Examining the Republican Platform Part II: “Securing the Peace”

by


This is continued from Part I of my examination of the Republican Platform, which actually drew a comment ostensibly from the executive director of the Platform Committee. Which considering some of the stuff I’ll have to say about the platform today, is supremely ironic.

“Securing the Peace”: You can learn a lot not only from the order of the topics of each part of the respective parties’ platforms, but on the order of topics within those parts and how much time is spent on them. The Democrats, aside from a paragraph on the current economic crisis, hit the ground running with a very long dissertation on health care, which tells you that’s the issue they care about most of all. The Republicans start out talking about foreign affairs, and specifically national security and beefing up our military, before moving on to foreign relations and diplomacy, which would seem to show you they’re very gung-ho and macho. Yet “Securing the Peace” is probably longer than the other two sections of the first part put together.

“The Republican vision of peace through strength requires a sustained international effort, which complements our military activities, to develop and maintain alliances and relationships that will lead to greater peace and stability.” So to some extent, you believe in speaking softly and carrying a big stick, but you’re also willing to use said stick to get your peace along with getting everyone to help you in your “military activities”. Should I be scared that you intend to try and achieve peace through “military activities”?

“Promoting Human Rights and American Values”: “The international promotion of human rights reflects our heritage, our values, and our national interest. Societies that enjoy political and economic freedom and the rule of law are not given to aggression or fanaticism. They become our natural allies.” Sounds good, but there is evidence that spreading “American values” has met resistance in some parts of the world, and we need to be aware of that and know how to deal with it.

Republican leadership has made religious liberty a central element of U.S. foreign policy. Asserting religious freedom should be a priority in all America’s international dealings. We salute the work of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and urge special training in religious liberty issues for all U.S. diplomatic personnel.

To be successful international leaders, we must uphold international law, including the laws of war, and update them when necessary. Our moral standing requires that we respect what are essentially American principles of justice. In any war of ideas, our values will triumph.

I’m… not sure what the first paragraph is trying to say. I’m not even sure what it means. I mean, of course religious liberty is a good thing, but are we going to try and impose it everywhere like we tried to impose “democracy” on Iraq, or are we going to avoid offending nations that don’t have it? What did the USCIRF find, exactly? The first sentence of the second paragraph starts out well, but “update them when necessary”? You can’t do that unilaterally, you have to get international cooperation, that’s why it’s called international law. If I knew what you had in mind I might feel a bit better about it, because it might just be common sense for all I know.

State Department Reform
Advancing America’s values should be the core mission of every part of the federal government, including the Department of State. America’s diplomatic establishment must energetically represent our country’s agenda to the world. We propose a thorough reform of its structure to ensure that promotions and appointments are based on performance in supporting the nation’s agenda. Our diplomats must be the best our country has to offer, and America’s diplomatic abilities must be an integral part of America’s national security system.

Hopefully “advancing America’s values” doesn’t mean you’re going to use an organ devoted to diplomatic relations with other nations and use it to try and convert other nations, other cultures, to our way of life unilaterally. I’m not sure what “represent[ing]” and “supporting the nation’s agenda” means – does it mean that, or does it simply mean representing American interests to other nations? If the latter, good; if the former, it would seem to imply a misunderstanding of the role of diplomats. I’m tentatively hoping it does mean the latter, but the unclear wording concerns me.

Public Diplomacy
Throughout the Cold War, our international broadcasting of free and impartial information promoted American values to combat tyranny. It still does, through Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio/TV Marti, and it remains an important instrument in promoting a modernizing alternative to the culture of radical terror. Getting America’s message out to the world is a critical element in the struggle against extremism, and our government must wage a much more effective battle in the war of ideas.

Wow. A plank of a major party platform outwardly supporting international propaganda. I mean, I don’t want to say that I don’t want to continue programs that help deter people from terror, but is it not possible that the idea that America is trying to indoctrinate the youth and subvert them into good little American operatives is serving as a piece of propaganda for extremists and actually serving as a recruiting tool? I’d like to see the actual numbers and studies analyzing the effectiveness of this sort of thing. And you’re still trying to propagandize Europe?

Human Trafficking
Generations after the end of slavery in America, new forms of bondage have emerged to exploit men, women and children. We salute those across the political spectrum who have come together to end the commerce in our fellow human beings. We advocate the establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force on Human Trafficking, reporting directly to the President, and call for increased diplomatic efforts with foreign governments that have been negligent toward this evil. The principle underlying our Megan’s Law – publicizing the identities of known offenders – should be extended to international travel in order to protect innocent children everywhere.

Finally, a plank in this section I unequivocally support. My only concern has to do with the “Inter-Agency Task Force on Human Trafficking” and its status as something close to a Cabinet-level agency. There might be other examples of this sort of thing, I don’t know, but are you really going to take away that much in the way of resources that could have, I don’t know, gone towards national security?

“Sovereign American Leadership in International Organizations”: “The United States participates in various international organizations which can, at times, serve the cause of peace and prosperity, but those organizations must never serve as a substitute for principled American leadership.” If you’re saying they can’t serve as a substitute I’d agree with you pending agreement with the premise; if you’re saying they shouldn’t, I say if they’re better than “principled American leadership” at “serv[ing] the cause of peace and prosperity”, then by all means cut them loose!

“Nor should our participation in them prevent our joining with other democracies to protect our vital national interests.” That certainly sounds good but it almost seems to be pointing towards going over the head of the UN and other international organizations to do whatever we want. If a nation is using the UN to block action against them (or even an ally) that the rest of the world backs, of course we should be able to join with the rest of the world in taking that action anyway, but that’s almost a specialized case. The UN is at least supposed to be representative of the world, and if we decide we’re going to go over their heads we should be ready to face the consequences. And this “joining with democracies” better not be of the form “you’re with us or against us”.

“At the United Nations, our country will pay a fair, but not disproportionate, share of dues, but we will never support a UN-imposed tax.  The UN must reform its scandal-ridden and corrupt management and become more accountable and transparent in its operations and expenses.  As a matter of U.S. sovereignty, American forces must remain under American command.” First sentence makes sense, but I might be swayed by some of the reasons the UN might “impose” a “tax”. I have never heard of the UN’s “scandal-ridden and corrupt management”; if it exists it should be fixed, but where did that come from? And will you also support, say, Canadian forces having to remain under Canadian command, or Chinese forces remaining under Chinese command?

“Discrimination against Israel at the UN is unacceptable.  We welcome Israel’s membership in the Western European and Others Group at the UN headquarters and demand its full acceptance and participation at all UN venues.” The UN kind of has to walk a tightrope here between supporting Israel and courting the support of nations that hate Israel’s guts. The UN needs to take an impartial stance in the Middle East, condemn all atrocities by both sides, and not be seen as supporting one side or the other, because that’s its role in all conflicts, to be an impartial mediator. Of course “discrimination against Israel” should be out, but hopefully it doesn’t mean treating Israel as a perfectly 100% legitimate state that’s not the subject of constant controversy over its very existence either. And I have no idea what “the ideological campaign against Vatican participation in UN conferences and other activities” is.

“Because the UN has no mandate to promote radical social engineering, any effort to address global social problems must respect the fundamental institutions of marriage and family. We assert the rights of families in all international programs and will not fund organizations involved in abortion.” I think most “organizations involved in abortion” don’t require people to have abortions in any way. They simply provide them. “Social engineering” would be taking that away. You would refrain from funding any perfectly legitimate organization that did a gazillion things to help developing countries rise themselves out of poverty just because they performed abortions? Or were even “involved in abortion”? (In fact, there are concerns that this policy actually breeds abortions by cutting off supplies of other forms of birth control, but those organizations should just suck up and follow it, right? I mean, this is blackmail!) Or are you concerned that the UN is promoting homosexuality, a more legitimate concern? I mean, how is the UN not respecting the “fundamental institutions of marriage and family”? And how would you deal with a culture where the “fundamental institutions of marriage and family” are very different? Would you “respect” them or attempt to impose a Western model?

You’d even “reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values”? Even ones dealing with other topics, like “the UN convention on women’s rights, signed in the last months of the Carter Administration, and the UN convention on the rights of the child”? So you won’t support women’s rights because the document proclaiming them dared to mention abortion? Is it that much of a poison pill? You’re not even objecting on religious or moral grounds, you’re talking about “the fundamental institutions of marriage and family”. That’s scary; maybe you don’t support women’s rights beyond abortion, because you’re saying “if you have sex before marriage [presumably even by rape] tough bupkis, you gotta carry the baby to term”, which hardly protects “the fundamental institutions of marriage and family”. Worse, you’re screwed if you have an unintended baby after marriage, which implies the Republicans might believe in a “traditional marriage” scheme where the woman is subservient. Not saying it’s necessarily the case, and I don’t even like abortion, but this is just a little concerning.

“For several reasons, particularly our concern for US sovereignty and America’s long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal, and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty.” See here for what this is all about. Oddly, outright objection may be a minority opinion even within the Republican Party, as the Bush Administration supports ratification. Still, I can’t say the anti-ratification side doesn’t have good points.

“To shield the members of our Armed Forces and others in service to America from ideological prosecutions, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Americans.” That’s been a big bone of contention with other nations in the world, because it effectively lets our “Armed Forces” get away with bloody murder without having to go through an international tribunal. Still, shielding the military from “ideological prosecutions” – prosecutions designed solely to embarrass America – is a legitimate concern… “We support the American Servicemembers Protection Act, to shield U.S. personnel and officials as they act abroad to meet global security requirements.” …but if this still calls back to the previous sentence, this really does say we can get away with bloody murder, at least as phrased. Unless and until the United States submits to some sort of controls against war crimes, we’ll never have the standing in the world we should.

“Helping Others Abroad”: Begins with some empty praise for the people who “combat disease and poverty around the world”, and a call to “[i]nclud[e] the world’s poor in an expanding circle of development” through “the Republican approach to world trade through open markets and fair competition”.

It must also be a top priority of our foreign policy.  Decades of massive aid have failed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries, where it has often propped up failed policies and corrupt rulers. We will target foreign assistance to high-impact goals: fostering the rule of law through democratic government; emphasizing literacy and learning; and, concentrating on the foundations for economic development—clean water, agricultural improvement, and microcredit funding for small enterprises.  Maternal and child health, especially safer childbirthing and nutrition, must be priorities, especially in countries affected by epidemics of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

So the Republican idea of aid to developing countries is not just ordinary charitable donations of food and money, but trying to institute democracy and actual, substantive infrastructure improvements that can actually have a long term impact. I agree with all of that, except once again, we need to make sure that if our democratization attempts meet resistance, we can identify it and deal with it and not have a repeat of Iraq.

Further, we call for the development of a strategy for foreign assistance that serves our national interest.  Specifically we call for a review and improvement of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 oriented toward: alignment of foreign assistance policies, operations, budgets and statutory authorities; development of a consensus on what needs to be done to strengthen the non-military tools to further our national security goals; greater attention to core development programs – education, child survival, and agricultural development; and greater accountability by recipient countries so as to ensure against malfeasance, self-dealing, and corruption, and to ensure continued assistance is conditioned on performance.

The last clause is the only one I would worry about. The accountability measures need to be effective and themselves not prone to “malfeasance, self-dealing, and corruption”.

“Strengthening Ties in the Americas”:

Faith and family, culture and commerce, are enduring bonds among all the peoples of the Americas. Republicans envision a western hemisphere of sovereign nations with secure borders, working together to advance liberty and mutually-beneficial trade based on sound and proven free enterprise principles.  Our relations with our immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico, are grounded on our shared values and common purpose, as well as our steadily increasing trade. We pledge to continue this close association and to advance mutually beneficial trade agreements throughout Latin America, promoting economic development and social stability there while opening markets to our goods and services. Our strong ties with Canada and Mexico should not lead to a North American union or a unified currency.

Your second and penultimate sentences wouldn’t be talking about the eminently controversial NAFTA and successors, would it? Most of this is good, at least if you accept the underlying principles, most of which are basic economics. I know the last sentence should be reassuring to some people…

Two factors distort this hemispheric progress.  One is narco-terrorism, with its ability to destabilize societies and corrupt the political process.  In an era of porous borders, the war on drugs and the war on terror have become a single enterprise. We salute our allies in the fight against this evil, especially the people of Mexico and Colombia, who have set an example for their neighbors. We support approval of the free trade agreement with Colombia, currently blocked by Capitol Hill Democrats and their union boss supporters, as an overdue gesture of solidarity for this courageous ally of the United States.

Wait, so do Republicans think if Democrats are concerned about Columbian crackdowns on unions, it must be because they’re in hock to “union boss[es]” and not out of general concern for the welfare of the people of Columbia? I certainly think your concern is appropriate…

“The other malignant element in hemispheric affairs is the anachronistic regime in Havana, a mummified relic from the age of totalitarianism, and its buffoonish imitators.” I never thought I’d see a phrase like “buffoonish imitators” in a major party platform. Didn’t Castro take power in the late 50s? By “the age of totalitarianism” are you basically referring to the Cold War? Because for some reason I’d go further back with that term…

We call on the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean to join us in laying the groundwork for a democratic Cuba.  Looking to the inevitable day of liberation, we support restrictions on trade with, and travel to, Cuba as a measure of solidarity with the political prisoners and all the oppressed Cuban people. We call for a dedicated platform for transmission of Radio and Television Marti into Cuba and, to prepare for the day when Cuba is free, we support the work of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.  We affirm the principles of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, recognizing the rights of Cubans fleeing Communist tyranny, and support efforts to admit more of them through a safe, legal, orderly process.

Most of this sounds good, but it’s not entirely without controversy. I mentioned my issues with transmission of American propaganda into foreign nations earlier.

“Advancing Hope and Prosperity in Africa”: This section follows what’s becoming a pattern: three paragraphs, the first of which describes the situation and the US role, followed by two paragraphs of policy positions. In this case, the first paragraph contains a recognition of the sad situation in Africa, with almost as much of the Republicans tooting their own horn: “Republicans have faced up to each of those challenges because, in addition to humanitarian concerns, the U.S. has important security interests in the stability and progress of African nations.” “Republican-sponsored legislation has brought jobs and investment to sub-Saharan Africa. To continue that progress, we advocate continued expansion of trade with African nations.” That’s important, but it’s not much better if Africa becomes the new Taiwan.

