We should have let them secede

The Georgia legislature passed a bill this week that creates state-funded Bible classes in Georgia public schools. The bill requires that the Bible serve as the core textbook for these new courses. Groups like Defcon America are taking to the barricades and the airwaves to try to prevent this bill from being signed by the governer.

I say, forget it. Let him sign. We should raise money to allow sensible Georgians to relocate to other parts of the country, where their taxes don't pay to support a religion. We could use some of the money to help the hard core fundamentalists move to Iran or Afghanistan, where most people share their values. Oh, I know, the Christian extremists and the Islamic extremists make a big deal about hating each other, but once they get to know each other, they will realize how much they have in common.

Americans DO get it...

From the news today: Poll: Americans Question Foreign Policy
By MICHAEL MELIA, Associated Press WriterThu Mar 30, 12:45 AM ET

Americans question the ability of the United States to create democracy in other countries, and are divided on whether successful efforts could even make the U.S. safer, according to a poll released Thursday. Only 36 percent of those surveyed by the Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index believe the U.S. can help spread democracy — a major objective for the Bush administration in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

"People do regard it as a desirable goal," Public Agenda Chairman Daniel Yankelovich said. "But from a common sense point of view, both Democrats and Republicans have concluded that democracy is something that countries come to on their own."

The biannual poll, which last came out in August, found public confidence has declined overall in Washington's ability to achieve goals including capturing terrorists, protecting U.S. borders and meeting objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq war remains the top concern, with 22 percent naming it America's largest global problem, followed by terrorism at 13 percent.

But poll directors noted Americans are also alarmed increasingly by U.S. energy dependence. Ninety percent in the survey — conducted in January, before President Bush's declaration in his State of the Union address that the country is "addicted to oil" — said it was important to find alternatives to foreign energy supplies to strengthen national security.

The survey, a joint venture by Foreign Affairs magazine and Public Agenda, a nonprofit research organization, offered multiple perspectives on how America sees its role in the world. The goal of spreading democracy received the lowest support among other priorities, with only 20 percent saying it was "very important." A slight majority, 53 percent, said there would be less global conflict as more countries adopt democratic systems, but 73 percent worry that U.S. actions in the Middle East are indirectly aiding the recruitment of terrorists. Only 22 percent believe the U.S. government can do "a lot" to create democracy in Iraq.

On other fronts, the poll indicated a preference for activism. Seventy-one percent said it was very important to help countries deal with natural disasters such as the Indian Ocean tsunami. Other priorities were cooperating with countries on problems like the environment or disease control (70 percent) and improving the treatment of women in other countries (57 percent).

The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Jan. 10-22 and had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Immigration Reform

Immigration has always created strange alliances and schisms. The labor wing of the Democratic party has always feared more open immigration; the internationalist/humanist wing has always favoured it. The business community has generally favoured it (cynics paint that as a simple ploy to access cheap and compliant labor); the far-right hate it, often barely disguising the racisim that drives their viewpoint. All of these views become infused with passion where illegals are concerned.

The simple truth is that we are not going to deport 11 million people, though we are managing to deport some, often destroying families in the process. We need to find a more compassionate and, at the same time, socially equitable way, to solve the problem of illegal immigrants. The President has always been consistent on this point. What is remarkable, though, is how the breakdown of this debate within the Republican party reveals the extent to which it has been hijacked by the forces of fear and hate. Republicans from both houses are proposing draconian and violent measures to punish, not only illegal immigrants, but anyone who is caught giving them aid and comfort. The language is little different than the language we used for countries that harboured terrorists.

The list of things that the President has gotten wrong is too long to belabour. The list of things he has gotten right is invisible. Until now. Where it comes to immigration reform, we have to give him credit for being right, and support in standing up to his own party on this issue.

