Centerfield

Stem Cell Fight

When Massachusetts voters elected Mitt Romney, we didn't expect social issues to be the signature controversies of his term. The gay marriage issue was thrust upon him by the courts, but the battle over embryonic stem cell research seems more like a fight he himself has picked in order to gain the respect of social conservatives nationally. He's threatening to veto a bill which passed the State Senate overwhelmingly, and is likely to pass the House, though possibly not with a veto-proof majority.

On this topic, I received an email today from Chris Gabrieli, the Democratic nominee for lieutenant-governor in 2002 on the ticket that was defeated by Romney. Gabrieli is "the Chairman of the New Democrat Network and serves on the Boards of the Third Way Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute of the Democratic Leadership Council." Considered a potential candidate for governor in 2006, Gabrieli would be a moderate alternative to the most talked-about potential Democratic candidates, Attorney General Tom Reilly, and Deval Patrick, described by supporters as a strong progressive.

Gabrieli is promoting bettercommonwealth.org, which, like this blog, shares a fondness for baseball metaphors.

Governor Mitt Romney thinks lifesaving research crosses the line of ethical conduct. He’s way out in right field on this one. Stem cell research may help to cure disease and save lives. It will also create jobs and economic opportunity in Massachusetts.

Personally, I find the idea of cloning embryos kind of creepy, in a Robin Cook thriller kind of way. But ethically, I have no problem with it, and I believe the White House position, which Gov. Romney seems to share, can only be described as faith-based.

There are some distinctions between this fight and the abortion debate. A woman's "right to privacy" is not as issue, because these embryos are just colonies of cells in a lab dish. They are not inside a uterus. On the other hand, the fact that they are not inside a uterus is to me a bright line. For many people, the discomfort with abortion is that we know an infant is alive, and a full-term fetus prior to birth is viable, and before that, it's difficult to find a bright line before implantation in the uterus. But this is prior to that point. Nor are these embryos unique combinations of nuclear DNA. They share the same DNA as the cell donor, using a hollowed-out egg cell.

If all colonies of human cells are to be afforded the protection of human life, it seems to me that we should ban body piercing, circumcision, elective surgery, and any procedure which would destroy human cells. Should we?

Terry Schiavo RIP

Terry Schiavo has died.

Is Social Mobility Declining?

I came across a liberal-minded article in The Economist warning that social mobility is declining in the USA. The article notes that most Americans are willing to tolerate vast inequality between rich and poor so long as everyone has a reasonable chance of getting rich. But

America's great universities are increasingly reinforcing rather than reducing these educational inequalities. Poorer students are at a huge disadvantage, both when they try to get in and, if they are successful, in their ability to make the most of what is on offer. This disadvantage is most marked in the elite colleges that hold the keys to the best jobs. Three-quarters of the students at the country's top 146 colleges come from the richest socio-economic fourth, compared with just 3% who come from the poorest fourth (the median family income at Harvard, for example, is $150,000). This means that, at an elite university, you are 25 times as likely to run into a rich student as a poor one.

Having worked as a university administrator, I don't think that family assets by themselves the reason for this disparity. Most of the top schools do meet financial need, at least for their best students. Rather, it's the whole network downstream educational advantages--better public or private schools, tutoring, which make wealthier students better prepared.

At risk of ending up like Larry Summers, I think there could also be innate differences--white families who have been in this country for several generations have gone through meritocratic sorting, and those on the lower end probably have, on the average, less talent. I would expect to see more social ability among African-American and immigrant families, who are in the first or second generation of access to meritocratic advancement.

I personally am a case of meritocratic advancement. I grew up in a working class family. I'll tell you straight out that my late father, who I loved, was not particularly bright or hard-working. He was a high school dropout who did not take advantage of the GI Bill after WWII. I am convinced my intellectual abilities come from my mother, who was a housewife. Because of the American system, I was able to go to MIT, marry a similarly educated working woman, and live a fairly affluent lifestyle.

I believe in meritocracy, but I also think that over generations, meritocracy could calcify into a class system. I think we should keep this in mind when we consider proposals to abolish the inheritance tax, privatize schools, and other proposals which might be justifiable on narrow policy grounds, but could contribute to an overall climate which limits social mobility.

Do We Need Shareholder Watchdogs?

I hate to link to DailyKos without bashing it, but this post by CA State Senator Joe Dunn (via BOPnews) raises a valid issue. While overall I'm positive on Gov. Schwarzenegger's tenure, I'm concerned about a proposal to "replace the guaranteed benefits of public pensions systems with 401(k)-style retirement plans." There are probably some financial arguments in favor of this change. But I am concerned that it will dismantle CalPERS, which has been a voice for shareholders. Have any 401(k) management acted as effective shareholder advocates? My impression is that if they think a stock is a dog, they dump it. But they don't care about corporate responsibility.

Or, is corporate responsibility a distraction, and the dumping of badly-performing stocks which may ultimately make them vulnerable to takeover the only policing of CEO behavior that's necessary?

Bill Bradley: "A Party Inverted"

Former Sen. Bill Bradley has a very interesting column in the NY Times today.

Here is a taste (but, of course, read the whole thing).

Before deciding what Democrats should do now, it's important to see what Republicans have done right over many years. When the Goldwater Republicans lost in 1964, they didn't try to become Democrats. They tried to figure out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the voters. . .

To further the party's ideological and political goals, Republicans in the 1970's and 1980's built a comprehensive structure based on [Lewis] Powell's blueprint. Visualize that structure as a pyramid. . .

At the very top of the pyramid you'll find the president. Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it and it works fine. . .
.

To understand how the Democratic Party works, invert the pyramid. Imagine a pyramid balancing precariously on its point, which is the presidential candidate. . .

Democrats choose this approach, I believe, because we are still hypnotized by Jack Kennedy, and the promise of a charismatic leader who can change America by the strength and style of his personality. The trouble is that every four years the party splits and rallies around several different individuals at once. Opponents in the primaries then exaggerate their differences and leave the public confused about what Democrats believe.

Damn insightful, I would say.

Jesse Jackson supports Schiavo's

I have to admit this one really caught me off guard. Just when I thought I had all the players in this play figured out, in walks Jesse. Now, Jesse's been known to grandstand a time or two, but is this indicative of something more significant. The prevailing wisdom has to this point been that those on the Schiavo's "side" are right-to-lifers and conservative if not right wing. How does this fit?

The Thread Has Split

An Arab enthusiast for democracy writes

These are great times in Arab lands. In multiple countries millions are daring to imagine a future radically different from the past. Imagination is a dangerous thing, thrilling and infectious. When it runs amok, revolution is never far behind and from the shores of Tripoli to the Gulf of Arabia, it appears indeed revolution has landed.
...
The United States, France and the United Nations all heard Lebanon's cry and are standing by, preparing to crush any Syrian attempt to interfere again. Iraq replayed? Nothing is impossible.

Still many among Arabs, paralysed by years of tyranny, believe all this is a passing phenomena, that rulers accustomed to engineering repression will prevail. That is missing the bigger picture: those rulers are now seriously off balance; the times are different and today's world stands firmly with those rising in anger. As the Arab saying goes, "the thread has split''. Those worry beads are scattering all over the floor, beyond anyone's control. There is nothing beyond the realm of imagination.

When I hear the word revolution, I reach for my worry beads. :)

Sullivanism

The Evangelical Outpost discusses whether Andrew Sullivan is a conservative. I consider him to be a centrist who is a conservative wannabe. If he was not gay, he would more comfortably fit into the conservative mode (indeed, he'd probably be a candidate for the Tory leadership in the UK). As it is, he is somewhat alienated from the community which he wants to be a part of.

Liberal Profs - Does It Make A Difference?

College faculties are liberal--we know that, but a new academic study confirms it.

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

Being a sometime fiction writer, I've noticed that English lit departments have a heavy representation of Marxist ideas long discredited in Marx's original domains of economics and politics. As far as religious studies departments, I assume that the conservatives are all in seminaries.

But does it affect students?

"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."

The student radicals of the 1960's were educated by a much more conservative faculty of that era. I don't think professors succeed in transmitting their political philosophies to most of their students.

Has Public radio and Television outlived its usefulness?

Since its creation by Congress in 1967, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has provided free public television and radio for millions on Americans.

Each of us, of a certain age, has grown up with some of the wonderful programming created by PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) stations around the country. Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers as a child and Frontline, Austin City Limits and Antiques Road Show as an adult, are shows that have caught and kept my attention over the years.

