Vice-Presidential Debate

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for my long absence.  There have been a succession of personal difficulties, with which most of you are familiar.  But things have seemingly calmed down, and I'm back.

So let's talk about Joe.

On balance, I think Ryan performed better, but Joe really came through, and decidedly won the sound-bite war, which is generally better for the news cycles, so it'll get better with time.  Biden acquitted himself well, and was able to talk about populist issues with a credibility unthinkable in an Obama speech.

Why it matters- Biden's old, but he's relatively spry.  Watching him, it's obvious that he loves politics.  No Vice-President who wants the nomination for president has failed to get it in sixty years.  In that period, sitting or former (non-incumbent) Vice-Presidents who have won their parties nominations for president include Richard Nixon (twice), Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, George Bush, and Al Gore.  In addition, many former Vice Presidents and former VP nominees have run competitive though unsuccessful campaigns, such as Sargent Shriver, Dan Quayle, Joe Lieberman (ugh), and John Edwards.  If Clinton declines to run again, Biden is the heir apparent to the Obama administration.

Why that's good- Biden has always been the dedicated progressive voice in the Obama administration- calling for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan, supporting Public Health Care, successfully overseeing the stimulus, speaking more truthfully than tactfully on the goals of American conservatives (most memorably at the NAACP convention), and taking the lead on Gay Rights.  Now, he's not perfect, largely due to the decisions of his boss, but I do like him, and with 40 years in Washington, and some truly impressive accomplishments as a Senator, he clearly knows how to get things done, and bargain more effectively than Obama.  I would very happily work for him in 2016, and would slightly prefer him to Clinton, as she has consistently been ever-so-slightly more hawkish especially on Iran.

I know the Democrats tend not to win three presidential elections consecutively, and Biden's chances take a sharp nosedive if Obama loses this election.  Even if Obama wins, his natural timidity and Republican control of Congress will preclude any accomplishments other than his under-the-table plan to gut Social Security.  Watching Biden's public persona in the next two years, assuming a second term as Vice-President, will be very instructive in gauging his worthiness, although I am favorably predisposed towards him.  Still, a Biden presidency seems unlikely.  A Biden candidacy and nomination, however, seems likely, indeed, inevitable if Obama wins and if Clinton declines to run.

Why this is important- all the Democratic Party's big name, up-and-comers are even more conservative than Obama, which is saying a lot.  Cuomo is doing basically Walker-lite in New York, O'Malley of Maryland isn't much better, Castro has quite a centrist reputation, which is hard to come by in a media that treats Obama as a genuine liberal, and...  is there anyone else?  Warren perhaps, but I doubt she'll run for President so soon.  We need a new generation of left-wing leadership in Congress, and I think her chances are better there anyway.  (For the purposes of this discussion, we must assume that my dream candidate, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is out of the question, as she would only run if Cuomo doesn't, and he'll only not run if Biden does and that's a few too many conditionals for me to take such a discussion seriously:)  My resident oracle, who can be a trifle irritating in his poll obsession but is nonetheless a generally good fellow, and very trustworthy in his predictions, assures me that Cuomo will be the next Democratic President.  To which, I say, if the new generation is incapable of restoring the soul of the Democratic Party after the twenty years of betrayal inaugurated by Bill Clinton and completed under Barack Obama, then we must turn to the previous generation, and hope they can hold the line until new left-wing leadership emerges.  Biden is the logical standard bearer in such a case, as he is an experienced Progressive, and as VP will have the unconditional backing of the Democratic establishment, should the circumstances previously enumerated arise.  Best Case scenario, he wins the presidency, and actually does some of what Obama promised to in 2008, Worst Case scenario, he loses, but I have the experience of working for a respectable candidate who has the resources to hire lots of ground troops.  As I do this professionally, job satisfaction is as important as winning to me- I want to be working for a guy I'll vote for.  Biden is one for whom I'd be proud to stump.

