( – promoted by odum)

By the standards of this blog, I am fairly pro-business.  I tend to believe that the market, like government, can be an effective policy tool under the right circumstances.

So as a left-leaning free-marketeer, I want to express my opposition to the idea of leasing the lottery to a private firm.  Governor Douglas’ proposal makes little policy sense and even less economic sense.

The company that would lease the lottery (for an upfront payment of $55 million) would need to more than double lottery sales within 5 years to justify the upfront investment.  That will require aggressive marketing, new products, etc.

If sales do double, the state will only see the present-value of that $55 million (the difference being the gross margin for the company leasing the lottery).

I have nothing against gambling (I am possibly the world’s worst poker player).  Like most vices, it is part of the human character.   However, I am not a big fan of seeing them aggressively marketed or promoted because there is always a percentage of society that can not limit their urges.  Ultimately, society has to pay those costs in the form of lost wages, bankruptcies, broken families.  

Since the lottery is a pretty regressive form of income generation for the state to being with, I don’t think it is something we ought to be pushing on people.

Lastly, a one-time payment will  not deal with the underlying policy problem: either the state needs to increase taxes or it needs to decrease spending.  Leasing the lottery merely postpones that discussion for a year…. to a non-election year.

You may have encountered this already, as its a few years old and has been in circulation. Thom Hartmann read it on his radio program and posted the text at his blog, so I thought I’d reprint. I guess if Hartmann can do it, GMD probably won’t get in legal trouble, eh (I’ve seen it reposted at another site, so I guess its okay)…

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)  Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

By John Gray, Cincinnati, Ohio –  jgray7@cinci.rr.com – Published July – 2004

A few weeks ago, I created a diary (my first) in which I attempted to qualify my support of Barack Obama. I say attempted because I was still, at that time, somewhat reticent to write about my feelings-mostly because they were . . . feelings. Political wonks tend to react derisively to feelings-based decisions. And, as a writer, I am cognizant of the adage, Know your market.

But I’m an intrapersonal learner.  That diary was a sort of first draft in my attempts at qualifying-indeed, quantifying-my support of Obama. Since then, fortifying myself with daily doses of Green Mountain Daily, reddit, Digg, CNN, MSNBC, and yes, even Fox News, I’ve written dozens of pieces. In my head, anyway. Realities such as work, children, and relationships take up a considerable amount of time.

The thing is-the fact that many people just don’t want to admit-feelings play a huge part in our politics. How can they not?  When we-as voters, thinkers, and humans-contemplate issues such as Iraq, education, and healthcare, make no mistake: We’re feeling. We simply have to reconcile it with that other part of us, the part that eats up the polls and the demographics. The part that knows it’s dangerous and simplistic to be ruled by our emotions. Well, I’m here to tell you that synthesis is possible.

The reasons for supporting Barack Obama cannot be stated any more eloquently than today’s LA Times endorsement.

An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation’s youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama’s mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama’s life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.

Americans have an opportunity. With hard work and lots of optimism, we can try to undo the damage of the Bush administration. It won’t be easy. But I don’t see that we have many options here.

 

Those of us who consider ourselves political junkies (most of us on GMD?) and watch the campaigns closely undoubtedly take relief in that none of the major Dems running would be considered “Bible-thumpers” by any stretch of the imagination. Undoubtedly, some of us with a more secular or even atheistic bent squirm in our seats when we hear Obama or Clinton go heavy on the “faith” talk (I know I do), but by and large we know we're not dealing with the same problems that the reactionary theocratic wing of the GOP holds over its candidates and the party itself.

However, there's another side to Hillary Clinton's faith that is somewhat disturbing, in that she's associating quite regularly with some rather unsavory characters. This isn't another one of those “Hillary Hatin'-Vince Foster killin'-lesbian baby-eater” stories that the right-wing is so fond of. It actually seems to be on the level. Hop below the jump for an in-depth look at this interesting and rather disturbing aspect of our potential future President.

Now, the article's actually a few months old, but in the September issue of Mother Jones, Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet have written a piece that's a bit of an eye-opener. It gives a bit of historical background about Hillary's faith in her younger years, as a Methodist and self-proclaimed “Goldwater girl”. Although by no means infected by the virulent strain of evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity, Hillary, from what we can gather, seems to take her faith quite seriously, and it often has an a quite conservative bent to it. Some background:

Clinton's faith is grounded in the Methodist beliefs she grew up with in Park Ridge, Illinois, a conservative Chicago suburb where she was active in her church's altar guild, Sunday school, and youth group. It was there, in 1961, that she met the Reverend Don Jones, a 30-year-old youth pastor; Jones, a friend of Clinton's to this day, told us he knows “more about Hillary Clinton's faith than anybody outside her family.” Under Jones' mentorship, Clinton learned about Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich—thinkers whom liberals consider their own, but whom young Hillary Rodham encountered as theological conservatives.