While it is difficult to imagine television, without PBS stations, it is more difficult to endure the consistent movement toward partisanship on its airwaves. Based on that, I ask the question: Has the Government role in public broadcasting outlived its usefulness?

Apparently, the President, in his FY 2006 budget proposal, is asking some of the same questions. Three major changes are being introduced as part of the FY 2006 budget:

Since 1976, Congress has set the appropriation amounts for CPB two years in advance. As part of the FY 2006 budget, a revision is being made to cut $10 million in digital infrastructure and interconnection by declining to recommend targeted funds for CPB to make available to local stations.

Additionally, the budget recommends eliminating funding for the Department of Commerce’s Public Television Facilities Program, which has funded public broadcasting infrastructure since 1962.

And finally, the budget eliminates funding for the PTV Digital Transition Grant Program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture created to assist public television stations serving rural areas in upgrading transmission equipment to bring digital services to rural communities.

Around the country, states are asking the same questions. In Alaska, Rep. Jim Holm, a Fairbanks Republican who accused public radio and television of advancing a "political agenda" attempted to eliminate budget increases proposed by Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski. The proposal to eliminate $724,000 was rejected 4-2.

"The fact of the matter is they've been advancing their own political agenda," Holm said.

There is no doubt that our democracy needs some space in our system of communications that is not controlled by the power of profit. Where ideas are not driven by selling audiences to advertisers. And where issues like the economy are discussed from the perspective of workers, consumers or environmentalists.

Before leaving her post as PBS Program chief, Kathy Quattrone complained, "Many program decisions are being based not on the program value they bring but what kind of a deal it can bring."

All it takes is watching an episode of Antiques Road show. You will quickly notice that the original five-second simple acknowledgements have expanded into full blown 30-second commercials.

Again, I ask the question: Has the Government role in public broadcasting outlived its usefulness? If it has not, how can the system be changed?

Footnote:
Association of Public Television Stations

The Religious Left Needs A "New Democrat" Treatment

On my personal blog, I've reviewed A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow. This book profiles the high point of the intersection of religion and liberal politics. Since that time, religious conservatives have been in political ascendency, while the liberal community of faith has lost most of its battles. In my view, this is because the religious left is too far to the left. Who is the religious left anyway? The sponsor list of this upcoming event may provide a catalog

Clergy and Laity Network, Faith Voices for the Common Good, National Council of Churches, Faithful America, United for Peace and Justice, Clergy and Laity Concerned about Iraq (CALC-I), Fellowship of Reconciliation, Unitarian Universalist Association, The Shalom Center, Faith Voices for the Common Good, Drive Democracy, Disciples Justice Action Network, Progressive Christians United, Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Christians for Justice Action, Pax Christi USA, Peace and Justice Committee of the First Congregational Church of Berkeley, CA, the Church of the Brethren Peace Witness Office, the WHALE Center, and a growing number of religious and social justice bodies. The Riverside Church is hosting the April 4th service.

Despite being a Unitarian Universalist, the anti-war, pro-welfare rights agenda leaves me cold, nor do I think it necessarily follows from a free-thinking exploration of spirituality.

My feeling is that the Religious Left is weak because it suffer from (and may have been partly responsible for) the same weaknesses the Democratic Party suffered from in the pre-Bill Clinton period. What religious liberalism needs is the New Democrat treatment, which would co-opt the best of religious conservatism (a focus on personal responsibility, optimism) while retaining a free-thinking and skeptical attitude toward those who claim a precise knowledge of God's will.

No lip reading required

The Washington Post today has an interesting article on the budget struggles of Colorado Governor Bill Owen. Governor Owens is now seeing the donwnside of the "Taxpayers Bill of Rights" (TABOR) that has constitutionally restricting the states power to tax and spend. Because of the slowed state economy he's asking the voters to suspend the limits of TABOR.

Owens thus becomes another low-tax, limited-government advocate who has found those principles hard to hold onto amid a sluggish economy and a sharply diminished flow of federal money to the states.

The article details not only Owens difficulties but similar difficulties in other western, republican states. As Governor Guinn of Nevada puts it

"Some people say that makes me a bad Republican," said the former banker and corporate executive. "Well, I would be a worse Republican, and a worse grandfather, and a worse citizen, if I didn't find enough money to educate our children and fund our Medicaid program and provide decent prenatal care."

Now here's an issue the Democrats can grow from. Apparently the Colorado Democrats have learned that lesson and turned it into electoral success.

An interesting contrast is this editorial in the Arizona Republic. As part of her ongoing budget struggle with a conservative Republican dominated state house and senate, Governor Napolitano is horse trading over the "right" tax cuts. Interesting to see a Democratic governonr not "dig in heels" over tax cut proposals but negotiate about targeted tax cuts while the Republicans in other states learn some hard lessons about blanket tax cuts. Definitely an opportunity for the Democrats to shape themselves as "for tax relief" AND "responsible budgetary policy".

Religious Right and Religious Left

I did a Google Search of "religious right". The search reported "about 909,000" results. A comparison search for "religious left" found about 51,900 results.

Interestingly, the first page of results for religious right were all about fighting it, with the exception of a neutral wikipedia article which notes that some to whom the term is applied consider it a negative stereotype of liberal media. The first page of results on religious left, by contrast, all seem to be positive about their subject.

The term "religious conservatives" seems to be the preferred one by those who identify as such. It has 124,000 results, and the first page of results contains a number of positive uses of the term. The term "religious liberals" has 21,500 results, and the first page of results if predominantly positive.

What does this tell us about the use of language? Frequently, labels are used by critics to refer to "them." However, if "they" are successful enough, a counter-label may arise. It's not clear to my why some labels are consider more palatable than others.

Yahoo Spamguard Breakdown - Please Send Emails With Subject Line Below

Has this happened to anyone else? Starting about two weeks ago, Yahoo's spam filtering seems to have broken down. Whereas before, most spam went to the bulk mail folder, and only a few made it into my inbox, almost all goes to my inbox now.

This morning, I check my email since going to bed last night. I have 36 new messages, 1 in my bulk mail folder. Of the 35 new messages in my inbox, 34 were spam, and 1 was legit.

I did not do anything to screw up my filtering. Yesterday, I even reset the Spamguard filtering, so that it would forget all it had "learned" in case it learned the wrong message. But even back to pure Spamguard, it's broken down. There is one particular email I've been getting pounded with in the last week, variations on

wicked dr*ugs to keep you going

where the non-alpha character varies. If Yahoo hasn't figured this message out yet, it's toast.

I've sent in a service request to Yahoo about this. I got a non-responsive reponse back which "closed" the problem. I also got a survey request about "how are we doing" in which I rated them a 1, the lowest setting. It's at the point where I am thinking of switching to a new email provider for the first time since I got Yahoo several years ago.

So, all you Yahoo email users? Are you seeing a breakdown in spam filtering, or is it just my account (which I actually pay for, to get enhanced service)?

What I've now done is to set up a filter that sends all email from addresses that are posted on the web (like blog at centrist c oalition dot com, which forwards to my Yahoo email) to a suspect email folder. Unfortunately, it means that some legitimate emails from readers trying to send email to this blog will go there, and may get lost in the spam. So if you do send a message to this blog, please put Attn: centristcoalition in the subject line, so I'll know it isn't spam.

Center Of What?

I found a blog called FaithCentrist, which describes itself as "Thoughts and commentary on finding the middle-ground and balancing faith, life, and politics." Based on reading this entry, I'd like to know what it's in the middle of?

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Left Behind series. Upon researching the entire Left Behind series at Tyndale.com, the series' publisher, I discovered there have been 60,000,000 copies sold in the series. Yes, you read that correctly 60 MILLION copies. This series has been far reaching, spanning ages and nations. Its message of getting to know Jesus Christ before it's too late isn't a scare tactic–its reality. We are possibly in the end of days moreso than any other time in history.

I've started listening to an audio CD of Left Behind. I find it amusing. In the first CD, people disappear, leaving their clothes behind. I guess they go up to heaven in the dress of Adam and Eve.

Health Crisis Index

Here's an interesting article out of Boston University on the "Health Crisis Index". These researchers created this index

because it facilitates analysis of the twin
problems of rising cost and declining coverage (problems of great concern to most Americans)

While I've not seen this used in any other study and they don't outline the scientific underpinning of the index (i.e. a correlation between the index and future outcomes in health) it does point out an odd and concerning reality of American healthcare: we're spending more each year and covering fewer folks.

