Kiss My Angry Middle Class / 8-8-11

For a long time now, I've pined for a third party to gain viability in American politics. I momentarily shut off the urge three years ago to enthusiastically support then-candidate Obama's White House run.

I'm feeling the urge again.

President B. Hussein Obama, it appears, has governed like a centrist on a mission. On a mission to find the position squarely between the R's and the D's on, oh, pretty much everything except health care. And even then, the centerpiece of the recently passed health care legislation, the individual mandate, is torn straight from the playbook of the conservative Heritage Foundation. Republicans championed it in 1994 as an alternative to health care reforms proposed by the much-beloved Hillary Clinton.

Well, maybe the President has been sprinting on purpose toward the center since his inauguration. If you're a pathetic swing voter (ed. note: apologies to actual swing voters), it makes for a pretty compelling reason to re-elect him, and he does appear to love building consensus. Allow me to expand on this briefly before we get to my hot sexy political fantasy.

On matters of taxes, the White House has capitulated to not just the Republicans, but the fringiest of right-wingers, the millimeters-from-fascist Tea Party wing, on two very visible occasions (extending the Reckless Bush Tax Cuts and during the recent debt-ceiling negotiations). Tax-policy wise, Obama might as well be a mainstream Republican. Oh yes, he's the last one left, by the looks of it. Someone update the Endangered Species list, stat.

Meanwhile, on social issues, Obama's Supreme Court appointments look solidly liberal. And DADT is mercifully gone, as per his instructions. (This paragraph virtually ensures my vote for him again next fall. I can scarcely imagine the alternative.)

Guantanamo? Still open for business. Warrantless eavesdropping? Continues. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Pullouts are happening. Aiming for the center again? Bulls-eye, Mr. President.

When it comes to treatment of the middle class, however, the current set-up is discouraging. On one "side": pro-obscenely-wealthy Republicans. On the other, but same, side: pro-regular-wealthy Democrats. Bisecting those two forces: a pro-kinda-wealthy President... ugh. The system needs someone fighting for us, if the three major players on the scene continue to show disinterest.

And by "fighting for us," I mean, to be perfectly clear, making economic policy that benefits the middle class. You know, the 80 percent of the country that keeps America running.

The thing is, people have been trying to launch third parties for quite a while. Ross Perot, in '92, tapped into a similar vein of dissatisfaction with the status quo; he scored 19 percent of the vote even after sabotaging his own campaign. The Green Party's been around long enough to swing some elections the wrong way and to elect local officials here and there. And it's plain to see we're only a couple twists of fate away from the Tea Party throwing a massive hissy fit, packing its bags and slamming the door in the Republicans' stunned faces. Recently, you might have noticed the Coffee Party on facebook. These guys get around, and maybe they're on to something.

Maybe. The Coffee Party is a good start, for sure. But its very name is borrowed from the Tea Loonies. And the Coffee Party's official motto -- "the middle class is too big to fail" -- comes off like a bunch of bitter welfare junkies got jealous one day that certain corporations got bailed out, and now they're wondering where to apply for their own government handout.

What we need in present-day America is a viable political force, a hefty, organized organization dedicated to preserving the economic conditions that led to creating the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. We need a good platform, full of nuance and simplicity, that emphasizes cooperation rather than bickering, solutions rather than empty political "victories," and the interest of the many rather than of the very few. Politics should be about preserving liberty, finding answers, and enabling prosperity. (You know, the easy stuff.)

What we also need is a good name for this movement.

The People's Party is dead on arrival. So's the National Party. As is the Social Justice Party. the Constitution Party? Already taken by some delusional crazyheads.

The Liberty Party's a good name. I've used it before, most recently in this post from last September. The name sounds like the Libertarians, but it's different enough to sidestep confusion.

The Solutions Party -- this is easily my new favorite. It's a little intellectual-sounding, sure, and I admit it doesn't immediately evoke grand ideals, but it does evoke the actual fixing of problems. Let's run with this for a while. Freedom-loving intellectuals that we are.

Here's its platform.

1. Problem: Social issues are touchy. Solution: States decide social issues, like pot legalization, abortion, gay marriage, and other less fiery topics, like gun regulation.

Of course, the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional or discriminatory laws. But the SP politicians will fight for states' rights. Because social issues are complicated matters on which reasonable people can present conflicting arguments, the way forward is not to scream at or past each other. The answer is to present laws to the people, see what they think of it, pass something appealing, and see what the judges, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution, think of it. And then try again, if need be.

