Reinventing America

Time For A Budget SURPLUS Amendment

2011-12-17T13:27:00.000-05:00

Forget the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). It's a cynical political ploy by the GOP. It leaves them free to pass all the irresponsible cut taxes they want while handcuffing the Democrats from restoring taxes to responsible levels or even raising them if needed.

The BBA is part of the GOP's larger strategy to sabotage the finances of government to create massive deficits/debt hoping an eventual fiscal crisis will undermine signature Democratic safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As if that wasn't bad enough, it leaves the matter of the debt unresolved… setting in cement the theft by our generation of some $14 trillion from future tax payers… and by that I mean our kids and grandkids. The interest alone last FY was over $450 billion and $2.9 TRILLION was pissed away on interest during the Bush years alone.

We need to stop playing these budget games. Both Democrats and the GOP use the unified budget to conceal internal borrowing from the trust funds to make the real deficit look smaller. It's the on-budget deficit that gives us the true picture.

What is needed is a no games On-Budget SURPLUS Amendment to restrain both reckless spending AND reckless tax cuts by all sides and force them to finally pay down our enormous debt which now is about $15 trillion dollars.

The task ahead is daunting. Even if we ran an annual $500 billion surplus, something that didn't even happen in the best Clinton years, it would take us now some 30 years to pay down the debt. That neither political party sees the moral outrage in this situation is a damning indictment against our morally bankrupt and intellectually braindead political system.

ulTRAX

So Where's That Conservative Nirvana?

2011-11-22T22:47:00.004-05:00

These past 30 years the rich, corporations, and Wall Street have gotten just about EVERYTHING they wanted… tax cuts for the filthy rich, big reductions on capital gains taxes, the destruction of unions, free trade deal to exploit cheap and slave labor overseas, corporate welfare, two wars they refused to pay for, deregulation of banks, mass media, and commodities. They sabotaged government revenue with irresponsible tax cuts and sabotaged the industrial base of America with free trade. Their privatization efforts in Iraq milked taxpayers for $100k+ a year contractor jobs that our military should have been doing for a fifth that. They encouraged us to place our life savings in the hands of sociopathic predators on Wall Street whose greed and hubris was so great they didn't just bring down their own banks, they brought down our entire economy... almost the world's.

ALL THE EVIDENCE IS NOW IN, and it’s these conservative/neo-liberal policies have proven to be a DISASTER. At least some neo-libs like Clinton now have some regrets about free trade and deregulation. Clinton got us to a balanced budget only to have it quickly sabotaged by Bush to prevent debt paydown. Do you ever hear ANY regrets from the far Right or the crazed Tea Baggers for supporting policies that created more debt and brought the economy down?

Above was just the beginning of the Right's proposed insanity. The Tea Party sociopaths in Congress are demanding policies even MORE insane than the above. Grover Norquist on 60 Minutes last Sunday went on record his goal is to shrink the federal government down to about 8% of GDP. That means the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and just about all of the social safety net plus those regulatory agencies that protect us from the more malignant aspects of capitalism. Quite literally it's the rolling back of the 20th Century.

The Right has shown they are willing to become fiscal terrorists threatening to blow up the system if they are not allowed to inflict even MORE damage. They are blind to the fact that they have gotten most of what they wanted these past 30 years and there's still no Conservative Nirvana. They blame their failures on not being extreme enough. And these lunatics are say they can be trusted to fix our system??

If anyone should be reforming our system, it's those whose instincts were sound in OPPOSING all of the above insanity… people on the LEFT.

ulTRAX

It's Time For An ANTI-NORQUIST PATRIOT PLEDGE!!!

2011-11-07T17:19:00.000-05:00

It's time for the Democrats to use the Norquist anti-tax pledge against the GOP demanding they sign a counter pledge similar to the below:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which I seek. While in office my primary obligation is to those I represent and to the People of the United States.

I further affirm that I will not let commitments, oaths, or pledges made to others restrict my ability to arrive at the best policy decisions or come before my sworn obligations stated above.

Signed___________________

A Proposal For An Occupy Wall Street Manifesto

2011-10-28T12:37:00.001-04:00

The term traitor has both legal and moral definitions. In the moral sense, we hold the following to be TRAITORS to the United States and its People.

1: Politicians in BOTH parties who passed irresponsible tax cuts with the deliberate intent of creating massive debt as a backdoor way to undermine our social safety net. This has not just created massive interest payments... almost $3 trillion alone in the Bush years, stolen from trillions from our children, but also sabotaged government's ability to respond to emergencies.

2: Politicians in BOTH parties who put ideology over common sense and passed free trade which exported our jobs and undermined our economy and standard of living to benefit a few corporate investors. This has not only undermined our defense industry but is now crippling our economic recovery.

3: Politicians in BOTH parties who permitted advanced technology transfers to Red China and have allowed the US to become financially indebted to the Red Chinese who now have the power to destabilize the US. In a mere 15 years we have undermined our own economy and created a powerful economic and military rival.

4: Politicians in BOTH parties who deregulated the banks and commodity sectors letting the greedy predators run wild to prey on homeowners, small investors, and our retirement funds. They have robbed our youth of a future. They sabotaged the productive parts of our economy and allowed it to be replaced with irresponsible speculation and gambling. Like in 1929 this ultimately crashed the entire economy.

5: Politicians in BOTH parties who bailed out Wall Street predators and thieves without massively reforming our economic system so the Crash Of 2008 could never happen again.

6: Politicians in BOTH parties who refused to bring these predators and thieves to justice and allowed them to keep wealth they stole from the rest of us.

7: Politicians in BOTH parties who have refused to try to free us being held hostage to foreign oil from a hostile region of the world.

8: Politicians in BOTH parties who for political gain got the US bogged down in illegal wars of aggression... weakening our military and economy while undermining US credibility around the world, then passed the bill on to our children.

If our ENEMIES had done this to our nation, all real patriots would have declared war on these traitors long ago. Our goal is to REVERSE THE ABOVE and see that those who did this to our nations are either punished in elections or by the law!!

IS STARVE THE BEAST TREASON?

2011-07-29T11:03:00.000-04:00

Just what is Grover Norquist's strategy of "Starve The Beast"? It was once a fringe far Right wing strategy to use fiscal irresponsibility as a political weapon. The GOP would rack up debt with irresponsible tax cuts and reckless spending to benefit their wealthy and corporate constituency. And and when the political pendulum shifted and the Democrats took power, that new debt would restrain them.

Eventually this fiscal irresponsibility would create a financial crisis where the GOP could go in for the kill and go after Democratic programs they knew could never get voters to weaken or kill through the ballot box.

Starve The Beast is now the mainstream in the GOP with the vast majority of GOP representatives and senators having signed Grover Norquist's pledge to pursue this strategy.

Given Starve The Beast calls for the willful sabotaging of government revenues and the creation of massive debt, it is a deliberate attack on the fiscal health of government and affects government's ability deal with emergencies.

At what point does this strategy cross the line into treason? Has it already?

Proof Reagan's Tax Cuts FAILED As A Stimulus?

2011-06-20T11:59:00.001-04:00

Last week Limbaugh was again spouting the Right's nonsense that tax cuts are some magic bullet for the economy as if the evidence wasn't in from the Bush2 years. Tax cuts them failed to either stimulate the economy or inoculate the economy against recession. We might have avoided that mistake if we just went back and learned from an earlier example... the era of Voodoo Economics.

In February 1981 the Reagan admin wrote of their new economic plan

The program we have developed will break that cycle of negative expectations. It will revitalize economic growth, renew optimism and confidence, and rekindle the Nation's entrepreneurial instincts and creativity.

The benefits to the average American will be striking. Inflation—which is now at double digit rates—will be cut in half by 1986. The American economy will produce 13 MILLION NEW JOBS by 1986, nearly 3 million more than if the status quo in government policy were to prevail. The economy itself should break out of its anemic growth patterns to a much more robust growth trend of 4 to 5 percent a year. These positive results will be accomplished simultaneously with reducing tax burdens, increasing private saving, and raising the living standard of the American family.

Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43427

In reality, just 5 months later, the economy sank into what was then the worst recession since the 30's. Unemployment hit a peak of 10.8% by December 1982... higher than it was under Obama. The unemployment rate remained over 8% for nearly 2 years, from March 82 through January 84.

Source... you'll have to construct your own tables here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

As for the actual job creation numbers under Reagan?

FOX says "Under Reagan, 9.5 million jobs were created from January 1981 to December 1986."

source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html

That's it? Even when Fox gives Reagan an extra YEAR, Reagan could not meet his own job creation prediction of 13 million new jobs by 1986 (Jan 86) and was 3.5 MILLION jobs off.

I don't know where FOX got it's 9.5 million new jobs number but at the BLS site http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls you can also run the job numbers.

In February 1981 when that White House reported predicted 13 million new jobs by 1986... the total workforce was estimated to be 108,242,000. In January 1986 the number was 116,682,000.

Where Reagan predicted 13 million jobs... it looks like a mere 8.4 million were created. That's 4.6 MILLION off Reagan's prediction.

Reagonomics was a utter failure yet the Orwellian Right has erased this failure from the minds of GOPers just as they are busy erasing the Bush2 failures.

So why would someone want to deliberately the public believe in a FAILED policy?

Because the REAL intent of these irresponsible tax cuts was NEVER economic stimulus but a reason the far Right can never admit to... to sabotage government revenues and drive up debt hoping to eventually bring us to the point we are at now... where the Right hopes to drive a stake in the heart of all those New Deal and great Society programs they've always loathed. To preserve this strategy the Orwellian Right has rewritten history and turned irresponsible tax cuts not just into a shining success but into a religion. They know fully well facts really don't stand a chance when the Right wing faithful inoculate themselves against them.

ulTRAX

The Tax Code And The Citizens United Decision

2010-02-17T18:30:00.000-05:00

I assume most of us are troubled by the USSC Citizens United decision. While I’m all in favor of an amendment to clarify that constitutionally a person can only be a NATURAL person not an artificial one, the bar to passing a constitutional amendment is ridiculously high and could take years to pass… if ever.

But are there are other possible avenues of attack to push corporations out of politics?

What about the IRS tax code?
Currently religious and non-profit entities receive tax-exempt status on the condition they NOT engage in political campaign activities. This is NOT considered a restraint on their First Amendment free speech laws. If these groups violate this agreement, they lose that perk.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

Corporations receive numerous benefits such as limited liability protections and tax benefits such as the ability to write off expenses all designed to facilitate commerce.
Why can’t the tax code be changed to make these tax benefits conditional on corporations NOT engaging in political campaign activities?

Technically this would NOT be a restraint on corporate free speech any more than it is with those religious and non-profit organizations.

Corporations, likewise, would remain free to engage in political activities. Only they, too, would be faced with the choice that such involvement would end all of those special benefits in the tax code. Changing IRS code could possibly be done in time to prevent a massive avalanche of corporate money from affecting this year’s election.

Currently a proposal floated by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen does NOT include this approach. You can read their proposal here: http://vanhollen.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=169969

I urge you to contact Chuck Schumer at 202-224-6542 and Chris Van Hollen at (202) 225-5341.

Reforming The Anti-democratic US Senate

2010-02-16T19:02:00.010-05:00

Contrary to what many believe, the US is not a democracy. And even with a representative government and a constitution, if democratic principles are at the heart of a republic, one could argue the US is not even a republic. Election 2000 again proved that a candidate REJECTED by the People can be imposed upon our nation. In the Senate, a mere 18% of the population gets 52% of the seats. A president and Senate representing a minority of the population can pack the federal judiciary changing US law forever and enter the US into unwise international treaties. This is insane. Our system violates the principle that governments derive their JUST power from the CONSENT of the governed.

Our system is not just anti-democratic, it is so absurdly reform proof system that it has set in cement the politics of 1787. In all our history, not ONE of the 27 ratified amendments to the Constitution has in any way changed the anti-democratic nature of our Constitution. Aside from our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system which I’d argue is incapable of measuring the Will Of The People, the political side of our government only further distorts the public will. I believe this distortion is so pervasive the Constitution and our electoral systems shape public opinion more than the other way around. It was this Constitution that gave us the Civil War. With all the current dysfunctionality evident in government today, why do we still subscribe to the notion we mere mortals dare not touch what the Framers intended?

The core problem on the political side is the concept of state suffrage… the idea that entities called states deserve equal representation with the People. At the Constitutional Convention, the small population states insisted this anti-democratic concept be written into the fabric of the Constitution as a condition of ratification. On the legislative side, the larger states would receive more representation in the House but state suffrage was embodied in the Senate where each state, regardless of population, received two senators.

This arrangement made sense in 1787 because they looked at politics through a prism that only STATES mattered. After all, it was those fiercely independent states which were negotiating for that “more perfect union” with each other. However, when one looks at how any individual CITIZEN is represented in our Constitution, a more disturbing picture of our system emerges.

When the Constitution was written the ratio between the largest and smallest population states, Virginia and Delaware respectively, was about 21:1. That ratio now between California and Wyoming is about 69:1.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html

While there may adjustments in the House with states losing or gaining seats, the Senate formula is absolutely frozen. Delaware in 1787, and Wyoming now, each get their two Senators. And since there are no protections in the Constitution against such demographic trends, each state will get their two senators regardless if the ratio becomes 100:1 or 1,000:1. Today the Senate has become perhaps the most anti-democratic and most dysfunctional legislative body on the planet.