They go on to make some judgements I'm not sure I agree with such as

The U.S.A. spends enough money today to finance the care that works for the people who need it.

(I worry about folks deciding what "you need" ). But I think they've hit on something that will resonate with (if not motivate) Americans. What do you all think?

The Knight And The Bishop

Armed teachers---that's what John Lott's been advocating on Scarborough Country.

Short of arming teachers? I mean, I think that is one thing we should begin to consider. I think it's something that Minnesota allowed prior to 1995, when the FederalSafe School Zone Act was passed. You had states all around the country that allowed people to carry concealed handguns, that allowed teachers or custodians or principals to carry concealed handguns on them prior to that time.

Now, I'm not going to argue against this on its merits. Perhaps if more teachers had guns, they could shoot down violent students before mass killings occur. Perhaps arming teachers can be justified on a public policy basis.

But what does it say about a society that the state cannot guarantee order, so it requires an armed citizenry? While that seems to be the libertarian vision, a the risk of sounding liberal, or God forbid, European, it is a sign of an uncivilized society. The Wild West comes to mind, of course, but I also see echoes of the feudal era, when centralized states had collapsed, and knights were required to fight battles against knaves.

With religious crusaders trying to impose their values on society, and libertarians pushing for an armed citizenry, the future may resemble the era honored by the Dark Ages Weekend (since renamed Restoration Weekend) popular among conservatives as a counterpoint to the Renaissance Weekend popular among liberals.

I don't think this will actually happen. If the radical right becomes too influential, it will blow up the conservative movement, the way the radical left brought an end to the era of liberal dominance in 1968.

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic, whether Schiavo-related or non-Schiavo-related.

A new high (or low?) for Election reform

The AZ Republic reports that the Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission, Arizona's tax-funded election funding commission, has moved to take away the Arizona House seat of David Burrell Smith for overspending by $6000. The vote in the commission was unanimous, 5-0. He was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and repay over $34,000 of public money spent in the '04 campaign.

Unknow to this Arizona voter (no I'm not in Smith's district) the penalty for overspending the publically funded limit by more than 10% is removal from office. And apparently Smith, like all publically-funded candidates, signed a sworn affidavit acknowledging the possible penalties.

I have to admit I'm impressed that they, the Commission, can/have taken a tough stance on cheaters AND I'm concerned that this in not what voters had in mind when they went to publically funded elections.

As an aside, when Smith's chief defender, his accountant, was asked about the "forces" behind this, he cited two: the Arizona Republic and Planned Parenthood. I guess those bogeymen will play well in his district.

Chatters, Foreign And Domestic

Boston centrists, both of us, met last night. I must say that I'm disappointed in the lack of interest in actually meeting, and potentially doing something, as opposed to chatting. That said, Art and I had a pleasant evening.

Art is a college student in Boston with a strong interest in foreign affairs. We spent a lot of time speaking about the conflicts in the Middle East, and how difficult it is to really understand people across cultures. When you think of how much of a disconnect and lack of mutual understanding there is between Red America and Blue America, you can imagine how much further must be the distance to people of entirely different cultures.

With that in mind, international blogs are a great way to get a peek at what people in other cultures are thinking. Former CNN Beijing bureau chief Rebecca MacKinnon has been following international blogs, and through the Global Voices initiative, will be conducting an internet chat with two Malyasian bloggers this morning at 10AM Eastern Time. It's almost time. Check it out!

Social Security vs. Medicaid/care

As social security reform began to emerge as an important issue, and one which Prez Bush was going to make a priority, the main theme countering the idea that SS was worth focusing on was "it's not that big a deal, all it needs is tweaks, it'll be solvent for many years to come." To some extent, that seems to have faded away, as long as you don't have the temerity to describe the situation as a crisis, instead of as a problem. Rhetoric police, knockin' on your door.

What's now arisen as a peculiar[to me] anti-SS reform theme is the idea that we should focus instead upon medicaid [update: Medicare, dummy, not medicaid] and healthcare reform, because this represents a much bigger and more urgent problem. I'm wondering what others think about that...

Medicaid[update: Medicare]/rising healthcare costs might well be even more threatening to our common future than SS funding deficits. I just don't know that this is a good enough reason to set SS reform aside. My take is that reforming SS is worth doing because it IS crucial to do, and because it's less complicated than reforming medicaidv/healthcare.

I feel that reforming SS is something that could be done via bipartisan effort within the time frame of the next several years. We have decent projections, and a handle on the nature of the gap(size-wise) between what Uncle Sam has been promised and what he'll have the dough to deliver. It will be hard, and fractious, but it could be done by a 2nd-term President if he reaches out, and is willing to make some compromises here and there to get a program that, regardless of its exact nature, makes promises in line with the ability to deliver. YMMV, of course. I'm only speaking comparatively.

Medicaid[update: Medicare]/healthcare reform seems to be an issue with no consensus beyond the acknowledgement of an impending train wreck. It appears that the different ways we can on this may well affect the future basic nature of our country. It's such a complex and contentious issue that I really can't see it getting solved in any sort of short time frame. I'd guess that the best we could do now is try to start some sort of bipartisan commission to try and forge an understanding of this much more complex multi-faceted problem, in the hopes of establishing some consensus upon which to base reform. I think this is going to need to be an issue that will not get center stage until 2008. Reform will probably need to be comprehensive, no?

Bankruptcy - What About Medical Relief?

If Congress can pass a private relief bill for the family of Terri Schiavo, why can't they pass a bill that would provide funding for medical relief to families or individuals who have been forced into bankruptcy? Instead of forcing hospitals and care providers to write-off unpaid bills, or struggling families to labor to repay them, why can't we have a limited form of national health insurance that would rescue families from financial catastrophe due to medical emergencies? This might alleviate the more egregious isses with the bankruptcy bill.

Open Schiavo Thread For Thursday

The Moderate Voice has a pungent take. What's yours?

West Wing: moving to the center

I was a West Wing fan early on in the series, but it has been at least three years since I have watched a new episode on NBC (as opposed to an old episode on Bravo). Last night I watched a new episode and discovered that all signs are that the show is going to go from focusing on a pure-hearted liberal (Martin Sheen) to focusing on a pure-hearted centrist (Alan Alda). Alda plays a moderate Republican from California who is pro-choice (but favors a ban on partial birth abortion), pro-environment, and a deficit hawk. (No mention last night about foreign policy positions.) The theme last night was that Alda's character represents the views of 60% of the electorate and he might be able to carry 50 states in the upcoming (TV) election if he avoids pandering to the right with his VP pick.

Ralph Reed at Harvard

Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, and now a candidate for Lt. Governor of Georgia, spoke tonight at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Reed, looking tanned, youthful, but no longer boyish, spoke before an audience at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. He praised President Kennedy as one who placed public service ahead of the accumulation of personal wealth, and had kind words about JFK, Jr., who once interviewed him for George Magazine.

Reed, speaking more like a political analyst than a candidate, identified four key factors of contemporary political life.

1. The parties are in rough parity, a condition that is likely to continue. Referring to the parity in the National Football League, Reed said, "American politics is sort of a civic version of the NFL." He attributed the GOP's recent wins to having a better "quarterback" in George W. Bush, who he praised as a gifted politician. "I think the President is a great leader, and he's an inclusive leader," Reed said.

2. American political parties now more resemble the European model of ideological parties. This gives the Republicans an advantage in the South, a fast-growing region which once controlled 1/4 of the electoral college but which now controls 1/3 of the electoral college.

3. New technologies have aided a revival of grassroots politics. Volunteers participate in creating Bush house parties and sending out invitations. Tracking and contacting voters personally is easier than ever.

4. The media is increasingly disaggregated and fragmented. No more do three networks control the information flow. 30% of voters got most of their information about the campaign from the internet, including visiting candidate web sites.

"Early voting is coming, and will transform American politics," Reed said. "It's one of the reasons for the highest turnout since 1968." Reed said that one of the reasons the exit polls were off in 2004 was that more voters than ever do not go to the polls. "Very shortly, half of the vote will be cast before election day," Reed predicted.

At the conclusion of his prepared remarks, Reed took questions. Despite a request by Dean David Ellwood that questions to Reed "should end with a question mark" the first audience member to speak made a statement denoucing the actions of the Congress in the Schiavo case, arguing that it was supported neither by the philosophy of limited government or by the Bible. Reed vigorously disagreed. He stated that the case was "uniquely tragic" and that therefore the congressional action "does not set a precedent." He also cited a lack of due process at the state level, which violated Schiavo's rights under the 14th Amendment, and justified federal intervention.