2. Problem: Government programs cost money, and nobody wants to pay. Solution: We must implement a tax code that ensures the poor pay some, the middle class pay more, the rich pay even more, and the richest pay the most.

It's the only way to pay for social programs, which are necessary. Imagine no welfare, no Social Security. That's cruel. The solution to cruelty (which is just another form of uncivilization): Establishing and maintaining a safety net, because real people experience real hardship.

The only way to have a lasting safety net is to pay for it. Taxes are a force for compassion when they are used in this way.

3. Problem: Deficits threaten our long-term economic health. Solution: Pick your moments to open the federal purse strings.

Deficits are to be avoided, but there's a time and a place for large-scale stimulus of the economy, fueled by reasonable amounts of borrowing at reasonable rates. There's also a time to run a surplus. The economy will often dictate when these times are. Severe recessions or depressions call for the government to step in and fill the void. Times of robust growth are a great time to keep the deficit in check, and if not to actually decrease it, to prevent it from growing. Holding the national debt steady is the same as shrinking it, if the country's economy grows as a whole.

Times of pleasant economic expansion are not to be treated as blank checks to create new programs. We have enough entitlements already. If we'll only pay for them.

4. Problem: War sucks. Solution: Be certain of a mission and rectitude before embarking on military action.

War is terribly expensive in lives and in cash better spent at home. Military action should always remain on the table, but should not permanently live at the top of the list of options. Pacifism is out of the question for a country; it's fine for individuals and their consciences, great, but not at all OK as a means of defending the richest and most influential nation on the planet.

Presidents who start unnecessary or unjustified wars should be prosecuted. It's too large of a crime to let go unpunished.

5. Problem: We're not anywhere near energy independent. Solution: Go green now. With a vengeance.

Energy must come from as many green sources as possible, be as homegrown as possible, and all avenues of producing energy must be investigated and researched to their fullest, funded by public and private partnerships. In the meantime, we should drill for oil where we can and farm wind where we can. Pour billions into solar energy research. Ingenuity will find a way, but not without some serious cash behind it.

6. Problem: Unemployment. Solution: Balance in how the government treats businesses.

Corporations are not people. Their rights are not the same as those of citizens, their responsibilities are not the same, and their tax burden is not the same. Taxes on businesses must be kept as low as possible to encourage job creation, while not allowing any industry to collect enough subsidies to eliminate its tax burden entirely.

7. Problem: Middle-class wages are stagnant. Solution: CEO pay must be capped.

The free market exists to enrich the country, not the fortunate few ladies and gentlemen who head Fortune 500 companies. Cap CEO pay at x times the average worker of said company, and more employees will make more money.

This is highly interventionistic. It also makes so very much sense. If you can get past the idea of "It's my business, I can run it any old way I want" mindset FOR THIS NARROW BRANCH OF CAPITALISM ONLY, then checks on extreme wealth make sense. Should this type of regulation seep, little by little, into the marketplace, to pave the way for communism? Yeah no.

8. Problem: Elected officials spend more time fund-raising than legislating. Solution: National campaigns become publicly financed.

This is a pretty straightforward fix. Moving along.

9. Problem: Lack of access to higher education perpetuates a cycle of poverty and ignorance. Solution: Free higher education for everyone.

College should be free, including tuition, room and board, at state-run universities, for all comers. Period. Do what you want if you're Harvard or Central Connecticut College of the Coming Biblically Based Apocalypse (Go Horsemen!), but let's get working on breaking the cycle of poverty that stems from unequal access to higher education. More education = larger, smarter middle class = brighter future for the country.

There could be more planks to the platform. I just cobbled this together in a quarter-assed sort of way, as a harmless hobby, really. But then again, 1. covers a lot of legislative and ideological ground.

My hope is that the Solutions Party, as presented, is not placeable upon the left-right continuum. That's good, I believe. One wing of the political spectrum does not have a monopoly on sensible solutions. Otherwise, why would there even be more than one wing?

Now if only the SP could avoid the fate of all its predecessors so far -- that is, becoming the outhouse of American politics...

Second Amendmen't / 2-10-11

Just in time for Valentine's Day, a post on guns. Because how better to express your love than with the gift of violence?

Self-inspired by my thoughts on what God isn't, (yes, I do know how self-absorbed that sounds), this is a post on what the Second Amendment does NOT state.