Solidarität
Genosse Graham

Fighting Bobfest

Wow.  Last Saturday was amazing.  Went up to Madison with Sam Borgos and Susie Smela for Fighting Bobfest, a yearly left-convention in honor of Robert M. "Fighting Bob" La Follette.  I assumed everyone knew who he was, but very few people in my dorm (even the Wisconsin natives!) did, so here's a quick summary.
     Most important Progressive leader of the late 19th-early 20th century, as governor of and then senator from Wisconsin.  Successfully fought for women's suffrage, progressive taxation, state control of railroads, university influence in policy-making, the initiative, the recall, and referendum, and the abolition of child labor, as well as a host of union-friendly measures, aided by the oratorical and organizational skills of his brilliant wife, Belle.  Later in his life, he led the opposition to our entry into World War I and, importantly for my current endeavors, bolted his party to run a left-wing third-party candidacy in 1924, winning over 15 percent of the vote, and carrying Wisconsin.  He also enjoyed hairdressing.
    This year's lineup of speakers was truly exceptional.  I finally got to hear Tammy Baldwin speak, and it redoubled my enthusiasm for her.  I wish she had a campaign of her own for which I could volunteer, but all Democratic operations are structured around the presidential election, meaning all activities, even those paid for by Baldwin's own campaign, treat her as an afterthought.  This really isn't fair, as she has rather different views than the president, especially on foreign policy, and much more backbone when it comes to domestic.  She's the first mainstream Democrat I've heard make tariffs a big issue, which is important both from economic and environmental standpoints.  She hit her stride, and the crowd loved her.  Spoke a lot about how proud she is of her grandparents, how hard they worked to raise her, and how much they cared about social justice.  This of course made me think of Nanny, I wish she could have come with us.
     The next speaker was Mahlon Mitchell, our last nominee for Lt. governor, and president of the Firefighters' Union.  That man...  I'm still breathless just thinking about it.  Such a hardcore stance on behalf of the workers, who candidly addressed the sellouts of not only conservative Democrats like Barrett and Obama, but also the overly cautious union leadership which bears part of the blame for the American proletariat's lack of organization.  He works a crowd better than any politician I've seen, especially an informed crowd.  He also has a very amusing routine of "trying not to curse" but it always slips out to much merriment.  He's also a damn fine-looking young man, and I can't think of anyone I'd rather see launch a long-term political career.
     Gwen Moore (Milwaukee's congresswoman), spoke after the midday break (during which I got my well-annotated copy of Professor Nancy Unger's definitive La Follette biography signed!).  She could work the crowd too, and offered the best voice on women's issues I've ever heard, and that's saying something!  I think the best way to describe her is "warrior mother", so driven, so principled, and so overwhelmingly concerned for people.  She went through a nicely consistent oration, describing the conservative attacks on students, workers, women, teachers, veterans, environmentalists, gays, the retired, ending each stanza with the question "Are you going to let them kick you out of our family?"  She brought the house down, and I teared up more than a little.
    Buddy Roemer spoke too, and while he's rather conservative on many social issues, he's a true populist on the power of business to corrupt society, and spoke very eloquently.  Something about hearing social injustice excoriated in that Louisiana drawl...  He's a real Kingfish.  Long would be proud.
     The day reached its saddest point with the speech of Greg Palast, an expat BBC journalist who's so awesome he has a hard time getting back into the country.  He's best known for documenting how Republican caging operations routinely invalidate the ballots of nearly 20 percent of all black voters, giving Bush the presidency in 2004.  His speaking style struck me as a combination of my own with that of the fictional Dr. House.  Also, the man wears a fedora in 2012.  Gotta give him credit for that.

Jill Stein and Bill McKibbon spoke too, but I didn't hear them, as I was canvassing the fairgrounds for Rocky Anderson.  (got two more electors, and another today-the end is in sight!).  Came away fired up and ready to go.  I'm definitely going every chance I get over the next few years.