Once member of the audience praised Reed for coming before an audience that was guaranteed to challenge him, and asked why President Bush always appeared before audienced that were pre-screened to eliminate potentially hostile questions. Reed rejected the premise of the question, stating that the President is often challenged by adversarial questions.

-----

The above is what I consider a neutral, objective report of Reed's appearance. It also contains what I consider a "whopper," which is that the Schiavo case is uniquely tragic, so therefore federal legislation on the case does not set a precedent. It seems to me that a case like Schiavo's is all too common, and that unprecedented legislation does by definition set a precedent. I also consider it ridiculous to claim that the years of consideration given in Florida to the Schiavo case do not constitute due process. It seems to me that federalizing this case gives carte blanche for the US government to federalize any case they consider important. Since I'm not a states rights advocate, that doesn't bother me much. However, it seems to me only fair that the Democrats can play this way if they ever regain control of the federal government.

------
Because I'm a blogger, I can say the above. I guess if I was a journalist, in order to be "objective," I could not say what I think in my own voice. Instead of saying I think Reed is got it wrong, I'd have to make a few phone calls to solict quotes from people willing to say Reed is wrong. That's how journalism works, right?

And let's say I didn't disagree with Reed on this point. Then, I might not make those phone calls. Would that be objective?

On second thought, perhaps it is a good thing that I have to make those phone calls, rather than answer in my own voice. I am not in fact a lawyer, and perhaps if I made a few phone calls, I'd learn that Reed is in fact right about this case not setting a precedent. Or, as a blogger, I could state my guess, and let you the reader correct me if I'm wrong, and Reed's right.

Legal And Economic Analysis of Blogging

Common Sense Desk points out an academic analysis of blogging, in economic and legal terms.

Mugabe Admits Failure

When Marxist guerilla leader Robert Mugabe became the first President of Zimbabwe, he pursued a surprisingly moderate course with regard to white property owners, encouraging them to stay in the country. Then, more recently, he reverted to a more radical posture and encouraged the seizure of land from white farmers. Widely criticized at the time, even he now admits that the benefits of his initiative have not lived up to his expectations.

"President Mugabe expressed disappointment with the land use, saying only 44 per cent of the land distributed is being fully utilised," state television reported. "He warned the farmers that the government will not hesitate to redistribute land that is not being utilised."
...
The new farmers are unable to raise bank loans because their properties are formally owned by the government and they have no individual title deeds. Without loans, they cannot buy seed, fertiliser or farming equipment and the regime has broken a pledge to supply them with tools.

I heard echoes of the disastrous collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union in the 1930's.

That Rascally Ol' SS Trust Fund

A recent Boston Globe article by Charles Stein concerned the solvency of the SS trust fund. Since we've talked about it so much here, and because I know Stein to be very knowledgeable, I sent him an email asking him about the fund:

Dear Mr. Stein,

I'm a long time Globe reader, and I have very often found your columns to be informative and helpful. So I'm wondering if you can help me straighen out something about social security that I am struggling to understand.

My difficulty is in understanding the nature of the social security trust fund. Here's my understanding: some years ago, the SS tax was increased, and the surplus dollars collected were placed in what was called the social security trust fund. This fund has grown over time, and is now being commonly described as a resource that can drawn upon in paying for social security.

However, to my knowledge (and PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, this is not 1sthand info), the surplus money collected was invested in government bonds or T-bills, as opposed to being invested in stocks or corporate bonds or even simply placed in a bank account. So, as near as I can tell, the extra money was actually already used to finance past gov't deficit spending.

The SS trust fund owns some type of bonds or t-bills, but these instruments are really "promises to pay" made by the government itself.

Therein lies my confusion. It seems that the "assets" in the SS trust fund are really just promises to pay, made by a different arm of the government, presumedly the treasury dep't. They are assets from the point of view of SS as a program, but they don't actually represent assets from the point of view of the government as a whole.

So what this means, unless I am missing something, is that the government AS A WHOLE has a funding problem as soon as the amount SS needs to pay becomes greater than the amount SS collects. When that happens, SS has to cash in their notes, and the government will need to float more notes to finance the cashing in of the ones issued earlier.

So it seems to me that while SS as a PROGRAM may be solvent until 2040-something, the government AS A WHOLE begins experiencing serious financing problems as soon as payouts become greater than collections, around 2017-2020.

Having spent substantial time discussing this with others, convincing some and confusing others, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to say a few words, or even compose a column about this. If I'm wrong about this, I have yet to hear a very compelling argument besides the promise that there is no way the government will default, which I don't find especially comforting.

I'd be eternally grateful if you'd consider discussing this issue in a column, or even by responding via email.

Regards,

Brian Keegan

Heres the reply I got:

You have it exactly right. The trust fund surplus was lent to the rest of the govt to finance the deficit. The government will make good on its debt, but in doing so, will have to come up with the money, which as you point out, was not saved.

Pretty clear to me. YMMV.

SS Reckoning Date Revised

CNN reports that the SS trustee report projects program insolvency as coming sooner.

Based on revised assumptions, the trustees now estimate that by 2041 the system's trust fund will be exhausted, meaning the system will only be able to pay out a percentage of the benefits currently promised.

That date is one year earlier than the 2042 date the trustees estimated in their 2004 report.

They also now estimate that by 2017 the system will not be taking in enough in payroll taxes to pay all benefits promised and will need to tap the special-issue bonds that make up its trust fund. That date was moved up from 2018.

Emphasis mine. Special issue bonds from the POV of SS. Debts from the POV of the treasury dep't. Worth zero dollars when it comes to paying benefits. Also read the story and notice how carefully it refers to "the program" as distinct from the government. The government (meaning us, taxpayers) will begin to need to come up with the actual dough to pay for these bonds beginning in 2017. That's in 12 years, folks.

I'll have another post on the nature of the SS trust fund soon, an email inquiry that received an expert opinion as to the nature of it. Stay tuned.

Fault lines on the right

Todays Az Republic has both an article and an editorial reviewing how the Schiavo case and other issues have exposed a split between "social conservatives" and "process conservatives". David Davenport of the conservative think tank, the Hoover Institute, states:

"When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked, even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism."

Now with only one Republican senator, John Warner, voting against the Schiavo bill, that hardly seems like a revolt. But as the article and the editorial by Rob Robb, a "traditional" conservative columnist, point out, there is a persistant division within the Republican Party. As Robb put it

it illustrates that social conservatives don't have the same sense of restraint about federal authority that has characterized traditional conservatism. Like liberals, social conservatives often judge political actions by their results, not their propriety. Terri Schiavo should live, therefore Congress should act.

Robb goes on to say that the social conservatives are winning the day. I keep thinking about the polling numbers and wonder how long that day will stay won.

While my objections to Schiavo has essentially been from a medical perspective, I'm interested in the political fallout of this. When I hear the president say it a "complex" case, that's a sign that all is not well in River City.

"Defeat Bush"

Last night I got a call from the DNC. They were doing the normal round of shilling and I didn't have any money to give to them, like always. But after this phone call I'm not sure I want to give them any more.

The lady who called talked very divisively talked about how Bush wants to bankrupt social security (not how his plan will, but how he wants to). This didn't surprise me at all, I was put off by the parisanship of it all (like always), but then she said something that I hadn't noticed until after I hung up the phone.

"We need your contribution to help defeat Bush."

Not "We need a better plan for social security" or "Help us build a stronger DNC" or even "Help us fund the overhead costs here at the DNC."

The DNC is still stuck in election mode, and it's hurting America.

This is why I hate the two party system. It's us-versus-them, but for the most part both groups of "us" don't matter. Or, more accurately, shouldn't matter but much to the detriment of the American public, do matter.

If there were a viable centrist third party this sort of thing wouldn't happen. When there are two sides it's very easy to get caught up in the us-versus-them mentality, because either we're right or they're wrong. However, with another demention to it, a second "them," it becomes easier to work with someone else who is not within your group. Either you have to form teams to get stuff done (taking the best of winner-take-all and proportional representation) or the us-verus-them strategy becomes irrelevant as it begins to sound paranoid when you say "We are right, it's those other two who are wrong" over and over again.

What Is The Religious Left?