Oh, I know what it SAYS all right. I have it memorized; after a certain number of debates, that's advisable. (You can believe me, or you can imagine that I dialed up www.usconstitution.gov/billofrights/amendment2.htm and cut-and-pasted it, but don't do that, because I probably just made that web page up.)

Amendment No. 2 says, "A well regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Alternately, in the version ratified by the states, "A well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Much brainpower has been dedicated to what meaning the commas, or absence of commas, bring to the text. I used to obsess on this topic, but have nothing new to bring to the discussion. Scholars argue that the commas either limit or enhance the amount of individual liberty regarding gun ownership. Naturally, whichever way these brilliant scholars interpret the commas reflects their own bias, or the case they are trying to advance at the time. Curiously, some propose this neat little theory: the commas are inconsequential, that the framers had commarhea, if you will. (Groan.)

No, commas are boring. (Disclaimer: I love this book, which is the second result on Google auto-complete if you enter "Eats.") Instead, I want to waste my time tonight doing some more of that negative thinking. I'm putting up a list of erroneous conclusions that can be drawn from the Bill of Rights, Chapter Two. Then at the end, I'll offer my own interpretation of the text, because I can't help myself.

The Second Amendment does NOT say:

"Return your guns to the government."

"You can have as many semi-automatic submachineguns as you want."

"A waiting period for handguns must be in place."

"Federal legislation supersede local laws."

"Militias are awesome! Go put one together! And government oversight is optional."

"Heavily regulated ownership of firearms make our country safer."

"An armed society is a polite society."

"Because the government owns stealth bombers and nuclear submarines, our collective security is assured, and we should all get rid of our hunting rifles."

"City handgun bans are unconstitutional."

"Concealed weapons in bars, that sounds like a good idea."

"It is illegal to hunt deer with an AK-47."

"Anyone can keep and bear a Glock."

That was fun.

What DOES it say, though? I'm roughly 10 percent as smart as the dumbest guy in the room at the time they were concocting the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I'm qualified to paraphrase. (The commonly accepted threshold for bloggers is 0 percent.)

The best I can come up with is:

"Threats to our collective security abound, not only on the national level, but also on the borders of our states, and from even within our own population. It is evident that a tyrannical government might still arise from our experiment in representative democracy, as we are embarking on a seldom-traveled political journey while living on a continent populated with both friends and enemies. For these reasons, it is vital to our survival that reasonably regulated armies of citizens be allowed to form. It follows, logically, that citizens may own firearms."

Discuss.

I, Republican, The Sequel / 2-5-11

Last night, I went out of my way to agree with Republican viewpoints on the current issues being spotlighted on gop.com. That post is below.

This entry is wonkier and clunkier. You should probably go do something else, something more useful, more entertaining, more unwonky and unclunky, and come back at the end for dessert.

The full 2008 platform is here.

Aaaand... go.

In the Second Amendment section, which interestingly, headlines the platform, I expected to find plenty to agree with. I can read the Constitution. (Indeed, I HAVE read it! The Second Amendment is there, in plain-ish English, saying well-regulated militias are OK, and because of that, the individual's right to own guns is to be protected.) Yet of the 197 words present in "Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms," I could only concur with "We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers," which isn't even a complete sentence. Oh well. Moving on.

In the "Equal Treatment for All" section, there is much to like. "We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes." Great.

"We ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance." Good stuff. So far, so good.

As a matter of principle, Republicans oppose any attempts to create race-based governments within the United States, as well as any domestic governments not bound by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." I'm not sure what a race-based government is, but it sounds highly inequitable, and I'm also against inequitable, so yay. This whole section is, of course, missing one key component of the nation's present struggle against discrimination, and we all know what that component is, but it's good to see a clear denunciation of hatred, even if it could use some widening.

Skipping ahead a tab, to "Freedom of Speech and of the Press," I find comfort in: "We support freedom of speech and freedom of the press and oppose attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine." Totally agree. The Fairness Doctrine is an ill-begotten attempt to balance the opinions presented on the airwaves - i.e., if Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are given 72 hours of airtime a week, liberal viewpoints must be represented in equal proportion, and the government has a duty to make it happen. I simplify, but that brand of"fairness" is a bad idea. Let the marketplace dictate which shows thrive, and which ideas win. (The Fairness Doctrine, in case you couldn't tell or didn't care, is not currently in effect.)

