably, that should be the other way around, but it seems like all kinds of teams have college fever. Losing to the Browns would be devastating. Brady Quinn sucks but, if there’s any team he can have his little debutante ball against, it’s Denver.

AFC SOUTH:
It’s good to see the Titans winning with good ol’ fashioned 1930s style football. As Erik well knows, I appreciate this sort of play but I must suggest to Jeff Fisher more fullback runs. LenDale White and Chris Johnson get plenty of touches; give Ahmard Hall some attention. Last week’s Colts vs. Patriots matchup may have been the worst preseason matchmaking in history. Sure, I would have thought it a good matchup too, but two old, crappy teams are the last thing I want to see.

AFC WEST:
The Broncos still sit in first place, no matter how badly they’re playing. Even if they lose tonight, they’ll still be in sole possession of the lead…at least until Sunday. With all the injuries--placing two starting tailbacks on IR and losing your defensive captain does not make it look good—it’s pretty hard to see how they’re going to win too many more this season. At least they have the Browns tonight. You know a cornerback is washed up when he is soundly beaten down the field by a really bad quarterback like KC’s Tyler Thigpen. Ronde Barber: you are washed up.

Games about on…gotta go. GO BRONCOS!!

Just for Fun

Who says pundits are never held accountable?

And things like this always cheer me up a bit, not because the country is in such bad condition, but because the man with 74 days left before retirement is convinced that history will redeem him. And I certainly don't buy into the notion of "bad luck" that some raise in the article. Luck does not determine deregulation policies that allow banks to wield their purchases and spending in such a way as to put the entire economy at risk; luck has nothing to do with how a government deals with disasters like Katrina; and luck has nothing to do with taking an attack on your country and using it to increase the authority of the executive in ways that often violate the constitution. Hopes for history's redemption is all Bush has to lean on at this point, but part of me hopes he lives to be 250 years old to see that, no, George, history will never redeem you.

Change.gov

Apparently, the transition team already has a website.

I find this immeasurably cool for some reason. Open government? Holy shit! I know it's just a website, but imagine if they actually maintain a presidential blog? Yes, I know it's run by staffers, but they'd be staffers who do report to the Prez. (Yeah, I can call him that, I volunteered in enough states, damnit).

Direct communication to the people? Um, yes please. I know that I'm in journalism and I'm supposed to whine about the media's necessary role, but the media was never meant to participate in the political process to the extent that it does. It's meant to keep an eye on government, to ferret out wrongdoing and keep 'em honest, not to regurgitate press releases. So if the government has a way to send out its own press releases without needing the media, they can..gasp...do their jobs?

(This is the part where I put out the obligatory plea to fund public broadcasting, kthx?)

Also, you can go in and hit the Contact form, or tell your campaign story, or whatever. I did both. Used the Contact form to beg 'em to please not pick a Treasury Secretary who has a record of causing controversy on women's issues, and also one who was there for a while already and failed to see our current problems coming.

On that note, I think Rahm Emanuel should be the only representative of the Clinton administration. Hey, change, remember?

That said, I am positively drooling over the suggestions of Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (who did great work with Greg Palast on the vote theft issue), John Kerry, and Caroline Kennedy.

This is too much fun.

McCain at Defense?

Let me throw a terrible idea out here.

And yes, it is a terrible idea.

But let's at least explore it.

What if Obama offered John McCain Secretary of Defense?

Don't yell at me yet.

Could it be a win/win situation?

If he takes it, which I don't think he would it would open a Senate seat that Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano would fill. It would put us one seat closer to the filibuster proof supermajority. It would make Obama look great because he would be "reaching across the aisle" and other such things that pundits like so much. The Republicans would be even more dispirited, seeing their candidate agree to work for the enemy. Plus, you could isolate him in that position much like Colin Powell was in the Bush Administration in 2004.

If he doesn't take it, then it is McCain and the Republicans who look bad for rejecting Obama's attempts at bipartisanship. But Obama still looks great. His numbers goes up and he starts his administration with even more support then he already has.

I know there are lots of reasons to reject this. I don't want any Republicans in the cabinet, and certainly not in a top position. But if there is a politically brilliant reason, I might reconsider my opposition. And maybe this scenario could play out.

OK, now you can yell at me about why this is so stupid.

Republican Candidate, 2012

It's worth looking ahead to who the Republican presidential candidate might be in 2012.

You might ask, "This is so far away. It's a pointless exercise."

If we were talking about the Democrats, you'd be right. Who could have projected the Obama, Clinton, or Dukakis nominations 4 years before they happened? A few were talking up Obama, but it seemed like 2012 at the earliest. Even John Kerry was far from a given.