The Niebuhr she studied was a cold warrior, dismissive of the progressive politics of his earlier writing. “He'd thought that once we were unionized, the kingdom of God would be ushered in,” Jones explains. “But the effect of those two world wars and the violence that they produced shook his faith in liberal theology. He came to believe that the achievement of justice meant a clear understanding of the limitations of the human condition.”

Tillich, whose sermon on grace Clinton turned to during the Lewinsky scandal, today enjoys a following among conservatives for revising the social gospel—the notion that Christians are to improve humanity's lot here on earth by fighting poverty, inequality, and exploitation—to emphasize individual redemption instead of activism. Niebuhr and Tillich's combination of aggressiveness in foreign affairs and limited domestic ambition naturally led Clinton toward the GOP. She was a Goldwater Girl who, under the tutelage of her high school history teacher Paul Carlson (whom Jones describes as “to the right of the John Birchers”), attended biweekly anticommunist meetings and later served as president of Wellesley's Young Republicans chapter. Out of step with the era's radicalism, Clinton wrote Jones from college, lamenting that her fellow students didn't believe that one could be “a mind conservative and a heart liberal.” To Jones, this question indicated that Clinton shared Niebuhr's notion of Christians needing to have “a dark enough view of life that they can be realistic about what's possible.”

But that's not really the scary part. Look here (emphasis mine):

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. “A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation,” says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. “I don't….there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer.”

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or “the Family”), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to “spiritual war” on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has “made a fetish of being invisible,” former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

Scary, huh? This ain't exactly a fellowship of benevolent hobbits and such. If that rings a bell, some of you might have remembered the news a few years back about a Christian organization that was providing DC luxury housing for certain legislators. It's the same group. Lisa Gretter did an expose on the group in the LA Times about 6 years ago. (the actual LA Times link requires registration, so I found a copy of it here.) Some interesting facts:

They also share a vow of silence about Fellowship activities. Coe and others cite biblical admonitions against public displays of good works, insisting they would not be able to tackle their diplomatically sensitive missions if they drew public attention. Members, including congressmen, invoke this secrecy rule when refusing to discuss just about every aspect of the Fellowship and their involvement in it.

Jennifer Thornett, a Fellowship employee, went so far as to say that “there is no such thing as the Fellowship,” even as she helped lead a group of 250 college students around Washington this month, part of a Fellowship-sponsored national leadership forum on faith and values.

The Fellowship has quite the central role in that “National Prayer Breakfast” in DC you might have heard about, which has an almost exclusively Christian focus. In addition, they host frequent regular prayer breakfasts. Harper's has a good account of one of them hosted by former Reagan AG Edwin Meese, here, to give you an idea of what they're like. The piece really gives a good insight into the nutty, Christ-happy mindset of the Fellowship member, at times with them sounding like starry-eyed cultists for Christ.

As the LAT reveals, not only do they provide inexpensive housing for several members of Congress, they've paid for overseas trips for congressmen in its ranks, “who sometimes mix diplomacy and religion during meetings with foreign heads of state”.

One name that crops up in both articles is Fellowship leader David Coe, who in  Clinton's “Living History” autobiography, she describes as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

Once again, from MoJo (emphasis mine):

Coe's friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action Team is guided by another Coe protege, Brownback, who also claims to have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus' teachings.

Those names aren't exactly paragons of virtue, enlightenment, and tolerance. Are you just a little bothered? It certainly calls into question Mrs. Clinton's judgment and on a deeper level, makes me seriously wonder how, if elected, she will be when it comes to church and state issues as these forces of the religious right continue to push to make this nation into a Christian one. It's easy to question her intentions, as pandering to various groups for political benefit is really nothing new to Mrs. Clinton. However, the last line of the MOJo article really does give one pause for concern, in that maybe this isn't necessarily a pander after all:

Then, as now, Clinton confounded secularists who recognize public faith only when it comes wrapped in a cornpone accent. Clinton speaks instead the language of nondenominationalism—a sober, eloquent appreciation of “values,” the importance of prayer, and “heart” convictions—which liberals, unfamiliar with the history of evangelical coalition building, mistake for a tidy, apolitical accommodation, a personal separation of church and state. Nor do skeptical voters looking for political opportunism recognize that, when Clinton seeks guidance among prayer partners such as Coe and Brownback, she is not so much triangulating—much as that may have become second nature—as honoring her convictions. In her own way, she is a true believer.

Somone needs to step up to the plate and ask her about these associations. They make Obama's little pander to the homophobes and such look like small potatoes in comparison. Anyone truly concerned about the separation of church and state should sit up and take notice, for this is indeed truly disturbing news. 

