Blue State Memo

The Sad Numbers

2004-11-16T20:09:00.000-03:30

U.S. Military casualties in Iraq (as of 11/16/04):
Total Deaths: 1207
Total Hostile Deaths: 940
Total Non-Hostile Deaths: 267
Total Wounded: 8956

Since major combat operations declared over May 1, 2003 ("Mission Accomplished"):

Total Deaths: 1068
Total Hostile Deaths: 831
Total Non-Hostile Deaths: 237
Total Wounded: 8414

Remembering Colin

2004-11-16T08:50:00.000-03:30

Colin Powell resigns. It is unclear why. Condi Rice is in. Incompetence is rewarded. At this time, it is worth taking a moment and looking back at Powell's most memorable moment as Secretary of State. His speech to the UN on WMDs to garner support for the Iraq war. Powell's money quote from Andrew Sullivan's Blog:

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."

Absolutely ridiculous -- not only based on what we know now but also based on what was known then. What he said was simply untrue and Powell knew it at the time. Thus, in four sentences, a man tarnished an otherwise stellar career and reputation that was beyond reproach. They say an honest man's pillow is his peace of mind. So, maybe we do know why Powell resigned. Maybe, he just needed some sleep.

Tax Code Simplification

2004-11-14T17:44:00.000-03:30

There may be a reflexive response by Blue Staters against plans to simplify the tax code simply because the 51% president has raised it. There shouldn't be. Dick Gephardt championed this idea in the '80s. I can remember him running around the talk shows with a 3x5 card and telling people: "this could be your tax return." There is a place for progressives in this debate. First, why in the world would WE want a tax code that is difficult, if not impossible, to understand, and is loaded with goodies for special interests? Second, the complexity of the tax code falls disproportionately on lower and middle income folks who cannot afford to have specialists prepare their taxes but are overwhelmed by the daunting task of making out their returns every year. Making government more user-friendly for working folks should be a fast ball down middle for a Blue person.
So, I say, simplify away! Again, why would Blue favor complexity?
The trick for Blue politicians is to make sure that tax simplification does not become an excuse to provide yet another tax bonanza to rich, special interests at the expense of the middle class -- especially during a time of war and when the deficit is huge and growing. Blue should work to make the system simpler and fairer -- while still providing sufficient revenue to fund the war on terror, war in Iraq (that we are stuck with) and other important governmental programs while lowering the tax burden on as many folks at the lower end of the tax-paying scale as possible.
I am thinking that Blue can stake out a good position on this issue because it is almost a certainty that Red is going to use the tax code "simplification" process to reward their corporate owners instead of as a means to make government better. Blue should be there with a straight-forward, fairer alternative.

Squirming Arlen

2004-11-13T17:37:00.000-03:30

To those interested in politics, being elected to the US Senate seems like a tremendous achievement. Being re-elected a couple of times, well, that would make anyone's Mom proud. They say the Senate is the most exclusive club in the world -- only 100 members. So, to be a member must be quite heady stuff.
All of that makes Arlen Specter's pleading and begging for the chairmanship of the judiciary committee all the more embarrassing. As you probably know, the day after the election, the pro-choice Senator from PA made a public comment indicating that the President may have a difficult time getting an anti-choice Justice confirmed to the Supreme Court. Uh-oh! One is not supposed to say such outrageous things in Red America -- even if true. A firestorm ensued and some have called for the Republican controlled Senate to change the rules to prohibit Specter from getting the Chair. So what does Slick Arlen do? Stand by his principles? Keep his pro-choice position that the PA voters were aware of when they elected him? Noooooooo! He starts crying and whining like a baby.
"Please, oh, please, let me be chairman. I will vote for an anti-choice Justice." he writes in the Wall Street Journal. Pathetic. What good is being elected only to run from what you believe? We can only hope that conservatives see through his "deathbed" conversion and properly rebuke him for daring to speak out against their extreme right agenda. Trust me, blue people, Specter keeping the Chairmanship in an emasculated state, is no victory us. We will be better off with a true Red senator who makes their agenda cardinal clear. That way there will be no doubt what and whom we are dealing with. That is how we begin to battle back. Phonies and enablers like Specter are no help to the Blue. Arlen Specter a Profile in No Courage.

Big Tobacco and morality

2004-11-12T23:08:00.000-03:30

"LONDON (Reuters) - Philip Morris, one of the world's leading tobacco manufacturers, was involved in research into the health effects of smoking 30 years ago but did not reveal data on the dangers of passive smoking, scientists said on Thursday."

This report from Reuters yesterday went on to point out how Phillip Morris allegedly buried a report that found that passive smoke was much more dangerous than was thought at the time. In the meantime, many people who did not smoke, but were subjected to second-hand smoke, got sick. This problem particularly affected people in the service economy such as waiters and bartenders that were, and in some places, still are, routinely exposed to passive smoke over years. Yet, Phillip Morris buried its findings that could have made a difference to hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Despicable.