And then we arrive at abortion, or as the issue if framed in the platform, "Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life." (As if anyone could oppose that... but I digress.)

Deep breath. And... go.

"We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement." I agree. Abortion is a medical procedure. A minor teenage girl should obtain parental authorization before having such a procedure performed on her body. To be thorough, I don't actually agree with the "exploitation and statutory rape" clause of the sentence. I just believe that parents have rights that supersede the privacy rights of their children under the age of 18.

"We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy." Yes. Although we might go about that moral obligation differently. Abortion is horrifying, after all, no matter where you stand on its legality. We should be helping girls and women in any way we can in their neediest moments.

"We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers." This is what I'm talking about. Don't nudge people to abortion - offer alternatives. Yes. Do this.

So, logically, the next plank in the platform is entitled "Preserving Traditional Marriage." So, skipping ahead to... but wait! Wait wait! I found something, I found something! Two sentences even! Extra exclamation points on their way!!!! (*sarcasm off*)

"The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character." So true. Studies confirm this. Google it. (I did.) Homes with two parents do produce, statistically, better-adjusted children.

"Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems." I will second this if I'm allowed to substitute "homes without fathers" to "single-parent homes." Otherwise, I have to agree with it only as it pertains to children raised by single moms compared with children raised by two parents.

The section ends this way: "As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights." Duh. I'm guessing that this is meant to tie back to the abortion issue. Now if this reasoning is used to rationalize or defend spanking, then we need to chat, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Publican. Otherwise, carry on.

Carrying on to "Safeguarding Religious Liberties," where this turns up: "We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace."

If you're going to take government money, you need to play by the government's rules. No discrimination in hiring. But if you want to form a private organization and intend on minding your own business, I'm with the R's on this: let people exclude whomever they want. the Scouts want to bar gays -- fine. Their call. Churches want to not perform gay weddings -- totally cool with them declining. But once you're on the government's dime, that all changes.

Less controversially, sort of, the "Preserving Americans' Property Rights" section ends with the sensible "We urge caution in the designation of National Historic Areas, which can set the stage for widespread governmental control of citizens’ lands." Private property is not to be trifled with. Capitalism still works better than other systems, and it only functions if the government shows restraint.

There we are. That is precisely how Republican I am. (Don't measure it.)

I, Republican / 2-4-11

If your mind is sarcasm intolerant, you're relatively safe, for a little while.

At least for the next two posts. I went to this place called gop.com, looked up some of their positions on current issues, and came away with the stuff I most agreed with. Next up, later this weekend, I'll tackle the official 2008 platform, with all its tasteful verbiage on gun control, abortion, same-sex marriage, and other vanilla-flavored topics. Fun!

But as an appetizer to that entree (am I secretly hungry? What's the deal with all the food references?), this is the stuff from the party's website that I can support. (That I can stomach! Hee hee.)

Anyway, consider it an early Valentine to modern conservatism. Well, maybe an only Valentine.

No joke is taking place in this paragraph.

Ground rules and pertinent information: I lifted all wording straight from here, which now rests in my browser history, a fact that is of no interest to you, but rather serves as a personal reminder to go purge that visit later on.

(Done with the humor. Onward and upward.)

"A full commitment to America's Armed Forces, to ensure they are modern, agile and adaptable to the unpredictable range of challenges in the years ahead." Obviously. Without some semblance of national security, it's silly to quibble about prescription drug reimbursement programs for uninsured senior citizens.

"We oppose government-run health care." So do I. I fully endorse government-run health insurance, but competition is the lifeblood of any marketplace, including the medical one. This is a good mantra.

"We support an 'all of the above' approach that includes the production of nuclear power, clean coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, as well as offshore drilling in an environmentally responsible way." For now, this strategy is wholly sensical. The only way to transition out of dependence on dirty energy sources is to start getting our fuel from everywhere we can right now until it becomes possible to get all of it cleanly. (Whenever that is.) So yeah, more nuke plants. Please. A thousand of them ASAP -- as long as they are well regulated, well maintained, and well funded.

"We believe in the importance of sensible business regulations" (love that word, "sensible," so malleable, so subjective) "that promote confidence in our economy among consumer, entrepreneurs and businesses alike." Nice to see the R-word in there. Thank you 2008. No, that doesn't count as snark.