What to say? Artistic inspiration comes from strange places.

An homage perhaps? Discuss:

If elections in Vermont are like games of musical chairs, where D’s and Rs circle the available statewide offices until the music stops on Election Day, why do I feel like nobody started the music back up again this time around?

Granted, the race for Governor is more complicated with Pollina pushing aggressively for the left-wing banner since November – but that wasn’t the case before November. And you still have no race against freshman congressman Peter Welch, and nobody making any meaningful noises about a challenge to Lietenant Governor Brian Dubie. Or Treasurer Spaulding. Or Secretary of State Markowitz. Or AG Sorrell. Has there even been any more hubbub about the potential of a rematch between former Auditor Randy Brock and current Democratic officeholder Tom Salmon Jr.?

We seem to be locked in a sort of partisan equilibrium, here, and it strikes me that the very purpose and function of a major political party is never to let such an equilibrium go unchallenged.

But on the bright side, there’s opportunity. Particularly in the Lieutenant Governor race. This is a low-cost, high-profile affair that could be run in the $100,000 range – and that’s peanuts, relative to other offices and other states. In fact, I can’t help but think a netroots candidate could absolutely capitalize on such an opening. Someone with national blogosphere cred could potentialy raise that kind of money from the greater netroots even before their first Vermont fundraiser (Steve Benen, are you listening…?).

…surrogates of the campaigns have traded accusations of whether the camps of the two leading candidates are trying to make race an issue in the Democratic nominating process.

“Senator Obama and I agree completely that neither race nor gender should be part of this campaign,” Clinton said during the debate

Bill Clinton says race shouldn’t be an issue in the Democratic presidential campaign.

There is a real disservice being done to this country this election season. A service typical of what happens when our national debates play out through the simplistic, self-serving filter of the national media.

Everyone is concerned that race is being made into an issue. Well, guess what? It is an issue. One we continue to avoid like the plague.

What people are reacting against, of course is the attempt to make racism a campaign tool. And that’s a very different charge. But, doing as the traditional media always does, the matter has been rhetorically hyper-simplified so much, it has morphed into something else entirely. The very topic of race is now a hot potato. Talking about race at all has been narratively linked to being racist through this language (or at the very least being anachronistic), and that’s crazy.

But of course, it’s not just the press. White America is replete with rationalizations for avoiding the topic, and is happy to embrace another one provided for them by the traditional media.

And in case you need a reminder about how much of an issue race remains for America, consider that African Americans as a group still lag White America in home ownership, standard of living, age-related mortality rates, access to health care, and the list goes on. And if you’re in denial that this is a systemic problem, consider the fact that hate crimes and hate groups are still a nationwide phenomenon.

Of course race should be an discussed this Presidential election. So should gender. They both remain critical issues across our country. Issues that still make everyone else very uncomfortable.

How absurdly ironic it is that the very fact we have a black man and a woman as viable candidates for the presidency has become our latest excuse to avoid the topic(s).

I am just back from Moscow, Sri Lanka and Singapore and was stunned at the level of interest in the US Presidential elections.  I was, repeatedly, interrogated at length about the primaries and the candidates.  I had a beer with one Brit who went on in excruciating detail about the brilliance of Rudy's Florida strategy (this conversation was before the primary there), but most of the interest was directed towards Obama and HRC.  Throughout the entire trip, in cabs, on planes, over dinner – the election came up constantly.

 I lived overseas through 3 presidential elections, but I have never seen foreign interest in a primary election process (the primary system is a bit like baseball to Europeans and Asians – they know Americans care about it, but they don't understand it).  

Roger Cohen in the NYT has his take on this phenomenon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/opinion/31Cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin 

I am not quite sure I am ready to take the interest as a validation of our way of life the way Cohen does, but I do think it is an indication that our system does still have some vitality left in it.  

cross-posted from Integral Psychosis

By most accounts, the Vermont Democrats are void of a real, big name candidate for governor for this upcoming election because the conventional wisdom is that Douglas is more or less unbeatable.  For a wide variety of discussions about this, and the effects of Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina’s bid for governor, pop over to Green Mountain Daily, where the topic (rightly) gets plenty of airtime.  But anyway, the reality is that there is a rather deep list of Dems with statewide name recognition who are interested in taking a shot at becoming supreme leader of our small, mountainous social and political bubble (Dunne, Racine, and Shumlin to name a few).  However, the insiders all know that these folks are holding out for the 2010 elections.  Generally, there is a belief that Douglas will not seek re-election that year.  This logic, near as I can tell, is predicated on the rumor that by 2010 Senator Leahy may be announcing his retirement, at which time Douglas would throw his hat in the ring for a shot at that job; thus leaving the governor’s seat wide open for a Dem to step into.