Some of you will have noted that I also have a religion blog, Transparent Eye. I identify as a political centrist but a religious liberal. The difference in my mind is that political conservatives want to turn back the clock to the 1950's, while religious conservatives want to turn the clock back to the 1650's! The 1950's had their problems (e.g. segregation) but many people lived good lives. The 1650's were the high point of the post-Reformation age of faith before the Enlightenment. No thanks.

But even if I see myself as a religious liberal (I believe in God, but not that Scripture is the literal word of God) I have a hard time with the religious leftists like Jesse Jackson. Below is a recent column by John Avlon that was sent to me.

The Religious Left Lashes Out By John P. Avlon New York Sun, March 22, 2005

"Whose God is God?" thundered the Reverend Jesse Jackson from a podium placed at the altar of The Riverside Church to an assembled crowd of the left-leaning political and religious faithful on Sunday afternoon. "There is a profound theological debate in our nation tonight about the nature and character of God... . Today the Congress reconvenes to save a woman - Terry Schiavo - from starving to death, but then vote to starve millions everyday. Whose God is God? They fight to save the fetus, and then starve the babies. Whose God is God?"

Enthusiastic applause rolled through the pews as the religious left attempted a revival meeting on the occasion of the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The event was billed as "an interfaith service of remembrance, resistance, reverence and renewal." Other speakers included the celebrated senior minister of Riverside, the Reverend Doctor James Forbes; the author and editor of Sojournors Magazine, Jim Wallis, and Susannah Heschel - daughter of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and chair of the Jewish studies department of Dartmouth University. All were united in the attempt to rally their dispirited liberal troops who, since the election results at home and in Iraq, feel increasingly caught on the wrong side of recent history.

The service began with a solemn parade of cardboard coffins meant to symbolize the fallen American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Some of the performance-art pallbearers wore buttons which read, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" as the jazz pianist Bill Apollo Brown riffed on "Let My People Go."

For all their ripped-from-the-headlines opportunity opposition, there was an evident nostalgia to their activism. Almost every speaker could not help but mention that it was at this very church that Dr. Martin Luther King gave his seminal 1967 address, "Beyond Vietnam." Dr. King's call for a redirection of funds from the Vietnam War to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty was resuscitated in speech after speech. No endorsement of democracy in Iraq crossed the assembled lips, which instead were focused on the concepts of occupation and imperialism. In this liberal hymnal, the war on terror is a diversion from the real crises of inner-city poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation. The most clear and present enemy seemed not to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, but President Bush.

The normally sedate Mr. Wallis drew cheers by saying, "American occupation is not the solution, American occupation is now the problem." Mrs. Heschel inspired peals of knowing laughter when she stated, "I fear President Bush has Sharon-envy." Mr. Victor Parades of "Military Families Speak Out," said that "in our lavish and selfish lifestyles we are indifferent to injustice in other countries." The dreadlocked Reverend Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, coordinator for the Clergy and Laity Concerned about Iraq, brought the crowd to his feet when he said "we must save our democracy by engaging in radical dissent, wherever that dissent may lead." But it was Mr. Jackson who seemed to best summon the passions of the audience when he drew perhaps the loudest applause of the afternoon by saying, "There is a fascist attack on civil rights and civil liberties. We cannot be silent. We cannot let them intimidate us. We must fight back."

What is left of the American left is angry. In their attempt to regroup in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, many have called for the reassertion of a "religious left," to serve as a counterweight to the religious right. In many ways this is a movement to applaud. No political party should be allowed to claim exclusive ownership of the Bible or the American flag. Moreover, there is a strong American tradition of progressive change championed by liberal clergy, ranging from the abolition of slavery to the anti-segregationist civil rights movement of the 1960s. This heritage represents the best of principled American political activism. But as Democrats attempt to reconnect themselves to the self-evident moral authority of this tradition, they need to avoid at least two traps amply evident at Sunday's event.

The first is the temptation to channel their political frustrations into an anger which quickly can translate into hate for their opponents. The American people are justifiably allergic to the stereotype of the wild-eyed anti-American activist. Liberals' association with this campus fringe has done their party irreparable damage since the late 1960s.

To this end, the religious left must similarly be aware not simply retreating to a nostalgic activism that applies predictable old rhetoric to every new event. They must update their approach or remain irrelevant. Iraq is not Vietnam. George W. Bush is not Bull Connor.

After the event, Rev. Jackson left the altar quickly. I followed his entourage into a departing elevator and asked the reverend what he felt watching Iraqis vote six weeks ago. "I have to put it into context," he replied. "The same people who enjoy watching democracy in Iraq would not fight for us to have the vote in our own country. And Cheney, who voted three times to keep Mandela in jail, did not vote for democracy in South Africa. So I am suspicious of their motives for their newfound passion for democracy ... You have to hope that the people [in Iraq] are better off, but it is premature to arrive at any conclusions that they are better off. All we know is that they are dying, daily."

Until leaders of the religious left like Rev. Jackson can adjust their perspective to acknowledge the human rights benefits of the end of the rule of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, even as they continue to dissent from this American administration, they will appear to be stuck in the past and mired in comparatively narrow domestic partisan politics. Surely their vision of God must be able to make such distinctions.

Part of the confusion is over which spectrum we're talking about. Jesse Jackson is definitely on the political left. As far as I know, however, he is entirely orthodox in his theology. In contrast, I suspect that a number of neoconservatives in the Bush Administration are agnostics--further to the left than Jackson in purely religious terms.

The religious left, if we are to call it that, is stuck in the civil rights paradigm of the 1960's. Martin Luther King's movement was a great success, but it flowered against the backdrop of the unique circumstances of Jim Crow racism. The circumstances today are entirely different. The religious left needs a new outlook.

Today's Schiavo thread

Federal court denies request to have feeding tube reinserted.

UPDATE: Here is the Order.

A Fanatical Centrist

The British author of Corelli's Mandolin is one (I didn't read the book, but I liked the movie).

One of the problems of Greece in the 20th century was that its politics were extremely polarised. You were either very left or very right, and there was no centre. Because I had criticised the leftist partisans, the leftists accused me of being a fascist, while those on the right assumed I must be on their side. I felt a terrible weariness at the thought of trying to explain to both sides that, as a fanatical centrist, I disliked them equally, and wished them equal discomfort in hell.

Sisyphys pushes the rock again

From Modern Healthcare:
House bill aims for universal coverage by 2010
A bipartisan bill aiming for universal health coverage would, among other steps, establish federal grants for state programs for the uninsured and create a commission to recommend options for achieving universal coverage by 2010. The bill, introduced in the House by Reps. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), also would authorize advance refundable tax credits to subsidize health insurance for uninsured individuals and families earning up to 200% of the federal poverty level. In addition, uninsured individuals and families and small businesses would be able to buy insurance through state programs modeled after a program for federal employees. An estimated cost for the bill's initiatives was not available, nor was an estimated reduction in the number of uninsured. Companion legislation has not been introduced in the Senate.

Centrist Meetup Thursday

The Centrist Meetup in Boston will be this Thursday at 7PM. More info here. I will be there, along with a few others who have promised to come but have not RSVP'd yet (nudge, nudge).

ABC Schiavo Poll

An ABC poll on the Schiavo case yields this:

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today. That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they've spoken with friends or family members about what they'd want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive.

[echo on]...what the majority says.[echo off]

Healthcare #1. Our aging population and healthcare costs

I promised some posts on healthcare issues in America. I figured I start with a tough one: healthcare and the elderly. As Jim Lovell put it, “Houston we have a problem”. We’ve debated and disagreed about whether social security is in a “crisis”. No one disagrees that Medicare is soon to be in crisis. According to the Medicare Trustees report the part of the program that pays for hospital care

“will become insolvent in 2019, seven years earlier than projected in their 2003 annual report. This earlier insolvency date is the result of significantly lower projected payroll tax income, higher than anticipated expenditures for inpatient hospital care, and increased payments to rural hospitals and private health plans as a result of provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act”.

One key reason for this is we’re living longer and the boomer generation is soon to hit “the golden years”. In 2003 there were 36 million over 65 or 12% of population. By 2030 the over 65 population will be 71.5 million or 20% of population. And the healthcare costs consequences of that are staggering. At present, those over 65 make up about 14 percent of the population and consume more than 30 percent of health care dollars. By 2030, they will constitute about 22 percent of the population and likely will consume more than one-half of our health care expenditures. So what did congress do in the face is these daunting projected costs; they increased those costs by adding a Medicare drug benefit. At present the average elder spend over $1000 per year on prescriptions meds. Will that make these deficits worse? You do the math.