"Republicans believe a judge's role is to interpret the law, not make law from the bench." That's good. I believe the same way, pretty much because I have no choice. The Constitution demands separation of powers. Congress makes the laws. Courts rule on those laws' legality or lack thereof. That's how it works, and when we don't like the result, we don't get to whine -- when a federal judge interprets the Constitution in a way that displeases us, that's kind of his or her job. And as long as that judge doesn't legislate, all is well with the system.

Well that didn't kill me. Maybe the next post will.

Love ya Ronnie!

xoxoxoxo

I Slam Islam / 8-16-10

Religious puns are the best.

As you'd imagine, I don't personally have any problem with Islam. I mean, no more problem than with every other organized religion. All self-perpetuating institutions screw up every so often, go off the deep end, do some seriously f'ed-up stuff in obvious complete opposition to the purported teachings of their faith. It doesn't take a whole lotta research to find some pretty massive screw-ups by powerful people claiming to act in a religion's best interest. (As if that were even possible. If you have truth, it will win out, with or without your "help," such as it may be.)

But slamming Islam has become something of a national sport, and it's driving me absolutely crazy. People with megaphones are going out of their way to trample the Bill of Rights in a way that should shame them -- but instead, they're proud of their actions.

Case in point: the media-driven furor over the right of Muslims living in Manhattan to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. City planners in Manhattan approved the project, which consists of a mosque and community center designed to improve relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. (Please provide your own ironic comment here.) Obviously, their plans didn't please EVERYONE.

"In my opinion, the prospect of a mosque right near this site of reverence and respect for lost loved ones from the attack shows a serious lack of sensitivity.In fact, the majority of the country is strongly opposed to building a mosque at the site of the most tragic terrorist attack on America." That's from Senator David Vitter of Louisiana. I chose his words because they were less inflammatory than the average politician's. (I could have quoted the usual blowhards here -- you know who you are -- but I wanted to save that for later. And Vitter's right about the "majority of the country," but we'll get to that in due course as well. Like, after about 5,000 words of snarkventarrhea. What? Is too a word.)

As I was saying. Not everyone so happy-happy joy-joy about this turn of events. So when President Obama stated that Muslims are entitled, as per the basic rules of our country, to build places of worship near their places of residence, his pronouncement was national news. THIS JUST IN: Obama Supports Freedom Of Assembly! BREAKING NEWS: Obama Consults Constitution In Crafting Opinion!

Excuse me, but Duh.

Only somehow, Not Duh.

Newt Gingrich, this past Sunday, on Fox: "Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."

GOP congressional candidate Elliott Maynard (W. Va.): "Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or Christian church to be built in Mecca?"

I could point out that Gingrich just equated attending a religious service with genocide, and that Maynard thinks that we should exchange constitutions with Saudi Arabia, but I have faith that their words fail on their own, without my help. (Oops.)

Important data on its way. Aaaaaaaaaaand... go:

61 percent of Americans: "Muslims have the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero."

64 percent of Americans: "Muslims should not build a mosque near Ground Zero."

(Those figures come from a Fox News poll. That's all I'm going to say about that. Actually, their polling is not the worst in the business, as long as you)

Sarah Palin read the poll results and chimed in. (I like her. But maybe not in the way you think.) On her twitter page recently, which I really really won't link to: "We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? This is not above your pay grade. " Sarah is awesome. She manages to say, like millions of others before and since, that freedom is fine as a CONCEPT. Just don't try and exercise it. Well, not you guys at least.

As for Democrats who deserve a flogging, I give you Senate Majority "Leader" Harry Reid, who opposes, for stupid reasons, the building of the mosque at that location. "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," wrote Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid. "Sen. Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else."

(Like maybe in Harlem? Or Brooklyn? How far is far enough, people? What degree of inconvenience do we need to impose on Muslims to make ourselves feel better about... well, whatever it is we need to feel better about at the time?)

Now Reid I can forgive. Sort of. He's in a tight re-election race, he needs to move to the center by taking some positions to his right, to move beyond his base. Those kind of tactics are covered in Intro to Beginners' Basic Elementary Campaigning, Level Zero. I bet Reid doesn't even believe the statement his camp published. He's a Mormon, for crying out loud. He knows about religious intolerance. At least in theory.

But how is it even possible, in the first place, that party lines are drawn over this issue? How is it possible that Reid pissing all over the Bill of Rights is a "move to the center?" I so do want to write "What have we come to as a nation," but I permit myself only x+1 cliches per post.