Not comfortable leaving one of ‘their guys’ off the ballot, the Dems are floating virtual unknowns (Cambell, Galbraith) as possible sacrifices to the Douglas electoral juggernaut (a juggernaut created, no less, by the Democratic Party’s failure to run someone against Douglas for Treasurer for many years, giving the GOP do-nothing quite a bit of personal political momentum).  For the Democratic Party in the State of Vermont, the 2008 election is pretty much over, aside from the necessary lip-service that has to be paid to the chances of whoever the eventual challenger to Douglas becomes.

Oddly enough, this is more or less the exact same position that the Republican Party, on the national level, is in.  John McCain, as most of us should realize, is not quite “in” with the upper echelons of the GOP.  For what, I don’t know.  He’s generally typified by the mainstream press as the “maverick” of the Party- what this more or less means is that he has a slightly differing stance on a couple of issues than they do, I guess.  Or maybe he’s just always fucking up the secret handshake, or forgetting the words to the hymns they chant during ritual.  Make no mistake though, the national GOP leadership are loath to imagine a ‘President McCain’.  But, for so many friggin years he’s been like that annoying little yapper dog that, no matter how much you try to ignore, is still right at your ankles, nipping and yapping away in the ultimate test of “do I really believe kicking a dog to be immoral?”

At the same time, the GOP leadership can see the writing on the wall.  These folks may have indefensible moral and ethical beliefs, but they are not idiots.  They know that there’s a high degree of certainty that a Democrat is taking the White House in 2008.  I think that to some degree, they realize the possible trouble they could be in as a result of the drastic political polarization that Bush’s tenure has brought.  Because of the long-term problem this could be, and because over the past 8 years they’ve given themselves a pretty good hand at which to reap some serious money (don’t forget, that is the ultimate point of all this), they’ve resigned to the fact that they won’t be president one year from now.

Strategically, I think they’re quite comfortable letting the Dems take control, which over the next few years will allow the American people to slowly redirect their ire and angst from the GOP to the Dems, and which will give them a good shot at dethroning the prez in 2012, and probably a chance to take control of Congress before then.  Given all this, the GOP are allowing McCain to be their sacrificial lamb to the Dems for this coming election.  If they thought they had a chance, they’d certainly be running someone backed by the neo-cons.  At the same time, if the Vermont Dems thought they had a chance, they’d certainly be running one of their big stars.  

So the reality is that on the national stage, the GOP are allowing “not their guy” to give it a shot, simply because the leadership knows this one is  a loss anyway, and so they figure “what the fuck, at least McCain will stop yapping at us about his ‘turn’ to run for the top job’ and we can re-group and be ready to regain control in the next election.”  At the same time, the Vermont Democrats are saying pretty much the exact same thing, waiting for their ‘inevitable’ chance at the big time.  Kinda makes you glad to be a part of such a great political system, doesn’t it?

A couple week ago, Terri Hallenbeck ran a blog post about the Legislature’s House Ways & Means Committee’s first hearing on Governor Douglas’ proposal to lease the state lottery.  In her post, Ms. Hallenbeck attacked the committee for what she portrayed as a bias against the proposal that was so profound, the committee was refusing to listen to the administration.  

The tenor of her post was derisive and failed to mention the legitimate concerns the Committee expressed about the proposal (concerns no doubt shared by other state legislators across the country who have faced similar proposals – sometimes from Democratic governors – and have yet to accept one).

Yet within the last week, the House Ways & Means committee heard from the Douglas administration about the proposal, as did two Senate committees (Appropriations & Institutions).  While Nancy Remson may have been responsible for covering the House hearing, Terri Hallenbeck was seen at the Senate hearing.  

It will surprise few to learn that Ms. Hallenbeck failed to issue a blog post about that hearing.  After all, she had recently criticized legislators, writing: “Legislators, particularly those in the Democratic majority but Republicans too, fairly strongly oppose this proposal and are eager to discredit it. One doesn’t need testimony from supporters of the proposal to accomplish that.”  (Clearly insinuating that the legislators were not even going to bother listening to the administration’s idea.)

This is a perfect example of how reporters can exhibit bias subtly – sometimes it is not what they write, but what they don’t write.  Terri Hallenbeck publicly criticized legislators for not taking a specific action, and then ignores them when they do exactly what she said they should be doing.  It’s difficult for her readers (ie voters) to get an accurate picture of the work the legislators are going when she will only report on what they are not doing.

I’ve written about Terri Hallenbeck’s biased reporting in the past, and I will continue to do so.  I hope others will join me in chronicling the bias exhibited by her and other Vermont reporters.  Blogs have given us a chance to reach many of the same readers that Terri Hallenbeck continues to mislead.  Without our vigilance, there will be no voice to counter her biased and misleading narrative.

(view her post at: http://www.burlingtonfreepress… where did the hyperlink button go?