Solidarität
Kamerad Graham

Are women the property of their employers?

The Missouri legislature just overrode a rare courageous veto from Governor Nixon on the issue of insurance plans.  In Missouri, employers may now unconditionally keep their female employees from purchasing family planning services through their insurance provider.  Possible effects include-

More abortions- less family planning means more unwanted pregnancies.


Dangerous precedent- now that religious grounds are all that is needed for an employer to assert patriarchal authority over female employees whose sexual behavior he wishes to control, what guarantee of safety is left to Missouri's women?

I rather think, however, that their ultimate goal is simple- to prevent even a handful of women from being economically independent is a victory in their eyes.  They want women to have to have babies at the command of their Lord, and leave "man's work" for "man".  This bill will by no means keep all women from working, but it will make it more difficult for women to control their own bodies, and keeping the burden of paying for basic health care -which saves all society money- firmly anchored upon working women, rather than their Capitalist Patriarchs.  Glorious day for the army of the Lord, I suppose- if even one woman has an unintended pregnancy and is pressured into keeping the baby, and leaves her job, a man can take it and restore the proudest of American traditions- chauvinism.

I try not to blog angry, but...

Superman: American Subversive (and why that's ok)

As you should know, I'm something of a nerd.  This has long extended to vintage DC comics of the 1930s and 40s, which, aside from their entertainment value, are an interesting window into pop culture of past decades, and yes, I just like comics.  I've chuckled at the implications of the stories, of the simplistic villains, and the cloying patriotism of the war years.  (There's also the instance of Robin exhorting the children of America to be "Regular", a battle cry to conformity or bowel movement, depending on your perspective).  Aside from the typical and comical scenes of Batman outwitting the police before his inclusion as an "honorary member" in 1941, the message is what you'd expect from a period piece aimed at impressionable children- follow your country, the only villains you must face are the foreign, the disabled, and the active women.  It hit me recently, however, that the first twenty or so issues of Action Comics (which introduced Superman in its debut publication), there's quite a bit of creative daring at work.

     The very first act Superman performs for the benefit of America's impressionable youth is MAN-HANDLING THE GOVERNOR IF ILLINOIS TO COERCE A PARDON OF AN (INNOCENT) CONDEMNED WOMAN JUST AS SHE IS BEING SETTLED INTO THE ELECTRIC CHAIR.  This really is exciting, as we see not only the possibility of official error, but also the danger such error poses, and, most importantly, the notion that truth and justice is more important than official opinion is really a bold statement for the times.  Just remember, this is less than two decades after the mass censorship and repression of the World War I era, and a children's magazine dared to point out flaws in government which would, if left unchecked, cost an innocent woman her life in an exceptionally brutal fashion.

     But wait, you say.  The trope of mistaken identity in criminal proceedings is nothing new, and Superman deserves no special recognition for using it as a showcase for his power and character.
Fair enough, but this was his first appearance ever, and forecast a pattern of behavior that can only be described as subversive.  One of Superman's next appearances involves him infiltrating a prison to expose the cruelty of the guards and the mistreatment of the prisoners.  Not once are the crimes of the inmates mentioned, only their rights to decent treatment in prison.  This was in the 1930s, when the country made extensive use of slave labor by prisoners, under conditions even more brutal than those of today. 
      Further stories depict Superman battling cruel foster care facilities and corrupt policemen, both far more loathsome than their comic-relief counterparts in Batman stories of the area.  One of the earliest truly detestable Superman villains is "100%" O'Reilly, policeman extraordinaire who conspires to graft vast sums of money as a reward for stirring up lynch mobs and intimidating citizens.  Most memorably in one issue Superman dares to confront juvenile delinquency head on- by a frank discussion of poverty and the hopelessness that had already infested American cities, and, rather than punching the young "criminals" into a prison, he provokes the government into renovating the slums and constructing massive public-housing projects.  Simplistic?  Yes.  Courageous in its daring to blame the system rather than the victims?  Very yes.