Unless... unless... the right wing is the side that stopped believing in freedom of religion. Which would be an interesting stance for the party which depends on fundamentalist Christian votes to survive.

RNC Chair Mike Steele: "Mosques are a luxury. We Christians will decide where they may be built, if we allow them at all."

Fundamentalist Stooges: "OK."

Steele: "We'll do the same for the synagogues."

Stooges: "Well, all right."

Steele: "And no more parishes. Until I say so."

Stooges: "Er."

Steele: "Oh, and Rush says no wards outside of Utah."

Stooges: "Uh-"

Steele: "Also, let's say, no-"

Stooges: "Later guys. Let's go make our OWN party."

(Wet dream ends.)

Does it occur to nobody that if the situation were reversed, that the Christian fundies would howl -- and rightfully so -- that their rights were being denied by an oppressive Islamic majority? (It occurs to me. I've thought about it, and I'm only six or seven times more intelligent than your average cable news host or candidate for office, so you'd think some of them would have caught on by now. Or decided that they've been pretending too long to not catch on.)

(Holy punctuation overload, Batman. If this keeps up, my parentheses keys are going to fall off.)

Other Western countries are playing the I Slam Islam game, too. France's congress banned the burqa last month. Canada isn't donating to disaster relief in Pakistan at nearly the rate it gave to Haiti. For a disaster affecting 14 million people in Pakistan, Canadians have cobbled together $200,000 dollars in the first week. Haiti received 17 times more -- $3.5 million in the first seven days. Even more stats: Haiti's TOTAL population is 70 percent of Pakistan's 14 million flood-displaced humans. Phood4thot.

However this ends up playing out, I believe Obama can make some serious hay here. I earnestly -- if naively -- believe that if he were to spend the next few days emphatically driving home the point that people of all faiths are welcome to build houses of worship near their houses of sleepship, and that this is what religious freedom is all about, that he could convince a vast majority of Americans that he is right. Not because he says it's right, but because the guys who wrote the Constitution said so. But he has to be clear, forceful and he has to call out the opposition for putting themselves above the Founding Fathers. (I'm not hopeful here: he's already gone back once on his opening statement, to add that "I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.")

Even so, forget for a moment that he'd be constitutionally correct in defending religious freedom. (God, do I REALLY have to write that sentence??) Consider instead that the number of non-Christian believers in this country is holding steady or increasing while the number of Christians is dropping precipitously. (Here are the numbers and the pretty charts: visit infoplease.com and religioustolerance.org.)

If he can establish that non-Christians and non-Christian believers have no home in the GOP, and let the demographics work in his favor, he and his party can reap the electoral benefits for years to come.

Although it's probably OK, in the short run, to do the right thing because it's the right thing. That's acceptable too.

Or if desperate measure are called for, Obama could always buck up and quote his predecessor, who, somehow, once said this: "Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam. It is a gross distortion of Islam."

If Bush were president today, and my brain just died a little from typing that, I'd like to think we'd hear him spout something similar. Something like: "Well, um, if Al Qaeda wants to build a mosque dedificated to worshipping terrism, and they want to, uh, build it two blocks from Ground Zero, then I say, Nuh-uh, No Way Hossein. Now them Musslems, theyk'n build whever they wanna. That's Merica. Land of the brave, home of the free, and all that, y'know."

That's probably enough for now.

(Although, honestly, there are so many other angles to take on this issue.

A) Why should peaceful Muslims pay for the sins of hateful terrorists who desecrate the name of Allah with their actions?

B) What's next to be politicized and debated? Trial by jury?

C) What is the significance of Ground Zero, and how are the various political forces using to their benefit? And is this OK?

D) Scapegoats are forever.

E) How is it possible that the party that defecated all over habeas corpus and now freedom of religion continues to be viable?

F) That's it for me. I'm moving to New Zealand and becoming a Hobbit.

Discuss amongst yourselves.)

Ten Free Predictions / 9-22-09

No charge.

Events are predicted in order of occurrence, with numbers reversed because I'm a bit of a weirdo.

10. Health care reform will pass, without a public health insurance option, but with a mechanism to activate government insurance if certain conditions are met.

9. You or your significant other or one of your siblings will get H1N1. You/He/She will spend a day in bed then be fine.

8. The Seahawks will finish the year 8-8, "tied" with the 49ers atop the NFC West, except San Fran will win the division lamely on a tie-breaker.