Let’s be more precise: states are not represented by two senators, the PEOPLE of each state are represented by two Senators. This was made more evident with the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913. It permitted for the first time direct popular elections for each state’s senators. Any citizen who chooses to live in Wyoming now has nearly 70X the influence in the Senate than any citizen in California. What’s wrong with this picture? Such vote weighting/dilution schemes are ILLEGAL on all other levels of government.

We’ve been brought up to believe that this Senate/House arrangement is fair because any given citizen in, say, California, is somehow represented by ALL their state delegation. In reality, no citizen votes for ALL the representatives of their state as one does for a Senator. Citizens can vote for only ONE Representative and only ONE represents any given citizen… not their entire state delegation.

One might think that solving the problem of the anti-democratic Senate might require a constitutional amendment… a formula that itself is bizarre. It requires a high bar of ¾ of the states to ratify, but since 1820, the ¾ smallest states that could ratify any amendment have contained LESS than 50% of the population! In fact, the 12 smallest states that could thwart any amendment today represent a mere 4.5% of the population. However, it’s not just a matter that the small states would object to any such amendment, it’s that the Constitution has an enormous poison pill which protects the Senate against all attempts to reform it short of a Constitutional Convention.

Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This situation is so bizarre than one proposal to get around this insurmountable roadblock suggested the extraordinary measure to break up the larger states to create 75 states.

I believe that proposal is unlikely to gain any support. American identity is too tied to state residence. Short of a Constitutional Convention I don’t see ANY way to make the Senate more democratic… except possibly through the backdoor.

Under the Article 1, Section 5 each house is free to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings” as well as be the judge of the “qualifications” of their own members.

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members…
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

When in the Constitution the requirements for votes in either body are mentioned, say to override a presidential veto, we see language such as: If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

While implied, I can find no specific mention that the total vote MUST represent a single vote for each senator or representative… only some ratio is given. Is there an opening here?

But what about Article 5 which states “that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Suffrage is merely the right to vote and this section seems to imply that all senate votes should weigh the same. But is there an opening here too?

Until some high profile voting rights cases in the 1960’s, the concept of suffrage in US history never guaranteed one person one vote. Sadly, those court cases which established this principle did NOT apply to the Constitution itself which remains the last bastion of vote weighting/dilution schemes in the US. That citizens in the large states quietly accept this situation is a tribute to our secular religion that teaches ours is the best political system in the world.

Given this legal context where the concept of individual suffrage has expanded, why has the concept of state suffrage remained sacrosanct? Can the concept of state suffrage be modified in ways we’ve not yet thought of to CORRECT the undemocratic nature of the Senate? While it’s politically improbable, could the rules of the Senate be rewritten so the vote of each Senator is weighted to represent 1/2 of their state’s total population? In this corrective vote weighting scheme each state would technically retain equal suffrage to vote.

I hope to present some case studies soon on how different some historical Senate votes might have been different if the Senate had been a democratic body. One example from the 75 Stars article is the Senators who confirmed Clarence Thomas represented less than 50% of the US population. He became a key vote in Bush v Gore.

As I wrote 4 years ago the currents of antidemocratic government are insidious.

ulTRAX

modified 2-17-10

Obama MUST Go For McCain Jugular

2008-08-27T15:45:00.002-04:00

John McCain will, of course attack Senator Obama’s strengths. If the attack gets traction, what does Obama have left to sway the undecided?

To respond, Obama MUST attack what McCain is marketing as his unique strength… that he would be a uniquely strong leader who can keep America safe.

Yet it’s clear to all but the most radical of the flag-wavers who are pathologically incapable of critiquing ANY president regardless of their abuses or crimes, that by supporting the war against Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to the US, McCain has proven he does not just lack the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, he is, in fact, DANGEROUS to the security of the nation.

Here are some simple truths that it would be refreshing for a US politician to speak...

The first is that if a war is unnecessary for our nation’s security, then ALL the blood, sweat, tears, and treasure, were pissed away in vain. Second: not the bravery of our troops, not the flag waving, nor any brilliant strategy to win such a pointless war can change that painful fact that it was all for nothing.

What kind of person would support such an unncessary war? It’s been said that if all a person has is a hammer, all the problems look like a nail. McCain’s fatal flaw is more concerned about demonstrating US power that national REAL security actually become a secondary consideration.

By his mindless support for the Iraq war which distracted from the war against Al Quida and placed the Afghanistan campaign at risk, McCain proved that he is easily distracted from the REAL security needs of the US.

Obama has to make sure the US public is not blinded by the flag-waving on the Right. He has to speak out for sanity... that in perilous times or not, the US can NEVER afford a president who will make the world more perilous. Bush proved it.

ulTRAX

8-27-08

Iraq: So They Will Not Die In Vain part 2

2008-03-19T12:24:00.009-04:00

Part One of this series can be found here.

We can’t underestimate the sacrifices that those in the military are willing to make nor those sacrifices already made should be honored this Memorial Day.

Yet as citizens we also have a responsibility to insure we do NOT call on the military to make those sacrifices in vain. That SHOULD be uncontroversial. Sadly, in America it’s not.

There is a basic truth here that many deny or remain oblivious to. By definition an unnecessary war is one that’s not vital for our national security or survival. Even if we prevail in such an unnecessary war, then all the sacrifices of blood and treasure were for nothing since our national security or survival were not served. There is NO way around this incontrovertible fact.

I may be a Progressive but I’m not anti-military. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Gulf War… though I’ve later rethought that support. I opposed Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Libya, and Iraq.

The mantra “support the troops” has become as meaningless as “pro-life”. It is meaningless phrase because it has become a slogan that both sides wear on their sleeves. They seem to value the terms as self-descriptions to proclaim their moral superiority… and as shields against their critics. Yet I all too often see a pattern. Most, especially on the pro-war side, don’t feel any responsibility to actually flesh out what their precious slogan means. It’s become as meaningless as the term “pro-life” when someone also supports the death penalty or an economic system where exploitation of others is a central feature.

Similarly those who support unnecessary wars avoid the obvious contradiction in their position: how can one REALLY support the troops when they didn’t oppose an unnecessary war at the start and now wish the troops to remain longer in a brutal meat grinder? Knowing all those sacrifices the troops are willing to make for the nation, how can ANY patriot ask, if not demand, they make such sacrifices in vain?

The military may have to follow orders whether they like it or not. When civilians do the same or allow themselves to be manipulated by cynical and dishonest politicians, it destroys one of the checks and balances of our system that can keep us out of unnecessary or illegal wars.

It SHOULD be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used to support some special interests as we did when we repeatedly sent in the military to protect the interests of United Fruit, the oil companies, and the like. It SHOULD also be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used in unnecessary if not illegal wars begun cynical politicians who wrap themselves in the flag.

By denying these simple realities of US politics, the faux patriots betray their real agenda. They aren’t concerned about the military. They just claim to be. They’ll believe ANY noble-sounding pretense if it’s wrapped in God and Country.

The faux patriots have genuinely deluded themselves they have a monopoly on something called patriotism. Their pathological patriotism does not require them to shed all preconceptions and rethink what’s really best for this nation. Their patriotism doesn’t require them to question whether our military is being asked to sacrifice for some pointless cause or politician’s glory. To them patriotism is summed up in that old slogan: America right or wrong. This isn’t patriotism, it is a religious creed that requires nothing more than mindless loyalty and flag-waving. Even if the most cynical, perhaps criminal, president wraps themselves in the flag… some 20-25% of the population can be counted on for a mindless, Pavlovian, flag-waving response.

So it’s clear in my mind those PROTESTING the needless Iraq War and the Bush Junta’s criminal agenda are the REAL patriots compared to the intellectually and morally bankrupt faux patriots.

All the flag waving of these pathological patriots can’t conceal their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Shame!

Revised: 2-18-10

ulTRAX

Thoughts On The 2ed Amendment

2008-03-19T12:24:00.008-04:00

As a gun owner for nearly 30 years I listened with great interest some of the discussion of the Second Amendment during the Supreme Court hearings on March 18th.

I'm certainly not a legal or Constitutional Scholar but I have debated the Second Amendment many times in various political forums. Here are some weaknesses I’ve found in the conservative arguments which seem to be repeated by some of the Conservative members of the USCS.

POINT 1: The term "The People" sounds all-inclusive. But it's clear from the Preamble of the Constitution that "The People" were a small section of the population. Why? Read it:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Surely the “Blessings of Liberty” were only intended for a subset of the population. It was clearly NOT meant for slaves. The politics of the Constitutional Convention, in fact, required the continuation of slavery. Sadly, we’re left with no other conclusion then the Bill of Rights was NEVER originally intended to cover the entire population. In the case of the Second Amendment, states would be free to ban some from owning guns.

POINT 2: If the original intent of the term “The People” were all inclusive, do those who contend the Second represents an unqualified individual right claim the Second Amendment protected the rights of slaves to own guns? Surely the slave states would NEVER permit this any more than they would permit slaves freedom of the press or freedom from unlawful search and seizure. To think otherwise is laughable.

POINT 3: If the Framers intended the Second Amendment to be an unqualified individual right to bare arms, they could easily have used unambiguous language such as “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to bare arms” leaving no question as to their intent. Such language was not foreign to them: it was used in the First Amendment.

The Framers choose not to use such language but instead prefaced the amendment with mention of the militia. The prominent mention of the militia is there for a reason. It explains why the right of the “people” (white males) to bare arms must be protected. While some on the Right ignore what appears to be an obvious qualifier, and make torturous arguments about the Framers’ use of a colon vs. a semicolon to “prove” the Second protects an unqualified right to bare arms, imagine some simple changes in the language to make it more comprehensible to modern readers:

Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

POINT 4: The Militia Act of 1792 was written and ratified within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Second Amendment would have been abundantly clear in the minds of Congress. It states:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

POINT 5: Since the original intent of the Constitution was to grant government limited powers with all remaining powers and rights remaining with the People or the states, the real right to bare arms seems to be in that forgotten, if not utterly ignored, Ninth Amendment. Madison’s greatest fear about having a formal Bill of Rights was that if some rights were enumerated, the unenumerated rights would soon be at risk. Madison was correct. The thought of the People… even in the all inclusive sense, retaining all rights is much too threatening to Conservatives and even most Liberals.

CONCLUSION: The US Constitution is both anti-democratic and essentially reform-proof. Through our history we have imbued it with an almost mystical quality. This is the core of our secular religion. The Constitution also stands in the way of what the modern political parties want to achieve. So since it’s almost impossible to amend the Constitution in any meaningful way, American politics demands we work around around it... all the time paying lip service to “original intent” and the infinite wisdom of the Framers. The modern bastardization of the Second Amendment by the likes of the NRA and a cynical Right wing looking for wedge issues into an unqualified individual right instead of a collective right, and the consistent ignoring of the Ninth by both parties can best be explained by this predictable political dynamic.

(updated 3-21-08)

ulTRAX

Iraq: So They Will Not Have Died In Vain...

2007-03-23T14:51:00.003-04:00

As with the Vietnam War, the supporters and apologists of Bush’s Iraq debacle have resurrected the tired old arguments that any “early withdrawal” would make a mockery of those in the military who have already sacrificed their lives. In their mind, the only way to honor those sacrifices is to sacrifice more lives and treasure to fulfill the mission. As put by a soldier who wrote an article posted at the conservative Townhall web site:

In order to secure the American people, democracy had to be spread to the region because democratic governments are far less prone to going to war and they are far less prone to internal strife and violence. The process couldn't help but be messy, but it was necessary. Obviously, I don't know how this experiment works out, but you do. If Iraq is a democratic nation now, or if Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Kuwait, or one of the others has become democratic, then the war was worth it. However, if we pulled out because we lost too many soldiers and got out in an act of political expediency, then I did die in vain.

The above arguments might be seen as logical providing a war is just… where we were attacked first or our national security was truly in jeopardy. Yet I also don’t doubt that even in an unjust war rooted in greed, foolishness, ideological hubris or insanity… such volunteer soldiers such as the author of that Townhall piece may be True Believers. As such they may be predisposed towards a virulent form of patriotic nationalism and uncritical of their national leaders.

But as we all should have learned from WWII, a soldier’s choice to be blind to the obvious lies and delusions of their leaders is never noble and may, in fact, be criminal under international law. The author of this Townhall piece also demonstrates his ideological blinders when he fails to recognized the other possible ways the US could have encouraged democracy in the mid-east, should that ever have been a real goal, WITHOUT an illegal war.

One way was for the US to show the virtues of democracy by actually modeling democracy ourselves. Surely, it’s not lost on even the non-democratic world that in 2000 Bush was originally REJECTED by the People. There was no popular cry for his irresponsible tax cuts, stacking the federal judiciary with right-wing ideologies, or his Son Of Star Wars missile defense. Bush was imposed upon our nation by an anti-democratic institution called the Electoral College. That Bush refuses to call for the abolition of the EC alone calls into question his commitment to democracy and exposes Bush’s pretenses for his war. Even if we were a truly democratic nation, surely we could have worked with our friends in the region to institute democratic reforms rather than rush to an illegal war or aggression.