On the other hand, you have Bill Clinton. He cheated on his wife and then lied to cover it up. Immoral, no doubt. But, do you ever hear the so-called liberal media talk about his moral and courageous stand in taking on the tobacco industry? Nope, never gets mentioned. In the history of our country, his was the first administration to ever seriously take on this industry. An industry that killed millions and systematically hid the truth about the dangerous effects of its product. The effort to stop the dealers of the nicotine-drug has made a huge impact in the lives of Americans. Moreover, taking this stand cost Clinton and the Democrats politically in the South -- and still does. It may have also cost Clinton personally. Do you think it was just a coincidence that it was an attorney that represented big tobacco, Ken Starr, that led the $50 million witch-hunt against Clinton? So, Clinton stepped up to the plate and did the right thing -- potentially benefiting millions -- at much personal and political cost to him. Slick Willie, indeed.

Since we are talking about morality so much these days, I just thought I would weigh in with this case study. Stop an industry from marketing its life-destroying and addictive product to kids, ho-hum. Cheat on your wife, impeachment. Seems a bit out of balance, no?

Good Government

2004-11-12T15:52:00.000-03:30

Good GOP government:

"Nevada Lawmakers Impeach Controller in an Ethics Case

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSPublished: November 12, 2004
ARSON CITY, Nev., Nov. 11 (AP) - The Nevada Assembly impeached State Controller Kathy Augustine on Thursday on accusations of illegally using her office workers and equipment to help with her 2002 re-election on state time.
The impeachment was the first of any public official in the state's 140-year history. It came on a series of unanimous voice votes that seThe Senate is expected to convene on Friday to accept the Assembly's report. At that point, Ms. Augustine, a second-term Republican, must temporarily step down.
The Senate could hold a trial starting later this month. If it does not decide to remove her, Ms. Augustine will return to office for the remaining two years of her term.nt three articles of impeachment to the State Senate, where a trial will be held to determine whether Ms. Augustine will be removed from office ."

For Veteran's Day

2004-11-11T17:40:00.000-03:30

"The whole earth is the tomb of heroic men and their story is not given only on stone over their clay but abides everywhere without visible symbol woven into the stuff of other mens lives." - Pericles

Terror Alert Lowered

2004-11-10T17:12:00.000-03:30

U.S. to Lower Financial Sector's Terror Threat Level
Top Stories - Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government will lower the terror threat level for the financial services sector in New York City, northern New Jersey and Washington, D.C., an administration official said on Wednesday.

Terror alert lowered. What has changed? Why would that be lowered now. Hmmmmm. Can't think of any big events that would cause it to be lowered. Let's think, I wonder, geez, what could it be? Hmmmm - you know, I seem to recall we had an election last week ....

Always Faithful

2004-11-10T14:30:00.000-03:30

Semper Fidelis -- Always faithful. The Marine Corps' motto. Today is the birthday of the Corps founded in 1775 on this date. I have two older brothers that were Marines. I have always been proud of them for that. I had occasion to visit Paris Island a couple of times to watch what new recruits go through. I have also heard my brother's basic training stories -- now told with a laugh but, I assure you, pretty intense stuff.

As a boy, my brothers were my heroes. I remember how sad I was when they went off and how happy I was each time they came home on leave. I can recall seeing them off and crying in the airport when it was time for them to go. I can also recall the sheer joy we they walked down the corridor of the airport -- coming home for the holidays or something. Service takes a toll on the soldiers AND their families. I was lucky, my brothers were not in combat. I can only imagine what some little boys must feel now knowing that their older brothers -- their heroes -- are off, on the other side of the world, bravely serving their country in harm's way.

Today, I wish the Marine Corps: Happy Birthday! One of my brothers still receives Happy Birthday calls on this date every year from his comrades in the service. His friends are, indeed, always faithful!

Tomorrow, Veteran's Day, we should all be mindful of the great sacrifice that soldiers in every branch have made for our country. Thank God they were there in our darkest hours.

Electoral College -- Part II

2004-11-09T22:12:00.000-03:30

Some of you have rallied to the defense of the electoral college arguing that it protects the "smaller states" and gives them a chance to be "heard". I suppose. But, to those making the argument, have you any idea precisely how unfair the electoral college is?