On the other hand, when have the Republicans nominated someone outside of their inner circle of expected candidates? McCain, W, Dole, Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. All very expected candidates. I don't quite know enough about the Goldwater candidacy to know whether that is the last time someone came out of nowhere. If not Goldwater, we are looking back to Willikie or Landon. And that's a long time ago.

So who then are the top 5 candidates for the Republican nomination:

5. Bobby Jindal. Oh pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease. The governor of Louisiana, Jindal is a real loon and is totally unelectable. Some Republicans think he's the answer to Obama. That's because he is not white. The similarities end there. This is a man who claimed to run exorcisms in college. Yes, he is the Exorcist. He is a real extremist. The fundies love him. I place him relatively low though because they love Palin more. If Palin really loses her credibility with the base, look for Jindal to rise to #2 on this list.

4. Jeb Bush. Don't count out Jeb. At this point, his name is his biggest negative. How that will play in 4 years remains to be seen. By all accounts, he's a lot smarter than W. He is also fluent in Spanish and has a Latina wife. This would likely bring his numbers up among Latinos, making him a much better candidate in the West than McCain. I'm sure there are those in the party apparatus who would like to see this. Still, the Bush name is a huge negative and although Americans have short memories, it's hard to see him overcoming this.

3. David Petraeus. I don't actually think this will happen, but Petraeus could potentially be the candidate to unite all wings of the party. I don't even know for sure that he is a Republican, though I can't imagine that he is not. Still, unless he really establishes himself as a social conservative, I don't think the evangelicals would go along at this point.

2. Sarah Palin. The base loves her. Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, and the punditry are in love with her. She has great appeal to the redneck side of the Republican electorate. On the other hand, her political reputation is almost beyond repair with everyone who doesn't love her. And that's like 80% of the nation. If she is the nominee, I fully expect a spate of Republican fundraisers and power brokers to openly support Obama and the electoral map to look like 1964. This is what Rob predicts but I don't think she's likely to win the nomination.

1. Mitt Romney. Romney is going to be the nominee. He's going to have support of all the money. The only way he is not the nominee is a full revolt from the base. Either way, Romney is not a scary candidate because the base is going to be dejected with Mittens and scared of his Mormonism. He is also as exciting as paste. What we are going to see in the next 4 years is a Republican civil war between Romney and Palin. It's going to be fun to watch.

Historical Image of the Day

Barack Obama acceptance speech, Grant Park, Chicago, 2008

My favorite historical image ever.

Give to Jim Martin

To follow up on Sarah's post below, give money to Jim Martin! Do it right here!

Words cannot describe what a horrible person Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss is. If you remember back to 2002, Chambliss called then Senator Max Cleland a traitor and connected him to Al-Qaeda. Cleland lost 3 limbs in Vietnam. This worked in Georgia. Chambliss won in the most reprehensible campaign of the year.

At the end of this election, he was campaigning heavily in northern Georgia, talking about how "they" were voting this year. Gee, who did he mean by "they"? Chambliss is a racist and a scumbag.

I just gave Jim Martin $25. I challenge the rest of you to match me.

And when I say challenge, think about to the Jerry Lewis telethons when challenges happened all the time. Like Lewis, the French love me even though I am not funny.

In all seriousness, I think most of us can give at least a small amount to help out Jim Martin. There is still a chance that a Martin win in the December runoff could give us the filibuster proof majority.

Also, Sarah deserves credit for moving this blog in a more advocacy direction, which I think is a good thing.

Crichton

Michael Crichton dead.

What ignorant celebrity will climate change deniers dredge up now to voice their spurious claims before Congress?

Update 11/6--John Tierney, never missing an opportunity to promote teh stupid on science issues, devotes a column to Crichton's scientific "thought," especially his idea to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

Georgia!

Ok, so Georgia went for McCain.

But here's the real kicker. Saxby Chambliss, best known as the complete scumbag who ran campaign videos comparing veteran Max Cleland, who left three limbs in Vietnam, with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, did NOT get 50% of the vote to retain his Senate seat.

This means there's a runoff election.

Jim Martin is another Vietnam-veteran Democrat, and in a post-Obama world, we could snag another seat here. Chambliss, a Republican incumbent in a state that went for McCain, couldn't get a majority.

Help Martin out. Saxby Chambliss is one of the most odious bastards in the Senate.

Historical Image of the Day

Jesse Jackson speaking at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.

Although I have criticized Jackson at times, to me the most poignant moment of last night was seeing him crying after Obama's victory. Although I think he's an opportunist in many ways and has been resistant to a new generation of black leadership, Jackson was a pioneer and his 1984 campaign should be remembered as such.