The second paragraph is basically a condemnation of the situation in Darfur, a call for a stronger response from African leaders, and a pledge to support them and “secure a comprehensive and humane settlement for the people of the southern and western Sudan.” Military involvement is not mentioned. Maybe the Republicans do realize that war is not always the answer. The third paragraph condemns the situation in Zimbabwe, and a call for sanctions against the Mugabe government, “free elections, and the restoration of civil government in Zimbabwe.” Well, that’s just head-slapping common sense.

“Partnerships across the Asia-Pacific Region”: A change in format here. For the next three sections, we start with an overview paragraph and then sub-headings for several different nations. Skip the praising of several different nations, including Australia and “our Freely Associated States in the Pacific Islands”, which makes “English Language Learners” sound like normal English. Actually, I take that back. Praising Japan and “look[ing] for Japan to forge a leadership role in regional and global affairs.” Praising South Korea and its vigilance “against the tyranny and international ambitions of the maniacal state on its border.” America wants “the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs, with a full accounting of its proliferation activities.  We look toward the restoration of human rights to the suffering people of North Korea and the fulfillment of the wish of the Korean people to be one in peace and freedom.” Praiseworthy goals, and hopefully international cooperation is part of this in the Republicans’ minds. But it’s telling that this sentiment is placed in the introductory paragraph and isn’t broken out into a sub-heading.

“India We welcome America’s new relationship with India, including the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Accord. Our common security concerns and shared commitment to political freedom and representative government can be the foundation for an enduring partnership.” Korea doesn’t get broken out into its own heading but this sort of empty platitude does? Note to self: Look up “US-India Civil Nuclear Accord”.

“Pakistan We must expand our ties with the government and the people of Pakistan.  We support their efforts to improve democratic governance and strengthen civil society, and we appreciate the difficult but essential role Pakistan plays in the fight against terror.” And we also need to make sure Pakistan is playing that role, and not giving safe haven to terrorists without pursuing them. Otherwise worthy goals.

Taiwan
Our policy toward Taiwan, a sound democracy and economic model for mainland China, must continue to be based upon the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act. We oppose any unilateral steps by either side to alter the status quo in the Taiwan straits on the principle that all issues regarding the island’s future must be resolved peacefully, through dialogue, and be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China were to violate these principles, the U.S., in accord with the Taiwan Relations Act, will help Taiwan defend itself.  As a loyal friend of America, the democracy of Taiwan has merited our strong support, including the timely sale of defensive arms and full participation in the World Health Organization and other multilateral institutions.”

The bit about “oppos[ing] any unilateral steps by either side to alter the status quo” seems odd until you focus on the “unilateral” part, and the second half of the sentence: the line is a paean to the PRC that the United States is serving as an impartial mediator and will make sure that if the status quo does change, it changes in a multilateral, peaceful way. But it’s still odd, because the rest of the paragraph is praising Taiwan’s status as a “democracy” (twice) and “a loyal friend of America”. Everything here makes sense, though. Individual citizens might object to the tightness between Taiwan and the United States, especially as described in the last sentence, but if you take it as given you see how important it is to stand by Taiwan’s side.

China
We will welcome the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous China, and we will welcome even more the development of a democratic China.  Its rulers have already discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth; the next lesson is that political and religious freedom leads to national greatness. That is not likely to be learned while the government in Beijing pursues advanced military capabilities without any apparent need, imposes a “one-child” policy on its people, suppresses basic human rights in Tibet and elsewhere, and erodes democracy in Hong Kong.  China must honor its obligations regarding free speech and a free press as announced prior to the Olympics.

All of this is worth supporting for a variety of reasons – the Tiananmen Square riots suggest China may well be culturally ready for democracy, even though they were, what, 20 years ago? And China is just too big for America to plausibly turn it into a vassal state.

The next paragraph starts with noting how “trade with China has created export opportunities for American farmers and workers” (some people might disagree with that statement), while the WTO and the world community (okay, technically the “marketplace”) have helped with “openness and the rule of law”. “We must yet ensure that China fulfills its WTO obligations, especially those related to protecting intellectual property rights, elimination of subsidies, and repeal of import restrictions.” The first half of the sentence and the first obligation listed, and to a lesser extent the last obligation, are all eminently agreeable, but… doesn’t the United States use subsidies? How much of the last two “obligations” are just “we want a bigger piece of the China pie”? In foreign affairs, the United States has two primary goals: to further our national interests, and to lift up all the people of the world. These last two “obligations” are aimed at the first goal, but their role in the second, especially the elimination of subsidies, is questionable. Certainly China would benefit from free trade, and the “repeal of import restrictions” is actually noble even when viewed from the eyes of the first goal.

A paragraph on Vietnam focuses on “accounting for, and repatriation of the remains of” Americans who were killed there, and “continued repression of human rights and religious freedom, and the retribution by the government of Vietnam against its ethnic minorities and others who assisted U.S. forces there.” Both of these are important matters.

“Burma We urge all the nations of East Asia to join the world-wide effort to restore the suffering people of Burma to the democratic family of nations. The military dictatorship in Burma is among the worst on the planet.  Its savagery demands a strong response from the world community, including economic and financial sanctions and isolation of the illegitimate regime.” This is a strong position, but fairly recently stories about how little the military junta cares about its people were all over the news. So I agree with this in full, assuming the Burmese people are primed and yearning for democracy, and we don’t attempt to turn Burma into a vassal state.

“Strengthening Our Relations with Europe”: We have “shared culture and values” with the people of Europe, and the Republicans want to especially give a shout-out to our friends in Great Britain. “The enduring truth – that America’s security is inseparable from Europe’s – was reaffirmed by our European allies after September 11, 2001.” NATO is stronger by the addition of new members in Central and Eastern Europe, and the Republicans want to leave NATO membership open for “all democratic nations who share our values and meet the requirements for NATO membership”. Would that include countries like Israel and Australia? In all seriousness, the Republicans move on to playing up missile defense systems again, this time “NATO-endorsed” ones to protect European allies from missiles from Iran, and gives a shout-out to Poland and the Czech Republic for allowing such systems in their countries (and condemns Russia for trying to intimidate former Soviet bloc nations into not doing so). That’s not the best thing for Russia to be doing, but again, are these missile defense systems effective or are they a waste of resources that would be better spent on things like intelligence and diplomacy?

There’s a two-sentence short paragraph supporting “reconciliation efforts in Cyprus and Northern Ireland” and condemns rising violent anti-Semitism “in Europe and other areas of the world”, both noble causes.

Russia
Americans and the Russian people have common imperatives: ending terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, promoting bilateral trade, and more.  But matters of serious concern remain, particularly the Russian government’s treatment of the press, opposition parties, and institutions of civil society. It continues its aggressive confrontations with its neighbors, from economic intimidation to outright warfare, and has aligned with dangerous anti-democratic forces in the Middle East.  As a condition for its continued acceptance in world organizations, Russia must respect the independence and territorial integrity of all the nations of the former Soviet Union, beginning with the republic of Georgia, and move toward a free and democratic society.

All important causes and good things to be supporting. There is some reason to think that Russia may have had reason to intervene in Georgia and overstepped its bounds, using a territorial dispute as a pretense for a full-on invasion, so hopefully the United States will also not abandon its role as an impartial mediator, and won’t let Russia start a new Cold War.

I’m fast approaching five thousand words, if I’m not over it already, and I’m losing more sleep tonight, but I’m almost near the end of the whole part. But bear with me if this last subsection is a little rushed. “The Middle East”: Starts with praising the democratizing direction of change in the Middle East, where “the overall trend has been toward cooperation and social and economic development, especially with regard to the rights of women.” Most governments in the region have supported the war on terror, and the Republicans give a shout-out to nations that have reached some sort of peace with Israel, tentative though they may be.

Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah should be isolated because “they do not meet the standards of the international community.” If so, I agree. “We call for the restoration of Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty and the full implementation of all UN resolutions concerning that country.” Not sure what’s even going on there, but sounds good as the GOP describes it. Finally, the GOP reassures people that they are not against Islam or the Arabs, that “the extremists we face are abusers of faith, not its champions”, and gives a shout-out to the contributions of “American Arabs and Muslims”.

“Israel Israel is a vigorous democracy, unique in the Middle East. We reaffirm America’s commitment to Israel’s security and will ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative edge in military technology over any potential adversaries.” Well, that’s not going to help you build your relations with the surrounding Arab nations. I hope you’re also going to make sure Israel doesn’t get aggressive. I mean really, “a qualitative edge in military technology over any potential adversaries”? Is Israel part of the United States now? “Israel must have secure, defensible borders and we support its right to exist as a Jewish state able to defend itself against homicide bombings, rocket and mortar fire, and other attacks against its people.” Some people might not support that, and at the moment I’m neutral, but if it does have the right to exist of course it has the right to defend itself.

We support the vision of two democratic states living in peace and security: Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, and Palestine. For that to become a reality, the Palestinian people must support leaders who reject terror, embrace the institutions and ethos of democracy, and respect the rule of law.  We call on Arab governments throughout the region to help advance that goal. We support Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and moving the American embassy to that undivided capital of Israel.

No. F*** no. A two-state solution with “Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel” will not work. Period. The Arab world will not stand for it. It is too pro-Israel, unless Israel becomes a place welcoming to all faiths and ethnicities. The only solution that will work in a million years is one that includes Jerusalem – and by extension, Israel/Palestine – being a place of openness to all faiths. It is too important to at least three religions for it to be otherwise. For that to become a reality, the Republicans’ middle two sentences are still of immense importance, perhaps even more so, so believe it or not I by and large support this part, I just think the underlying plan needs quite a bit of work. Maybe the Republicans are willing to put in that work, or at least throw out their plan if political realities prove it infeasible:

The U.S. seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves, without the imposition of an artificial timetable, and without the demand that Israel deal with entities which continue to pledge her destruction.  At the heart of any peace process must be a mutual commitment to resolve all issues through negotiation.  Part of that process must be a just, fair, and realistic framework for dealing with the Palestinian refugee issue.  Like all other elements in a meaningful agreement, this matter can be settled only on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect today’s realities as well as tomorrow’s hopes.

First of all, you need to make sure all parties aren’t stalling, so if you don’t have an “artificial timetable” you need accountability. Second, unfortunately, Hamas and Hezbollah are too powerful for Israel to ignore. Either you suck up and negotiate with terrorists or you don’t negotiate at all until you’ve crippled them, because if Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, that means they have one heck of a trump card and can hold up negotiations they don’t recognize. The rest is eminently agreeable.

Iraq

A stable, unified, and democratic Iraqi nation is within reach.  Our success in Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven, limit Iranian influence in the Middle East, strengthen moderate forces there, and give us a strategic ally in the struggle against extremism.  To those who have sacrificed so much, we owe the commitment that American forces will leave that country in victory and with honor.  That outcome is too critical to our own national security to be jeopardized by artificial or politically inspired timetables that neither reflect conditions on the ground nor respect the essential advice of our military commanders.  As the people of Iraq assume their rightful place in the ranks of free and open societies, we offer them a continuing partnership.

Wow, only a single paragraph on the ongoing situation in Iraq. Didn’t I hear that Iraq was demanding some sort of timetable for withdrawal? Hardly “politically inspired” I would hope, and at least partly driven by “conditions on the ground”. Most of the sentiment is hard to disagree with as phrased, actually.

Afghanistan
In the seven years since U.S. troops helped topple the Taliban, there has been great progress – but much remains to be done.  We must prevail in Afghanistan to prevent the reemergence of the Taliban or an al Qaeda sanctuary in that country.  A nationwide counterinsurgency strategy led by a unified commander is an essential prerequisite to success.  Additional forces are also necessary, both from NATO countries and through a doubling in size of the Afghan army.  The international community must work with the Afghan government to better address the problems of illegal drugs, governance, and corruption.  We flatly reject the Democratic Party’s idea that America can succeed in Afghanistan only by failure in Iraq.

Pacifists probably hate this part, but they probably gave up long ago. The first two and penultimate sentences are the most agreeable. So is the part about doubling Afghanistan’s own army, which would seem to indicate a strengthening of Afghan sovereignty. I’m not qualified to talk matters of military strategy, but the third sentence certainly sounds good. We’re already pulling out our troops from Iraq anyway, and we’re close enough to achieving our goals there we can knock that out and then jog over to Afghanistan. If you’re thinking the last sentence is probably a distortion of the Democratic position, you’re probably right.

We close out with “Iran”, where the Republicans claim the Iranian people “seek peace and aspire to freedom. Their current regime, aggressive and repressive, is unworthy of them.  The Iranian people, many of whom risk persecution to speak out for democracy, have a right to choose their own government.” Which certainly seems to be saying Iran is ready for democracy. Certainly it’s ready for something better than its current government. “As a rogue state, Iran’s leadership supports terror, threatens its neighbors, and provides weapons that are killing our troops in Iraq.  We affirm, in the plainest words we can use, that the U.S. government, in solidarity with the international community, will not allow the current regime in Tehran to develop nuclear weapons.” Certainly an agreeable point.

We call for a significant increase in political, economic, and diplomatic pressure to persuade Iran’s rulers to halt their drive for a nuclear weapons capability, and we support tighter sanctions against Iran and the companies with business operations in or with Iran. We oppose entering into a presidential-level, unconditional dialogue with the regime in Iran until it takes steps to improve its behavior, particularly with respect to support of terrorism and suspension of its efforts to enrich uranium.  At the same time, the U.S. must retain all options in dealing with a situation that gravely threatens our security, our interests, and the safety of our friends.

Wouldn’t some sort of dialogue be necessary to speed along the process of lowering support of terrorism and suspending uranium enrichment? To be sure, tighter sanctions – to instill a drive to negotiate – would certainly help. The wording and position of the last sentence indicates that the Republicans would be willing to engage in “unconditional dialogue” if things got desperate, but it could also indicate we really could be singing about “bombing Iran”…

Whew! Was that a long one or what? But we’ve cleared out this part and there’s still plenty more to come!

Sunday Night Football Flex Scheduling Watch: Week 7

by

NBC’s Sunday Night Football package gives it flexible scheduling. For the last seven weeks of the season, the games are determined on 12-day notice, 6-day notice for Week 17.

The first year, no game was listed in the Sunday Night slot, only a notation that one game could move there. Now, NBC lists the game it “tentatively” schedules for each night. However, the NFL is in charge of moving games to prime time.