Here is a chart that shows how unfair it is:

Compare the three least populated states including the District of Columbia:

51 .Wyoming -- 501, 242 residents/3 electoral votes = 1 electoral vote for every 167,080 residents
50. Washington, DC - 563,385 residents/3 electoral votes = 1 electoral vote for every 187,795 residents
49. Vermont - 619,107 residents/3 electoral votes = 1 electoral vote for every 206,369 residents

to the three most populated states:

1. California - 35,484,453 residents/55 electoral votes = 1 electoral vote for every 645,172 residents
2. Texas - 22,118,509 residents/34 electoral votes = 1 electoral vote for every 650,544 residents
3. New York - 19,190, 115 residents/31 electoral votes = 1 electoral vote for every 619,035 residents

Note that this is not necessarily a red state vs. blue state argument. My calculations show that DC and Vermont (blue) benefit while Texas (red) is slightly more screwed than NY and CA. Rather, it is a matter of fundamental fairness. Perhaps, it is a good idea in some abstract way to give smaller states a bit more bang for their vote -- although I do not concede that point. However, even so, does that philosophical point justify giving them a 3 to1 or 4 to1 advantage in some instances? Besides, I thought the Senate was supposed to protect the smaller states. Why should they get an advantage in two areas of government? It is simply unfair that a Wyoming resident's vote for President has 3x or 4x the weight of a resident of CA or TX. [Ok, CA did elect the Last Action Hero as its Governor and Texas gave us the 51% Pres. so maybe these are not the best examples.....].

Electoral College Drops Out

2004-11-08T22:13:00.000-03:30

It is time to do away with or modify the electoral college. Sore loser, you say? Well, maybe a little. Surely, if Kerry had won Ohio, I would not be devoting much time to even thinking about the subject. But, if you are a Bush supporter, think about that last sentence. "If Kerry won Ohio...." Bush won the popular vote by a few million but only won Ohio by something like 130,000 votes (or blips on a computer screen). Suppose Kerry had pulled the Buckeye state out by 5,000 votes? He would have been president even though over two million more Americans wanted someone else! Would that have been right? That possible result on top of the Gore V. Bush debacle in 2000 should be all that both parties need to know to start thinking about changes in the electoral college.

But there is more. The format of the system is not fair.

Question: Who gets more electoral votes: The winner of CA and NY or the winner of a group of states whose population is equal to CA and NY combined?
If the same number of people live in both groups, the number of electoral votes should be the same, right? Survey says..... "X"
That would be wrong.
Because the number of electoral votes each state has is based on the total number of representatives that the state has in congress (House and Senate), each state's electoral vote has built into it 2 electoral votes that have nothing to do with population or number of voters it has but is awarded to it for simply having 2 Senators. Thus, there is an advantage to reaching one's total by winning more states because there is a 2 electoral vote bias per state. In 2004 the bias would not have made a difference. However, if accounted for, it would show how close the election actually was:

Bush 286 electoral votes 31 states won 224 electoral votes when adjusted
Kerry 252 electoral votes 20 states won 212 electoral votes when adjusted

The point is that the President should be elected because he got more votes -- if not by popular vote than at least by electoral votes that are a reflection of the distribution of population. How the candidate gets the most electoral votes -- by winning more, less populated states should not be rewarded any more than winning less, but more populated states should be punished. We are, after all, electing our leader, not playing cranium.

Bush's International Test

2004-11-08T12:22:00.000-03:30

Read a report over the weekend that US troops had encircled Fallujah and were waiting for authorization from Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi before attacking.
Geez, I thought it was Kerry that was going to require the "international test" before our troops took action. Whatever happened to the 51% President's claim that no country would ever have a veto over US action?
Just asking.

How Religious Was The Bush Win?

2004-11-07T22:22:00.000-03:30

Now that the dust has settled a bit on the election, it is starting to look like the 51% President may not have been re-elected because of some massive shift in the religious vote in his favor. The site Donkey Rising has a great article on the subject. The key points:

"... between 2000 and 2004, President Bush's largest gains occurred among
less religious voters, not among more religious voters. Among those attending
services more than weekly and those attending every week, support for Bush rose
by 1 percent, from 63 percent in 2000 to 64 percent in 2004. However, among
those attending services a few times a month, support for Bush rose by 4 points,
from 46 percent to 50 percent, among those attending only a few times a year,
support for Bush rose by 3 points, from 42 percent to 45 percent, and among
those never attending services, support for Bush rose by 4 points, from 32
percent to 36 percent. Bottom line: the President made gains across the
board among voters, regardless of their degree of religious commitment but he
made his largest gains among less religious voters."

I don't know if that makes folks feel better or not but it does not appear as if there was some massive fundamentalist swing to Bush notwithstanding the "morals" answer to exit polls. I think that the identification of "morality" as the number 1 issue by some may have had more to do with the way the question was asked than anything else. Regardless, it appears as if the President is going to read the results the other way and push for a more conservative social agenda. This should be interesting. We will see if 51%'s coalition of tax cut conservatives, who tend to be libertarian, and social conservatives will hold together if, in fact, he does push hard on the social issues. One thing is for sure: social conservatives are expecting a pay-off for their support.