Bush’s claims to promote democracy in the mid-east as a way of reducing anti-American hostility can also be exposed as a red herring when we refuse to take more concrete steps to reduce the proven causes for such hostility. We could have forced a fair peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians but instead Bush pursued a petulant policy of humiliating the Palestinian people… first by refusing to deal with Arafat then refusing to recognize the elected Hamas government. Bush could have showed true leadership by entering into a Peace & Reconciliation process with all those we’ve wronged in the mid-east. But Bush preferred to portray us as complete victims, shielding the American People from the true cost of our 60-year policy of oil first. Surely those who have been the victims of our policies are not blind to those costs.

And so Bush’s War now begins its 5th year… and the virulent forms of what passes for patriotism on the Right live on. Faced with the reality of US soldiers losing their lives, the peace movement finds the “die in vain” argument difficult to respond to. One response offered by Cindy Sheehan is that the best way to insure that a soldier’s sacrifice was not in vain is to insure no others would died in that immoral war. It’s an interesting argument but I believe misses the mark.

What both sides seem to miss is this simple truth:if a war is unjust or illegal then even if that war is successful, then ALL the deaths and injuries of all the GIs, combatants, and civilians were in vain since the war was unnecessary to begin with.

There is but one way that those sacrifices of our soldiers will not have been in vain… and that is that Bush’s War finally forces us as a nation to deal with what got us into this needless war to begin with. At some point, We The People must confront and break free of the pathological patriotism that feeds such US imperialistic wars. We The People need to confront and break free of those cultural and institutional predilections that make us so susceptible to manipulation by intellectually and morally bankrupt leaders, and their subservient minions in Congress and the media.

Once We The People clean house, bring our own criminal leaders to justice, finally reform this nation’s dysfunctional political institutions, and make peace with those we’ve wronged, perhaps only THEN will those soldiers’ lives truly not have been lost in vain.

revised 3-29-07
5-28-08

ulTRAX

DAMN IT DEMS… RUN THIS AD!

2006-10-30T22:44:00.000-05:00

Open letter to the DNC…

I have to be honest. I don’t have any respect for the Democratic Party. After all, you continually stand in the way of the electoral reforms like proportional representation thus depriving Progressive such as myself of any representation in Washington. And it's so easy to blame Katharine Harris and the USSC for giving us Bush in 2000 when the REAL problem was the Electoral College. Yet, Democrats refuse to even talk about abolishing this anti-democratic abomination.

Nonetheless, Bush and the GOP have been an unmitigated disaster for the US and the world. Right about now, as in ‘04, I’ll settle for the lesser of the evils.

So DNC, I know you’d like to THINK you’re headed for some victories next Tuesday. If you’re lucky you’ll take back the House and Senate. I'm not so sure.

THE PROBLEM: I’m sure you don’t underestimate Carl Rove’s ability to pull this election out of the fire. We can see his fingerprints with the constant on-message harping about national security and possible tax hikes. Then there’s his massive database of personal information he’ll use to micro-target voters. But, perhaps your biggest problem is that True Believers of the GOP can easily rationalize away all of Bush’s disasters and fiscal irresponsibility. I’ve debated such right-wingers for years and I understand the extent to which they have sabotaged their own intelligence to believe the Party line. These voters need to be shocked out of their complacency. You need an effective wedge issue… and soon.

Though the Right’s strategy to sabotage government with massive deficits and growing debt is now 25 years old the Democrats STILL seem incapable of launching an effective counterstrategy. Worst, Bush is even today telling cheering crowds that it’s the Democrats that would piss away their money. These lies are beyond Orwellian. Yet it’s not rocket science to deflate these lies. The Right’s propaganda machine has been predictable in its approach. They tell the faithful “it’s your money” and tax cuts are a free lunch essential for economic growth. They then downplay the deficit numbers THEY created.

Those who believe the Right’s big lies do so because they have never been educated in the following:

1: If We The People are in debt… then ALL tax cuts are paid for with borrowing.
2: The Right is stealing money from our children to buy votes today, allowing us to party today at our children’s expense. How god damn noble!
3: That tax cuts are essential for economic growth argument is laughable and without empirical data. The Right has misrepresented the so-called JFK tax cut, the economic boom of the 80’s was classic demand-side not supply side, and Clinton proved that there can be a boom after a tax hike.

That things have come to this point is because Democrats never did their job to educate the public. But it’s not too late to strike a blow in the next week.

What makes the Right’s Big Lies appealing is the average person really has no idea what budget numbers we’re taking about. Sadly, most can’t tell the difference between a million, a billion, and a trillion. It’s just too abstract.

THE SOLUTION? You need a quick wedge issue that will peel away or discourage some GOP voters, and serve some future education process. A new approach is needed, preferably one that kills two or three birds with one stone:
1: It’s essential to counteract the Right’s long-term strategy of “starving the beast” since the entire Democratic agenda depends on it.
2: It’s essential to educate GOP and wavering Democratic voters and shock them to the senses.
3: It’s essential to brand all GOP members of Congress/Senate as dangerously irresponsible to counteract the tendency to believe one’s own incumbent is not part of the problem in Washington.

Here’s what I propose…

The public MUST be educated on the amount of the debt Bush has run up. Make the abstract painfully concrete. What’s needed is some sense of scale. And that’s what this site does: www.crunchweb.net/87billion. Unfortunately, they stopped at the $315 Billion spent on Bush’s wars.

According to the Bureau of Public Debt Bush's debt from January 22, 2001 to October 27, 2006 is now $2837.816643835 BILLION. What does that represent?

If stacked atop over a football field (100’x300’) it would make a tower of cash 4,136’ Feet tall.

If stacked over a baseball diamond (90’x90’) it would make a tower of cash 15,321 Feet Tall

You get the "picture". Right?

For cost reasons I’d suggest one generic ad. To hit a key demographic I’d take these ads out during football games this weekend so not to give the Right much time to respond t that same group. The use of a football field for scale is one sports fans can easily relate to. You can begin showing a single dollar bill on the field, then show the income of the average worker or family. Pull back to show Bush’s FY01 through FY06 deficits piling up giving a running total of the height of the stack of cash. It’s essential to use ON-BUDGET deficit numbers since unified budget numbers are dishonest and will never equal the final Bush debt. In the end, the total Bush debt numbers will result in that tower growing to some 4136’ tall atop that football field… less if you use the sidelines and end zones. Depending on what you're willing to spend you can toss in some extras; the Goodyear blimp banking hard to get out of the way of the rising tower; glimpses of the crowd standing up to stare in disbelief. Keep pulling back to show the tower of cash’s full size in relation to whatever stadium you use.

For possible tag lines…

“Bush says only the Republicans can wisely watch over taxpayer money. The Debt the Republicans have run up tell a different story.”

Or…

“Tax cuts for the rich were never a free lunch. This is the bill the Bush Republicans are handing to our children.”

Or...

“The Bush Republicans are building a monument. But it’s a monument to fiscal irresponsibility we and our children just can’t afford.”

Or...

“The Bush Republicans have been so fiscally irresponsible we can no longer even fund our Defense Department without loans from Red (sic) China.”

See the possibilities? Of course it would help Democratic credibility immensely if you stopped playing your own on- / off-budget games concealing hundreds of billions in loans from the federal trust funds as Kerry did in '04 in his so-called “balanced budget plan”. If you are ever to become the Party of TRUE fiscal responsibility you have to tell it straight... not just to educate the public but to forever inoculate them against the Right’s propaganda.

THE MATH: As for the math I used which I urge you to double check:

I’ve recalculated Crunchweb’s numbers and according to my measurements a US dollar bill is 6.125" x 2.625" x .0047"

That means...

$1.00 bill = .0755671875 cubic inches.

Since a cubic foot is 1,728 cubic inches

$22,867 in $1.00 bills can theoretically fit into a cubic foot.

$1 Billion... 1,000,000,000 / 22,867 = 43,731 cubic feet of $1.00 tightly packed bills

According to the Bureau of Public Debt Bush's debt from January 22, 2001 to October 27, 2006 is now $2837.816643835 BILLION.

That amounts to 124,100,559 CUBIC FEET of tightly packed $1.00 bills. This can be divided in any way… for a football field… divide 124,100,559 by 100 then 300. The result will be the height of the cash.

(revised 11-01-06)

ulTRAX

Bush's Debt Now Bigger Than The Two World Trade Center Towers

2006-10-30T14:07:00.000-05:00

The following coincidence is almost scary. What a sad milestone.

According to my measurements a US dollar bill is 6.125" x 2.625" x .0047"

That means...

$1.00 bill = .0755671 cubic inches.

$22867.09 can fit in a cubic foot... at least mathematically.

$1 Billion....... 1000000000 / 22867.09 = 43,730.968 cubic feet of $1.00 tightly packed bills

According to the Bureau of Public Debt
Bush's debt to date is $2,822.154844491 BILLION

That amounts to 123,415,563 cubic feet of tightly packed $1.00 bills.

According to this source each World Trade Tower was 208' x 208' x 1361' or 58,882,304 cubic feet.

That is if my math is correct that pile of cash would equal in size the two World Trade Center towers. (2.095970344502824 WTC towers to exact.)

MATH: 123,415,563 cubic feet of cash divided by 58,882,304 cubic feet for each WTC tower.

While I’d love to see the Democrats run a generic ad showing the amount of cash Bush has pissed away using a visible approach as used here http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion I don’t think using the WTC Towers as a comparison would be in good taste.

However, the Bush debt would equal a skyscraper of $1 bills 4114 feet high if stacked above a football field (100x300'). Better yet if it had a tagline that the US can not even fund its own Defense Department without loans from Red (sic) China.

Democrats: Party of the Walking Brain Dead.

2006-10-19T11:00:00.000-04:00

Democrats just don't get it. They have been facing their Goldwater moment for the past 25 years and have consistently refused to reinvent themselves. The advance of the radical Right has less to do with any compelling message on their part but more to do with the intellectual bankruptcy and lack of strategic vision on the part of Democrats. Going into the 2006 mid-term election it seems their best hope is not to win on ideas but to hope the GOP self-destructs.

There are undoubtedly some very intelligent and perceptive people in the Democratic Party. Yet that talent never seems to rub off on the entire Party. How the Democrats deal with budget numbers... an issue that could work in their favor, provides a perfect example.

For the past 25 years the most radical elements of the Right have had a clear strategy to sabotage the finances of the federal government. They call it “starving the beast”. Rather than debate social safety net programs on their merit, they have preferred to push through irresponsible tax cuts to create massive deficits. Such policies serve a political purpose: they bring home the bacon to their wealthy and business constituents while depriving the Dems of ways to serve their own constituencies. The radical Right has never cared if We The People piss away trillions on interest... some $352 BILLION in FY05 alone... as long as that money was not available to do some good for the American People. To get a sense of immense scale of waste here... taxpayer money spent on interest in FY05 is about 20X the entire NASA budget of about $17 billion. The utter contempt the radical Right has for the average citizen is beyond measure. But you'll never hear Democrats making this argument nor will you hear them educate the public that interest is the biggest waste of taxpayer money in the budget.

While Clinton understood the fiscal trap the Right had set, he never went out of his way to educate the public about what the Right was up to. Clinton just made it a top priority to get to a budget surplus and in doing so intended to protect the future viability of the Democratic Party. Sadly Clinton never sufficiently inoculated the Public against the Right's Big Lies. He failed to build up a large constituency dedicated to preserving that surplus and to paying down the national debt. It was a strategic blunder that may have backfired in the 2000 election. In 2000 Bush was obviously determined to follow in Reagan’s path to again sabotage revenues before any debt was actually paid down. Did the Democrats try to expose the Right's ploy? Hardly. They just proposed their own irresponsible tax cuts! As George Lakoff might say... this proposal just reinforced the Right's conceptual frame that the pubic needed "tax relief". The Democrats never put forth a competing conceptual frame that it was in the national interest to pay down the debt, nor that it was criminally irresponsible for the Right to bribe voters today with money stolen from future taxpayers. How can Democrats EVER expect to expose the Right's Big Lie that tax cuts are a free lunch if they refuse to expose the true extent of the damage created by the Right's scorched earth fiscal policies?

By 2000 nearly 2 decades had gone by where Democrats COULD have been educating the public about the Right’s plans to sabotage government... and refused. This failure is reminiscent of the Democrats ineptitude in devising an effective strategy to protect the federal judiciary against radical Right-wing justices. More on that here: here.

Sadly, the federal budget is like a shell game. On the on-budget side of the ledger we have most of what we consider as government functions... the military, NIH, FBI, NASA etc. Trust funds like Social Security are considered off-budget. But if there is a surplus in these off-budget trust funds as there is today... about $180 billion for FY06, by law this surplus is loaned to the government. If there's an on-budget surplus... a very rare event, the money is used to pay down the overall public debt even as it's adding to the intragovernmental debt.

This point bears repeating: only a true ON-budget surplus can be used to lower overall debt. If there's an on-budget deficit... as is usually the case, the trust fund money is borrowed, then spent. To date according to Bureau of Public Debt the intragovernmental debt is over $3.7 TRILLION.

So why do both parties use the unified budget numbers? The answer is simple: these numbers offer BOTH parties political cover since they make deficits look smaller by concealing hundreds of billions in borrowing from the trust funds and also can make any surplus look larger. Using unified budget numbers Clinton could claim a surplus in FY98 even as money was still being borrowed from the trust funds adding to the intragovernmental debt while being used to pay down the public debt. The unified budget surplus for FY98-00 was $431 Billion yet in reality the true Clinton on-budget surplus totaled only a paltry $90 billion in FY99 and FY00. When compared to the national debt then at 5.8 Trillion, it was a drop in the bucket… and by FY01 the on-budget surplus was gone.