A footnote: we recently learned that the man who has been cleaning our offices for 16 years is being deported. He worked like a dog for all those years, often holding three jobs at a time. He married and started a family. His daughter is a gifted student. He paid taxes. He kept our workplace immaculate, and was never angry or bitter. He learned everyones' names and greeted us as friends. He somehow saved enough from his minimum-wage jobs to buy a HOUSE! But he did not have papers. Instead, he had a lawyer who robbed him of a substanial part of his income while giving him almost comically bad advice. There are a lot of illegals who are not contributing to our communities. Instead of going after them, probably because it is too much trouble to track them down, the INS is going after a man who played by all the rules but one, and whose loss will hurt all of us. THAT is why we need reform.

Footnote 2 (Nov. 2006): The worst of the proposed laws was passed, and we wait to see whether the President has any capitall left to turn the tide back, on this, the one issue of his presidency where he was right.

A Call from a Republican Fundraiser

He sounds like a brown-noser from the get-go. He is calling from the Republican National Committee. They want to "honor" me for my "leadership", at an ass-kissing dinner in Washington, for which privilege I would have to pay a lot of moolah, which would of course go into the Republican war chest. The guy sounds genuinely shocked when I tell him that I disagree with everything they've done lately, so they can count me out until they have undertaken some serious reform, starting at the top. He whines and tries to get me to listen to a taped message from his boss (some slimebag congressman from a state which still uses the barter system). He tells me the tape is all about how they're going to lower my taxes. I tell him I know the message and don't need to hear it again. I have other concerns. So he whines some more about how, if I come to this dinner, where they're going to "honor" me, I can get my message out then. Right. As though they care, once they have my money. I tell him he can relay my message to them right now: Reform, or else.

Afterward, I reflect on this, and I realize nothing has changed. The bedrock of the Republican party is people with money, and the appeal the party always offered them was greed, pure and simple. That strategy, of course, was a minority strategy. To win, they had to find other voters. Since the traditional elitist message was not likely to resonate with voters in the heartland, they had to find some other form of common cause with those people. They found it in hate: hate for the newly uppity blacks; hate for immigrants (unless they are cleaning your toilets); hate for all this dangerous free thinking that happens in big cities and big universities; hate for non-christians, who can't be counted on to obey orders. Hate for anything new. And it worked. So the Republicans became the majority party.

Unfortunately, the old guard in the GOP sold the party's soul to the religious right and the skinheads. Suddenly, a lot of the things that are necessary to build their kind of wealth are under attack, by the folks they invited into the tent. Education. Science. Immigration. Diversity. The problem is that you can't build an alliance forever based on hate. A lasting mission needs something positive to aim for. Hating everyone who is not like you doesn't fill the bill.

Meanwhile, there is a room full of geeks somewhere in Washington, phoning away, still trying to find people they think have money (if they saw my bank account, they would stop calling), and who will sell out every semblance of principle in exchange for a tax break. What the geeks don't get is that the people who are generating the new wealth in this country have values other than pure greed. We are looking for a home, and today's GOP ain't it.

Even when he is right...

A curious thing has happened recently. George Bush has said several things that, coming from another man, would have sounded credible and, in one instance, even inspiring. First, there was the remark, in his State of the Union address, about America's addiction to oil (!). Then there was his comment, in defense of the Dubai Ports deal, that we risk compromising our message of tolerance and free markets if we kill the deal through legislation (he is right, but we still should not do the deal). In his speech in Hyderabad, he put forth a remarkably progressive vision for India's future. In saying "India is our natural ally," he articulated something that should have been said decades ago by U.S. leadership (America's stiff-arm to India, the world's largest democracy, ranks as a shameful black mark on our conduct since WWII). He coupled that to a call for free and open trade, as opposed to fear and protectionism. And yesterday, he called for Congress to fund the mandates for the repair of New Orleans.

So how should we take all this? Does he mean any of it? Do his speechwriters and handlers mean any of it? Does he even understand what he is saying, especially regarding India? Is this merely a series of accidents, that his words just happen to mirror reality, while we, meanwhile, continue on with the sophisticated savagery that passes for a governing philosophy?