Here are the rules from the NFL web site (note that this was written with last season in mind):

  • Begins Sunday of Week 11
  • In effect during Weeks 11-17
  • Only Sunday afternoon games are subject to being moved into the Sunday night window.
  • The game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night during flex weeks will be listed at 8:15 p.m. ET. (Note: Last year, NBC listed a tentative game for Week 17; they are not doing so this year.)
  • The majority of games on Sundays will be listed at 1:00 p.m. ET during flex weeks except for games played in Pacific or Mountain Time zones which will be listed at 4:05 or 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • No impact on Thursday, Saturday or Monday night games.
  • The NFL will decide (after consultation with CBS, FOX, NBC) and announce as early as possible the game being played at 8:15 p.m. ET. The announcement will come no later than 12 days prior to the game. The NFL may also announce games moving to 4:05 p.m. ET and 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • Week 17 start time changes could be decided on 6 days notice to ensure a game with playoff implications.
  • The NBC Sunday night time slot in “flex” weeks will list the game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night. (Note: Again, excluding Week 17.)
  • Fans and ticket holders must be aware that NFL games in flex weeks are subject to change 12 days in advance (6 days in Week 17) and should plan accordingly.
  • NFL schedules all games.
  • Teams will be informed as soon as they are no longer under consideration or eligible for a move to Sunday night.
  • Rules NOT listed on NFL web site but pertinent to flex schedule selection: CBS and Fox each protect games in five out of six weeks, and could not protect any games Week 17 last year. Unless I find out otherwise, I’m assuming that’s still the case this year, especially with no tentative game listed Week 17, and that protections were scheduled after Week 4.
  • Three teams can appear a maximum of six games in primetime on NBC, ESPN or NFL Network (everyone else gets five) and no team may appear more than four times on NBC. A list of all teams’ number of appearances is in my Week 4 post.

Here are the current tentatively-scheduled games and my predictions:

Week 11 (November 16):

  • Tentative game: Dallas @ Washington
  • Prospects: This game may be sliding with Tony Romo’s injury; if the Cowboys go on a losing tear the next two weeks it could cost the NFL’s greatest rivalry a Sunday night spot.
  • Likely protections: Ravens-Giants, Titans-Jaguars, or nothing (CBS) and Bears-Packers (FOX)
  • Other possible games: Chargers-Steelers is looking lopsided and is another nominee for protection. Broncos-Falcons doesn’t look that hot. For the moment, this game still has the best chance to keep its spot.

Week 12 (November 23):

  • Tentative game: Indianapolis @ San Diego
  • Prospects: A 3-3 v. 3-4 matchup that pits #16 v. #19 in NBCSports.com’s power rankings. Suddenly looks decidedly mediocre and prone to losing its spot.
  • Likely protections: Eagles-Ravens (Fox) and Jets-Titans (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Panthers-Falcons still looks good, but the Falcons are 13th in NBC’s power rankings. Giants-Cardinals is probably in front. Patriots-Dolphins is fading again. Too close to call right now.

Week 13 (November 30):

  • Tentative game: Chicago @ Minnesota
  • Prospects: 4-3 v. 3-4, Chicago is 12th in NBCSports.com’s latest power rankings, and a big game with big NFC North implications. The Vikings probably need to improve, however.
  • Likely protections: Giants-Redskins (Fox) and either Steelers-Patriots or Broncos-Jets (CBS).
  • Other possible games: It’s Thanksgiving Weekend, so more teams like the Cowboys and Titans aren’t available. Panthers-Packers is suddenly a strong candidate again. On the off chance Steelers-Patriots isn’t protected it might still have to deal with Panthers-Packers. If it is, Broncos-Jets is no longer much of a draw. Falcons-Chargers is fading with the Chargers. Look for Saints-Bucs to potentially emerge as a dark horse.

Week 14 (December 7):

  • Tentative game: New England @ Seattle
  • Prospects: The Seahawks are just too terrible for this game to keep its spot.
  • Likely protections: Cowboys-Steelers (FOX) and if anything, Jags-Bears (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Redskins-Ravens is probably out with the Ravens’ losing streak, which means the Eagles and Giants may have a Sunday Night date to look forward to. Jags-Bears is a very dark horse if it’s unprotected, and Falcons-Saints could emerge as one.

Week 15 (December 14):

  • Tentative game: NY Giants @ Dallas
  • Prospects: This is why I had Fox protect Bears-Packers Week 11: so they could leave this week protection-free and maximize their chances of getting a marquee NFC East matchup back. However, this game may be starting to fade if Tony Romo is out a while.
  • Likely protections: Steelers-Ravens, Broncos-Panthers, Bills-Jets, or nothing (CBS).
  • Othe possible games: Packers-Jaguars has rebounded a little, but Bucs-Falcons is looking terrific. None of the potentially protected games looks all that great at the moment.

Week 16 (December 21):

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Tampa Bay
  • Prospects: It’s 3-4 @ 5-2, and the Chargers are fading fast. Way too lopsided.
  • Likely protections: Panthers-Giants or Eagles-Redskins (FOX) and Steelers-Titans (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Cardinals-Patriots is still strong, but Falcons-Vikings and Bills-Broncos are both fading, so the only thing stopping Cardinals-Pats could be the game Fox didn’t protect.

Week 17 (December 28):

  • Playoff positioning watch begins Week 9.

Our long national nightmare is over! I think!

by

Sandsday should be pretty much back to normal now, so I’m removing the “Sandsday on Da Blog” notice. Freehostia is displaying a notice about their busted MySQL database server, but Sandsday wasn’t showing an error when I checked and seemed to be pretty much back to normal, so I’m guessing I escaped it, or it’s fixed and they haven’t changed their notice. And there’s still a little bug in their file manager as well.

(I think I’m considering ditching Freehostia again, but only if my ad revenue is sufficient for me to move to a paid host. And I’m thinking getting my own domain would be a higher priority for ad revenue than a paid host.)

Examining the Republican Platform Part I: Preamble, “Defending Our Nation” and “Supporting Our Heroes”

by


We’re far from done examining the Democratic platform, but as I’ve found out most of what I need to know on my principal issue and as this experiment is taking WAY longer than I had hoped, and as I’m having trouble properly critiquing the Dems when I’m only being exposed to their side, we’re moving on to the Republican platform and the wonders it may have in store for us, and how Americans may assess both parties’ platforms. The first thing I notice, aside from the longer length (which is really due to more page breaks), is that the Republicans, at least superficially, make their platform read more like a book. In addition to the PDF I’m working off, you can also read the platform as a series of HTML pages, and in the PDF everything is in a two-column format. The Democrats appear to use Times New Roman for their preamble, and a web-style form where extra spacing, not indents, mark paragraphs; the Republicans use a more stylish font and use indents to mark paragraphs. The preamble comes before the table of contents and reads more like an introduction than the summary-cum-speech the Democratic preamble reads like, and the table of contents lists just each part and not a full outline of each part like the Democratic platform.

But what about the preamble itself? Like the Democrats, the Republicans proclaim their platform

the product of the most open and transparent process in American political history. We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance that our Republican ideals are those that unify our country: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom. Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every person. Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another. Distrust of government’s interference in people’s lives. Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty.

To this list, there is not really a good equivalent in the Democratic preamble; there are a couple of lists that come close but perhaps the best example may be the preamble as a whole, or maybe its own first paragraph. I would quibble with a couple of things – I don’t want an overly optimistic patriotism that fails to recognize certain flaws. Other than that all of this at least sounds good, but again, can we trust the Republicans to bring any of it? And I’m not sure our “faith in the virtues…” is particularly well placed at this moment.

The Republicans are no less scared of taking a shot at the Democrats as the Democrats are of taking shots at Bush:

We present this platform at an uncertain point in time. Our country remains at war and committed to victory, but reckless political forces would imperil that goal and endanger our nation. In the economy and in society at large, it is a time of transformation. But the American people will meet these challenges. Even with its uncertainties, they embrace the future, but they are also too wise to rush headlong into it. We are an adventurous, risk-taking people, but we are not gamblers. A sound democracy trusts new leadership but insists that it demonstrate the old virtues: the character and the command that, in times of conflict and crisis, have led the Republic through its trials.

The Republicans proclaim their foundation on “proven truths and tested wisdom” and that the platform “shows what the American people can accomplish when government respects their rights, conserves their resources, and calls upon their love of country. It is not a tribute to bigger government.” (Man, for a party that was in power for 12 years in Congress and the last 8 years in the presidency, they sure do love their small government tack!) These sort of even emptier platitudes continue for a while, including proclaiming themselves “a party – as we are a nation – of mavericks” and “the one party that speaks to all Americans – conservatives, moderates, libertarians, independents, and even liberals.” This sort of thing continues for a while, with no overview of the current situation or overview of what the Republicans are actually proposing, as in the Democratic preamble. It does end “[w]ith gratitude for eight years of honorable service from President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republican Party now stands united behind new leadership, an American patriot, John McCain” and an invocation to the Almighty.
So I’ll move right along into Part I, “Defending Our Nation, Supporting Our Heroes, Securing the Peace”. Unlike in the Democratic platform, parts aren’t given numbers so I’ve added them. It’s telling that the Democrats start with the economic crisis and helping the American family, and the Republicans start with military matters.

Three decades ago, in a world as dangerous as today’s, Americans of all stripes came together to advance the cause of freedom. They had witnessed the wreckage of inexperienced good intentions at the highest levels of government, the folly of an amateur foreign policy. And so, in defiance of a world-wide Marxist advance, they announced a goal as enduring as the vision of Isaiah, to “proclaim liberty to the captives,” and summed up America’s strategy for achieving that end in a timeless slogan: Peace through strength – an enduring peace, based on freedom and the will to defend it.

That goal still requires the unity of Americans beyond differences of party and conflicts of personality. The rancor of past years must now give way to a common goal of security for our country and safety for our people. For seven years, the horror of September 11, 2001 has not been repeated on our soil. For that, we are prayerfully grateful and salute all who have played a role in defending our homeland. We pledge to continue their vigilance and to assure they have the authority and resources they need to protect the nation.

The last sentence is the only really “overview” part of this brief introduction.
“Defending Our Nation”: “The Current Conflict Abroad”: “Our first obligation is the security of our country.” There, I’ve affirmed it. Keeping us safe keeps everyone safe to enjoy everything else.

The waging of war – and the achieving of peace – should never be micromanaged in a party platform, or on the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives for that matter. In dealing with present conflicts and future crises, our next president must preserve all options. It would be presumptuous to specify them in advance and foolhardy to rule out any action deemed necessary for our security.

Um. Okay. I get your point, but can I get at least a broad idea of what approach you’d take? Would you favor diplomacy first, or just charge in with guns a-blazin’? Are you really willing to throw out any principles if it’s “necessary for our security”? Come to think of it, you don’t really make the point that it would be dangerous to “specify them in advance”, so you’re basically saying, you don’t have a plan and you’d just like to do whatever you want. After the unpopular Iraq war, how can we trust you with that power? Or is this like the Democrats and the economic crisis?
“Homeland Security”: “The security of the country is now everyone’s responsibility,” proclaim the Republicans. “The fact that eighty percent of our critical infrastructure is in private hands highlights the need for public-private partnerships to safeguard it, especially in the energy industry.” I’ll keep this in mind; I can certainly see the thinking behind it.

Along with unrelenting vigilance to prevent bioterrorism and other WMD-related attacks, we must regularly exercise our ability to quickly respond if one were to occur. We must continue to remove barriers to cooperation and information sharing. Modernized 9-1-1 services must be made universally available and be adequately funded. We must be able to thwart cyber attacks that could cripple our economy, monitor terrorist activities while respecting Americans’ civil liberties, and protect against military and industrial espionage and sabotage. All this requires experienced leadership.

All well and good – you better make sure you do respect Americans’ civil liberties, is all I have to add. Presumably the “experienced leadership” line is taking a shot at Obama.
“Terrorism and Nuclear Proliferation”: Man, the Republicans are not shy about taking shots at Democrats:

The attacks of September 11, 2001 were a pivot point in our national experience. They highlighted the failure of national policy to recognize and respond to the growth of a global terror network. They should have put an end to the Democrats’ naïve thinking that international terrorists could be dealt with within the normal criminal justice system, but that misconception persists.

Um… first of all, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. Whose “failure of national policy” was it? And since the terrorists weren’t even pursued prior to 9/11, how did 9/11 prove they couldn’t be “dealt with within the normal criminal justice system”? There’s a point to be made that “international terrorists” should be dealt with internationally, but the Republicans don’t really say so, so for all I know they just want to deal with terrorists or even people they think might have a tiny chance of being terrorists however they want.
“The gravest threat we face – nuclear terrorism – demands a comprehensive strategy for reducing the world’s nuclear stockpiles and preventing proliferation. The U.S. should lead that effort by reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number consistent with our security requirements and working with other nuclear powers to do the same.” Sounds all well and good. “In cooperation with other nations, we should end the production of weapons-grade fissile material, improve our collective ability to interdict the spread of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, and ensure the highest possible security standards for existing nuclear materials wherever they may be located.” Again, can’t argue with that.

But that is not enough. We must develop and deploy both national and theater missile defenses to protect the American homeland, our people, our Armed Forces abroad, and our allies. Effective, layered missile defenses are critical to guard against the unpredictable actions of rogue regimes and outlaw states, reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail, and avoid the disastrous consequences of an accidental or unauthorized launch by a foreign power.

Ooo…kay. I’ve heard bad things about the effectiveness and expense of such schemes. But we do need to protect against, say, an unprovoked, out-of-nowhere attack from North Korea, not let ourselves be blackmailed, and not let dumb mistakes start World War III. The middle option, and to some extent the first suggests just the opposite of what the Republicans had proposed in the previous paragraph – improving our military power – but mistakes could happen (although World War III hasn’t started yet) and I’d like to make sure we have a strategy. I’ll see if the Democrats propose anything that might actually work.
But oh look! We have an answer to at least the first! “Better Intelligence – the Key to Prevention”: “Intelligence is America’s first line of defense. We must increase the ranks and resources of our human intelligence capabilities, integrate technical and human sources, and get that information more quickly to the warfighter and the policy maker. The multi-jurisdictional arrangements that now prevail on Capitol Hill should be replaced by a single Joint Committee on Intelligence.” All very well and good, though I don’t know what the real impact of creating a “Joint Committee on Intelligence” would be.

Intelligence is Key to Fighting Bioterrorism and Cyberterrorism
Bioterrorism and cyberterrorism, once the stuff of science fiction films, are immediate threats to our nation’s health and safety. Our food and water distribution systems require special vigilance. By the same token, a well-placed cyber-attack could cripple our economy, shut down our energy and transportation systems, wreck our health care delivery systems, and put millions of lives at risk. Although our country has thwarted new terrorist attacks since 2001, those threats do persist. That is why our reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was so vital, and why the Democrats’ opposition to it was so wrong.

