I have decided to let this place go. I’m gonna renew the domain name for another year. If I think of some other vehicle for the domain in the next year, I may keep it longer than that. If not: ashes to ashes, bits to bits.

I’ve come to think that writing about social issues is also useless. That was the only possible other purpose I had in mind for the blog. I have found in my own writing and in reading some other more famous blogs that too much of how your writing is perceived comes not from the ideas in your piece, but from the biography of the writer. I don’t believe that my own words are ever either so vaguely stated or so poorly written as to allow for, literally, opposite interpretations. Yet I’ve found that to be the case at times. People who know me, know my family background, know my (admittedly lapsed) resume as an activist, etc will think I am saying one thing while people who don’t know or only know a portion of that will think I’m saying the opposite. If my writing isn’t that vague, then the reasons I’ve stated seem adequate ones for quitting. It’s the author, not the words that people are reading. If my writing is that vague, then I’m not suited to doing this.

I am thinking about abandoning this site. I’ve made four posts here in 2010. Two of them have been about politics. One of my earliest memories is of watching some coverage of the 1976 Democratic convention on TV with my dad. As a four year old, my fascination was with the hats they were wearing. It’s not exactly a political memory, but is something that I feel shows how early in my life I found myself influenced by or focused on something related to politics. I’ve been pretty well obsessed with politics ever since elementary school, though. I volunteered for my first campaign at 15. For the next decade, I volunteered for all sorts of city, county, state, and national campaigns. I was pretty sure that I wanted to run for and serve in elected office. That changed when I was struck with depression at 25. I emerged from that experience as an introvert. The outgoing, energetic me that relished the idea of campaigning was dead. I switched from a poli sci focus to a history focus for grad school partially as a result of that, but I never lost the interest in politics.

In the last year, I’ve found that I’m losing that interest. The environment is so toxic. The structure has been so altered by recent supreme court rulings that I don’t think we’ll have a functional political system again in my lifetime. I no longer really believe that much good can be done through the political system. At best, you can stave off some of the bad, maybe even roll some of the bad back at times. I think there are ways to do good and I’m kind of actively looking toward figuring one out that will work for me. I also kind of feel like blogging about politics is just an enormous waste of time. Unless you’re famous for doing it, I don’t think your words can ever establish a meaningful reputation or track record by which you’ll be judged. In a medium that is only words, your actions outside of it don’t matter either, again, unless you’re famous for them.

For the last six months, the fact that I actually use some email addresses associated with this domain has been the only thing that’s kept me from letting it expire. If I continue to feel about this site like I’ve felt for a while, this may be my last update. The domain expires in a couple months. I may renew it for one more year to have time to switch out the email addresses and archive some content. If I don’t see you here again, thanks for reading. Hopefully, I’ll see you somewhere else.

Stephen A. Smith starts this column by saying “If one thing is clear about Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, it is that it invites stereotyping and racial profiling…”, but then goes on to say that Major League Baseball should stay out of it. He, like every sports writer, is aware of the stand that the NFL took in Arizona over the MLK, jr holiday a couple of decades ago. It took some really tortured arguing to come up with a way of saying that the NFL took a stand over civil rights, but that “stereotyping and racial profiling” by a state government isn’t somehow a civil rights issue. This is the dumbest thing I’ve read today, for sure.

“All politics is local” is one of the most unquestioned pieces of political wisdom in the US system. In pondering that phrase in the context of the last couple of years of US politics, I’ve found myself having walked into one of those media studies paradoxes. All politics is local. Yes, this is true. Simultaneously, in the age of the internet all politics is national. This is why 2008 and 2009 were such bad years for the GOP. They’re why 2010 might not be as good as the prognosticators are saying it will. It’s why, whether 2010 is great for the GOP or not, they have major long term hurdles ahead. You can’t pursue a “southern strategy” in American politics anymore. The racist thugs that show up at your small town or suburban rallies (and your tea parties) and the things you say to rile them up will show up on youtube before your rally is even over. You can’t smile and nod to these people and then play Mr. or Mrs. Moderate when the network news cameras are on you. Perhaps more importantly, you cant expect anything you say at even the most closed door, invitation only session to be private anymore.

I don’t know how long this moment, this particular overlap of the old and the new, will carry on. I do know that it’s a moment that works in favor of the Democrats generically, though. They’ve spent 100 years desperately trying to purge their left flank. The Republicans have spent several decades trying to do the opposite in the form of a winking, silent embrace of their right flank. These are deeply ingrained habits, instincts even, in the two parties.

I’ve read a bunch of editorials like this and this blog post from the Washington Post’s Jo-Ann Armao in the last couple of days. It makes me marvel that people with so little understanding of the first amendment can be in journalism. Of course, with the quality of journalism for the last decade, perhaps I shouldn’t marvel. No one is infringing Limbaugh’s free speech rights. There’s nothing “unamerican” about this as the Jackson Sun put it. This is the free market that conservatives worship at its finest. The NFL doesn’t want to alienate customers. Whether it would be Limbaugh himself (almost certainly) or his detractors–all exercising their free speech rights–having him as a part owner in the league would do that. The market spoke when it made Limbaugh the very wealthy drug addict that he is today. Likewise, it spoke when the NFL made a business decision not to invite him into their owner’s club. That’s why a lot of us don’t worship the market the way conservatives do. There’s no appeal to fairness or anything other than the bottom line.