The darker possibility is that this is all a smokescreen, a calculated ploy to make W look worldly, compassionate and reasonable while Rome burns. Where tolerance is concerned, for example, it is curious that he didn't discover the evils of racial profiling until it swept the Emir of the United Arab Emirates up into its net. Where free trade is concerned, he seems blithely unaware of the havoc that U.S. agricultural protectionism is wreaking on the farmers and workers of developing nations like India. Where New Orleans is concerned, his newfound concern must be a bitter pill for those still suffering from his, and his team's, aggressive neglect of the risks, and then the aftermath, of the storm.

Then there is a third possibility, namely, that with his administration a failure, his reputation sinking, and his spinmeisters losing their traction, he has suddenly discovered his "good" side, or at least a streak of moderation, even earnestness. Maybe he isn't just the paranoid, overcompensating, confused, inflexible bully who has presided over the desecration of America's covenant with itself. Maybe "compassionate" conservatism really did mean something once, and he had to shelve it to serve the aims of forces bigger than himself. Then, of course, we have to conclude he was in fact the puppet that many liberals suspected him to be when he was first elected. Certainly, in the hands of Rove and the rest of his team, W has not been the President one would have predicted years ago, when he governed Texas as a relative moderate.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

--H.L. Mencken (Courtesy of S.S.)

The evidence suggests, at least, that the "plain folk" are not, in fact, morons. They were duped by the world's most sophisticated lie machine, but given the truth of what they have done, a growing majority are repudiating that choice. The question is whether it is too late.

Hanging out to dry

Like many, I just shrugged my shoulders as Michael Brown was publicly humiliated by Congress, and flogged by the press, after so obviously botching preparations for, and the response to, Katrina. Just another incompetant Bush stooge--that was the refrain among those of us who have come to expect this sort of thing. Along with the vitriol thrown at Brown, there were occasional barbs about the Administration's habit of assigning tasks to incompetent cronies. The Bush team were largely silent.

Yesterday, videotapes were released, of consultations among senior government officials, including Bush, in the days before Katrina hit. While I have not seen the tapes in their entirety, several things become clear from the various accounts of what they show. First, competent or not (and it still seems clear he was not fit for the job), Brown pleaded for more help, repeatedly, in the days before and during the disaster. Second, a number of other federal, state and city officials warned of catastrophe, and some of them pleaded for more resources, both before and during the disaster. Their warnings were urgent, and highly specific. Third, Bush was present at a key videoconference, the day before the storm landed, and did not ask any questions. He merely closed with a statement assuring everyone that we were "fully prepared".

The main crime is Bush's complacency in the face of mounting evidence of imminent, and then actual, tragedy. But to that we can now add an additional crime: his, and his team's, gutless betrayal of Michael Brown, who, it turns out, had been telling the truth at his hearing, when he said he had asked for more help and been denied. How symbolic, this betrayal. It should be a warning sign to other Bush loyalists, of what to expect when the chips are down.

Meanwhile, over in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, on trial for crimes against humanity, told the court "I don't know why you are trying these other people. I gave the orders. I was responsible." That forthrightness doesn't diminish the magnitude of his crimes, but it serves as a stunning counterpoint to Bush's craven abandonment of Michael Brown. How is it that Bush has sunk so low that he can make the Butcher of Baghdad seem almost noble by comparison?

This administration has been built on lies and "misinformation ", and many of the lies are about matters of huge consequence. But they are also about matters of great complexity, and this has allowed them to dodge and weave and keep a large number of people confused. How else to explain that most Americans, including an overwhelming majority of the troops in Iraq, still believe that a major motivation for the war was the "connection" between Al Qaeda and Saddam?

In the matter of Katrina, we no longer just have general accusations of incompetence or negligence. We now have direct proof that the President and his top aides lied about what they knew and when they knew it. The betrayal of Michael Brown is a footnote to this tragedy, but it is a telling one. "The buck stops here" is a quintessentially American statement about what it means to lead. That a despot like Saddam understands it better than our own President, just deepens the shame Bush has brought upon this country. Even his most die-hard supporters have to look at this and wonder if they were wrong about the man.