What the Democrats never seem to understand is they can't claim to be the TRUE party of fiscal responsibility if they play such games with the budget numbers. Even when the numbers work in their favor they refuse to tell the American People just how fiscally irresponsible Bush has been. The Democrats can't educate the public about the budget if they continue to propose sugar-coated deficit reduction plans of their own that conceal hundreds of billions in trust fund borrowing. Yet this is exactly what Kerry did in 2004. By using the unified budget figures in his 2004 deficit reduction plan, Kerry concealed about a trillion in borrowing over 5 years. Not only was it a strategic blunder not to expose the Right's game plan... it was a scandalous display of how the Democrats also have contempt for the public.

So here comes election 2006. Again the deficit numbers are outrageous... hitting record highs. These numbers again work to the benefit of the Democrats. But have the Democrats changed their ways? Hardy. They again refuse to even use the true Bush deficit numbers. Here's an example.

From http://www.democrats.org

2001: Bush Deliberately Underestimated Future Deficits. In 2001, Bush predicted massive budget surpluses over the following four years, in order to make the case that we could afford his tax cut plan. Instead, each of those years will suffer an actual or likely deficit. In 2001, Bush predicted a $231 billion surplus in 2002 (reality: $158 billion deficit), $246 billion surplus in 2003 (reality: $375 billion deficit), $268 billion surplus in 2004 (reality: $422 billion projected deficit), and $273 billion surplus in 2005 (reality: $348 billion projected deficit.

Who's underestimating deficits?

The TRUE Bush deficit is the ON BUDGET deficit. Here are those numbers from page 22 of this OMB report.

1999: +1.920 BILLION
2000: +86.422 BILLION
2001: -32.445 BILLION
2002: -317.417 BILLION not 158 billion
2003: -538.418 BILLION not 375 billion
2004: -567.961 BILLION not 422 billion
2005: -493.611 BILLION not 348 billion
2006: -602.141 BILLION estimated

It's just another in a long series of strategic failures on the part of the Democrats to blunt the Right's offensive. Since they don't seem to have the sense to go head to head and expose the Right's lies... their best hope of winning elections is for the Right to implode. If the Democrats win in this manner... that Goldwater moment to reinvent themselves will surely be put off again.

(Originally published in April 06 and updated 10-19-06)

ulTRAX

Rush Limbaugh and the Orwellian Right's Propaganda Machine

2006-07-18T14:11:00.003-04:00

Listening to an old Noam Chomsky lecture in which he talked of Tom Friedman, he said it was difficult for people to lie. That when people got to Friedman's level, they were totally steeped in, and believed, the propaganda that they espoused.

While I have immense respect for Chomsky, my take is a bit different. I believe there is a cynical Orwellian Right and that they know the truth even as they seek to mislead. Here's an example that was once up at Rush Limbaugh's site a few years back. He was talking in support of one of Bush's 2001 tax cuts:

"If it brings in, say, two dollars for every dollar of tax relief, we'll have more money in the treasury – and thus safeguard programs like Social Security! The idea behind tax cuts is to get the economy to grow. The economy is not static. The pie is not one size forever, with no new slices. The object is to grow so we have more people working and paying taxes. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved this with their tax cuts. The Democratic Congress spent every new dollar and more that Reagan brought in, but the fact is that the revenue coming into the treasury nearly doubled over his two terms."

Note how Rush omits some key facts which discredit his claims:

1: Every recession ends. Tax cuts are not needed.

2: Reagan signed into law some massive tax HIKES yet Rush dishonesty credits all the revenue growth in the 1980's to tax cuts. He ignores inflation and the growth in the economy due to population increases which also increase revenue.

Predictably real revenues under Reagan FELL so much that by FY84 they were still around FY79 levels in constant dollars. One can only wonder how low they would have been without those massive Reagan tax hikes. Here are the revenue numbers from FY77 to FY89 in constant 2000 dollars. They include revenues from Reagan's tax hikes:

FY77 903.8 Billion
FY78 952.5
FY79 1,017.8
FY80 1,028.3
FY81 1,077.4 Carters Last Budget
FY82 1,036.9 Reagan's First Budget
FY83 961.7
FY84 1,016.8
FY85 1,082.6
FY86 1,107.3
FY87 1,196.1
FY88 1,235.6
FY89 1,298.9 Reagan's last budget

Rush implies that tax cuts bring in double the amount in revenues for every tax dollar lost in the tax cut. Essentially tax cuts are a Voodoo Economics free lunch! If true no sane person could be against them. Yet is there ANY proof of this? Of course not! The most optimistic claim I've seen is from Cato. They calculate tax cuts bring in about 35 cents on every dollar of taxes cut. Since Cato has a right-wing agenda, one can only guess what questionable assumptions they used to arrive at this “optimistic” figure. None the less, if true then Cato’s numbers also translates into LOSING 65 cents on every dollar of tax cuts. No free lunch here either.

The so-called JFK tax cuts were actually passed after his death and the economy was already picking up. Much of the expansion of the 60's was from wartime spending. But the Orwellian Right always pretends the credit goes to tax cuts. JFK also proposed that revenues would INCREASE from tightening up loopholes despite the reduction in the top marginal tax rate.

Rush implies that revenues under Reagan doubled. What's critical here is what baseline is chosen. Using Reagan's first and last budgets... in constant 2000 dollars which includes natural population growth and revenue from Reagan tax hikes, FY82 thru FY89 revenue under Reagan grew only about 25% not by 100% as Rush dishonestly claims. Even in current dollars, Reagan's revenues rose only about 62% not 100%. Here are the figures in billions of current dollars:

FY82 617.8
FY83 600.6
FY84 666.5
FY85 734.1
FY86 769.2
FY87 854.4
FY88 909.3
FY89 991.2

Rush does as all on the Orwellian Right do when trying to justify tax cuts: he avoids the bigger context by not comparing Reagan's revenues to Carter's. Just what would revenues have been if there had been NO irresponsible tax cuts?

Clinton proved that an economy can easily expand after a tax HIKE. This is a sore spot for the Orwellian Right. It drives a stake squarely into the heart of their tax cut fairytale. So they often dishonestly credit Reagan for the boom of the Clinton era. Yet curiously they never credit Nixon for the boom of the 80's.

After rewriting history to imply that less revenue under Reagan is actually MORE revenue... Rush is left to explain Reagan's massive deficits. Since his intent is deceive, Rush dishonestly blames the Democrats for spending the fabricated windfall. Reagan’s own spending on an insane military buildup gets no mention.

The unavoidable truth is this: Rush HAS to know the truth to so skillfully avoid it. And knowing that it's clear his ONLY intent is to deceive his listeners. Yet that also implies utter contempt for his own listeners. One is left to conclude Rush is merely an Orwellian Right propagandist who's looking out for his own interests.

Rush's quotes were originally at this URL and that page is no longer up.

(revised 3-19-08)

ulTRAX

Governments Derive Their JUST Power From The CONSENT Of The Governed

2006-07-04T21:20:00.000-04:00

On this July 4th, the 230th anniversary of that original Independence Day, perhaps there is no better time to revisit the Declaration of Independence.... particularity on what the signers believed what form of government should replace rule by the crown.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The belief that governments derive their moral legitimacy not from God but from the consent of the governed was a radical proposition during the Enlightenment, when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence in 1776. This belief originated with John Locke's concept of natural rights which were rights not contingent on, or handed down from government but existed regardless of government. As such governments were morally legitimate only if they had the consent of the governed.

I'd argue that in the US the very concept of "consent of the governed" has suffered death by 1000 cuts and in the process has been bastardized almost into oblivion. We have elections and a representative form of government... but both are so flawed they can never accurately measure the consent of the governed except by accident. Worst, at times we have a government that has been REJECTED by the governed.

Sadly We The People seem so beaten down by this system that we meekly accept such outrages as Election 2000 where an unaccountable Star Chamber called the Electoral College imposed upon this nation a president and his policies the People clearly voted against. US and world history changed for the worst against the wishes of the governed. The world's only superpower was out of the control of its own people. Bush was then free to abuse the powers of his office to consolidate power in the Senate and the federal judiciary... and he did do... gladly.

At times when I'm most cynical, I think We The People need a new Declaration of Independence.

But perhaps we should just revisit the original.

The Road The HELL Is Paved With True Believers

2006-05-12T23:11:00.003-04:00

Before entering into this rather abstract discussion on dysfunctional and dangerous ideologies, here are what I consider a few essential axioms.

1: Like with evolution, belief systems compete against each other… yet those that survive are not necessarily the most rational but those that are best suited to their environment. In this case, the environment may be the human need to make life meaningful and to hope there's cosmic justice for "moral" behavior... but also a social environment where self-serving power seeks justifications for its own immoral, at times inhumane, behavior. The combination these and other environmental factors leads to belief systems that may be widely accepted completely divorced from reality and contain internal contradictions adherents remain blind to.

2: The most compelling yet insidious of belief systems are those that seemingly have explanations for everything. An example was the medieval belief that everything could be explained as a cosmic battleground between Good and Evil. If one dared question that belief, it was assumed they were under the influence of Evil. While certainly not alone, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism would certainly fall into this category. Free Market fundamentalists believe that even market failures are proof of the infallibility of market forces turning economics into a religion.

3: The capacity for human self-deception is infinite made possible by an infinite number of conceptual combinations that can be twisted, abused, and bastardized… with the result that any number of compelling but absurd belief systems can emerge and be accepted.

4: Most humans suffer from a self-inflicted infallibility complex and believe their actions, no matter how destructive, are based in positive motivations. Hitler actually believed history would vindicate his mass murder of the Jews.

5: Humans are not just susceptible to irrational belief systems, which I’d argue, are at the root of most of humanity's problems... but have a desire to perpetuate those belief systems they believe in.

6: As a result we create/support dysfunctional if not insane institutions to perpetuate these ideologies. We also create a system of incentives to support the underlying ideology and disincentives/punishments for questioning that ideology. Punishments can range from mere social disapproval to death.

7. No matter how the above should be seen as the root cause of most human misery and conflict, True Believers will fanatically claim the superiority of their own belief system over others thus perpetuating misery and conflict.

8: The above is possible because cultures such as ours lack a key countervailing value: the respect for reality which would create a self-correcting mechanism.

We often don't give much thought to the sanity of institutions or entire nations. We just assume our institutions and our nation are inherently desirable if not superior to those of others. We may be less generous towards the institutions of our friends and allies but at least we would not question their sanity. The thought of insane institutions or an entire nation actually going insane is so disturbing we delude ourselves into thinking it only happens rarely and reserve such condemnations for the like of North Korea and Nazi Germany. Yet what may be of more interest is not whether a nation actually embarks on military conquest and genocide... the worst case scenario, but whether any nation can, under the right circumstances, also go “toxic”. I’d argue that this is what has happened in the US, especially after 911.

We're all aware of physiologically-based insanity. But there is a more prevalent form of insanity... the self-inflicted variety by which I mean irrational belief systems. Technically such insanity resides in individuals who self-sabotage their own intellects. But, collectively those who subscribe to these insane belief systems are not satisfied with individual acceptance of a belief system. They want their insanity to become institutionalized. It can be on the level of murderous organizations like those who follow Bin Laden, institutions like the Nazi SS, like in the case of Nazi Germany the whole national purpose becomes devoted to a murderously insane ideology.

Yet, it's a mistake to assume that the most radical and murderous among us are insane. Assuming no organic cause... the more interesting question is what are the necessary preconditions to their insane beliefs?

Perhaps all belief systems, diverse as they may be, fall into two main categories. There are self-correcting modes of thought... such as the scientific method. Granted as we've seen in the news often other considerations undermine the intellectual integrity required for honest research. Then there are the self-justifying belief systems. The most compelling are those which seemingly have an explanation for everything.

Almost by definition the permutations of such irrational self-justifying ideologies are infinite. We see it in racism, patriotism, nationalism, Millenniumism, creationism, Maoism, imperialism, Stalinism, radical capitalism to a hundred other "-isms". Not all are dangerous or toxic but all are share a common defect: and inability to self-correct.

The most obvious self-justifying belief systems are religious in nature. Religion serves as the perfect example of the two key attributes of self-justifying belief systems. The first is selective perception... where reality is rearranged so only data supporting the belief system are acknowledged. The second is the filtering of any data which threatens the belief system. By their very nature such belief systems tend to lead towards more disagreement and conflict. In contrast self-correcting belief systems tend to grow towards more agreement.

If there's any core observation it's this: what makes these self-justifying belief systems so insidious is this: once someone accepts the basic tenets of the ideology they deprive themselves of the intellectual tools to disprove the system. For that individual, the belief system becomes closed, and odds are if the system meets certain requirements, it will self-perpetuate. If institutions or nations are built around these self-justifying ideologies then they then have a vested interest in perpetuating the irrationality of their clients/consumers and citizens. These institutions create incentives for irrational if not insane attitudes and behavior that are compatible with the mission of the institution. It leads to insane ideas such as Monsanto’s “death gene” and those who can’t see past the current imperatives who actually believed the “death gene” made perfect sense. Likewise these institutions create disincentives and punishments for attitudes and behavior that threaten the institution and its underlying ideology. We can expect such imperatives from religious institutions which by their nature are faith based... and largely immune from self-correction. What is more a threat is when we have such behavior in our government and corporate institutions.