Fun Food Facts

2004-11-07T21:11:00.000-03:30

From the McDonald's "Nutrition Facts" handout:

Big Mac = 560 calories and 30 grams of fat
Large Fry = 520 calories and 25 grams of fat
Filet-O-Fish = 400 calories and 18 grams of fat.
Chicken McNuggets (6 piece) = 250 calories and 15 grams of fat without dipping sauce.
Hotcakes and sausage = 770 calories and 33 grams of fat.
Chicken selects (5 piece) = 630 calories and 33 grams of fat without dipping sauce.
Chicken selects (10 piece) = 1270 calories and 66 grams of fat without dipping sauce.

1270 calories in one item! Wow, that has to be some kind of record.

Whose Morality?

2004-11-06T21:09:00.000-03:30

One of the media hype stories of the election was that voters in the red states voted on morality. The sometimes unspoken and sometimes spoken rest of that story is that somehow people in the blue states are not moral or do not care about morality. Or, the blue states "just don't get it." What a bunch of bull! Sorry, but I have lived in two blue states all my life and they, too, are populated with very good, decent people who love their families, coach sports, go to church, work hard and wife swap on the weekends. [Ok, the last one was a joke to see if you were reading carefully]. You get my point.

Hey Media, sooner or later, you will have to start telling the real story.
For example,

A red state (South Carolina) elected a Senator (DeMint) who stated that he believes that gays and unwed mothers should not be allowed to teach in public schools. No word yet on exactly how he proposes the government will track these people down for immediate termination from their jobs. So, it begins, gays and unwed mothers -- precluded from government jobs. Funny, though, Sen. DeMint did not say that fathers who do not marry the women with whom they have children will be precluded from teaching in public schools -- just the "unwed" mothers. What type of America does he envision?
How in the world is that moral?

Another Senator elect from a red state, Senator Coburn from Oklahoma opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Imagine that? Women being forced to carry to term the child of their rapist. On the other hand, it has been reported that Senator Coburn (a doctor himself) once sterilized a 20-year old woman without obtaining her written consent. He said she gave her "verbal" consent to the procedure. Coburn also opined that Schindler's List was too obscene for television.

Does any of this sound moral to you? Just imagine what the conservative media echo chamber (RNC to Washington Times to Faux News to Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly) would do with a blue state candidate who advocated similarly extreme positions from the left.

Here is another question. When are we in the blue states going to start holding the enablers of nuts like DeMint and Coburn accountable? You know who I am talking about. When are we going to start to demand that so-called "moderate" Republican Senators such as Lincoln Chafee of R.I. and Collins and Snowe of Maine refuse to caucus with people who hold positions that are so abhorrent to their constituents? Look, I am not knocking them as Senators but sooner or later, they are going to have to have the courage of their convictions -- or face the wrath of the blue people!

Welcome

2004-11-06T18:24:00.000-03:30

Welcome to my new (and first) blog. As the name might suggest, a good portion of my comments will be devoted to a discussion of politics, current affairs etc. However, I do not intend to be limited to those topics and intend to work in some discussion about art, literature, sports, family, friends and whatever else comes to mind. Hopefully, it will become a place where you can check in every once in awhile and find some useful information or, at least, something to for you to chew on. In any event... welcome!

Hang in there Blue People!

2004-11-06T17:35:00.000-03:30

Here are a few initial thoughts about the election. Please, please, please do not waste your energy blaming the candidate or the campaign for the election loss. Kerry is a thoughtful, smart, decent guy -- he won all three debates and behaved with dignity. We should be proud of him as candidate. Was he as charismatic Clinton? No. But who is. Nevertheless, Kerry did a pretty good job. Could his campaign have been run better? Yes --- especially at the beginning. But they did a pretty good job from October 1 on. We were in a position to win on election day and that is all you can ask for. We were in the hunt and it came down to the wire.
My second point is the IMPORTANT ONE! Please don't engage in any of this woe is me, it is the end of the world, our country is ruined stuff. Surely, it is a sad time and there will be tough battles ahead. However, if we start gnashing our teeth and whining, WE WILL STRENGTHEN THE OPPOSITION. We have to be like the great Walter Payton (Sweetness). No matter how hard he got hit, he ALWAYS bounced back up with a smile on his face. He never let the opposition see him hurt. That is why he is in the Hall of Fame.
This election result was not some huge realignment. In 1984 Reagan won 49 States to Mondale's 1! That, my friends, is complete destruction. In this election, if one larger state changed, Kerry would be President. Simple as that.
Have some perspective. They have the red states, we have the blue states. Not much has changed since 2000. If we over-hype our loss due to hurt feelings, we over-hype their victory. We can't afford to do that! They won, no doubt but, again, not much has changed.
Those are my thoughts for now. Hang in there blue people! We will be back!