This makes it sound like the GOP reformed FISA to improve our intelligence agencies’ ability to stop bioterrorism and cyberterrorism, a laudable goal, and nothing more. But without details, I don’t know if there aren’t good reasons for the Dems to oppose it.
“Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law”: “Immigration policy is a national security issue, for which we have one test: Does it serve the national interest? By that standard, Republicans know America can have a strong immigration system without sacrificing the rule of law.” Which means we can continue letting in the immigrants that make this country great, but presumably we aren’t letting in criminals and terrorists. Or, as they put it later, “terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs”. So of course the first subheading is “Enforcing the Rule of Law at the Border and Throughout the Nation”, which lets you know where the GOP’s real priorities lie. Still, this subheading talks about laudable goals: “allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people. We simply must be able to track who is entering and leaving our country.” I don’t disagree with any of that, although if they’re perfectly innocent and not a threat to our sovereignty they shouldn’t just be kicked out.

Our determination to uphold the rule of law begins with more effective enforcement, giving our agents the tools and resources they need to protect our sovereignty, completing the border fence quickly and securing the borders, and employing complementary strategies to secure our ports of entry. Experience shows that enforcement of existing laws is effective in reducing and reversing illegal immigration.

So the Republicans are all about enforcing the law. Support our border agents, fence ourselves off, “secure our ports of entry”. “Reducing and reversing illegal immigration” might hint at a disdainful attitude towards immigrants. Rather than track down the bad apples that would undermine the rule of law, the Republicans just want to seal ourselves off. This perhaps becomes especially pronounced in the next paragraph:

Our commitment to the rule of law means smarter enforcement at the workplace, against illegal workers and lawbreaking employers alike, along with those who practice identity theft and traffic in fraudulent documents. As long as jobs are available in the United States, economic incentives to enter illegally will persist. But we must empower employers so they can know with confidence that those they hire are permitted to work. That means that the E-Verify system – which is an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees – must be reauthorized. A phased-in requirement that employers use the E-Verify system must be enacted.

It’s clear that the Republicans’ concern is not solely with the rule of law. Crack down on illegal workers whether they want to destroy America or not – and their employers as well. “Those who practice identity theft and traffic in fraudulent documents” I’m okay with cracking down on, but let’s also make it less necessary. It’s also clear from the bit about E-Verify that by “employers” in the first sentence the GOP means employers who knowingly employ illegals, presumably out of fear those employers are trying to undermine the “rule of law”. Never mind that those illegals might be contributing to our economy. I agree with the whole E-Verify bit but I think I see it very differently than the Republicans see it.
“The rule of law means guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay – and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult.” Of course due process should be in place here, but if someone is convicted with a crime serious enough to warrant deportation of course we should do so. “It means enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry.” Of course, but maybe we should find out why people overstay their visas instead of renewing them if they need to. “It means imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S., both for their lawbreaking and for their cruel exploitation.” Agreed, but what do you mean by “maximum penalties”, and are you willing to scale it to the level of exploitation? For example, if a bunch of people form a cooperative to sneak across the border, is there any “exploitation” here?

It means requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens. It does not mean driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits, except as provided by federal law.

So much for states’ rights! Seriously, the idea that it’s OK to be an illegal alien in some places and not in others is kind of ridiculous (not to mention, really does undermine the “rule of law”), but I would think what would be needed is some sort of reform that reduces the demand for such cities. Rewarding illegal aliens is not exactly okay, but shouldn’t we have a process for verifying them and making them legal? I mean, when I think of a “strong immigration system” I think of a system that welcomes the world’s detritus with open arms, “your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” but still puts them through a system that keeps the country safe and secure, allowing immigrants to contribute to the American economy without undermining our security. Or am I just stuck in the 19th century?
“We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.” “Assume legality first and ask questions later” certainly is not a good idea, but it seems that “the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law” is part of the reason some people are proposing amnesty, because it would take forever to process all the legalization requests. Here’s a thought: How about if we work to help Mexico improve its economy and living standards, so we’re no longer half of one of the largest disparities in living standards across a border on Earth and so we don’t have the entire population of Mexico looking to hop the fence?
Fortunately, the Republicans are also at least willing to pay lip service to my idea of a “strong immigration system”, because the next subheading is “Embracing Immigrant Communities”, and it’s full of the sort of empty platitudes you’d expect from people campaigning for immigrant votes. Here are the actual points of policy: “Both government and the private sector must do more to foster legally present immigrants’ integration into American life to advance respect for the rule of law and a common American identity. It is a national disgrace that the first experience most new Americans have is with a dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy defined by delay and confusion; we will no longer tolerate those failures.” Amen! “In our multiethnic nation, everyone – immigrants and native-born alike – must embrace our core values of liberty, equality, meritocracy, and respect for human dignity and the rights of women.” Ideally, yes please!*

One sign of our unity is our English language. For newcomers, it has always been the fastest route to prosperity in America. English empowers. We support English as the official language in our nation, while welcoming the ethnic diversity in the United States and the territories, including language. Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English. English is the accepted language of business, commerce, and legal proceedings, and it is essential as a unifying cultural force. It is also important, as part of cultural integration, that our schools provide better education in U.S. history and civics for all children, thereby fostering a commitment to our national motto, E Pluribus Unum.

Ah, here’s a way to say “we support immigration” while still scoring political points! I smell an undercurrent of “durn forinners and their durn gib’rish”. Ideally, if English “has always been the fastest route to prosperity in America”, immigrants would learn English of their own accord. This ties in with what the Democrats were talking about with regards to multiculturalism and learning new languages. I can tell the Republicans are probably greatly concerned about the Democrats’ proposal for children to learn at least one other language.
So let’s see… I hope we can all support the Democrats’ proposal for increased funding for bilingual “English Language Learner” classes. But should we also ask our own kids to learn one other language? Dems would say we should in order to compete in the global economy, Republicans would say it would undermine English’s central status as our national, “unifying” language. But nothing says everyone has to learn Spanish; some people could learn French, some German, some Japanese, some Farsi. English could remain the one language that unifies us all as Americans, but at the same time we can also compete and trade with nations that aren’t part of the British Commonwealth.
The last sentence is certainly something no one could disagree with if they consider themselves patriots, although hopefully the US history lesson is a bit deeper than “we’re so great, we’re greatly greatly great”. This subheading ends with a thank-you to immigrants in the military, and how it’s a reminder to “the institutions of civil society of the need to embrace newcomers, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid patterns of isolation.” I’m not sure how that squares with all the roadblocks the Republicans threw up in the first subheading.
(*=trying to stifle guffaws of laughter)
Finally: “Welcoming Refugees Our country continues to accept refugees from
troubled lands all over the world. In some cases,
these are people who stood with America in dangerous
times, and they have first call on our hospitality.
We oppose, however, the granting of refugee status on the basis of lifestyle or other non-political factors.” What? What does this even mean? Are you saying that if someone is kicked out of, say, Saudi Arabia because they’re gay you wouldn’t grant them safe haven? Or does it mean something else? Because if you’re saying that, you’re kind of breaking the spirit of our reputation of welcomeness for the sake of paltry political disputes… I hate to bring Hitler into this sort of discussion, but it’s kind of like refusing to take in refugees of the Holocaust…
“Supporting Our Heroes”: Unlike the last section, this section contains an introduction of sorts, trying to take credit for “the best-manned, best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led military in the world” and accusing Clinton of “neglect[ing] and under-fund[ing]” it. “Our Armed Forces today are modern, agile, and adaptable to the unpredictable range of challenges in the years ahead. We pledge to keep them that way.”
“Providing for the Armed Forces”:

The men and women who wear our country’s uniform – whether on active duty or in the Reserves or National Guard – are the most important assets in our military arsenal. They and their families must have the pay, health care, housing, education, and overall support they need. We must significantly increase the size of our Armed Forces; crucial to that goal will be retention of combat veterans.

No one, certainly no patriot, would disagree with the first two sentences, but “significantly increase the size of our Armed Forces”? “[R]etention of combat veterans” that just want to go home? I thought pacifists would hate the Democratic preamble, but this makes the Dems sound like kumbaya-chanting hippies! Didn’t the Republicans already make our military “the best-manned… military in the world”? Why do they feel the need to add more people to “our Armed Forces”? I really want to find out what it is that makes the Republicans think we need to boost our military even more because I don’t want some sort of militaristic bully as a home country and I want a reassurance the Republicans want peace. And this is in their public party platform? Really, what is it?

Injured military personnel deserve the best medical care our country has to offer. The special circumstances of the conflict in Iraq have resulted in an unprecedented incidence of traumatic brain injury, which calls for a new commitment of resources and personnel for its care and treatment. We must make military medicine the gold standard for advances in prosthetics and the treatment of trauma and eye injuries.

Absolutely agreeable from top to bottom, but you haven’t exactly answered my question… “We must always remember those who have given the ultimate sacrifice; their families must be assured meaningful financial assistance. It is the solemn duty we owe and honor we give to those who bravely don the uniform of freedom.” Again, completely agreeable.

National Guard and Reserves
We pledge to maintain the strength of the National Guard and Reserves and to ensure they receive pay, benefits, and resources befitting their service. Their historic role as citizen-soldiers is a proud tradition linking every community with the cause of national security. We affirm service members’ legal right to return to their civilian jobs, whether in government or in the private sector, when their active duty is completed, and we call for greater transition assistance from employers across the nation to smooth their return to the work force.

Once again, completely agreeable, though the significant presence of National Guard troops in Iraq is a cause for concern.

Personnel policies
The all-volunteer force has been a success. We oppose reinstituting the draft, whether directly or through compulsory national service. We support the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from ground combat units. Military priorities and mission must determine personnel policies. Esprit and cohesion are necessary for military effectiveness and success on the battlefield. To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.

I can’t help but wonder if “through compulsory national service” is a shot at the Democrats’ attempts to mandate community service. If so, it’s actually a decent point. Not sure whether I like or dislike the exemption of women from “ground combat units”. For the most part, the last couple of sentences sound good, saying we need camaraderie to have the strongest military we can, but I’m not sure how government policies can benefit that goal – and the one specific they provide, “the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service”, is kind of scary. That, like the need to exempt women from “ground combat units”, is a real difference of opinion and it’s probably on shakier ground.
“Fulfilling our Commitment to our Veterans”: “To military personnel who have served honorably and then retire or leave active duty, we owe a smooth transition to civilian life. Funding for the programs that assist them should be sufficient, timely, and predictable and never be subject to political gamesmanship.” As always seems to be the case, I can’t disagree.

Economic Opportunity for Veterans
Returning veterans must have access to education benefits, job training, and a wide variety of employment options. We want to build on the bipartisan expansion of the GI Bill by encouraging private colleges to bridge the gap between GI Bill education benefits and tuition costs. We will strongly enforce the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act so that returning veterans can promptly return to their former jobs. Our existing “veteran preference” regulations must lead to real action, not hollow promises. We encourage private businesses to expand their outreach to the veterans community, especially disabled veterans.

All sounds good, assuming there isn’t anything insidious behind it, and while “veteran preference” sounds like a version of affirmative action, if you’re a patriot you probably think it’s a fair one.

Veterans’ Health Care and Disability System
We will hold the VA accountable for tangible results and steady improvement of its services. The VA must become more responsive and more efficient by eliminating its disability backlog and reducing waiting times for treatment. To ensure that the VA provides veterans with world class medical care, both at its own facilities and through partnerships with community providers, we must recruit the next generation of highly qualified medical professionals.

I hope you have a real plan to make the VA more efficient that doesn’t involve shortchanging veterans receiving treatment. I’ll keep in mind that you want top-flight medical professionals to go to the VA; can’t quite remember if the Dems took a stand on where the best doctors should go when they were spouting off about health care. “Where distance or crowding is an obstacle to traditional
VA facility-based care, our veterans should be
provided access to qualified out-of-network
providers.” And of course, the Republicans’ solution to everything, as always, is privatization! To be fair, this talks about cases where the VA isn’t available anyway, so ideally veterans would get the next best alternative. “We call for greater attention by the VA to
the special health care needs of women veterans,
who will comprise an even larger percentage of VA patients in the future.” Sounds fair enough, though ideally the VA is already making plans.
“The VA’s current disability compensation formulas need to be restructured and modernized. Those who have borne the burden of war must have access to training, rehabilitation, and education. Their families and caregivers deserve our concern and support.” For a patriot, the last two sentences make sense, but I’m not sure what you think is wrong with the current formulas for these purposes…

We pledge special attention to combat stress injuries. There must be adequate counseling when veterans return home – for them and their families. They should have ongoing professional care, whether in a VA facility or closer to home, so that the natural and usually temporary responses to the horrors of war do not become permanent conditions. We recognize the need for more mental health professionals who can give the highest quality treatment to our veterans.

This may be one of the most important parts of VA care, so I applaud this sentiment as well. The mental and psychological scars of war may be as bad if not worse than the physical scars. This heading ends with applause and a call for support for non-profit organizations that provide their own help to “veterans and their families”.
The last subsection is very short so I’ll plow on even though it may put this post further past 5,000 words than it would have been short of that number if I had stopped before talking about veterans, if that makes any sense. “Procurement Reform”:

The military’s partners are the men and women who work in the defense industry and civilian sector, supplying the Armed Forces with weapons and equipment vital to the success of their mission. To ensure that our troops receive the best material at the best value, we must reform the defense budgeting and acquisition process to control costs and ensure vigorous and fair competition. We will not allow congressional pork to take the place of sound, sustained investment in the nation’s security.

Ah yes, once again big praise for the private sector, specifically the infamous military-industrial complex! Actually “control[ling] costs” is very important because I’ve heard too many horror stories about no-bid contracts resulting in poor treatment for our men and women in Iraq, but “control[ling] costs” is the closest the Republicans come to recognizing those shoddy conditions and their cause. Well, and “vigorous and fair competition” presumably means no more no-bid contracts either. But do we really need to change the system or just install controls to prevent bypassing it? And is it telling that this issue gets a single paragraph?
Hopefully with just this one post, and the first two for the Democrats, you already see a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hit the ground running with as many social issues as they can shake a stick at, with a very long section on health care reform. Republicans are all about national security and our military. We’ll see what happens when both parties dabble into each other’s fields later in the week. As for how long we’re going, we’ve made it to what Acrobat calls page 13 of 67, so we could be good for five parts… but a significant number of those pages contain nothing of substance. Stay tuned.