A central goal of any sane society should be the pursuit of truth... and an essential aspect of that pursuit is the relentless challenge of its own beliefs. Alas, I see the US being awash in irrational, self-perpetuating belief systems. By this I mean our institutions governmental and economic, and even our citizenry, are not acting in ways that can self-correct. For example, if combating global warming runs counter to the imperatives/incentives the built into our economy then it’s those imperatives/incentives that must be questioned. Sadly, these imperatives/incentives go unquestioned and as these major institutions try to perpetuate themselves, they have developed a vested interest in encouraging irrationality in the public. As for the public, some among us value these dysfunctional if not toxic belief systems even more than life itself. Since these are people who don't suffer any physiological form of insanity, perhaps being a True Believer is the ultimate human pathology.

(revised: 04-2-09)

ulTRAX

MoveOn's Self-Inflicted Lobotomy: Alienated Members

2006-03-13T21:38:00.000-05:00

I didn't intend to do a third article on MoveOn's ActionForum but when poking though the forum I saw the stream of negative comments buried 10,000 posts back, I decided to bring them to light. If you're new to this series it may be helpful to start with article 1 or article 2.

It is my contention that MoveOn's ActionForum amounts to a self-inflicted lobotomy.... not just because they are trying to cram all 3.3 MILLION MoveOn members into ONE forum. The forum is dysfunctional because it endlessly churns out goals yet refuses to harness the talent of the membership to devise action plans. There's a rating system but it has so many defects it's worthless. It is my further contention that whenever there are problems at the forum those who run it seem pathologically incapable of rethinking their own dysfunctional forum model. They just further sabotage more features. The last straw was to start screening posts in what was touted to be a user-moderated forum.

The lobotomy analogy is fitting in another way. The forum is also dysfunctional that it pits those who have low expectations of what a good forum can offer and who love to game the rating system against those who believe in e-democracy and have experience in traditional forums that offer features like issue-specific forums, a reply function, an in-house message service, and a search function to find keywords or one's own posts.

How many just leave ActionForum in disgust or been banned for insisting MoveOn provide a decent forum? We may never know for sure. But this may provide a clue. I scanned the first 1000 of the top-rated posts. The top voted-on post in the current Great Goals forum has about 20,200 votes showing that there have been at least that many unique active membership accounts. Predictably it's a very old post, from the first day that forum was created back in November 2004. The highest rated post I've found from the last year was posted last December has some 5350 votes. Have 15,000 members left? Some may come back if MoveOn sends another email urging members to post at the forum. But it would not surprise me so many left since because there's little to hold anyone's interest. Between January and August 2005 there were numerous OTHER FORUMS dealing with these issues:

* What is your top question for DNC Chair Candidates?
* Help Choose A Name for MoveOn's New Organizing Campaign.
* Suggest a slogan for Operation Democracy, our new campaign.
* Tell us what you want Operation Democracy to do.
* Suggest a slogan for an anti-Rove campaign.

While I've certainly given the dysfunctionality of the forum plenty of thought, I think it's important to see what other members have said. I took a sample month, in this case November 2005, and looked for all the posts that criticized the forum. Including myself posts were made by 18 MoveOn members. I’ve edited the comments to get to the point and removed their town names from their sigs.

So since it's the nature of the ActionForum to forever shove posts down into MoveOn Oblivion, here are their words. Note: some complain of 3000 posts to rate, others 13000. They are simply referring to either the top-rate list or the main forum:

This survey
When I came here I had no idea there were so many questions. Hey this is the computer age, why not find a program to consolidate like questions. I responded to over 200, and am sure there many more worthy of votes, but this is unreal, and one
of the ways the NeoCons will retain power, is they know how to use the press and marketing. Get up to speed Move-On!

- Pat Hacker, Designer (November 04, 2005)

too many questions
The excessive length and repetitive nature of this forum reflect a problem with MoveOn.org... too much information. People are tired of being asked to respond to so many issues. Get organized, prioritize! The republicans do it. If we don't get our
act together we will never achieve our goals.

- Anne Berkeley, retired (November 04, 2005)

DAMN IT MOVEON: WE NEED A SCOTUS FORUM NOW!!!
We need a Supreme Court forum ASAP.... a suggestion that I've repeatedly made here starting last July. Just how does MoveOn intend to fight the Right's takeover of the federal judiciary when it has at its disposal a mechanism to efficiently brainstorm and provide input from its membership, yet MoveOn deliberately sabotages, it?
According to http://www.actionforum.com/general/uniquefeatures.html MoveOn claims the rating system is to allow the best ideas to float to the top. Where's the evidence?
With only one active forum here it has become a dumping ground for all issues. Since MoveOn doesn't allow for traditional threads to discuss a topic, the forum is full of disjointed responses to posts. With so much congestion no one has the time to go though all the posts to even rate them... so the rating system is becomes meaningless... and those that make it to the top have more visibility so they get read and voted on more. In the mean time the vote from a single right-wing troll doom a good post to obscurity.
In the past MoveOn has seen fit to create forums on topics as trivial as finding slogans http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=269 http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=271
While http://www.actionforum.com/general/uniquefeatures.html says these forums support replies... it's clear that's not true.
Yet MoveOn has had forums that allowed for ratings AND discussion... http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=265
We have every right to ask why MoveOn is not now providing us with more forums and the option to have simple discussions we expect from every other web forum.
Otherwise this forum is a waste of time and provides only the illusion of member input.

ulTRAX, researcher (November 04, 2005)

Forum Change
This forum is good, but it needs a bit more organization. It needs folders for topics that keep being reiterated. For example, election reform, health care, Iraq, all need groupings. I also agree with another user who said that a discussion type board might be a better format. I agree with portions of some statements, but not all. It would be great to be able to refine some of the ideas presented here through dialogue instead of statements.

- Melissa Angel, teacher (November 06, 2005)

MoveON Objectives
Convert MoveOn's Forum to facilitate communication between MoveOn members. That should be the number one objective to aid in the strengthening of this organization.

- Holly, consultant (November 07, 2005)

good bye
I feel compelled to post a note explaining why I'm leaving you and "your" 3.3 million members. Previously I have supported you quite a bit because I have generally agreed with your stated purposes, but I have always been bothered by your closed system. "Democracy in Action"? 3.3 million "members" and no internal elections? You won't even post your financials, and I never even got a form-letter response to my queries -- both electronic and by paper mail to your offices, I might add. Signing your emails with just your first names only irritates me. You constantly write about "we" and "us" but near as I can tell your own organization is modelled on 14th century monarchies. No thanks. Where is your own accountability? This forum? I don't think so. You can pick and choose and do whatever you want with the millions of dollars that earnest people contribute. Well, I'm sorry Joan and Wes, but you've kept this thing too tightly held, and I can only really vote with my feet, which I will now do. I wish you well in general, because I still agree with most of your positions. But frankly I have to wonder if on balance you are hurting the progressive cause. You have become almost a self-parody, a favorite foil for the Right. Your reactions and positions have become 99% predictable. Everything is a crisis and an emergency now, and always to be solved by sending you yet more unaccounted-for money. When you asked me to contribute $500 to a "matching fund" (matching whom? myself?) that was the final insult.

It's been fun. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

- Richard Minner, Director of Engineering (November 08, 2005)

MoveOn: Is anybody listening?
Below is a copy of an inquiry I submitted to the link provided at the bottom of the Forum home page: To: info@actionforum.com Sent: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:12:52 -0500 Subject: Status of action forum Please tell me how the Forum is being used, as it states, to set MoveOn's agenda, when members' postings merely get pushed further and further back as new postings appear daily, making it impossible to track any given topic or its response? Many, many others obviously share my belief that the number one priority for the country right now is to address the issue of impeachment and/or war crimes prosecutions of Bush and his top echelon. Why has this been ignored by you, when the mood of the country has never been more receptive to addressing the war and related criminal policies of this government, and when your own members express growing frustration with your lack of responsiveness?

- Kathy Parsons, School employee (November 09, 2005)

Make MoveOn more accessible!
You're very good at sending out "Do This" messages, and that's fine--but this forum seems to be the only way to contact anybody at MoveOn, and it's damned near impossible to get any sort of response. CONVERSATIONS GO BOTH WAYS. The Forums are fine in a general way, but a person could spend all day searching through them. Is there any way to organize the Forum into categories, such as election reform, environment, Iraq, corporate special-interests, corruption... I realize all of these are affected by election reform, so I think that's the most critical issue if we're going to restore democracy to America ... but posting and commenting here feels like shouting down a well. This is the most awkward, user-unfriendly forum system I've seen anywhere. It doesn't feel like a 'conversation,' because there's never any response from MoveOn management, and the emails urging people to participate here seems more like a PR maneuver.

- Jan Lindner, human being (November 10, 2005)

Action Forum Rating Bias?

I don't see how the neutral, objective Action Forum Rating System keeps an issue that only got 17 votes as the Number One "Top Comments" on Action Forum. I also don't understand how a comment in "Recent Comments" that only got one vote is kept in
the top five "Recent Comments" inspite of other more "Recent Comments" getting higher ratings and more votes. I find it interesting that those two comments that are kept "in view" of Move On readers are probably issues that Move On leaders personally endorse. I am a Move On supporter, however, I have to wonder what is going on here!

- Bari L. Sanger, Self (November 14, 2005)

re: Action Rating Forum Bias? - Reply to Timothy Hansen
Thanks for the reply and information. Today, I posted my first ever comment on Action Forum, "Draconian Mandatory-Minimum Sentencing Requirements". I guess I was totally dismayed to find that my comment rapidly went down the "Recent Comments" list
because, (1) a comment that was made before mine was somehow "reposted" in its entirity above my comment (even though it was an older "Recent Comment" - See "The Graham Amendment..."), and (2) comments that were not in the original listed order somehow appeared in the middle of an already established line order. I guess I was also frustrated because I thought I had an important issue/information to pass along to Move On members. To see it "buried" so quickly made me wonder why I even bothered. Is there a better way to bring up these kind of issues?

- Bari L. Sanger, Self (November 14, 2005)

The forum needs a SEARCH function to truly see what people consider the MOST important!
the basic idea of this forum is great. HOWEVER - if you REALLY want to know what's important to members - don't force people to read EVERY letter on EVERY subject just to FIND the letters that address the topics they agree are the MOST CRUCIAL! - let us search for topics we believe to be the most crucial and let us vote on them - or add our own. There are rare moments when I have the time to read a lot of other people's comments on a million issues. Sometimes it's enlightening. But most of the time it's just frustrating - and counter-productive. So people write their own letters that often end up reinventing the wheel over and over! If you've got the time to write a letter - great. If you've got the time to wade through what everyone else has written about a million different topics - great. But give the majority of people who don't have the time to wade through a million various topics a place to use their time more EFFICIENTLY - let us SEARCH for the topics we DO believe to be the most crucial. We can then vote on letters - or write our own. You don't even have to change the way you're doing it now - just ADD A SEARCH OPTION for the rest of US. THAT would tell you what people REALLY think is important!

- suzanne allison, Graphic Designer (November 15, 2005)

re: Bari - Action Forum Rating Bias? - Reaching Move On
Many thanks to Timothy L. Hansen for his comments, advice, explanations, input, etc. They are extremely welcome and helpful. However, I will still have to admit that I am still somewhat doubtful that the Action Forum is a good place for "concerned citizens" to "take action". Perhaps there is a better way to organize Action Forum into a more interactive media, with search engines, groupings, what not. I am not a "techie", but, I am sure some of you out there know how to really make this work. How about it folks, why don't you let Move On leaders know that we need a better, revamped, and more interactive Action Forum. Make your posting on this today!

- Bari L. Sanger, Self (November 15, 2005)

More Interactive Action Forum? Take a Vote!
Please vote YES or NO, and please mark an "importance rating". Would you like to see a better designed and more interactive Action Forum with the ability to develop threads, replies, groupings, search capabilities, follow-up, etc? VOTE NOW!

- Bari L. Sanger, Self (November 15, 2005)

I Give Up on Action Forum
Action Forum is just too time consuming and frustrating to use. I have made a honest and erstwhile attempt to participate in this forum. I feel like I am just spinning my wheels here. I have no choice but to search for other avenues for better ways to "advocate" and "fight for" for a better America. Good luck folks...

- Bari L. Sanger, Self (November 15, 2005)

WE NEED A SUPREME COURT FORUM ASAP
In the past MoveOn has seen fit to create forums on topics as trivial as finding slogans:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=269 http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=271
So why isn't there a forum so MoveOn can get member feedback on protecting the Supreme Court?

ulTRAX, researcher (November 16, 2005)

NEXT FIVE!!!!!!!
When I hit next five, that's what I want. Not taken back in your archives to stuff written 6 months ago. And I shouldn't have to go through 120 posts to see the reactions of the post I wrote yesterday. We are interested in what we think is important, not what the monitor wants us to think is important.

- rjhangover, musician (November 21, 2005)

Forum for goals
I do not think this forum format works to set goals. I open up the forum and I see that there are 12,000 submissions for me to puruse. Dempocracy is great but direct democracy for more than 20 people is unworkable. You need a more focused discussion format.