And its not just the Medicare program. You’ve probably heard a lot about projected deficits and cuts in Medicaid, the federal/state healthcare program for the poor. One key reason for this is increasing Medicaid spending on the elderly. Medicaid is the predominant payer for long-term care for the elderly. On average, long-term care eats up 35 percent of state Medicaid budgets. As our population ages infirm elders will eat up the dollars set aside for poor mothers and children.

So how will we pay for all this? Clearly our present funding is inadequate. And that mechanism of funding will only get worse. In addition to rising health care costs relative to wage growth, the ratio of workers paying payroll taxes to the number of beneficiaries will steadily decline as baby boomers become eligible for Medicare, life expectancy continues to improve, and future birth rates stay at similar levels as the last two decades. While there were almost 4 workers paying for each Medicare beneficiary's Part A benefits in 2003, there will be only 2.4 workers per beneficiary in 2030 (when all of the baby boomers will have reached age 65), and 2 workers per beneficiary in 2078.

OK, now I’ve got you scared. So where is the political will to address this? Inaction only makes the solutions more difficult and draconian in the long run. I worry about the decision my kids will have to make because we boomers let it pass.

Posted by c3 at 11:48 PM | Comments (13)

Seeking Women Pundits

Liberal columnist Ellen Goodman writes about the dearth of women pundits, and says that, unlike the case of women scientists, there is not even a shred of an argument that could explain it based on "inherent ability." Indeed, the same studies which suggest that women are underrepresented at the top of the distribution of spatial visualization suggest that women exceed men in verbal ability.

Yes, there are more women on op-ed pages than in tenured science positions at Harvard. But the current op-ed percentage is as low as 10.4 percent in The Washington Post and 16.9 percent in The New York Times. The number of syndicated columns written by women is less than one in four and holding.

The explanation often given is that political debate is a contact sport, and that women are more easily put off by the nastiness of it (See Carla's dissent). But if so, then the problem is not women but political debate itself. If our politics creates a hostile environment for women and other caring people, let's try to change it.

That brings us to Centerfield. Even though we have had some women bloggers in the past, they have dropped out. Our writers are now exclusively male. This distresses me. If the "nastiness theory" is correct, I would think that a blog like ours, which values civil dialogue, would be attractive to women writers.

Any women (and men) who share our moderate political views are cordially invited to write for us. If you would like to, or can recommend a writer, contact me at blog-at-centristcoalition-dot-com

Censoring Evolution

IMAX films which mention evolution are having some distribution problems

"We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public," said Lisa Buzzelli, who directs the Charleston Imax Theater in South Carolina, a commercial theater next to the Charleston Aquarium. Her theater had not ruled out ever showing "Volcanoes," Ms. Buzzelli said, "but being in the Bible Belt, the movie does have a lot to do with evolution, and we weigh that carefully."

Pietro Serapiglia, who handles distribution for the producer Stephen Low of Montreal, whose company made the film, said officials at other theaters told him they could not book the movie "for religious reasons," because it had "evolutionary overtones" or "would not go well with the Christian community" or because "the evolution stuff is a problem."

A commenter over at BOPnews writes

As far as the best folks to fight these scripture twisters IMO are liberal Christians. Why? Cause secularists won't be listened to period. But if you have a coalition of Christian liberals to face them - the fundies lose their ace card which is to say "they are fighting secularists/atheists".

With that in mind, I plan to email the blog of the Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of intelligent design, as recently discussed on this blog. If they're serious about there being an intelligent design behind evolution, they should be willing to endorse references to evolution in IMAX films. If they are unwilling to, that would provide succor to the notion that they're merely a creationist front operating in bad faith.

Update: The Panda's Thumb has a post on this issue.

Centrists and the politics of Healthcare

Periodically, Healthcare issues pop up on this blog, Medicare reform, end-of-life, etc. As a doc I take particular interest in these discussions. I hope to post over the next few weeks some items to spark discussion on healthcare in America. It's a big and broad topic. What do you think is the biggest issue facing American Healthcare and what's the "centrist" viewpoint on that issue. Is it:

*40+ million without health insurance
*the looming money crunch in Medicare
*cuts in Medicaid (the program for healthcare for the poor)
*the rising costs of pharmaceuticals and the power of pharmaceutical companies
*the overall hi cost of healthcare as compared to other countries
*our relatively poor healthcare outcomes (i.e. infant mortality) when compared to similar countries
* bad outcomes in the system (i.e. cutting off the wrong leg)
* too hi tech
* too much at the end of life
* not enough alternative/complimentary medicine

Tell me your thoughts -OR- take too aspirin and call me in the morning.

The social good of for-profit healthcare?

Got the following from Modern Healthcare, a business journal for healthcare. Surprising stuff (at least to me).

A recent report suggests that too many not-for-profit and public hospitals may drive up healthcare costs in some U.S. cities, said two University of Connecticut economists in a National Bureau of Economic Research paper. Using 1999 data from 90 metropolitan areas, the researchers compared markets with a low and high for-profit presence by emergency room visits, admissions, inpatient days, surgeries, outpatient visits and capacity. The researchers said they found lower inpatient volumes in markets with few for-profit hospitals, potentially indicating that not-for-profit hospitals in those markets had unnecessarily high costs.

The analysis did not pinpoint an ideal ratio of not-for-profit versus for-profit hospitals. "What we want to see is a mixture," said co-author Rexford Santerre, a University of Connecticut finance professor. For-profit hospitals face pressure to create profit by delivering cost-effective care, but that may come at the cost of quality, Santerre said. Not-for-profits face no such demand from investors, inviting waste but eliminating incentive to put profit before care. "Both ownership forms challenge each other to improve what they don't do right," Santerre said.

The paper can be purchased at the National Bureau of Economic Research .DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the paper.

Blogroll Additions

We've linked to a few new blogs over the last week, and now I've added some to the blogroll. Here are recommended posts from two centrist blogs

Centrist Voices

The Mighty Middle

a multi-partisan blog that averages to the center

The Unpaid Punditry Corps

and an interesting blog which has been added to our Best of the Left links

Western Democrat

Immigration Reform

Tom Tancredo is not the best messenger, but I do think that as hosts, Americans have the right to decide how many immigrants they welcome.

And so will Tom Tancredo. On his side is a sense of populist righteousness, which holds that only elite Washington opinion is blocking the sweeping immigration crackdown that the United States is waiting for. "On immigration, there's a fundamental divide in America," says Camarota. "It's not a left-right divide. It's a divide between public opinion and elite opinion."

Tancredo says that divide could be seen during Arizona's recent Proposition 200 initiative, which bars illegal aliens from public services like schools and health care. "The opposition to it was the entire political establishment in Arizona. Both parties, all members of Congress, the two senators, the governor, the papers. The proponents were outspent two-and-a-half to one by the opponents. And it passed." What's more, he adds with pride, "It passed with 47 percent of Hispanic votes."

We are a nation of immigrants, but that does not mean immigration policy should be made emotionally. Aside from political refugees, who we should shelter in all situations, the level of immigrants we welcome should be calibrated to the need in our economy for new immigrants. Otherwise, current workers will be displaced.

I don't know what the proper level of immigration is. Perhaps immigration of youthful workers will allow us to get over the Social Security hump of paying for baby boomer retirements. In any case, I don't like the President's proposal for guest workers who come here for a short period and then return to their native country. I don't believe the return part will happen.

Damn Centrists

Some interesting discussion going on. Michele is having buyers remorse about supporting Bush

Not that I would have voted for Kerry. Just because I'm experiencing this regret doesn't mean I'm going to go running back to the left. I abandoned them with good reason. So I'm back where I was right around September 11, 2001. Standing firmly in the middle, getting a little flogging from both sides. I spent years on the left side of the line and discovered I didn't like it there. And now I spent a few years on the right side of the line and, frankly, I hate it here. I thought the "big tent" of the Republican party would be home. Turns out it was just a temporary shelter, given to me by the party who knew damn well that I was only as good as my support for the war on terror.

and Rox Populi picked up on this comment

I've been telling my Democrat brother for over a year now, "We're here--Bush voters who aren't social conservatives--and you could have had us for a song. We're on special, we're on markdown, we come cheap. But instead of wooing us, you sat around and complained that Kerry wasn't left enough. You put Howard Dean on the DNC. You defended people who said and did indefensible things, out of a much stronger sense of party loyalty than I've ever seen displayed on the right. You could have guaranteed your party would run this country for the next 16 years if you'd only moved to the middle, if you'd only been willing to concede that the noninterventionist policies America pursued in the decade leading up to 2001 did not work in her interests."

but BOPnews says No. No. No. Enough with the damn "centrists".