College Football Schedule: Week 9

by

The BCS standings may be out, but my College Football Rankings are still the rankings you see on the schedule. I’ve also updated the lineal titles, including a change in the NFL lineal title, despite Freehostia being a little kinky at the moment. Apologies for putting this out now when Ohio-Temple is already underway. All times Eastern.

Top 25 Games
*Oklahoma State @ Texas 3:30 ABC
USC @ Arizona 7 PT FSN
Penn State @ Ohio State 8 PM ABC
Oklahoma @ Kansas State 12:30 FSN
Kentucky @ *Florida 12:30 R’com/Y’hoo
Central Florida @ Tulsa 8 PM SU ESPN
*Alabama @ Tennessee 7:45 ESPN
Texas Tech @ #21 Kansas Noon ESPN
Colorado @ Missouri 6:30 FSN
#12 Georgia @ LSU 3:30 CBS
Wyoming @ TCU 6 PM mtn.
Eastern Michigan @ #14 Ball State Noon CSD.TV
#16 Boise State @ San Jose State 9 PM FR ESPN2
Virginia @ #17 Georgia Tech 3:30 ESPNU
#25 Boston College @ #18 North Carolina Noon Raycom
UNLV @ #20 BYU 2 PM mtn.
#22 Minnesota @ Purdue Noon ESPN Classic
Baylor @ #23 Nebraska 12:30 VS.
Watchlist and Other Positive B Point Teams
Duke @ Vanderbilt 3 PM
South Florida @ Louisville 3:30 BEN (ESPN+)
Rutgers @ Pittsburgh 3:30 ESPN360
Michigan State @ Michigan 3:30 ABC/ESPN2
Virginia Tech @ Florida State 3:30 ABC/ESPN2
Bowling Green @ Northern Illinois 4 PM CSN/CBSCS XXL
Fresno State @ Utah State 3 PM KAIL/KJZZ/CSN W
This Week’s Other HD Games
Ohio @ Temple 8 PM TU ESPN2
Auburn @ West Virginia 7:30 TH ESPN
New Mexico @ Air Force 8 PM TH CBS CS
Illinois @ Wisconsin Noon ESPN2
Wake Forest @ Miami (FL) Noon ESPNU
Northwestern @ Indiana Noon BTN
SMU @ Navy 3:30 CBS CS
Middle Tenn. St. @ Mississippi State 7 PM ESPNU
Notre Dame @ Washington 8 PM ESPN2
Big 12
Texas A&M @ Iowa State 7 PM FCS
SEC
Mississippi @ Arkansas 7 PM PPV
ACC
NC State @ Maryland 3:30 ESPN360
Big East
Cincinnati @ Connecticut Noon BEN (ESPN+)
MAC
Central Michigan @ Toledo Noon ESPN+
Kent State @ Miami (OH) 3:30 ONN/CSD.TV
MWC
Colorado State @ San Diego State 9:30 mtn.
C-USA
Rice @ Tulane 3 PM
Southern Miss @ Memphis 8 PM CBS CS
Pac-10
UCLA @ California 3:30 ABC
Oregon @ Arizona State 7 PT
WAC
New Mexico State @ Idaho 5 PM Altitude/CSD.TV
Nevada @ Hawaii 9 PT KAME/PPV
Sun Belt
Florida Atlantic @ Louisiana-Monroe 7 PM ESPN+
Troy @ North Texas 7 PM CSD.TV
Bowl Subdivision
Louisiana Tech @ Army 1 PM ESPN360

Examining the Democratic Platform Part II: “Empowering Families for a New Era”, plus Energy and Education

by


This is continued from Part I of my examination of the Democratic Platform, which included the part of “Empowering Families for a New Era” that dealt with health care.
“Retirement and Social Security”: Skip the opening sentences of this subsection, which includes a call to “preserve and protect existing public and private pension plans”, and get into the actual changes. Very briefly, about “We will automatically enroll every worker in a workplace pension plan that can be carried from job to job and we will match savings for working families who need the help.” Would this be a government-managed pension plan? Would you require employers to provide some sort of pension plan in addition to health care? How does this affect small businesses and the self-employed?

We will make sure that CEOs can’t dump workers’ pensions with one hand while they line their own pockets with the other. At platform hearings, Americans made it clear they feel that’s an outrage, and it’s time we had leaders who treat it as an outrage. We will ensure all employees who have company pensions receive annual disclosures about their pension fund’s investments, including full details about which projects have been invested in, the performance of those investments and appropriate details about probable future investments strategies. We also will reform corporate bankruptcy laws so that workers’ retirements are a priority for funding and workers are not left with worthless IOU’s after years of service.

And no one will pay any attention to those disclosures, but it’s a nice idea. Of course that means more bureaucracy to enforce the law. And where, exactly, would the increased funding for retirement accounts come from? Wouldn’t this just be throwing more stuff on the heap of stuff reaching for a limited pot? I think insuring retirement accounts somehow would be a better idea, like we insure our savings accounts.
“Finally, we will eliminate all federal income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year. Lower- and middle-income seniors already have to worry about high health care and energy costs; they should not have to worry about tax burdens as well.” More money growing on trees; this threatens a drastic reduction in tax revenue. But I’m of the belief that the original point of income taxes is lost when the dirt poor have to pay them, so why stop at seniors making less than 50 grand? Even a hard cutoff of 10-25 grand would work. Of course you’d have to increase other taxes to compensate.
“We reject the notion of the presumptive Republican nominee that Social Security is a disgrace; we believe that it is indispensable. We will fulfill our obligation to strengthen Social Security and to make sure that it provides guaranteed benefits Americans can count on, now and in future generations. We will not privatize it.” Now, now, I don’t think McCain was saying Social Security itself was a disgrace and should be thrown out, only that it’s a disgrace as presently constituted. Notice that the Democrats spend all of two paragraphs on retirement, one of which is very short and non-substantial. They’re treating retirement and social security much as they treated the current economic crisis. Translation: They really care about health care.
“Good Jobs with Good Pay”:

In the platform hearings, Americans expressed dismay that people who are willing to study and work cannot get a job that pays enough to live on in the current economy. Democrats are committed to an economic policy that produces good jobs with good pay and benefits. That is why we support the right to organize. We know that when unions are allowed to do their job of making sure that workers get their fair share, they pull people out of poverty and create a stronger middle class.

That all sounds reasonable enough. But “We will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions and fight to pass the Employee Free Choice Act”? Stop right there! From what I’ve heard and read, the EFCA would take away secret ballot elections for union formation, which could cause as many problems as it solves. You can “strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions” without throwing out the secret ballot, or at least I would hope so.

“We will restore pro-worker voices to the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board and we support overturning the NLRB’s and NMB’s many harmful decisions that undermine the collective bargaining rights of millions of workers.” Not knowing what these decisions are or what the boards actually look like, this sounds okay, and an example of “strengthen[ing] the ability of workers to organize unions” under the secret ballot model.

“We will ensure that federal employees, including public safety officers who put their lives on the line every day, have the right to bargain collectively, and we will fix the broken bargaining process at the Federal Aviation Administration. We will fight to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so that workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.” Again, I see nothing wrong with any of this, so I’ll omit some sentences for the rest of the paragraph.

“We will continue to vigorously oppose “Right-to-Work” Laws and “paycheck protection” efforts whenever they are proposed.” Wait, those both sound nice, so what’s wrong with them? “We will stop the abuse of privatization of government jobs.” Doesn’t privatization save money? How is abuse, as implied here, inherent in privatization?

“Our Department of Labor will restore and expand overtime rights for millions of Americans, and will actively enforce wage and hour laws.” Sounds nice. “Our Occupational Safety and Health Administration will adopt and enforce comprehensive safety standards.” Again, sounds nice; the main reason these two things were broken into their own paragraph was to take a shot at Bush.

In America, if someone is willing to work, he or she should be able to make ends meet and have the opportunity to prosper. To that end, we will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation, and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit so that workers can support themselves and their families. We will modernize the unemployment insurance program to close gaps and extend benefits to the workers who now fall outside it.

Indexing the minimum wage to inflation just makes head-slapping sense. Not sure about the EITC. Hopefully when modernizing the unemployment insurance program you don’t remove any incentive to work.

“Work and Family”: “Over the last few decades, fundamental changes in the way we work and live have trapped too many American families between an economy that’s gone global and a government that’s gone AWOL. It’s time we stop just talking about family values, and start pursuing policies that truly value families.” This little elision of the term “family values” suggests that Democrats see “family values” as little more than a Republican buzzword that’s not worth talking about, ignoring that the conventional wisdom is that the Democrats lost in 2004 because of family values concerns. Still, the sentiment is agreeable.

“We will expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to reach millions more workers than are currently covered, and we will enable workers to take leave to care for an elderly parent, address domestic violence and sexual assault, or attend a parent-teacher conference.” Attend a parent-teacher conference?!? Workers better be able to take leave to vote as well or this will just turn the FMLA into an economy-slowing farce.

“Today 78 percent of the workers who are eligible for leave cannot take it because it’s unpaid, so we will work with states and make leave paid. We will also ensure that every American worker is able earn up to seven paid sick days to care for themselves or an ill family member. And we will encourage employers to provide flexible work arrangements—with the federal government leading by example.” I’m tempted to say this is all in the name of making sure no one has to work, but really a lot of this makes sense. Why should your ability to have time off for illness depend on what job you have? This might even motivate employers to create cleaner workplace conditions.

“We will expand the childcare tax credit, provide every child access to quality, affordable early childhood education, and double funding for afterschool and summer learning opportunities for children.” More money growing on trees, although there is something to be said for lowering the burden of a child. There’s those “quality” and “affordable” buzzwords again. Are they just sliding past education after all the time they spent on health? No, there’s a lot of controversy surrounding education centering on No Child Left Behind, they’ve got to come back to it later. And more money growing on trees later the same paragraph. Aren’t most afterschool and summer learning opportunities kind of gimmicky?

“We will provide assistance to those who need long-term care and to the working men and women of this country who do the heroic job of providing care for their aging relatives. All Americans who are working hard and taking responsibility deserve the chance to do right by their loved ones. That’s the America we believe in.” Again, all that sounds nice.

“Poverty”: “Working together, we can cut poverty in half within ten years. We will provide all our children a world-class education, from early childhood through college.” You’ve mentioned this twice, and neither in the actual context of education. Something tells me you could have stuck your education discussion sooner. “We will develop innovative transitional job programs that place unemployed people into temporary jobs and train them for permanent ones.” A great idea, but is there the money? “To help workers share in our country’s productivity, we’ll expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation.” You mentioned that already – could you have merged this with the previous heading?

“The majority of adults in poverty are women, and to combat poverty we must work for fair pay, support for mothers, and policies that promote responsible fatherhood.” The first two few would argue with, and I know I wouldn’t (though some would wonder if support for mothers is really necessary and wouldn’t slow down the economy, but those people probably don’t understand the issue), but I’d like to know what “policies” you would enact that would “promote responsible fatherhood”.

“We’ll start letting our unions do what they do best again—organize and lift up our workers. We’ll make sure that every American has affordable health care that stays with them no matter what happens.” Two things referring to previous headings. “We will assist American Indian communities, since 10 of the 20 poorest counties in the United States are on Indian lands.” Specifics: Why do you think that is? What would you do with Native Americans that you wouldn’t do with/aren’t applicable to others?

We’ll bring businesses back to our inner-cities, increase the supply of affordable housing, and establish “promise neighborhoods” that provide comprehensive services in areas of concentrated poverty. These will be based on proven models, such as the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York City, which seeks to engage all residents with tangible goals such as attendance at parenting schools, retention of meaningful employment, college for every participating student, and strong physical and mental health outcomes for children.

I’m wondering how you intend to entice businesses to return to inner cities or how you intend to create more “affordable housing”, especially the latter, which can be difficult to handle without disrupting the larger housing market. The “promise neighborhood” concept sounds good but do we really want government establishing them? Certainly government should encourage such things and provide support to them, I just want to make sure we’re not talking about yet another government program.

“The Democratic Party believes that the fight against poverty must be national priority. Eradicating poverty will require the sustained commitment of the President of the United States, and we believe that the White House must offer leadership and resources to advance this agenda.” Evidently not enough of a “national priority” that you would give it the kind of time you gave health care. I have two concerns about this whole section actually. One is that most of these things can’t have a quantifiable impact, especially before they’re implemented, so saying “we can cut poverty in half within ten years” is meaningless. The other is a sad commentary on Americans, and the Bobby Kennedy quote at the top of the section: the fact is that most people can live their lives without worrying too much about the poor, and are worried that lifting up poor people will result in less wealth for them. I’d like to hear more about how poverty affects middle- and upper-class Americans. (Of course no one’s going to say they won’t vote for someone because they do too much to combat poverty, but I’d like to see studies of a subconscious effect.)

“Opportunity for Women”: “We have produced the first woman Secretary of State, the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, in 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman in American history to win presidential primaries in our nation. We believe that our daughters should have the same opportunities as our sons; our party is proud that we have put eighteen million cracks in the highest glass ceiling.” Hmm. I think Clinton herself had a hand in the composition of this section.

“When women still earn 76 cents for every dollar that a man earns, it doesn’t just hurt women; it hurts families and children. We will pass the “Lilly Ledbetter” Act, which will make it easier to combat pay discrimination; we will pass the Fair Pay Act; and we will modernize the Equal Pay Act.” The advent of women in the workforce had the unintended effect of forcing many families to have both parents work. When it became possible, it became necessary. To ensure equal pay for equal work sounds like – and is – a laudable goal, but it might either increase inflation or lower male earnings, probably both to some extent or another, and both will force even more families into two-worker situations. I hope the Democrats are prepared for that possibility.

“We will invest in women-owned small businesses and remove the capital gains tax on startup small businesses.” Hopefully not just women-owned small businesses. I’m not sure what the “capital gains tax on startup small businesses” is. I thought the capital gains tax had something to do with stock. In any case, it’s not specific to the case for women. “We will support women in math and science, increasing American competitiveness by retaining the best workers in these fields, regardless of gender.” Sounds like common sense. The next two sentences might as well read “See previous section”. I’m not entirely sure you need to reassure people “We will work to combat violence against women”, but whatever.

“We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all.” This sentence sounds completely laudable but it’s just weird and vague enough that it leaves open the possibility of using the hammer of political correctness to be overzealous about it.