7. A major cell phone provider will fail and be gobbled up by a competitor by early 2011. (I'm looking right at you, Sprint. And glancing sideways at you, T-Mobile. And wishing it were you, Verizon. Bite me, at&t.)

6. The Dow Jones will reach and surpass its former closing-bell peak of 14,164.53 sometime in the fall of 2011.

5. The Mariners will reach the 2011 World Series. No further details provided at this time.

4. Barack Hussein Obama will coast to re-election as President of the United States of America. Coast, I tell you. Reverse Reagan '84 style.

3. The Republican Party will split in half sometime in or after 2013. A chain reaction will ensue, culminating in the split of the Democratic Party and the emergence of the Green Party as a non-negligible political force. Five parties are in our future. Don't try and stop it.

2. A major terrorist attack on par with or exceeding the carnage of 9/11 will take place on American soil in the teen years of this century. Tragically, we may have to get used to one of these per decade, as our government continues to do nowhere near enough to stem the tide of anti-Americanism.

1. Some time after 2030, retired government officials, prominent scholars and brilliant political scientists will converge on Philadelphia for a Constitutional Convention during which they will update the Constitution to ensure its survival in an age quite different than 1787.

Pardon me while I save democracy / 6-9-09

U.S. Congressional terms last two years. Presidents serve for four at a time. Senators get elected to six-year terms. Not breaking any news here.

The most famous slogan in a "change" election year is "Throw the bums out." Oh what a dandy it is... 1994 and 2006 are prime examples of that voters heeding that directive.

Well, I'd like to keep the bums a little longer, please. (Please, sir? C'n I hav' s'moh?)

Terms that short are a colossal waste of resources. From a 2000 study:

"While anecdotal evidence has long suggested that candidates and members of Congress spend increasing amounts of time fundraising, Paul Herrnson [political scientist and director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland] directed a study providing the first hard numbers. Based on candidates' answers to survey questions, 55 percent of those running for statewide office, 43 percent of those running for Congress, and even 33 percent of those running for state legislatures spent one-quarter of their campaign time raising money. Nearly one of every five spent as much as half their campaign time fundraising."

I'll take that to be fairly typical of today's realities -- if anything, I'd bet the percentage of time spent raising money is higher now. A law prof at Stanford puts the figure between 30 and 70 percent. Yes, that 70.

The Constitution's framers most certainly did not envision round-the-clock fundraising and 12-hour news cycles predicated on crystal-balling two or three years out. Maybe they foresaw that shorter terms would keep the representatives and executives from getting too cute too often, because an election would always be just around the corner to keep them honest. But Madison and Jefferson would be aghast at the role fundraising plays nowadays. Aghast, I tell you.

So let's give congresspersons three years at a time, Presidents six and Senators nine. Or 4, 6, and 8 respectively. Just let's not have elections every two years, because then every new Congress begins its session in January with news coverage explaining how every vote impacts their re-election chances the following fall. And if you haven't noticed, or cared to notice, talk of who will challenge Obama in 2012 is heating up. I grow nauseous thinking about it... and I'm a political junkie, for Taosakes.

There are obstacles to getting this done.

Roadblock No. 1: Some dude or lady has to introduce the bill. Come down Prediction Lane with me to read the ensuing headlines.

Daily Kos: Imagine 12 years of W
Huffington Post: Where was this in 2008 when we needed it?
New York Times: Throw The Bums In? No, Thank You
Washington Post: Senator X aims to abolish elections; Senator Y already senile as it is
538.com: Three in five voters oppose longer terms, excepting own home state's delegation
MSNBC, Olbermann-Maddow syndicate: Let's do this quick, before the GOP stages a comeback
Fox News: Pelosi seeks lifetime term
Town Hall: Not over my dead Constitution's body
CNN: Tom Cruise arrested for DUI; Jolie adopts Tanzania; Rat flu will kill us all!

I can't imagine that any Congress(wo)man thinks that such a move could enhance their bid for re-election.

Roadblock No. 2: Americans like changing their mind. Or at least the ability to change their mind. Not to be underestimated.

I understand that if terms are extended -- through a constitutional convention or an amendment to the U.S. King James Constitution -- then fund-raising would extend from a two-year cycle to three. And that there would still be chatter about a presidential election five years in the future. But it would be muted for a while. And the frantic, consuming pace of money-grabbing would be temporarily quelled. That alone has to be good thing, so we should give it a try. For the sake of our democracy. Which isn't a democracy, but a republic. I knew that.