- Steve Cohn, none (November 25, 2005)

13,000 Comments are Too Many
This forum is poorly organized and impossible to use effectively. I calculate it would take 54 8-hour days to read through all the comments. I urge actionforum.com to make the following upgrades to make it useful:
1) break postings down into topic areas
2) make the entire forum searchable
3) make individual topic areas searchable This would allow users to effectively support issues they are passionate about and decrease duplicate posts.
For all I know, there are already 100 posts on this topic, but I'm not going to spend 54 days looking for them.

- Thomas J. Willis, Merchant Seaman (November 27, 2005)

The forum has too many comments and is hard to use!
There are 13000 comments in this forum. How do expect your guests to find topics they are interested in, review them and comment on them? Also, several of the first comments are all on paper ballots and repeat ideas. You need a moderator for this forum to reduce and organize the number of comments.

- Bruce A. Ernst, Information Technology (November 28, 2005)

KEEP THIS ON TOP BY VOTING FOR IT!
My suggestion is to index the actionforum.com. The problem with this system is that when I go to this page, I only see one, maybe two ideas and they float to the bottom
quickly...out of sight, out of mind. How can we all get behind one idea when you have to do a million page clicks to find one that you support?? THIS FORUM NEEDS INDEXING!!!

- Joseph Dowdy, Entertainment & Technology (November 28, 2005)

Better organization of the Action Forum
With over 3000 comments, there needs to be some active knowldge management and categorization. The like comments need to be grouped together under specific headings ie; Election Reform would be the major category with sub-headings of Voting porocess, campaign finance reform, Redistricting. Without someone actively managing this knowledge base, only the items which float to the top get viewed - it is difficult to have time to view all 3000 items, so you tend to start at the beginning and only go part way through the items.

- Linda Stone, Retired Management consultant (November 28, 2005)

Forum Useful??? Not for Us
I guess that moveon will use a word scan program to find out what is coming up over and over... but I don't think it is helpful for a dialogue or communicating for us. I also do not think a word scanning program is the way to set priorities. Just one woman's opinion. :-)

- June Mohns, Property Manager (November 29, 2005)

MoveOn...PAY ATTENTION
This is simply a reiteration of a past comment, but needs to be heard by MoveOn, otherwise what is the point of this forum? An opportuinty to Search Subjects would be useful.

The forum has too many comments and is hard to use! There are 13000 comments in this forum. How do expect your guests to find topics they are interested in, review them and comment on them? Also, several of the first comments are all on paper ballots and repeat ideas. You need a moderator for this forum to reduce and organize the number of comments.

- Bruce A. Ernst, Information Technology (November 28, 2005)
Scores (13) 78% AGREE

- Sherril Smoger-Kessous, Speech Pathologist (November 30, 2005)

(updated 9-19-06)

ulTRAX

ActionForum: MoveOn's Self-inflicted Lobotomy... a virtual debate

2006-03-10T21:40:00.002-05:00

This article is written with the sincere hope MoveOn will rethink its dysfunctional ActionForum. Given that so many of the forum's features... even the reply function, have been disabled, this is a virtual debate with MoveOn's ActionForum Webmaster. I will respond to his words taken directly from his posts.... some have been nuked. I've included the date which each was posted. Since I keep finding new posts, this article may be revised a few times a day. This is a follow-up to my original critique of the ActionForum in the article below this one.

Any political organization is only as effective as the quality and implementation of its ideas. To insure a constant flow of quality ideas MoveOn teamed up with ActionForum to run an e-democracy forum that claims to specialize in
· Think Tanks
· Policy Formation
· Planning & Public Participation Processes
· Research and Development
· Corporate Decision Making

It is my contention that each time there's a problem at the forums, MoveOn's idea of a "fix" is to further sabotage its own e-democracy model. So much of its potential benefit has been deliberately destroyed that it amounts to a self-inflicted lobotomy. The forum now denies the leadership access to the ideas, creativity, and cooperative potential of the membership.

As for why there is but ONE forum for all 3.3 MILLION MoveOn members:

TIM H. November 15, 2005:
Imagine you attend a public meeting, you walk into a large room and there, one by one, people are getting up and addressing the group about what is important to them. You listen, sometimes you clap and some times not. Some people you are bored with and some you find fascinating. Since so many people are giving speeches you can't possibly listen to all of them, but you discover that you can hear a repeat of those that the people clapped the loudest for without too much difficulty. It is exhausting, but you learn a lot about what the group as a whole thinks important by what they clap at. You also learn about yourself when your clapping doesn't match with the others. You begin to sense a community with the other participants.

RESPONSE: Nice cozy analogy but it falls apart under the most cursory examination. Town meetings come to an end. They do NOT ramble on for nearly 18 months with a slow trickle of people coming in to speak, listen, or applaud. People have their say but it's not just to hear themselves speak... there's a purpose behind it: to have input into an eventual policy vote. The current forum model is no town meeting. It is a dumping ground for all topics. It has no direction. It never breaks down into subcommittees to focus on a problem. It just churns out posts, few of which are read. There is no attempt to harness the talents of the membership to devise strategy and action plans. The rating system is dysfunctional since it has several built-in defects discussed at length in my last article. It can never work in the absence of guidelines nor can it meaningfully compare apples to aardvarks. Your insistence on just one forum also means the entire e-democracy decision making/policy development model you once championed can never work.

You wrote above It is exhausting, but you learn a lot about what the group as a whole thinks important by what they clap at. That is another gross misrepresentation of what goes on at the ActionForum. In reality the group as a whole is NOT at work rating posts. As I posted in the last article I found one post with 20199 votes proving that there are were once at least that many unique forum members. I did an average of the votes per post for one sample day, December 12, 2005. I did not include posts that benefited from the rating system's display bias 2 of which had several thousand votes. The average was 8.9 votes per post. That meant the average post may be rated by miniscule 0.00045% of members registered at the MoveOn forum. Your constant effort to put lipstick on a pig borders on scandalous.

TIM H. February 25, 2006:
A structure of a forum is a balance of many competing interests. There are trade offs. Depending on your agenda, you may or may not be happy with the trade offs. The structure of the forum primarily supports people who are proposing ideas to MoveOn. Every comment is read at least twice by MoveOn, summaries are made, comments passed on.

RESPONSE: My agenda is simple: an organization like MoveOn is only as effective as the quality of its ideas. A killer idea implemented in a timely manner is worth its weight in gold. Since this forum is the ONLY forum MoveOn provides its members and it's MoveOn's PREFERRED method of receiving input members, I simply want to insure the forum DOES provide quality input on a timely basis. That's why it distresses me so to see that MoveOn continues to sabotage its own e-democracy model. It alienates many committed MoveOn members who have left in disgust. Now I think the REAL question here is since YOU were once a big supporter of the e-democracy model which you STILL BRAG ABOUT even while you refuse to implement it, what's YOUR agenda? Why insist on a format when you know members can never read all the posts? Worst... why continue with a model you admit is on overload. Four months ago you wrote this

TIM. H November 11, 2005:
MoveOn's forum is a large forum. This means that there are more comments than anyone person can, or would want to read. The description of ActionForum was written for a small forum where one would expect one to read all the comments. Since MoveOn has grown very large, its forum is large.

So you fully admit the forum does not permit members to read every post. So why does MoveOn REFUSE to fix the problem? Why run a forum in a manner that is so user-UNfriendly, that can't provide members easy access to the issues they care most about, and that has a worthless rating system? Why not just do what EVERY OTHER FORUM DOES: create numerous issue-specific forums and permit discussion. This would allow for an efficient concentration of people interested in a topic and permit synergy. Yes Tim... some believe there's a greater benefit to CONCENTRATING members interested in a topic as has been done at ActionForum in the past.

TIM H. February 25, 2006:
There are people out there who don't like the fact that their comment doesn't get much traction. They blame the forum structure and write comments like ulTRAX's. They are angry. They scream "fix the forum" as if there is something wrong with it or that they would like it any better if it was changed.

RESPONSE: You wrongly assume that anyone who has a problem with the way you run the forum has petty motives. That's an insult to committed members who simply want to see MoveOn live up to its e-democracy promise... or see that MoveOn is getting QUALITY INPUT from its members. I could care less if my ideas get "traction" in the current forum since as a Progressive I already know my ideas don't appeal to most liberal Democrats. Without clear guidelines, with too many topics, and with the built-in biases the rating system comes up with winners and losers, but it's all meaningless. In fact I suspect the rating system has a perverse effect, training those who can tolerate your forum to write post that appeal to the lowest common dominator. One of the other reasons I find your forum an exercise in utter frustration is one can post what seem like common sense ideas and never know why there are some "disapproval" votes since you refuse to enable responses. BTW, you refused to ever answer the question whether those running the forum are voting.

TIM H. February 25, 2006:
MoveOn could add replies, they have the software. But very few people will read the replies--and often there is very good information there. Also, the number of stupid on liners would go up, as would rants and flame wars. It is much better instead of writting a reply that one simply write a new comment addressing the issue.

RESPONSE: There you go again... because YOU think some might not read responses you feel justified eliminating them. It's really up to the two parties, the original poster and the responder, to decide the value of a conversation.... NOT YOU. Some responses might contribute to improving a killer idea that could be invaluable at a political tipping point. But you obviously don't believe in synergy or collective brainstorming. The reply function is a feature taken for granted at every other forum I've even been to... and I belong to about 40. Your idea of posting replies unconnected to the original post is also absurd... especially since by design anything posted in your forum is forever pushed down and there's no reason for anyone to even look for responses. And that's EXACTLY what happened today. While combing the forum for your posts, I stumbled across a post you wrote to me back on July 17, 2005. I never saw it until today.

And to add contradictions to absurdity last November 11th last year YOU recommend to someone complaining that they could not read all the posts:

No one expects you to read them all. That is why they are rated. Read the top 20 or so of the top comments, look at some of the recent comments, and if you have something compelling tell us what you think.

In essence you were aggravating a bias of the rating system by encouraging the rating of top listed posts which already have an advantage.

TIM H. February 25, 2006:
We could divid the forum into topics, but then we wouldn't all be on the same page, and the forum would truly just be talking to the choir. The benefit would go down.

TIM H. March 1, 2006:
But there is a bigger problem with topics. People only look at what they think they are interested in. It is true for me. I never would have taken voting paper trail seriously, or peace building for that matter, if this forum us divided into topics. This is because I never would have looked at the topic, I never would have known there was something there. So dividing into topics won't make it so more people view a comment before it is buried, but it will make it so only the choir looks at the comment. Don't get me wrong, topics are good for somethings--like forums on antiques, sports, etc. MoveOn wants you to be able to address the whole group, not just those interested in a particular topic.

RESPONSE: You keep harping that having one forum means everyone's on "the same page"... yet there HAVE BEEN OTHER FORUMS HERE. There's McCain-Feingold forum you still give as an example on the Unique Features page. Below is a partial list of some discontinued forums I've found:

FORUM 263 started November 2003:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=263
Help decide the slogan for the first MoveOn.org Voter Fund T-Shirt
FORUM 265 started January 2004
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=265
What "great goals" would you choose for our nation?
FORUM 267 started Jan 2005:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=267
What is your top question for DNC Chair Candidates?
FORUM 268 started Feb 2005:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=268
Help Choose A Name for MoveOn's New Organizing Campaign
FORUM 269 started March 2005:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=269
Suggest a slogan for Operation Democracy, our new campaign
FORUM 270 started May 2005:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=270
Tell us what you want Operation Democracy to do.
FORUM 271 July to August 2, 2005:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?offset=0&forum_id=270
This was the forum to find an anti-Rove slogan.

Curiously while you were directing members to post in the correct Rove Slogan forum you must have created, you were, just days before, defending the idea of NOT having other forums:

Tim H. July 19, 2005:
Get a search feature, divide up into multiple forums and loose the ability to pitch your ideas to a lot of new people. You then will only be able to talk to the choir--what good is that.

What good is it? It's the only SMART way to run the contest. You keep arguing against policies that MoveOn followed just a year ago. You were Webmaster then. YOU MUST HAVE CREATED THE ABOVE FORUMS. If not then I await your public condemnation of those who dared violate this precious "same page" philosophy.

TIM H. February 25, 2006:
And yes, the information about the forum is dated. It is time to do version 3, but I don't see fundamental changes. I believe that MoveOn does need something more, in additon to the forum. I believe we should have an online thinktank so investigate some core issues. It is not top priority, 2006 election is. But it is important.

If you think there should be a think tank, why isn't there one? If election 2006 is so important... WHY ISN'T THERE AN ELECTION 2006 FORUM? Defeating Roberts and Alito was also important... yet MoveOn REFUSED to create special forums to discuss strategy. I think that refusal went a long way in insuring MoveOn's campaign to protect the federal judiciary was poorly thought out and ineffective. As for the software, it's so user-UNfriendly it doesn't even rise to the quality of kludge. GET RID OF IT!

TIM H. February 25, 2006:
There are metrics for judging a forum. By many of them ActionForum is tops. Our comments word count is very good, we have relatively few flame wars. Our content is diverse and we have a very large number of people posting. This is done with automatic posting with moderating after the fact. ActionForum works well.