“Investing in American Competitiveness”:

At a critical moment of transition like this one, Americans understand that, more than anything else, success will depend on the dynamism, determination, and innovation of the American people. But success also depends on national leadership that can move this country forward with confidence and a common purpose. In platform hearings, Americans called on their government to “invest back” in them and their country. That’s what Lincoln did when he pushed for a transcontinental railroad, incorporated our National Academy of Sciences, passed the Homestead Act and created the land grant colleges. That’s what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in creating the Tennessee Valley Authority, electrifying rural America and investing in an Arsenal of Democracy. That’s the kind of leadership we intend to provide.

Once again the Democrats try and reassure people that it’s the people that matter, but we’re still going to go whole hog on the government route. And of course citing Lincoln and FDR makes this concept sound nice. Actually infrastructure investment is important in an economic downturn, so it’s not just blowing smoke and it helps prepare us for the economic downturns of the future.

“New American Energy”: Big Important Alert! Perhaps nothing else in this platform will affect my vote more than the Democrats’ stance on our energy policy.

In the local platform hearings, Americans talked about the importance of energy to the economy, to national security, and to the health of our planet. Speaking loud and clear, they said that America needs a new bold and sustainable energy policy to meet the challenges of our time. In the past, America has been stirred to action when faced with new threats to our national security, or new competitive conditions that undercut our economic leadership. The energy threat we face today may be less immediate than threats from dictators, but it is as real and as dangerous. The dangers are eclipsed only by the opportunities that would come with change. We know that the jobs of the 21st century will be created in developing new energy solutions. The question is whether these jobs will be created in America, or abroad. We should use government procurement policies to incentivize domestic production of clean and renewable energy. Already, we’ve seen countries like Germany, Spain and Brazil reap the benefits of economic growth from clean energy. But we are decades behind in confronting this challenge.

Wait a minute! “Government procurement policies”? Sounds kinda scary. But other than that I pretty much agree with all of this.

“For the sake of our security–and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump–we will break our addiction to foreign oil.” I’m concerned about mixing up goals again… “In platform hearings around the country, Americans called for a Manhattan or Apollo Project-level commitment to achieve energy independence. We hear that call and we Democrats commit to fast-track investment of billions of dollars over the next ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to five million jobs.” If the Dems are even paying lip service to that level of commitment I’m on board! I’m willing to forgive the throwing away of money because of the importance of the issue. “Good jobs, like those in Pennsylvania where workers manufacture wind turbines, the ones in the factory in Nevada producing components for solar energy generation plants, or the jobs that will be created when plug-in hybrids start rolling off the assembly line in Michigan” – all things I’ve supported in previous posts. I’m a little more concerned about this: “This transition to a clean-energy industry will also benefit low-income communities: we’ll create an energy-focused youth job program to give disadvantaged youth job skills for this emerging industry.” So we’re only dragging poor people out of poverty by putting them in the green industry?

It will not be easy, but neither was getting to the moon. We know we can’t drill our way to energy independence and so we must summon all of our ingenuity and legendary hard work and we must invest in research and development, and deployment of renewable energy technologies—such as solar, wind, geothermal, as well as technologies to store energy through advanced batteries and clean up our coal plants. And we will call on businesses, government, and the American people to make America 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030, because we know that the most energy efficient economy will also gain the competitive edge for new manufacturing and jobs that stay here at home. We will help pay for all of it by dedicating a portion of the revenues generated by an economy-wide cap and trade program- a step that will also dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and jumpstart billions in private capital investment in a new energy economy.

I’m a little suspicious of geothermal and the “clean coal” scam, and I notice that my big non-wind-or-solar energy source, wave or tidal power, isn’t mentioned (but I don’t know a lot about it or how much energy it would generate). But the most troublesome part of this paragraph is the “cap and trade” program, which I’m deeply suspicious of. “You can only emit this much CO2, but we’ll let you emit more if you give us some money or invest in some cockamamie ‘offset’.” Anything to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, I guess, but why only a “portion” of the revenues? If we’re engaging in a cap and trade program shouldn’t all the revenues from it go towards building our green economy? If people are getting off emitting more greenhouse gases by funding miscellaneous government operations it’s an outrage.

“We’ll dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of automobiles, and we’ll help auto manufacturers and parts suppliers convert to build the cars and trucks of the future and their key components in the United States.” Nice, but what about weaning us off cars entirely? “And we will help workers learn the skills they need to compete in the green economy.” Sounds good if the premise is true. “We are committed to getting at least 25 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2025.” Only a quarter in 17 years?!? We need to have declining greenhouse gas emissions within 10 at most; this just won’t cut it!

“Building on the innovative efforts of the private sector, states, cities, and tribes across the country, we will create new federal-local partnerships to scale the success and deployment of new energy solutions, install a smarter grid, build more efficient buildings, and use the power of federal and military purchasing programs to jumpstart promising new markets and technologies.” All good, good, good. But “We’ll invest in advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol which will provide American-grown fuel and help free us from the tyranny of oil”? Not so good, good, good. From what I’ve read cellulosic ethanol is still using up land that would be better used for other purposes. Then it’s back to the good stuff: “We will use innovative measures to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of buildings.” Their heart is in the right place but every so often they drop in something that very greatly concerns me. Still nothing about transit, by the way.

The first part of the next paragraph is about cracking down on speculation, which is a tangential point, but “we will help those who are hit hardest by high energy prices by increasing funding for low-income heating assistance and weatherization programs, and by providing energy assistance to help middle-class families make ends meet in this time of inflated energy prices.” Good on the first part, but what is this “energy assistance” you speak of? And the last paragraph sums up the subsection – nothing about getting us out of our cars in the whole thing. It all looks very good – they’ve clearly made this a priority – but a concerning amount of outdated thinking is prevalent here.

“A World-Class Education for Every Child”: Finally, we’ll find out what the Democrats mean by a “quality”, “affordable”, “world-class” education!

In the 21st century, where the most valuable skill is knowledge, countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. In the platform hearings, Americans made it clear that it is morally and economically unacceptable that our high-schoolers continue to score lower on math and science tests than most other students in the world and continue to drop-out at higher rates than their peers in other industrialized nations. We cannot accept the persistent achievement gap between minority and white students or the harmful disparities that exist between different schools within a state or even a district. Americans know we can and should do better.

All this makes a lot of sense. We’re talking about making sure the engine that is the American economy keeps grinding along and continues being at least something approaching a world leader.
“The Democratic Party firmly believes that graduation from a quality public school and the opportunity to succeed in college must be the birthright of every child–not the privilege of the few.” Graduation is meaningless if it occurred as a result of grade inflation; it’s arguably worse than people not graduating at all because it lulls us into thinking there are more quality high school graduates than there really are, and creates people “passing off” as real high school graduates. Hopefully the Dems are talking about actual achievement, not just empty graduation rates. But I agree with what they’re trying to say: The rich often have an unfair advantage in education, and if we want a true meritocracy, we need to make up for those advantages. Not sure what to think about the “new era of mutual responsibility in education”, but I am heartened by this: “We must set high standards for our children, but we must also hold ourselves accountable–our schools, our teachers, our parents, business leaders, our community and our elected leaders. And we must come together, form partnerships, and commit to providing the resources and reforms necessary to help every child reach their full potential.”

Early Childhood
We will make quality, affordable early childhood care and education available to every American child from the day he or she is born. Our Children’s First Agenda, including increases in Head Start and Early Head Start, and investments in high-quality Pre-K, will improve quality and provide learning and support to families with children ages zero to five. Our Presidential Early Learning Council will coordinate these efforts.

Yeppers, that’s the entire paragraph on early childhood education. Remember that all three of the above adjectives were used to describe “early childhood” education, and it’s called “quality” and “affordable” again here, with “early childhood care” also thrown in under those words. Yet these moves are arguably empty: boost Head Start, “investments in high-quality Pre-K”, and something called the Presidential Early Learning Council. The “Children’s First Agenda” implies something more, but why isn’t that in the platform?

K-12
We must ensure that every student has a high-quality teacher and an effective principal. That starts with recruiting a new generation of teachers and principals by making this pledge–if you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for your college education. We’ll provide better preparation, mentoring and career ladders. Where there are teachers who are still struggling and underperforming we should provide them with individual help and support. And if they’re still underperforming after that, we should find a quick and fair way—consistent with due process—to put another teacher in that classroom.

A high quality teacher? Okay, I initially misread “student” as “school”, but still, when I went to middle and high school I had more than one teacher a day; are the Dems going to scrimp on the other teachers? In all seriousness, this makes a lot of sense if you’re going to put this high a priority on teaching. It sounds like the Dems aren’t in hock to the teachers unions, because they do want to replace underperforming teachers, but look at the caveats: “provide them with individual help and support” first, and then there needs to be a “quick and fair way – consistent with due process” to replace them.
“To reward our teachers, we will follow the lead of school districts and educators that have pioneered innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them.” Increases in teacher pay are “imposed” on them? I’d love to have a raise “imposed” on me! “We will make an unprecedented national investment to provide teachers with better pay and better support to improve their skills, and their students’ learning. We’ll reward effective teachers who teach in underserved areas, take on added responsibilities like mentoring new teachers, or consistently excel in the classroom.” Hear, hear at that last sentence. Although I don’t like the implied message that “it’s okay not to go into the poor communities or mentor tomorrow’s teachers if you’re the sort of teacher we most need to do either of those things.”

We will fix the failures and broken promises of No Child Left Behind–while holding to the goal of providing every child access to a world-class education, raising standards, and ensuring accountability for closing the achievement gap. We will end the practice of labeling a school and its students as failures and then throwing our hands up and walking away from them without having provided the resources and supports these students need.

Of course. Punishing a school for failure only perpetuates and deepens the divide between rich and poor schools. At the same time, you don’t want to reward a school for being crap. Presumably that’s what “raising standards[] and ensuring accountability for closing the achievement gap” means.

But this alone is not an education policy. It’s just a starting point. We will work with our nation’s governors and educators to create and use assessments that will improve student learning and success in school districts all across America by including the kinds of critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving skills that our children will need. We will address the dropout crisis by investing in intervention strategies in middle schools and high schools and we will invest in after-school programs, summer school, alternative education programs, and youth jobs.

Nothing on how you’re going to enforce the standards, at least yet, only a note that you presumably won’t include just rote learning in the ubiquitous standardized tests… although I may well be missing something! Combatting dropouts is of course a noble goal, but…

We will promote innovation within our public schools–because research shows that resources alone will not create the schools that we need to help our children succeed. We need to adapt curricula and the school calendar to the needs of the 21st century; reform the schools of education that produce most of our teachers; promote public charter schools that are accountable; and streamline the certification process for those with valuable skills who want to shift careers and teach.

“Adapt… the school calendar to the needs of the 21st century”? How, exactly, do you propose changing the school calendar? Let’s see, fix teaching schools, promote charter schools but hold them accountable for results, sounding good – “streamline the certification process for those… who want to shift careers and teach”? A, we need to make sure they actually have the needed skills, and B, we need to make sure they know how to teach. Hopefully you don’t streamline it too much. Still not much on how you’ll hold schools accountable and really fix NCLB.

We will also meet our commitment to special education and to students who are English Language Learners. We support full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We also support transitional bilingual education and will help Limited English Proficient students get ahead by supporting and funding English Language Learner classes. We support teaching students second languages, as well as contributing through education to the revitalization of American Indian languages.

“English Language Learners”. You can just feel the political correctness seeping through that phrase. And “Limited English Proficient”. I think competing in a global economy requires that we teach our kids second languages (though the most I know any living language is some really basic Spanish) and that the best time to teach such languages is when kids are young (not mentioned here) but you ARE going to maintain English’s status as the primary language and not turn us into Quebec, right? You are funding those “English Language Learner” classes, so I would think so.

We know that there is no program and no policy that can substitute for parents who are involved in their children’s education from day one–who make sure their children are in school on time, help them with their homework, and attend those parent-teacher conferences; who are willing to turn off the TV once in a while, put away the video games, and read to their children. Responsibility for our children’s education has to start at home. We have to set high standards for them, and spend time with them, and love them. We have to hold ourselves accountable.

You definitely can’t mistake Democrats for being the “do-whatever-you-want” party. You want to hold ordinary, private parents “accountable”? How the hell do you intend to do that? That’s a really concerning phrase.
“Higher Education”: (This really belongs as a sub-heading of the prior subsection, not as a separate subsection in its own right, so I’m plowing on even though I’m over 5,000 words again.) This section starts out with a basic statement few would really argue with – colleges and universities are important for our country’s success. “At community colleges and training programs across the country, we will invest in short-term accelerated training and technical certifications for the unemployed and under-employed to speed their transition to careers in high-demand occupations and emerging industries.” Hopefully not at the expense of their quality, but otherwise a noble goal. “We will reward successful community colleges with grants so they can continue their good work” – another laudable goal, but how do we know it’s not NCLB II, and how do we recognize the successful community colleges? Also, throwing money away again. “We support education delivery that makes it possible for non-traditional students to receive support and encouragement to obtain a college education, including Internet, distance education, and night and weekend programs.” Again, sounds good but only if it’s as effective.

We must also invest in training and education to prepare incumbent job-holders with skills to meet the rigors of the new economic environment and provide them access to the broad knowledge and concrete tools offered by apprenticeships, internships, and postsecondary education. We need to fully fund joint labor-management apprenticeship programs and reinvigorate our industrial crafts programs to train the next generation of skilled American craft workers.

(Eyes glaze over.) The first sentence sounds good as long as we’re not losing skills that may not pay well but are nonetheless valuable in the process. The second sentence also sounds good but might be throwing money away again.
“We recognize the special value and importance of our Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority serving institutions in meeting the needs of our increasingly diverse society and will work to ensure their viability and growth.” Every college needs to be supported but shouldn’t we be getting minorities into the same colleges as everyone else?

We will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit to ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans. In exchange for the credit, students will be expected to perform community service. We will continue to support programs, especially the Pell Grant program, that open the doors of college opportunity to low-income Americans. We will enable families to apply for financial aid simply by checking a box on their tax form.