A couple of days ago, Michael Moore gave a speech at Public Citizen’s HQ in DC. The whole thing is about 18 minutes with another 12 minutes where he takes questions. It’s worth a watch and you can find it here. But my favorite bit from it comes well into the speech part and it is this:

“To the Democrats in Congress, who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I - and a lot of other people - have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your districts and we will work against you, first in the primary, and, if we have to, in the general election. You don’t think so? You think that we’re just going to go along with you because you are Democrats?

You should think again. This is the No. 1 domestic issue on people’s minds right now. It’s the No. 1 cause of bankruptcies in this country. Medical bills. It’s the No. 1 cause of foreclosures in this country. Medical bills.

We will organize the thousands of people in your district who have suffered as a result of this cruel health care system that we have - we will organize them and we will come after you and we will remove you from office. Make no mistake about that. You had better get behind the President. If you think you were afraid of a few people at a town hall meeting, you haven’t seen anything yet. And let me just say, there are some people in this room, if you remember back to the election of 2000, that are fairly reckless individuals when it comes to politics. They don’t really care - when they see a hypocrite, when they see somebody who’s turned their back on the people who put them into office, they will be relentless, relentless in working against you. Even if it means that the Democrat doesn’t win.”

I still think that voting for Nader was an irresponsible act in 2000. Look at our Supreme Court today for my answer as to why. It’s the same answer I gave at the time. But knocking out some Democratic congressman and senators can be a powerful act and often has been in the last hundred years in this country.

In a (gated) article at the Washington Post today Paul Kane writes that it is complacency among rank and file donors that has led to a 25% drop in donations to the Democratic party’s three major fund raising arms. He also notes that third party groups don’t appear to be preparing to put the same effort into electing Democrats this time around. For much of the article, he also tries to put that on equal par with a drop in large donor donations as well. However, the Ds are still bringing in three times the money from large donors that the Rs are.

It’s not complacency that’s causing us to close our check books. The surge in Democratic fund raising in 2006 and 2008 came from progressive, grass roots democrats who were desperate for a change. We got our change and we’re not that happy with it. The House is certainly better than the Senate where we’re being told that it takes 60 votes to do anything. The fact of the matter, though, is that progressive groups are finding themselves having to run ads against Democratic congressmen and senators to get them to do progressive things that are supported by solid majorities in their districts and super majorities of Democrats. There is some talk among grass roots groups and labor of finding and supporting progressive primary challengers. It’s a sure way to turn some of these seats back over the Republicans, but it’s also a way of showing that you can’t take our money and votes and then ignore us anymore–like you’ve done since the 80s.

We’re not complacent. We’re pissed. Not giving the bastards money is the hardest hitting outlet we’ve got for now.

It’s certainly true that some of the fight we’ve seen this summer over health care reform is about protecting the profits of insurance companies, insurance companies who make their money by denying you coverage. It’s also true that there’s a strong ideological component to it. There are laissez faire types who genuinely believe that greater government interference will reduce the quality of care. There’s also a republican strategy of obstructing whatever Obama tries to do and appealing to the fringe crazies who think he’s an illegitimate president. But what this is really about is plain, old electoral politics. The Republicans understand something that seems to elude a lot of the democratic party and the progressive blogosphere. It’s a simple thing. When Democratic social programs subsidize the quality of life of middle class and working class Americans, they win their votes. Just like when Republican and Democratic policies subsidize the bottom lines of different industries, they win those industries’ support. The difference between the two parties is that while both are content to subsidize the hell out of corporate America, only one has even a passing interest in subsidizing American families. A successful, overtly government run health care option would give the Democrats a lock on congress for several sessions if they can get it implemented before they’re voted out. A single payer plan would give them control of congress for a generation, but they lack both the vision and courage to seize that opportunity.

It’s been a while since I’ve put anything up on this space. I had a whole bunch of personal stuff going on this summer, including starting a very demanding new job. Hopefully, some of you are still reading.

I have a 90 mile a day commute. It gives me a lot of time to think. I had an idea this morning that I believe is simple, but also pretty damn clever. My proposal for a simple reform as part of the supposed reform of our financial system that’s on the horizon is this: No one who works in a regulated financial services, banking, or insurance organization can make more money in bonus or commission than they make in salary. Let’s put that hefty compensation right there on the books as a regular, recurring cost. If you think an employee might be worth $100 million dollars a year, you pay him $50 million and let him make the other half in bonus. If you don’t think an employee is worth that guaranteed $50 million a year, then maybe you should rethink what you’re paying him and others like him. I’m sure that the toady boards of directors probably wouldn’t have a problem approving outrageous salaries like this at many companies, but I bet their shareholders would.

This isn’t a cure for, well, almost anything, but it’s an idea that I like and that could be easily implemented. What do you think?

All of the progressive opinion I’m reading is opposed to the ballot measures that Californians will be voting on soon. When I look at each of these propositions, I can certainly understand the recommendation. They all kind of suck. The budget deal that went through a couple of months back was dependent on these measures passing, though. If they don’t pass, the budget deal doesn’t can’t stick and we have to go back to the drawing board…or so I read.

If anyone can answer the following questions with something more than “not my problem”, I would really appreciate it.

1. What happens if all of these props fail?
2. What happens if any one of these props fail?

The current budget is non-viable without them, right? The stubborn refusal of a small minority of Republicans in the state Senate to increase any taxes shows no signs of changing. Does this mean that we go back to looking at massive cuts in state services. That’s the only thing the Republicans in the senate would agree to. Are those massive cuts somehow better than what’s in these props?