     These writers were kids, daring to publish children's literature openly criticizing standard government practice, and their creation has become immortal as an American icon.  This most-loved creation of American pop culture began as a fearless reformer, who dared to stick it to bloodthirsty officials who in any other setting would have enjoyed the patriotic obedience of the people (and still do in real life, of course).  Daring to question existing social structures is always commendable, but from a 75 year old piece of children's literature it is all the more notable.  Before his transformation into a boy-scout-like champion of the status quo, Superman was willing to attack even villains with a stamp of legitimacy upon them, and to go to any lengths to help the people.  What does it say about us that our quintessential mythological creation originated as someone who would stop at nothing to help the people, even breaking society's conventions apart to do it?  What does it say that he proceeded to turn into a defender of the order of things, even the excesses of Capitalism?  It seems to me that the narrative of Superman as a champion of the oppressed is stronger when he acts from conviction, not from a sense of duty to those privileged few who dominate so much of our society. 

All right, I confess I'm tired, and have been listening to John Kerry and Joe Biden speak for the last 2 hours, so my concentration hasn't been 100%.  My point stands.  Hope to see your thoughts!

population

Consider this posting 2-days-in-a-row atonement for my previous irregularity in annoying you all with my political beliefs.

I've been thinking a lot about overpopulation.  Clearly, Earth is not meant to hold 8 billion resource consuming humans.  Long-term security demands that we begin slowing our population's explosive growth, but I'm unwilling to impose stringent child limits like those for which China is so famous.  We've seen both ends of government controlling reproductive health- China forcing abortions, and Ceausceau's Romania using secret police as gynecologists to catch any women who were using birth control.  Both are abhorrent, as the Right to Choice is essential to all human beings, but especially society's vulnerable and exploited, i.e. women.  I am not about to support either.

So, we need a non-coercive way to control overpopulation.  I rather think that this is one area where the U.S. can and should take the lead.  We have about 5 percent of the world's population, but consume nearly 40% of its resources.  Frankly, humanity will benefit much more noticeably from a reduction in our birth rate than it would from an equivalent drop anywhere else.  Step one has to be removing the tax incentive for children, at least past the first.  This is going to be painful for everyone, not least because having fewer workers will skew our balance of population towards those who have earned their retirement, and suddenly have fewer people to support them.  I would remind everyone, though, that economic health is kind of contingent upon actually having resources to consume, and responsible conservation has to be the primary imperative.

Removing the basic tax incentives for large families will help, but should be paired with an expansion of reproductive health care, making sure each baby is wanted.  That's the relatively easy part.

Social services are trickier- what of subsidies for child care, or food stamps?  What about health insurance?  I am unwilling to cover some children, but not all, or to tell a struggling mother that her younger children do not deserve support, and yet these and other tax credits do subsidize unstable population growth.  I hope we'll all agree that creating a two-tiered system of "First" and "unwanted" children is every bit as evil as existing class oppressions, and is therefore off the table.  I'd like to throw this open for discussion- Is there a way to discourage having large families that will not hurt the most vulnerable members of society?

Impetus for a Prochoice majority to act

I'm sure you all heard what my dear former congressman Akin got himself into.  In case you haven't had the stomach to investigate the details (which is fully understandable) not only did he claim that women can simply "shut down" unwanted pregnancy without birth control, but he also accused rape victims of faking their assaults in order to expedite abortion care.

There's really so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin.  This is clearly the viewpoint of perhaps 30-40 percent(20 percent according to gallup, plus a further 37 that say choice should only be permitted in certain circumstances) of the country, with another third at least dispassionate and uninterested.  With this in mind, I find it surprisingly heartening that the reaction has been so overwhelmingly negative.  Even the CNN comments section is overwhelmingly anti-Akin.  Who knows, maybe people still actually stand up for women's rights...