Sounds like a terrific idea – promote more community service and create more smart college graduates. But “will be expected to” do service, not “required”? And applying for financial aid by checking a box… actually has the chance of reducing fraud on financial aid forms by rolling it up in tax fraud. But it poses a problem when I would prefer if poor people were exempt from the income tax, and it makes me really wonder what the new process would be.
“Our institutions of higher education are also the economic engines of today and tomorrow. We will partner with them to translate new ideas into innovative products, processes and services.” Again, really obvious. Why would anyone oppose a lot of this?
Not all. There is plenty to argue with in the platform so far. I’ve now found out the Democrats’ plan for combating global warming, or at least changing our energy economy, and while there’s a lot that’s laudable in it there are a few flaws – some minor, some possibly telling – that could now open things up for another party to jump in. There are a few points of argument elsewhere in the Democratic platform as well, and I’m finding I’m not being able to properly judge the Democratic platform without having something to compare it to. I think I’m about ready to begin my look at the Republican platform and where it compares and contrasts with the Democratic plan. I’m not giving up on the Democrats, just running both simultaneously. And it may be a problem that we may be slowing down in our progress and I may have to go to more parts than originally planned…

Likable guys never win.

by

It appears Freehostia is still working out the kinks in its move – morganwick.freehostia.com remains offline at the moment. Until it comes back online, you’re treated to one more strip. The strips from the past week are already on the site, I just need to wait until it comes back online.

Examining the Democratic Platform Part I: Preamble, the Economic Crisis, and Health Care

by


(Note: This series should contain curly quotes because I composed it in Word. If it comes out as gibberish instead, or if there’s weird formatting or other unnecessary junk, let me know.)

I mentioned two weeks ago that I was encouraged by Barack Obama’s apparent commitment to fighting global warming at the last debate. (Incidentially, the way the first two presidential debates went down I was kind of hoping for more foreign policy questions at the ostensible domestic policy debate on Wednesday.) But how much is the rest of the Democrats’ platform worth fighting for in other races? In the start of a series, I take a close look at the Democrats’ platform as a public service and find out which party is really the best for me and, perhaps, for most Americans.

The first question, of course, is: Can we get through the 59-page document? We can, but it’s a lengthy work and so this is going to be more than twice the size of any of my prior posts – about 6,000 words – and it’s still going to be a multi-part series that’ll be released in stages (aiming for closer to 5,000 words per post) throughout the week. I’m thinking this’ll be a four-part series just on the Democrats. I’ll also throw in my analysis of the Republican platform (which believe it or not is even longer), probably while this is still going.

The document’s lengthy preamble begins with a bunch of stuff that few would argue with, but presented as the special charge of the Democratic Party:

We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last.

Few Americans are likely to disagree with any of this. I’m also breaking out this paragraph and its attempt to broadly characterize the American people as a whole, as it shows how the Democrats see America:

A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good. A people that prizes candor, accountability, and fairness insists that a government of the people must level with them and champion the interests of all American families. A land of historic resourcefulness has lost its patience with elected officials who have failed to lead.

These are mostly empty platitudes, although I’m finding myself more tempted to break out some of them and criticize them this go-round than I did on my first attempt. The Democrats then move to the “historic” “list of failures of this Administration”, and while some people might have problems with some of the statements of fact, they probably wouldn’t argue that they’re bad, with the main exception early on being the line about “instigat[ing] an unnecessary war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan,” which might attract pacifists wondering if any war is “necessary”. The Democrats follow that up with the “false promises that got us here”, and again, few would probably argue with the interpretation of the facts if they agreed on the facts: “They said they would be compassionate conservatives, but they failed to rescue our citizens from the rooftops of New Orleans, neglected our veterans, and denied health insurance to children.”

These are not just policy failures. They are failures of a broken politics –a politics that rewards self-interest over the common interest and the short-term over the long-term, that puts our government at the service of the powerful. A politics that creates a state-of-the-art system for doling out favors and shuts out the voice of the American people. So, we come together not only to replace this President and his party –and not only to offer policies that will undo the damage they have wrought. Today, we pledge a return to core moral principles like stewardship, service to others, personal responsibility, shared sacrifice and a fair shot for all –values that emanate from the integrity and optimism of our Founders and generations of Americans since. Today, we Democrats offer leaders – from the White House to the State House – worthy of this country’s trust.

It all sounds good, but the question we have to constantly keep in mind is, can we trust the Democrats to bring this change? Or is it just trying to campaign for our vote so they can continue the bad old politics of the past? The Democrats immediately launch into an outline of their plan, and while it starts out with stuff no one would disagree with…

The Democratic Party believes that there is no more important priority than renewing American leadership on the world stage. This will require diplomatic skill as capable as our military might. Instead of refusing to confront our most pressing threats, we will use all elements of American power to keep us safe, prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating our nation from the world, we will enable America –once again –to lead.

This makes sense – there’s no reason to piss off the rest of the world, and quite a few reasons not to. We’re willing to use diplomacy to get what we want, but we also have “all elements of American power” at our disposal. Again, “all elements of American power” would probably piss off the pacifists, but overall, this is fairly uncontroversial. But in the next paragraph comes a line where more than just radicals are likely to jump off:

For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure. Today, we commit to renewing our American community by recognizing that solutions to our greatest challenges can only be rooted in common ground and the strength of our civic life. The American people do not want government to solve all our problems; we know that personal responsibility, character, imagination, diligence, hard work and faith ultimately determine individual achievement. But we also know that at every turning point in our nation’s history, we have demonstrated our love of country by uniting to overcome our challenges—whether ending slavery, fighting two world wars for the cause of freedom or sending a man to the moon. Today, America must unite again –to help our most vulnerable residents get back on their feet and to restore the vitality of both urban centers and family farms –because the success of each depends on the success of the other. And America must challenge us again –to serve our country and to meet our responsibilities –whether in our families or local governments; our civic organizations or places of worship.

Wait, wait, wait. The American ideal of self-reliance is “a recipe for division and failure”? Does that mean we can’t do anything without the intervention of government? But “The American people do not want government to solve all our problems,” they admit. So which is it? Okay, I’m willing to consider that the Democrats are saying they just want government to pick Americans up when they fall down, and let this go for now. But this whole “America must unite again” rhetoric sounds euphemistic, as though the Democrats are painting their impending power-taking as a movement of the people. And how can the Democrats say “America must challenge us again” when they at least want to be part of the “us”? The Democrats then go back to platitudes no one disagrees with:

And so, even when we disagree, we will work together to move this country forward. There can be no Republican or Democratic ideas, only policies that are smart and right and fair and good for America –and those that aren’t. We will form a government as decent, candid, purposeful and compassionate as the American people themselves.

This is the essence of what it means to be a patriot: not only to declare our love of this nation, but to show it –by our deeds, our priorities, and the commitments we keep.

If we choose to change, just imagine what we can do. What makes America great has never been its perfection, but the belief that it can be made better. And that people who love this country can change it. This is the country of Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, and Rosa Parks – people who had the audacity to believe that their country could be a better place, and the courage to work to make it so. And this Party has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose.

Of course there are people who think that America really is great simply because it’s the best nation that ever was and ever will be, but really, that’s sort of splitting hairs. Citing such legends of American history as Lincoln and MLK is either a brilliant attempt to parry that perfectionist view, or the Democrats trying to elevate their status by trying to equate themselves with these great Americans with that last sentence. Or both. But I’d like to hear more about this idea that “this Party has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose”. When have the Democrats “summoned the entire nation to a common purpose” to make a “difference in the lives of the American people”? World War II was an attempt to prevent a difference in the lives of the American people, and JFK’s go-to-the-moon challenge was more symbolic than difference-making.

That’s essentially the end of the preamble, so let’s move on to Part I, “Renewing the American Dream”. It starts with a review of the state of the economy as of August, when the platform was adopted.

For months the state of our economy has dominated the headlines–and the news has not been good. The sub-prime lending debacle has sent the housing market into a tailspin, and many Americans have lost their homes. By early August, the economy had shed 463,000 jobs over seven straight months of job loss. Health, gas and food prices are rising dramatically.

But the problem goes deeper than the current crisis. Families have seen their incomes go down even as they have been working longer hours and as productivity has grown. At the same time, health costs have risen while companies have shed health insurance coverage and pensions. Worse yet, too many Americans have lost confidence in the fundamental American promise that our children will have a better life than we do.

We are living through an age of fundamental economic transformation. Technology has changed the way we live and the way the world does business. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the advance of capitalism have vanquished old challenges to America’s global leadership, but new challenges have emerged. Today, jobs and industries can move to any country with an Internet connection and willing workers.

I quote that not to critique it but solely so we can refer to it when reading not only the Democrats’ answers to these problems, but those of other parties as well. The Democrats promptly take a potshot at Bush while building up their own record:

In the 1990s, under Bill Clinton’s leadership, employment and incomes grew and we built up a budget surplus. However, our current President pursued misguided policies, missed opportunities, and maintained a rigid, ideological adherence to discredited ideas. Our surplus is now a deficit, and almost a decade into this century, we still have no coherent national strategy to compete in a global economy.

I’m tempted to ask what these “discredited ideas” are, but we’ll move on. By the way, if these sound forced, I might have more critiques of the Democrats after looking at the Republicans’ point of view. The rest of the introduction to the part can be summed up by its single-sentence penultimate paragraph: “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.” The entire part can be summed up by the final paragraph, including the Democrats’ hope for “a new approach. One that is both innovative and faithful to the basic economic principles that made this country great.” So you’re not a bunch of socialists!
“Jumpstart the Economy and Provide Middle Class Americans Immediate Relief”: “We will provide an immediate energy rebate to American families struggling with the record price of gasoline and the skyrocketing cost of other necessities – to spend on those basic needs and energy efficient measures.” What, exactly, would this “energy rebate” entail? Would it come with conditions on how it would be spent – would people have to “spend [it] on those basic needs and energy efficient measures”? How do we know it wouldn’t just be spent on beer and drugs?
“We will devote $50 billion to jumpstarting the economy, helping economic growth, and preventing another one million jobs from being lost. This will include assistance to states and localities to prevent them from having to cut their vital services like education, health care, and infrastructure.” Would it include anything else? Would the federal government have to “cut vital services”? Surely you’re not spending $50 billion solely to keep social services from regressing, are you? Or expect that that alone would “jumpstart[] the economy” or that the impending million lost jobs would all come from state and local governments? That’s ridiculous of course, but how is that $50 billion being spent? How will $50 billion “prevent… one million jobs from being lost”? And aren’t you just throwing another $50 billion onto the national debt?

“We will quickly implement the housing bill recently passed by Congress and ensure that states and localities that have been hard-hit by the housing crisis can avoid cuts in vital services.” You just said states and localities wouldn’t need to cut certain services. Or are you talking about power and water now? And what’s in this housing bill that makes it so great?

“We support investments in infrastructure to replenish the highway trust fund, invest in road and bridge maintenance and fund new, fasttracked projects to repair schools.” Finally, some specifics. But don’t tell me that your idea of infrastructure investment is to build more highways when we need to tackle global warming head-on! Maintaining our existing roads and bridges is fine, I just want to make sure you’re not going to let up on the global warming (and congestion) fight in the face of economic crisis. Transit investment is, ideally, just as good at creating new jobs as freeway investment. And no one disagrees with the idea of repairing schools. All this requires people to maintain the roads and repair the schools, which means jobs, and it gives money to the companies supplying the raw materials and supports the economy that way as well. Not to mention the benefit of the investment itself. But is this all you’re going to do?

“We believe that it is essential to take immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs. Taking these immediate measures will provide good jobs and will help the economy today. But generating truly shared prosperity is only possible if we also address our most significant long-run challenges like the rising cost of health care, energy, and education.” This sounds like a summary of the rest of the section – how do you “take immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs”? The most vague statement yet!

“Empowering Families for a New Era”: This section makes clear that the Democrats just wanted to glide through the current economic crisis as quickly as possible to get to the part they really care about. Secret-socialist conspiracy theorists, start your engines! It comes complete with its own section introduction, which talks about the changing life of the American worker:

Many Americans once worked 40 hours a week for 40 years for a single employer who provided pay to support a family, health insurance, and a pension. Today, Americans change jobs more frequently than ever and compete against workers around the world for pay and benefits.

The face of America’s families is also changing, and so are the challenges they confront. Today, in the majority of families, all parents work. Millions of working Americans are also members of a new “sandwich generation,” playing dual roles as working parents and working children, responsible not only for their kids but for their aging mothers and fathers. They are working longer hours than ever, while at the same time having to meet a new and growing set of caregiving responsibilities.

Our government’s policies–many designed in the New Deal era–have not kept up with the new economy and the changing nature of people’s lives. Democrats believe that it is time for our policies and our expectations to catch up. From health care to pensions, from unemployment insurance to paid leave, we need to modernize our policies in order to provide working Americans the tools they need to meet new realities and challenges.

Wow! The Democrats are blaming one of their own in FDR! In all seriousness, let’s look at the specifics:
“Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans”:

If one thing came through in the platform hearings, it was that Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive healthcare. In meeting after meeting, people expressed moral outrage with a health care crisis that leaves millions of Americans–including nine million children–without health insurance and millions more struggling to pay rising costs for poor quality care. Half of all personal bankruptcies in America are caused by medical bills. We spend more on health care than any other country, but we’re ranked 47th in life expectancy and 43rd in child mortality. Our nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats like pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this, less than four cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.

Remember, the Democrats essentially devoted this much effort to talking about our current economic crisis. This subsection even contains two quotes in sidebars later on!

The American people understand that good health is the foundation of individual achievement and economic prosperity. Ensuring quality, affordable health care for every single American is essential to children’s education, workers’ productivity and businesses’ competitiveness. We believe that covering all is not just a moral imperative, but is necessary to making our health system workable and affordable. Doing so would end cost-shifting from the uninsured, promote prevention and wellness, stop insurance discrimination, help eliminate health care disparities, and achieve savings through competition, choice, innovation, and higher quality care. While there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of covering every American, with everyone in and no one left out, we stand united to achieve this fundamental objective through the legislative process.

That’s a lot of flaws of the current system in the penultimate sentence, and it sounds from the sentence before that that the Democrats may well support a pseudo-socialist system. I’m not sure how “covering all” can “make our health care system workable and affordable”, which sounds like it’s talking about simplifying the system by assuming if you’re alive, you have coverage, yet still “achieve savings through competition”. That sounds like it’s not socialist after all, it’s perfectly capitalist, so maybe “mak[ing] our health care system workable and affordable” refers to the other flaws on the list. But isn’t “achiev[ing] savings through competition” supposed to be the point of the current health care system? How am I supposed to know your plan will be any different? Oh wait, you don’t have a plan, you have “different approaches within the Democratic Party”. I might be able to take heart in knowing that maybe you can hash out a compromise between all of them that achieves all your goals, “covering every American” while still maintaining a competitive landscape and avoiding the pitfall of government “solv[ing] all our problems”, but for some reason I’m not optimistic.