BOPnews is right to the extent that centrist means "wimp," someone who is too ready to compromise and is that always the loser in a negotiation. Centrists need to be willing to way away from the table when negotiating with those on the extreme.

Friday Open Thread

Nothing's off topic! Speak your piece.

Wolfowitz At The World Bank

Paul Krugman is highly biased against the Bush Administration, but his current piece raises reasonable questions about the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. Specifically, Wolfowitz's most significant experience in international development is the reconstruction of Iraq. How did he do?

I see the nomination of Wolfowitz as in "in your face" demonstration of American power. Setting aside his actual talents, he's the candidate most calculated to offend the international development community. That's the point. His nomination is aimed at showing the rest of the world who is in charge of the World.

Update: According to Britain's former secretary of international development, and Iraq War opponent Clare Short, the message was "America is going to do what it likes or hard cheese." In fact, I doubt the President really intended to say anything at all about cheese. As a sidenote, the article reports

Adding fuel to the controversy is concern within the bank staff over Wolfowitz's reported romantic relationship with Shaha Riza, an Arab feminist who works as a communications adviser in the bank's Middle East and North Africa department. Both divorced, Wolfowitz and Riza have steadfastly declined to talk publicly about their relationship, but they have been regularly spotted at private functions and one source said the two have been dating for about two years. Riza, an Oxford-educated British citizen who was born in Tunisia and grew up in Saudi Arabia, shares Wolfowitz's passion for democratizing the Middle East, according to people who know her.

Hmm. I guess he is interested in international relations after all.

Campaign Finance Reform--the Money Trail

From the NY POST:

"CAMPAIGN-FINANCE reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a "mass movement...."

...From 1994 to 2004, almost $140 million was spent to lobby for changes to our country's campaign-finance laws.

But this money didn't come from little old ladies making do with cat food so they could send a $20 check to Common Cause. The vast majority of this money — $123 million, 88 percent of the total — came from just eight liberal foundations."

The usual hyperbolic NY paper rhetoric, but following the money shows the trail.

Peak Oil?

Despite record prices, it's tough to find new supplies of oil

The United States and Europe have repeated calls for producers to pump more oil. And the Bush administration finally scored a victory this week on its plans to expand domestic production when the Senate authorized drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

But that will not be enough. Production in most regions outside of the Persian Gulf is declining or is being kept steady by billions of dollars in costly recuperation technology.

International oil companies, starved of potentially oil-rich regions to explore, are handing back huge amounts of cash to shareholders instead of drilling new fields.

The inflattion-adjusted high prices of 1981 were the effects of the oil cartel. This is supply and demand. Drilling in the Alaskan wildlife refuge is a band-aid.

Do you see any leadership on energy from either party?

SS...Pozen's Modest Proposal: Progressive Indexation

Here's a social security reform idea that may be growing some wings, progressive indexation.

Pozen favors price indexing with a twist he calls ''progressive indexation." He would allow low-wage workers -- those with average career earnings of less than $25,000 -- to stick with wage indexation. Those with incomes above $113,000 would be subjected to full price indexation. Everyone in the middle would experience a blend of the two.

Pozen says roughly 30 percent of America's wage earners would fall into the fully protected category. This group, says Pozen, relies on Social Security for a large fraction of its retirement income and has limited access to private pensions such as 401(k) plans.

Pozen describes private accounts as a ''sweetener," sugar to help the medicine go down more easily. ''You say to the middle and high-income earners: 'You are going to get less in benefits, so we will give you something you want in return,' " said Pozen. Unlike the White House, Pozen is skeptical that low-wage workers would find private accounts appealing.

He would allow workers to put 2 percent of their pay into investment accounts, rather than the 4 percent proposed by Bush. Creating smaller accounts would require less government borrowing. Deficit hawks in both parties worry the Bush plan would put too much pressure on the federal budget in the coming decades.

The Pozen plan would cut in half Social Security's estimated $3.7 trillion deficit over the next 75 years. Pozen argues that more draconian approaches would be politically unrealistic.

I have no idea how MUCH buzz this is getting, the coverage here in the Boston Globe may be due in part to pumping the local boy. But on the basis of this article, it sounds to me like Pozen is in a fair and decent ballpark. Check out the whole thing.

An Evolutionary Middle Ground (Seriously)

Over at the Left Coaster, Yuval Rubinstein has produced an amusing fake letter from the Democratic Leadership Council calling for finding a "middle ground" on evolution by embracing Intelligent Design. The letter cleverly satirizes the willingness among centrists to compromise, while congratulating oneself for not caving in completely.

I don't think the DLC will take the bait, but I will. This post represents my own opinion is no reflection of the sanity or good judgement of other centrists.

First, the lay of the land. Despite generations of science education since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a recent Gallup poll reports that 45% of Americans reject evolution, 38% believe that evolution occurred under God's guidance, and only 13% take the view that human beings evolved with no assistance from God.

Furthermore, a 1999 Gallup poll reported that 48% of the public would not consider voting for an atheist who was running for President, making atheists even more unpopular than a hypothetical gay candidate, who would be preemptorily rejected by 37% of the population.

Thus, it's pretty clear that the middle ground on God, avoiding the extremes of scriptural literalism and atheism, is where Democrats need to be. In a polarized national election between a biblical literalist and an atheist, the literalist would likely win. That's why an atheist like Ron Reagan has no plans for a political career.

So if this is where the votes are, why shouldn't Democrats embrace the position suggested by the fake DLC letter?

The Discovery Institute's theory of Intelligent Design(ID) is based on a notion of irreducible complexity, postulating a God of the Gaps to produce small miracles in order to allow evolution to go forward. This is certainly a minority view among scientists, and could be seen as an eccentric viewpoint. Even the Discovery Institute recognizes this, so they are currently focusing on critiquing standard evolutionary theory, rather than proposing a positive alternative.

While ID sticks in scientists craws, it wouldn't be so bad if Intelligent Design theory became more popular--if the movement was out of the biblical literalism camp toward Intelligent Design. The toxicity that we see in religion comes primarily from the close attachment to ancient Scriptures. Opposition to homosexuality, for instance, is based on Leviticus, as well as some interpretations of the New Testament. Whether ID is true or not, ID rejects the literal biblical account of creation. Once one rejects the literal truth of one portion of the Bible, one opens up the question of the veracity of every chapter and verse of the Bible. To a biblical literalist, ID could be a step onto the slippery slope toward (gasp!) liberalism.

Furthermore, the creation account has a special role in traditional Christianity. It is the source of Original Sin (In Adam's fall, we sinned all), and it is this sin which we cannot transcend by good works alone, but through faith in Christ, whose death was a substitutionary atonement for our sins. Those who do not believe--e.g. atheists--are therefore damned, and thus hard measures, including the Inquisition and conversion by the sword, can be justified.

So even if Intelligent Design is wrong in a scientific sense, I see it as less toxic than the leading myth, the biblical creation account. Are humans really capable of living without myths? Even as Marxism banished religious myths, it gave birth to a myth of a future Communist heaven on earth. Perhaps what we need is not to abolish myths, but to replace them with more humane ones.

I'll show you my cards now, so you don't think I'm cynical. I am in the 38% who believe God has a role in evolution. I don't endorse ID because I expect that evolution could occur fully within the laws of nature. My intuition is that a higher power set up a system that allows complex organisms to evolve, a deist perspective, and that this power might load the dice, shall we say, among natural events to help us evolve. If you call that intelligent design, so be it. I wouldn't have this perspective taught in schools, because it's pure speculation. But the science curriculum does contain some speculation; I still remember learning about the heterotroph hypothesis, which is certainly not proven, though there is evidence in its favor.

So there. I think science educators ought to be a little more humble when, after 80 years, only 13% of the public has gotten their message. Perhaps a paradigm shift which allowed broader speculation might have greater appeal, and help wean young people away from a dangerous acceptance of scriptural authority.

Bad Monkey Pollsters

I'd like to follow up on Tully's post by asking people about some things that bother them about polling, and about what sorts of things they'd like to see done to improve polling.