RESPONSE: The only REAL metric that counts is if ActionForum is doing EVERYTHING IT CAN to insure an efficient method of providing the leadership with meaningful input from the membership on a timely basis. If the leadership wants guidance on specific issues, short-lived ad hoc forums should be created with clear questions for the membership to address. The site should be user-friendly, allowing a member to easily find a topic they are interested in. This REQUIRES that issue-specific forums. Such forums would encourage synergy in developing ideas. The site SHOULD provide members with a sense of community. There's no cooperative teamwork in the current forum nor is there ever any end-product as was the case in the forums listed above. By THESE standards ActionForum is an utter failure.

TIM H. March 1, 2006:
We had replies for a few years on the great goals forum. We also took a very hands off approach to moderating. By Feb 2004 things had deteriorated to the point we had to take action. People, who weren't MoveOn members were coming on and posting stuff that wasn't appropriate. We disabled some types of links and we eliminated the replies function. We created tools to remove and block people and to just move comments. In my view it was a noble effort that failed because of a very small percentage of people. There was a good side, we learned more about community.

RESPONSE. How do other forums deal with such problems? Certainly they don't self-sabotage their own intent. Perhaps the real message here is the current FORUM is based on a defective design. Why doesn't MoveOn just do what all other forums do: GET REAL MODS! Why this seeming need to run the MoveOn forum on the cheap? Is MoveOn unwilling to put up funds to provide its members a REAL forum?

TIM H. March 1, 2006:
With time our understanding of how change comes about, what moves people evolved. I believe that repetition is very important, that hearing it over and over, from different sides, from different views, is the most effect way to move people. There is nothing wrong with redundant comments, they serve an important purpose.

RESPONSE: Since when can YOU claim some monopoly on how a forum will be valuable to the 3.3 MILLION members MoveOn claims to have? As for redundant comments, one would expect to see them in a forum filled with liberals/progressives. But what's the point of an endless stream of posts calling for impeachment, perhaps 10% of all posts, yet providing no place to discuss/develop impeachment strategy?

TIM H. March 1, 2006:
ActionForum cupports dialogue, not discussion. There is a difference. Discussion comes form percussion, hitting on something over and over--arguing. People who think discussion is important have the view that there are magic words that will somehow change the beliefs of people. If the right words could just be said, people will change. There is no indication that this is true for value based beliefs.

In reality your statement is a distinction without a difference. You sound like a hair-splitter trying to reconcile the ORIGINAL INTENT of these forums with what they have degenerated into. What we're talking about is simply the REPLY function.... something EVERY OTHER FORUM HAS.

TIM H. March 1, 2006:
What works is hearing peoples stories, their beliefs. What also works is having people tell their stories. Change is slow, but happens. Many people on this forum have move me in a different direction, they moved me not through arguments, but through careful examination from many different sides.

RESPONSE: That's just YOUR opinion. Since when is this forum about YOUR needs? Wasn't the original intent to provide MoveOn with useful feedback from the membership? It's not that difficult to have a General Discussion forum AND issue-specific forums.

TIM H. March 1, 2006:
There are many forums out there. There is probably not one structure that will fit everyone. Forums are self-selecting--unless moderators kick people off. If one doesn't like the forum they should simply self select somewhere else.

RESPONSE: Pray tell Tim... what is so difficult about providing forums to suit the needs of ALL MEMBERS?

TIM H. June 14, 2005
MoveOn wants to know what its members think, not what a self selected subgroup of its members think. MoveOn wants its members to be able to address the group as a whole, not just a subgroup.

Really? I believe the nature of the ActionForum is so polarizing it, in essence, is now selecting the members. Anyone who is used to traditional forums or believes in e-democracy will quickly get disgusted and leave... or banned for trying to reform the place. This raises a legitimate question whether those who remain or even thrive in this dysfunctional environment provide a representative cross section of the membership MoveOn claims it wants. I don't believe they can. So when you say we should just "trust" them to rate the posts that may help set the agenda for the organization.... my answer is no thanks!

TIM H. March 5, 2006:
Well, say we had ten groups, most of the comments would still end up in just 3 or 4 of the groups, so there would still be to many to read. There would be too many to read even if they were evenly divided. We trust the majority of our fellow members to rate the comments we can't get to. By dividing the task up amoung all of us, no one has to read all the comments. The top comments simply are the one the majority of us think most important."

The majority thinks the top posts are the most important? That's utter nonsense. You KNOW the rating system can rate higher a post approved by a mere 10 members than one approved by 10,000 members but has 1000 disapprovals. As for telling members that they should just "trust" others to represent them, that is an insult. MoveOn members have a RIGHT to have a forum that presents suggestions in a user-friendly manner... not a poorly designed and operated forum that tries to jam everyone into one forum because of some bizarre "we want members to be on the same page" theory.

In the end there's really NO reason for everyone to read everything. But those interested in a specific topic should be able to read/rate ALL the ideas dealing with that topic. Having numerous issue-specific forums would spread the post load making them easier to read/rate. Forums should not exist forever. They should be created to address issues that the leadership has to make a decision about or needs advice on. There was a recent letter about Bush/Katrina. Before it went out there should have been a forum created asking the membership how best to exploit this issue.

One last thought... I think it's clear you and MoveOn need to think about what this farce of a forum does to MoveOn's reputation.

(revised 3-12)

ulTRAX

STALAG 266: The Dark Side Of MoveOn.Org

2006-03-02T18:00:00.000-05:00

This is part one of three articles on MoveOn. It is written with the sincere hope MoveOn will rethink its dysfunctional ActionForum.

I once has immense respect for MoveOn. It seemed to have its act together in the battles it chose to fight. MoveOn house meetings embraced and encouraged a spirit of equality and open expression. Which is why their on-line forum seems so shockingly out of character. Compared to other on-line political forums, its operation is so restrictive it deserves the designation of Stalag 266.

MoveOn is only as effective as the quality and implementation of their ideas. To that end the ORIGINAL idea behind these Action Forums is intriguing. Here is a 2001 proposal for an e-democracy policy development forum by the current Webmaster of ActionForum.

On http://www.moveon.org/about/ MoveOn claims:

How does MY voice count?
At MoveOn, every member has a voice in choosing our shared direction. Using our ActionForum software, you can propose issue priorities and strategies. Others will see and respond to your suggestions, and the most strongly supported ideas will rise to the top. We adopt the issues that rise to the top as our campaign priorities. In 2000, for example, our members chose campaign finance reform and protection of the environment as our two top issues. In 2003, Iraq and media reform rose to the top. We'll also continue take the initiative to organize quick action on other timely issues as they arise.

What a crock! The Webmaster has admitted that a post with as little as 10 votes can rate higher than a post with 10,000 votes.

Yet I can see this model producing meaningful results under given certain conditions. One example was a short-lived forum from January 2005. Members were asked: "What is the most important question for us to ask each of the DNC Chair candidates and report back to the MoveOn membership?"

But now instead of providing an e-democracy forum to develop and vote on ideas, MoveOn continues to sabotage their own model. In the process they've sabotaged the hope of quality input from its membership. It amounts to a self-inflicted lobotomy. The MoveOn forum is now a suffocating straightjacket that violates the very principles they once claimed were their strength. Yet ActionForum STILL BOASTS about those features it REFUSES TO ENABLE! Check these pages:
http://www.actionforum.com

/afstrengths.html
/how_does_it_work.html

/uniquefeatures.html

We see statements such as:

"ActionForums are structured to promote a productive dialogue by the rise of ideas with broad support. They make clear where agreement and disagreement lie. ActionForums support threads of comments and replies to comments ordered by the preference of the participants rather than chronologically. ActionForums are fair and non-partisan because they operate according to a content neutral set of rules, which are applied automatically

We’re told ActionForum: “Encourages Dialogue”, “Builds Communities”, “Enables Collaboration”, “Identifies Areas of Consensus”, Generates Reporting that gives the information you need to take an Action.

Really?

Until August 2005, MoveOn has had other several issue-specific forums on various topics, one to find a t-shirt slogan. Yet MoveOn REFUSES to offer forums on VITAL TOPICS like protecting the federal judiciary, reframing the Progressive message, election 2006, impeachment, developing a long-term vision, taming corporations, constitutional reform, free trade, etc.

MoveOn now only promotes but ONE forum... its National Great Goals forum. This last one started back in mid-November 2004. Predictably it's become a dumping for every topic a MoveOn member can think of... most have NOTHING do with goals. Even the most highly rated posts rarely have anything to do with goals. The forum now has over 40,000 posts.... most of them have just a handful of ratings.

MOVEON SABOTAGED ITS OWN RATING SYSTEM:

The rating system was to let the best ideas rise to the top… and permit the members to “police” the forum since the good would drive down the bad. Yet what rises to the top are often bland, feel-good, statements that with nothing specific to object to and certainly can’t not provide MoveOn with any useful input. Since there are no useful guidelines to provide a common rating standard anything can rise to the top. Here’s one that was the #1 post on March 1st in MoveOn Land:

Re: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You - You forgot AIPAC
Liberty Pilgrim, you forgot to mention the most dangerous one of all, the one riding the multi-headed beast – AIPAC.
- Dan XXXX, Marketing (March 01, 2006; Canton, MI)

It wasn't even a "goal". It's a note to someone. It just briefly beat the odds in MoveOn's dysfunctional rating system. It was vague, and happened to be posted when 10 members were on-line to read/rate “important” it before it slipped into MoveOn oblivion.

The rating system has two components. The first is a simple agree/disagree choice. The second rates ideas on an importance scale of 1-5. A unanimous 10 “most important” votes is the magic number to get a post to the top-rated list. On November 14, 2005, the WebMaster explained it this way:

“Recent comment are just ordered by time. Last posted is top of the list. When (and if) a comment gets over ten importance ratings it will also show up in the top comments. So the a comment with over 10 importance ratings will then be in two places--the chronological list in recent comments, and in the top comments ordered by the average importance ratings.”

Since 10 is such a low number, votes can easily be skewed by right-wing trolls… or mods trying to kill any criticism of the forum. MoveOn claims

“This insures that when a comment is inserted it is relatively close to where most people think it should be.”

The Webmaster continued:

“Since it is an average that is used (total number of stars divided by number of people rating) the number of ratings isn't that important.”

The number of votes ISN’T IMPORTANT? Talk about an arbitrary rating system. It can give a post with the approval of a mere ten members a HIGHER rating than a post with the approval of 10,000 members but with 1000 giving it lower importance ratings. How can this EVER “make clear where agreement and disagreement lie.” as MoveOn claims? It can’t. The rating system provides only the ILLUSION of agreement.

The forum has another built-in bias. When one enters the forum, one first sees the top-rated list not the main forum. This gives the top-list posts an automatic advantage since they have more exposure and thus given more ratings. Some older posts may be read/rated THOUSANDS of times while the vast majority of posts are ignored, get a handful of ratings, then slip into MoveOn Oblivion. For example one post from December 19, 2005 was rated 4888 times on March 1, while the average number of votes for ALL OTHER POSTS written that day (minus one other that obviously also benefited from this bias) was less than NINE! In this example that's a 543x advantage. Was that post 543X better than those other ideas?

So what do the ratings mean if the vast majority of those posts are never rated by even the majority of the members? Scrolling though the top 500 rated posts one (#199155) had 20199 votes proving that there are were once at least that many unique active forum accounts. It comes as no surprise this post was made on the FIRST DAY the Great Goals forum opened… November 17, 2004. Given this membership, the average post from that sample date of December 19th 2005 was rated by a miniscule 0.00045% of those MoveOn members.

Because the ratings compare apples to aardvarks, there’s no logic to the results. Rather than restructure the forum to insure the integrity of the rating system, here’s MoveOn’s “solution”. The Webmaster wrote me last summer saying:

“Every comment is read at least twice. The forum is checked many times each day and some comments usually forwarded to the team each day. Two summaries are done each week for those comments that reflect more long term goals.”

But if the ActionForum had multiple forums… one of which specialized in long term goals, such time-consuming note-taking would not be required. There would be no questions whether the data were being filtered. ANYONE from MoveOn could just go to see what the top rated ideas were in each forum.

There is another more subtle bias. The very nature of the forum’s operation is so polarizing that many who believe in e-democracy or are used to wealth of features in traditional forums have just left in disgust or have been banned for instigating revolts. It is a legitimate question to ask if those who remain or even thrive in this dysfunctional environment provide a representative a cross section of the MoveOn membership? More on this in articles 2 and 3.

USER-UNFRIENDLY IN THE EXTREME

As a MoveOn member I found posting there to be an exercise in pure frustration. I'd post what I believed were common sense suggestions only to get some disapproval votes. I call in anonymous drive-by voting. I'd never know why anyone voted since direct responses to posts are prohibited in Stalag 266. With no reply function and no personal messaging system, the ONLY official option for members to communicate with each other is to further clog up the forum with off-topic notes addressed to others which may never be found, and are sure to soon be buried.

In a few old closed forums that have not yet been deleted the reply function is still active. Instead of being able to open a post and see an entire thread... one must peel back layer after layer to read all the replies. If that wasn’t bad enough, longer posts are themselves broken up into two pages. It is, by far, the worst forum software I’ve ever seen.

Posts are displayed in the forum but also each has their own URL. But one can only rate or withdraw posts in the forum itself... not on the post page. There’s no way to save a link to a post in the forum since they are forever driven down by new posts. It's impossible for someone to post a link to an old post to get votes. If one believes in an idea, they often repost their ideas over and over hoping to get traction. There's also no search function either for keywords or user posts... features most forums take for granted.