We therefore oppose those who advocate policies that would thrust millions of Americans out of their current private employer-based coverage without providing them access to an affordable, comprehensive alternative, thereby subjecting them to the kind of insurance discrimination that leads to excessive premiums or coverage denials for older and sicker Americans. We reject those who have steadfastly opposed insurance coverage expansions for millions of our nation’s children while they have protected overpayments to insurers and allowed underpayments to our nation’s doctors.

So, throwing “millions of Americans out of their current private employer-based coverage” is okay if you do provide “an affordable, comprehensive alternative”? There are socialists in the Democratic Party! Then it talks about “our vision of a strengthened and improved health care system for all Americans” – so you do have a plan!

Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options. Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

So you aren’t socialist! But I could easily argue that this is the system we have now only you can buy into a government health insurance plan if you can’t afford or don’t want to buy into the private options. How do the private options differ from the “coverage they have”? Where do the subsidies go, the private companies or the “families and individuals”? What would the private options have that the government wouldn’t? How can we be sure the private companies would have those things?

Shared Responsibility. Health care should be a shared responsibility between employers, workers, insurers, providers and government. All Americans should have coverage they can afford; employers should have incentives to provide coverage to their workers; insurers and providers should ensure high quality affordable care; and the government should ensure that health insurance is affordable and provides meaningful coverage. As affordable coverage is made available, individuals should purchase health insurance and take steps to lead healthy lives.

Well, I guess this answers my question. I’m guessing the government would provide low-cost health care to everyone, but it would be bare-bones crap so the private “free market” would still exist. I make it sound like a cop to HMOs that don’t wanna be driven out of business, but it also lowers how much money the government spends on health care and thus avoids ratcheting up the tax burden. Not sure what “meaningful coverage” means though, and since private companies would be “affordable” as well, all this may have a more insidious meaning than I’m reading into it. (Although the same sentence lumps “providers” in there as well, so I guess it’s also lowering the need for health insurance at all.) Still, I’m guessing it all means the government plan would be a safe haven from insurance discrimination. And didn’t I hear Obama say at the debate employers would be required to provide coverage somehow? And if it’s only “incentives” – or even if it’s not – how does that maintain the ability of families and individuals to have a choice? Wouldn’t the employer be choosing for them? Or is this talking about the employer paying for the plan the person chooses, so even after choosing the affordable plan the person doesn’t actually have to pay for it? Well, it looks from the heading of the next paragraph my first question may be answered:

An End to Insurance Discrimination. Health insurance plans should accept all applicants and be prohibited from charging different prices based on pre-existing conditions. They should compete on the cost of providing health care and the quality of that care, not on their ability to avoid or over-charge people who are or may get sick. Premiums collected by insurers should be primarily dedicated to care, not profits.

Wha… WHAT? Private insurers “should accept all applicants and be prohibited from charging different prices based on pre-existing conditions”? Either you’re undermining your “affordable” point or private insurers better hope people who actually need their services go to the government, because really, you’re talking about jacking up the premiums of everyone else. The whole point of insurance discrimination, at least the “over-charge” version (of course people shouldn’t be dropped the instant they actually need insurance), is that most of the expense of health insurance is given to a certain class of people with serious diseases (or at risk of them), so it’s only fair they pick up the tab. And “insurers should be primarily dedicated to care, not profits”? Did you even read Adam Smith and what he said makes the capitalist system work? Where’s the profit in private insurance after you’ve adopted this tack, and why would private insurers bother to get into (or stay in) the business if you’ve wiped out the profit? And you know private companies will find ways to circumvent this proposed law, and that you’ll need to jack up the tax burden at least a little to enforce it.
“Portable Insurance. No one should have to worry about losing health coverage if they change or lose their job.” They might have to go through a bureaucracy though. It’s still hard to get retirement accounts to come with you to a new job, to the extent I’ve kept seeing “rollover your 401k” ads. That might be what you end up seeing in health care; if we haven’t gotten it right in retirement how are we going to get it right in health insurance the instant we start instituting it?
“Meaningful Benefits. Families should have health insurance coverage similar to what Members of Congress enjoy. They should not be forced to bear the burden of skyrocketing premiums, unaffordable deductibles or benefit limits that leave them at financial risk when they become sick. We will finally achieve long-overdue mental health and addiction treatment parity.” And what do members of Congress enjoy? At least it doesn’t sound like you’re imposing this on the private companies, only instituting it in the government plan. But you’re lapsing back into vagueness. (Incidentially, the surprising detail-oriented nature of the last few paragraphs once again underscores how quickly the Dems wanted to skip the present economic crisis.)

An Emphasis on Prevention and Wellness. Chronic diseases account for 70 percent of the nation’s overall health care spending. We need to promote healthy lifestyles and disease prevention and management especially with health promotion programs at work and physical education in schools. All Americans should be empowered to promote wellness and have access to preventive services to impede the development of costly chronic conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension. Chronic-care and behavioral health management should be assured for all Americans who require care coordination. This includes assistance for those recovering from traumatic, life-altering injuries and illnesses as well as those with mental health and substance use disorders. We should promote additional tobacco and substance abuse prevention.

Starting to move away from insurance. “Health promotion programs at work” that will presumably be funded by the federal government… I smell cheesy gimmickry in the future of the workplace. “All Americans should be empowered to promote wellness”? So we’re all government-funded hucksters now? What “preventative services” are we talking about and are we talking about throwing Yet More Money onto the national debt? When we talk about “additional tobacco and substance abuse prevention” are we talking about more of the same sorts of things that have been going on for decades, yet people my age are, to my amazement, still taking up smoking despite hearing of its bad side nonstop their entire lives? And the lives of the older “cool” kids? Or are we talking about a change in strategy?

A Modernized System That Lowers Cost and Improves the Quality of Care. As Americans struggle with increasing health care costs, we believe a strengthened, uniquely American system should provide the highest-quality, most cost-effective care. This should be advanced by aggressive efforts to cut costs and eliminate waste from our health system, which will save the typical family up to $2,500 per year. These efforts include driving adoption of state-of-the-art health information technology systems, privacy-protected electronic medical records, reimbursement incentives, and an independent organization that reviews drugs, devices, and procedures to ensure that people get the right care at the right time. By working with the medical community to improve quality, these reforms will have the added benefit of reducing the prevalence of lawsuits related to medical errors. We should increase competition in the insurance and drug markets; remove some of the cost burden of catastrophic illness from employers and their employees; and lower drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices, permitting importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, creating a generic pathway for biologic drugs, and increasing use of generics in public programs.

This ties back to the idea that “providers should provide high quality affordable care.” I’d like to know more about this “independent organization”; will it mean the end of misleading drug company commercials leading people to race after a brand name instead of something that might be less expensive and maybe not as side-effect-laden? Will it mean, more likely, more bureaucracy? But do the insurance and drug markets need “more competition”? Why are “safe medicines from other developed countries” currently not importable, and how will you maintain that?
“A Strong Health Care Workforce. Through training and reimbursement incentives, there must be a commitment to sufficient and well-qualified primary care physicians and nurses as well as direct care workers.” No real debate here, I think, other than more government involvement. You know what I just realized, though? This goes to page 15 of 59. Now, cutting out extraneous stuff like the cover page, it’s 13 of 57, but still it’s a quarter of the whole document devoted to the preamble and health care! This will be easier than I thought!

Commitment to the Elimination of Disparities in Health Care. We must end health care disparities among minorities, American Indians, women, and low-income people through better research and better funded community-based health centers. We will make our health care system culturally sensitive and accessible to those who speak different languages. We will support programs that diversify the health are [sic] workforce to ensure culturally effective care. We will also address the social determinants that fuel health disparities, and empower the communities most impacted by providing them the resources and technical assistance to be their own agents of wellness. We will speed up and improve reimbursements by the Indian Health Service.

So… American Indians aren’t minorities? How does research reduce health-care disparities? “We will also address the social determinants that fuel health disparities” makes it sound like you can just wave a wand and it’ll disappear.
The next paragraph heading, “Public Health and Research”, is the last heading for three paragraphs:

Health and wellness is a shared responsibility among individuals and families, school systems, employers, the medical and public health workforce and government at all levels. (Wick: You said that already. You devoted a whole paragraph to it if I remember.) We will ensure that Americans can benefit from healthy environments that allow them to pursue healthy choices. Additionally, as childhood obesity rates have more than doubled in the last 30 years, we will work to ensure healthy environments in our schools. (Wick: Everybody get vague, get vague, get vague!)

We must fight HIV/AIDS in our country and around the world. We support increased funding into research, care and prevention of HIV/AIDS. We support a comprehensive national strategic plan to combat HIV/AIDS and a Ryan White Care Act designed and funded to meet today’s epidemic, that ends ADAP waiting lists and that focuses on the communities such as African Americans and Latino Americans who are disproportionately impacted through an expanded and renewed minority HIV/AIDS initiative, and on new epicenters such as the Southern part of our nation. We support providing Medicaid coverage to more low-income HIV-positive Americans.

You… kind of lost me with that lengthy middle sentence. I don’t even know what ADAP is. Wikipedia says it stands for “AIDS Drug Assistance Programs”. But it all sounds like nice rhetoric.

Health care reform must also provide adequate incentives for innovation to ensure that Americans have access to evidence-based and cost-effective health care. Research should be based on science, not ideology. For the millions of Americans and their families suffering from debilitating physical and emotional effects of disease, time is a precious commodity, and it is running out. Yet, over the past eight years, the current Administration has not only failed to promote biomedical and stem cell research, it has actively stood in the way of that research. We cannot tolerate any further inaction or obstruction. We need to invest in biomedical research and stem cell research, so that we are at the leading edge of prevention and treatment. This includes adequate funding for research into diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, diabetes, autism and other common and rare diseases, and disorders. We will increase funding to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institutes.

Ah yes, returning to taking shots at the House of Bush. I like how this paragraph all but equates the debate over stem cell research to the debate on evolution. I mean, “evidence-based” health care? Does stem-cell research even involve “evidence”? I thought it just involved using it to grow new tissue and plugging it in to patients. And is “biomedical” research even controversial? If so, why? The Democrats obviously feel the need not to roll it up with stem cell research, yet they’re effectively doing so all the same. Oh, and more throwing out money like it grew on trees.
“A Strong Partnership with States, Local Governments, Tribes, and Territories. Recognizing that considerable progress in health care delivery has been pioneered by state and local governments, necessary nationwide reform should build on successful state models of care.” This sort of “oh yeah, give a shout-out to the local levels of government” inadvertently points out that these very organs responsible for this progress could get stomped on by a national reform system. I’d like to see what local state systems would look like after the feds got through with them.
“A Strong Safety-Net. Achieving our health goals requires strengthening the safety-net programs, safety-net providers, and public health infrastructure to fill in gaps and ensure public safety in times of disease outbreak or disaster.” Par for the course: vague niceties that no one would disagree with.
“Empowerment and Support of Older Americans and People with Disabilities. Seniors and people with disabilities should have access to quality affordable long-term care services, and those services should be readily available at home and in the community. Americans should not be forced to choose between getting care and living independent and productive lives.” Solving problems unrelated to health care would do a better job of bringing needed services closer to seniors, but I’m jumping back on my transit high horse.
“Reproductive Health Care. We oppose the current Administration’s consistent attempts to undermine a woman’s ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care, including birth control.” Ding ding ding! Making abortion sound like a general health issue, five yard penalty, still first down! “We will end health insurance discrimination against contraception and provide compassionate care to rape victims. We will never put ideology above women’s health.” I don’t know, it sure seems like you’re shoving a lot of ideology down my throat to me. Actually this is sort of a complex issue, and I really don’t think a discussion of health care is the right place for it. I do support the use of pre-intercourse and morning-after birth control as effective and consistent with religious beliefs.
“Fiscal Responsibility. As we improve and strengthen our health care system, we must do so in a fiscally responsible way that ensures that we get value for the dollars that are invested.” Or in other words, “Oh by the way, yes we do know all this will add billions of dollars to the national debt, but don’t worry, we’re gonna get ‘value’ from it so it’s all a wash!”
For the most part, the Democrats’ health-care proposal meets the goals the Dems set for it – but not all of them are guaranteed and there are legitimate concerns that it’ll all cost too much. And if the Dems’ focus on health care seems a bit esoteric to you, you’re not alone. But there are plenty more issues to come – and plenty more of the platform to examine! We’re just getting started!

The Angst-O-Meter: Day 4

by

(From Ctrl+Alt+Del. Click for full-sized incriminating evidence.)

I know I said I was done with the Angst-O-Meter until after the election, but circumstances have intervened and I have to comment on today’s strip, despite the mountain of other stuff on my plate.

So it seems that if, when Shannon was first introduced, you had Ethan leaning on her as an escape from Lilah, well… you were half right. Ethan wasn’t having any of it, but Lilah was sure going to think he was.

This strip, in a way, is really a summary of the past month or so of strips, with a couple of peeks into Lilah’s actual situation and some looks at Lucas’ attempts to patch things up with Kate. As that relationship appears to be on the mend, if slowly, it’s possible the main reason for that subplot may be the last panel of this strip.

Ethan really has been focusing almost singlemindedly on his contest with Christian, and looking back on previous strips, it’s partly his fault. How far has his relationship with Lilah deteriorated that he’s not telling her about his day-to-day life, his day-to-day struggles? Even after Christian reassures him he’s not looking for Lilah, Ethan acts like a paranoid maniac with someone he knows is sensitive right now, leaving him unable to talk about his situation with someone who might be a more useful font for ideas than Shannon turns out to be, which leads to a phone conversation that inadvertently backs up Christian’s story about a cheating Ethan.

There are two reasons I’m not setting the Angst-O-Meter to 100%: Lucas still appears to be on the mend with Kate and the strip is still nominally having punchlines each day. But this strip about a week ago is the last strip that can be said to have a real punchline, and I can just see Ethan going on a woe-is-me diatribe within a couple of strips. And don’t forget Buckley’s ominous warning, back during the miscarriage, that “I know who moves out and when”. He assured people there wouldn’t be too much in the way of woe-is-me diatribes, but it’s sure looking like that’s only because he’s too busy adding more angst-worthy stuff to the fire.

So up goes the Angst-O-Meter to 92% and I could easily justify setting it higher. And I’m pretty darn close to the end of my rope with Ctrl+Alt+Del – it’s pretty much train-wreck fascination at this point.