I was inspired at least in part by a quote I saw recently that said "numbers don't lie, people lie." This struck a chord with me, because it sometimes bugs me when people dismiss decent-quality data collected in good faith with any reasoning that mimics Disraeli's "lies, damn lies, and statistics" line. Polling is not simply a fool's errand, it'a powerful tool that can be abused. And I'd prefer that people understand this rather than to just dismissively throw up their hands.

Polling seems like a reasonable way to take the people's temperature, but when the majority of polling that occurs is subsidized by ideologically driven financiers, we get so much less than we could.

One thing I'd like to see done more often in polls is to have them include some questions that measure the knowledgeability of the respondents as it relates to the given issue. I AM interested in what the people think regardless of their knowledge base, but I am also very interested in how people opinions differ depending upon how well informed they are.

Failing that, I'd like to at least see a polling question asked 2 different ways, one way in which respondents choose from opinion choices, and another where they choose from the same choices with the added option of "I'm not well informed enough about the details to have an educated opinion." I realize that "I don't know" is supposed to fill this gap, but it really doesn't. You could even do it so that you could still make an opinion choice, and then also rate how well-informed you thought you were on the subject.

Think about it. Regarding SS, what if we found out that people who didn't know what the SS tax rate was, how much money SS had promised them, how the trust fund worked, or what a pay-go system was had drastically different opinions from people who knew all these things.

Anyone else have something about polling as currently practiced that they'd like to change?

Social Security Reform--Beware the Polls

Normally I don't link to National Review (or the New York Times for that matter) because of their blatant biases. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. Byron York's article on the recent Washington Post polls has some interesting insights.

The Social Security debate seems increasingly to be taking place on two tracks — some might say in parallel universes — in which much of the political class focuses on some aspects of polling data, in order to declare the president's proposal dead, or nearly dead, and the White House focuses on other aspects of polling data to draw the conclusion that the president is making progress.

"What people have been doing is judging Bush on things he hasn't been doing," says the Republican pollster David Winston. "Bush has just wanted to establish that there is a serious problem with Social Security, and he's done that. He hasn't really been trying to engage, the 'what's the best solution' question, although I think you're seeing him enter that phase now. But they want to judge him on how well people like his plan, which doesn't yet exist."

My point is not to address Social Security reform arguments per se, but to note that apparently straightforward media reports can nevertheless be misleading, and that what you hear and read in the news is often more a reflection of propaganda than reality.

Network or Conspiracy?

I participated on the blogcall3 conference call sponsored by democrats.com, which was featured in the New York Times yesterday. My main motivation was to see how the system works, so that we might be able to use it for similar centrist efforts, in place of the Yahoo voice chat, which we found didn't work for all participants.

The only cost for the conference call is the long-distance charge which anyone calling in would be subject to. Since I've got the Verizon Freedom plan on my home phone, I don't expect to be charged for the hour I was on the phone today. How many of you would be willing to spend an hour on the phone on a conference call, let's say on a Sunday at 9PM EST, when the rates should be low?

With regard to the substance of the blogcall3, I found it more professional than I expected for reputed conspiracy theorists, as Charlie Quidnunc would have it (by the way, I listened to Charlie's podcast yesterday, and found it a nice way to "listen" to blog posts instead of listening to the radio).

The speakers were blogger-journalists from rawstory, who were digging up dirt on House Republican and their relationships with Jack Abramoff, which was discussed in another Centerfield post today. As one listens to the web of connections rawstory is publicizing, one could imagine they have uncovered a conspiracy. Some on the left might think they are heroes, while some on the right may think they are paranoid. In fact, what they relate is credible information about relationships between politicans, lobbyists, and political operatives, most or all of which are probably legal. The one question I asked was whether there were any illegalities. The speakers pointed to possible violations by DeLay in the Korea and Britain trips, but at least so far, not in any of the further areas of their investigation.

Still, I think what these folks are doing is worthwhile. There is a long history of politicians and their associates engaging in shady practices. It's not possible for the legal system to keep up with the way pols try to exploit their power. Perhaps the best way to police these practices is to make them public, and allow voters to decide whether an infraction should be punished. Demonstrating an unholy alliance between some members of the Religious Right and gambling interests may be one way to do that.

My only request is to keep it in perspective. I don't believe politics is more corrupt than in the past. In fact, I believe the opposite is true. We are far more likely to find out about corrupt and unethical dealings than in the good old days. Nor is a political network a conspiracy, unless they collude to engage in illegal activities.

Wait, What?

A piece in the New York Times today discussed how Bush wants to subvert the negotiation process for rewriting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to ensure that it excludes any non-nuclear nation (Iran) from enriching uranium for fuel. Quite frankly, I have no problem with this.

True it may be that the Bush administration moves too fast at times, it is also true that Europe (and really, they're the only other ones who matter in any of this) moves too slowly. I do not dispute their right to move slowly; I mean, I'd be very cautious too if I were Europe, wary of anything that looks like it could start a war after 2000 years of being torn up by war, rebuilt, and torn up again. So pretty much, although I hate to do it, I support this mending of the NPT.

Iran's argument for enriching uranium, however, is, on the surface, understandable. Still, I am not convinced. Iran says it needs to enrich uranium for its energy needs. While I understand it can't really use the sea of oil its floating on for its own purposes lest its economy tank, this paragraph from the Times article struck me as... we'll say 'odd':

While Mr. Bush and the director general of the I.A.E.A., Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, have different proposals to deal with the problem, they agree that established nuclear nations should supply fuel to countries that need it. While this would help ensure that no nation could secretly produce bomb-grade fuel, smaller countries say they should not be dependent on the West or international consortiums for a crucial source of energy.

Iran doesn't want to give up its uranium enrichment because it doesn't want the US (or any
"consortiums") to have it by the balls when it comes to energy.

Hmm...

Sabato On 2008

The Moderate Voice examines analyst Larry Sabato's viewing of the crystal ball on the 2008 GOP nomination. Sabato does not think GOP well-known moderates like Giuliani, McCain or Hagel will get the nomination, despite their name recognition. He predicts it will go to a non-maverick who will be seen as a reliable conservative. No shock there, but I've always found Sabato to be insightful. He previously looked at the Democratic field.

It feels like we're looking forward to the next election cycle faster than ever. Is this silly? I don't know. But it's fun.

Mighty Middle

I'm not so sure the party mentioned in the post below is as centrist as it's cracked up to be, but the Mighty Middle looks mighty centrist to me. Check it out.

(Hat Tip to The Moderate Voice)

Centrist Fiction

Mark Satin reviews a novel about a fictional centrist party. He says it's not a good novel in terms of its literary merit, but it is of interest to centrists. The main character

designs a Website announcing a third party -- the “Centrust” party -- and adds a 10-point statement of purpose that we are given to understand is divinely inspired, or is inspired by the living Earth itself; you choose. (What awed me is that the document sounds like it was written by someone who’d been reading my book Radical Middle or working at the New America Foundation.) Then Scott posts the site as a sort of lark and goes to bed. When he wakes up, so many thousands of people have tried to e-mail the site that it’s crashed.

Hmm. This has never happened to us.

Now, there is a web site for the Centrust Party. I guess this is real and not just a book promotion. It's interesting that centrist parties seem to be cropping up, but none are getting enough publicity so that other potential centrist organizers know they exist!

Actually, I can tell from the bios that these folks are New Agey. In the past, I would expect such people to start a left-wing third party. Perhaps social entrepreneurs like these seem a greater untapped market in the center.

This is What I Call Leadership!

Schweitzer for President

Good news from Iraq, Part 23

The regular bi-weekly Chrenkoff, with the news you don't see at six o'clock.

Good news from Iraq, Part 23

Blogger Conference Call

Our national voice chat didn't quite work out tecnically, as many were not able to use the VoIP on yahoo chat. Now, some liberal bloggers have used an old fashioned conference call (I wonder who paid for it) and apparently got some real journalists to call in

While there is no way to know precisely who dialed in, reporters from news organizations including CBS, The Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC and The National Journal asked for a call-in number, according to one participant.

It's rather frustrating that we centrists keep getting overlooked. As far as I know, the press release that I distributed after our first chat was not picked up by any outlets, though I did get follow-up emails from the San Jose Mercury News and the Dallas Morning News.

Update: There's more info on Bob Fertik's blog. He was the organizer of the call. They rules for the conference call are on blogcall.org They used FreeConference, which is not quite free, but might be cheap.