As I've not yet addressed this topic on this circular, I thought to enumerate my thoughts on the matter of abortion.
     As a man, I have significantly greater reproductive freedom than a woman.  Whatever the legal and economic consequences being responsible for an unplanned pregnancy on me, I would be spared the physical burdens.  This inherent inequality justifies giving women the ultimate authority in this matter.  A basic human right is the right to one's own body, and any and all effort to prevent women from exercising this right is simply unqualified evil.  My platform on this issue is  as follows: Abortion on demand, without exception or apology.  Whatever rights a potential human being may have, they cannot compare to those of an actual human being.  Therefore, no matter how uneasy I may be made by late term abortions, or by gender-specific abortions, I do not feel entitled to make such a decision for any woman, provided the decision is in fact her own.  The aforementioned practices disturb me, but that doesn't justify establishing any cutoff after which women lose their human rights for the duration of their pregnancy.  No restrictions on abortion at all.

This can be coupled with expanded sex education, greater access to birth control, and nationalized childcare services, to ameliorate the unequal burden of domestic labor on women in general and working women in particular.  Alternately, paid parental leave.  We are the only country in North America or Europe not to guarantee paid time off for family building, the most visible manifestation of our culture's indifference to domestic life- that which is labeled "feminine".  Sadly, it is often this work, of nurturing, understanding, and caretaking, that imparts senses of social justice in many people who undertake it, including many mothers.  But our society not only belittles the importance of this work, but insults those who do it, either by choice, or because they are expected to.  I wonder if a society could ever be based on values of compassion and understanding rather than killing, hate, and fear.  Surely, such a realm would be truly great.  To me, this is what it means to be a cultural feminist- that merely guaranteeing fairness is not sufficient, rather our social value structure must be reexamined, and, if necessary, amended to make for a greater society.

Whew.  That started as just a pro-choice argument but went much broader.  This is probably why some professors don't like my essays.  To hell with that, I like this, and I feel I've expressed my thoughts adequately.

In Solidarität
Genosse Graham

Supporting Anderson

It's been quite a few weeks.  Missouri had our primary- my reluctant choices for congress and city treasurer won, while my passionate choices for sheriff, state senate, and state house lost.  More importantly, there was yet another massacre in Wisconsin.  I've outlined my thoughts on gun control in the previous post, but I think that the rise of right-wing extremism and overwhelming prejudice make it all the more important to our republic.  Not only is failure to act dangerous to all citizens, but it also puts minorities at greater risk of bodily harm.  We need real gun control, not just enforcement of existing laws, and not government by the Rick Perrys, Phil Gramms and Charleton Hestons.  Our policy is "any gun, anywhere, any time", and over the past two weeks we've seen bloody reminders of how dangerous that is.  Good luck and heartfelt apologies to the victims.

On a lighter note, I've been preparing to take the next step in supporting Justice Party candidate Mayor Ross "Rocky" Anderson for president.  His campaign is conducting a write-in effort in Wisconsin, where I attend school so I will be able to vote for him.  There is, however a snag.  Wisconsin law requires any candidate to have a slate of electors representing each of Wisconsin's 8 districts pledged to him, to go vote in the electoral college in the (in this case unlikely) event he is to win the state.  The campaign has none yet recruited.  I therefore am pleased to announce to you all my candidacy for Presidential Elector of Wisconsin on behalf of Rocky Anderson, and my search for fellow candidates from all of Wisconsin's districts.  I ask all of you to rack your brains to think of friends you have in any part of the Badger state, preferably crazy left-wingers like me, but anyone willing and registered to vote will suffice.  To reiterate, this is not an onerous task- it consists of filling out a form, which I will mail or otherwise provide to the prospective candidates, sent to the board of elections before October 23d.

If you know anyone in the 1st, 3d, 4th-(yay, Congresswoman Moore!), 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th districts who may be interested, please notify me!

In Solidarity
Genosse Graham