The webmaster reports the reply function has been disabled since February 2004 when there were problems with trolls. He's tried to tap dance around this issue by claiming the forum supports "dialog" not "discussion" when in reality the issue is merely the reply feature. Why MoveOn never recruited real mods as other forums have is beyond comprehension.

The forum database software treats each post separately. In those old forums were the reply function was enabled, threads fall apart once the forum is deleted. If one looks at the screenshot on the Unique Features page we see this post and some responses. That “discussion” is now gone. All that are left are posts scattered in the database.

Another problem many complain about is there are too many posts to be effectively rated. There were about 120 posts just for March 1st and 150 for March 2. The logical “fix” would be to create numerous issue-specific forums to spread the load out. Members could read/rate issues they were most interested in. Instead MoveOn has further reduced posting from 5 to 3 a day.

It seems MoveOn's ONLY approach in addressing any problem at the forum is to further sabotage its usefulness. If this is a resources issue, MoveOn better get its priorities straight and stop trying to run a forum for an organization of 3.3 MILLION on the cheap.

WHERE’S THE ACTION IN ACTIONFORUM?

The ActionForum is also misnamed. The forum is currently geared for creating GOALS. NO FORUMS are provided for proposing ACTION PLANS. My belief is these forums could become an invaluable resource IF the site were more dynamic as once promised on http://www.moveon.org/about/. For MoveOn to get effective and timely guidance from the membership, issue specific forums should be created at a moment's notice to allow the membership to brainstorm to fully exploit political opportunities.

Curiously the webmaster thinks this dysfunctional mess is preferable to permitting discussion in traditional threads in issue specific forums. He recently stated

“There are many forums out there. There is probably not one structure that will fit everyone.”

Yet this is the ONLY forum MoveOn provides its members. Members have no alternative but to fight to improve it.

The forum SHOULD be an absolute embarrassment to MoveOn which claims it represents "Democracy In Action". By refusing to either fix ActionForum or discontinue this farce, MoveOn has obviously given up on this forum producing any meaningful input. It also reveals much about how the leadership views the membership.

When I get cynical I tend to believe the MoveOn leadership likes it this way since if there are no specific action plans ever developed and recommended by the membership, the leadership can never be held accountable if they ignore those recommendations.

After some 9 months of agitating there with no results it's safe to say nothing will change. Yet MoveOn is too valuable not to fight to protect... even when its leadership is out to lunch. Please consider the above arguments and try to educate fellow MoveOn members at the forum. Equally important write MoveOn direct here

Feel free to post a link to these blog articles in whatever liberal-left political forums you visit:
http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com

(revised 3-25)

ulTRAX

We Spent $352 Billion In FY05 And It Bought Us NOTHING

2006-01-28T20:12:00.000-05:00

The Right may be on the wrong side of History but their strategy to turn back the clock is as patient as it is brilliant. But it's also immoral if not downright criminal. The $352 BILLION the federal government pissed away in FY05 on a single line item which bought We The People NOTHING proves it. That amounts to about $1200 per person.

For the past 3 decades the Right has been engaged in a number of strategic offensives. The each key element of their strategy serves two purposes... building up the Right while diminishing the Democrats.

One offensive is to defund the Democratic Party. The Right intends to accomplish this though free trade which will undermine labor unions. Another is though tort "reform" which is designed to undercut trial lawyers. Last by attacking public schools which are heavily unionized. All these groups are big contributors to the Democratic Party. These policies have the added benefit of serving the needs of corporations, capital, and social conservatives.

Another offensive is to hijack the federal judiciary by installing radical right-wing judges. The intent here is to challenge the legal basis for the social safety net and as a political pay-back for the social conservatives who are determined to use government to impose their notions of morality on the nation.

The last is to "starve the beast". During the 2000 campaign Bush promised to strengthen Social Security by protecting the surplus and paying down debt. In reality his real intent was to continue the Right's offensive to sabotage government revenues though grossly irresponsible tax cuts. After all, it costs the Right nothing to steal money from future taxpayers to buy votes today anymore than it does to craft bills that benefit special interests. Again, such policies serve a dual purpose. They bring home bacon to the GOP's wealthy and business constituencies while depriving the Democrats of funds for programs that benefit their constituencies. Tom DeLay wanted to go further with the K Street Project and make government kick-backs to GOP donors a quid pro quo. Just look at the goodies written into the Medicare Drug bill for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. The payback was so juicy the true cost of this bill had to be hidden from Congress.

Why do I consider the Right's intent and their policies criminal? Because the GOP has chosen to use fiscal irresponsibility as a political weapon. Since Reagan, the radical right of GOP has been determined to sabotage government finances by creating massive deficits thus more debt. To this end they would prefer to piss away TRILLIONS on interest, some $352 BILLION in FY05 alone, rather than ever see that money spent to help the American People. Given the Right's true intent, it's no surprise Bush was determined to sabotage revenues just when Clinton reached a surplus... and before any debt was paid down.

Interest on the debt is without a doubt the biggest waste of public money in the federal budget. Yet despite the shocking size of this budget item, no Party raises this as a political issue no doubt fearing its potential volatility. Generally both parties prefer to gloss over the complexities of what's on and off budget... as well as the budget numbers themselves, leaving everything abstract. To do otherwise might expose the Right's Big Lie that all waste is to be found in puny programs like Public Broadcasting or the National Endowment For The Arts. Not that the Democrats are much better. Kerry's 04 deficit reduction plan hid a trillion in trust fund borrowing over 5 years.

For budget issues such as interest on the debt to become a potent political issue these immense numbers have to be made less abstract. I can envision two ways to do this. First is to compare that $352 Billion to the budgets of some well known agencies. For instance in FY05 the entire NASA budget was $16.244 Billion. The entire FY05 budget for National Institute of Health (NIH) was $28.8 billion. Combined this amounted to only 12.8% of the money wasted away on interest.

There's another way to bring the message home... though simple images. I have to thank http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/ for the inspiration behind this exercise.

There's an old expression that a billion here and a billion there and soon you're talking REAL money. So just how big a pile of cash is $352 billion?

Using a micrometer I found a dollar bill is between .0044" and .0050" thick a differential no doubt cause by the high pressure intaglio printing process. I used the average of .0047".

A dollar bill is 6.125" x 2.625" x .0047" slightly different from the numbers used at Crunchweb. That means...

$1.00 bill = .0755671 cubic inches.

$22867.09 can fit in a cubic foot... at least mathematically.

$1 Billion....... 1000000000 / 22867.09 = 43,730.968 cubic feet of cash.

FY05 interest on the debt was 352.350,252,507 Billion.
(source = http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm)

352.350,252,507 Billion = 15408617.6 cubic feet of cash.

Taxpayer money wasted on FY05 interest would cover a baseball diamond (90' x 90') to a height of 1920'. The World Trade Center Towers were "only" 1368' tall.

Taxpayer money wasted on FY05 interest would cover a basketball court (94' x 50') to a height of 3278.4'

Taxpayer money wasted on FY05 interest would cover an entire NCAA football field (including end zones and sidelines... 160' x 360') to a height of 267.5'

But the interest on the debt is merely a sideshow in the GOP's criminal sabotaging of government finances. What about the debt Bush has run up?

According to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov on January 20th 2001 when GW Bush took office the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64. As of January 26th 2006 the national debt was $8,190,567,748,779.48

In five years George Bush raised the national debt by $2,462,791,010,474.84. That's $2463 BILLION.... an average of about $492.5 Billion a year.

If Bush's debt to date is = $2462.791010474 billion = 107,700,234.87 cubic feet of cash.

This would cover a baseball diamond (90' x 90') to a height of 13,296'

Bush's debt would cover a basketball court (94' x 50') to a height of 22,915' That's a pile of tightly packed $1.00 bills 4.34 MILES high!

Bush's debt would cover an entire NCAA football field (including end zones and sidelines... 160' x 360') to a height of 1869.8'

Back in fall 04 at the Kerry Forum I repeatedly suggested this would make a great 15 second TV campaign ad if aired during football games.

Once these abstract debt numbers are brought down to human scale, the criminal irresponsibility and contempt the GOP has for the nation are painfully evident. But never underestimate the human capacity for self-deception. The Orwellian Right will find some way to justify these crimes and the True Believers on the Right will slop it up like Jim Jones' Cool-Aid.

ulTRAX

If The Right Opposes The Right To Privacy... Let THEM Repeal The 9th Amendment

2006-01-11T13:45:00.000-05:00

In the last article I stated my belief that Democrats have a narrow view of constitutional rights which at best is marginally less restrictive than that of the radical Right. While both major parties at least seem to agree the Constitution protects enumerated rights... though not always what they mean... the Dems go a bit further in looking to recent court rulings that found some constitutional basis for unenumerated or penumbral rights such as the right to privacy and the right to choose.

Sadly the Democrat's dedication to these rights is not a matter of principle, but seems to be in direct proportion to how vocal constituency groups are in the Democratic coalition. If the Democrats DID support the concept of non-enumerated rights they would insist government must try all LEAST restrictive means first in dealing with legitimate social problems. For instance they'd bring to the war against drugs the same common sense standards used in fighting social problems associated with alcohol: laws would target real social problems while protecting the rights of responsible users.

In a recent web discussion about strategies to protect unenumerated constitutional rights such as privacy and the right to choose, someone suggested the Democrats should advocate amendments to guarantee these rights.

I could not disagree more.

Even if some amendments were ratified, there will be an endless list of other rights the radical Right would love to restrict. Even the concept of one person/one vote is under attack! As if the current Democratic strategy isn't already on shaky ground, this amendment proposal perpetuates that defensive posture and dooms the Democrats to endlessly pursue amendment after amendment. If they don't... and if Griswold or Roe are overturned... what's the fallback position to guarantee these rights on the FEDERAL level? There is none. The issues will revert to the states resulting in a patchwork of conflicting laws.

Democrats are making a strategic blunder of monumental proportions by basing their arguments on stare decisis... previous court rulings. They need to aggressively reframe the debate and this requires going on the offense to find in the Constitution a broader source of rights as the REAL legal basis for the right to privacy and the right to choose.

I believe the Democrats and their political allies like MoveOn should dust off that long-ignored, but all important, ninth amendment which says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Rightly the 9th is the REAL basis for such basic but unenumerated rights as privacy and the right to choose. This should NOT be that difficult a case to make given what James Madison wrote about the intent of this amendment. I posted his thoughts in the previous blog article.

Yes these unenumerated rights are largely in the minds of the beholder which may be why the Democrats historically have avoided the 9th. But given how our system delegates powers from the People to the states and federal governments... and how the 9th guarantees rights are retained by the People... then it's clear Original Intent placed the burden of proof on GOVERNMENT to find a legal justification to restrict rights... not for the PEOPLE to constantly fight for rights that government never should have been restricted in the first place.

In politics conceiving a good offense is just the start. The Right MUST be effectively put on the defensive. My suggestion... by insisting the right to privacy or to the right to chose are already protected not by court rulings but by the Bill of Rights itself, Democrats should stake out a position and coordinate talking points that if the Right opposes these unenumerated rights, their ONLY constitutional option is to repeal the 9th amendment.

ulTRAX

Democrats Undermine Their Own Position in Fight For USSC

2006-01-09T17:00:00.000-05:00

The Right has been working feverishly these past 25 years to turn back the clock in America. One key front in that effort is to hijack the federal judiciary. On the face of it, their position sounds somewhat reasonable. The doctrine of Originalism states that judges should interpret the Constitution as the Framers intended. Yet this doctrine is the fig-leaf that hides the Right's true intent to undermine the right to choose, other rights derived from the unenumerated right to privacy, as well the entire New Deal social safety net. For more on this do a web search for the "constitution in exile" movement.

With the Samuel Alito hearings now under way it's time to ask are Democrats really doing all they can to stop another radical right-wing justice like Scalia or Thomas from getting on to the USSC? Or is the Democrat's game plan fatally flawed?Are they concentrating on tactical issues on how to stop some nominees at the expense of a broader strategic effort to counter the Right? I believe they are. Missing from their efforts are attempts to move beyond their targeted constituencies in the pro-choice, pro-affirmative-action, pro-environment movements to educate the broader public on the dangers to the Constitution itself if radical Rightists take control of the Supreme Court. This strategic failure leaves the Right's claims to merely want to restore the Constitution unchallenged.

When it comes to the issue of rights... say the right of unenumerated privacy, Democrats have the immense weight of the 9th and 10th amendment on their side....

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As to original intent of the Bill of Rights and particularly the 9th, James Madison wrote:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."
SOURCE: www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html#Sec5

"
Madison wrote in a letter to Jefferson explaining why he didn't at first believe the omission of a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution was of much consequence:

"I have not viewed it in an important light --
1. because I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted."
SOURCE: http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.txt

"
Since the Constitution was based upon the premise that government was only permitted specific powers granted by the People, Madison believed the rights of People would never be in jeopardy. The 9th amendment places the burden on GOVERNMENT to prove there's a legitimate social need before government can restrict individual rights. It does NOT place the burden on citizens to fight the government to establish a right which Constitution by its nature, bolstered by the explicit wording of the 9th amendment, already protects.

Sometime in our history this original intent was lost or found inconvenient.

Democrats seem to ignore this clear wording of the 9th amendment and the historical evidence on original intent, and seem preoccupied with stare decisis, those previous court rulings that "establish" rights... cases like Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade.

Worst... Justices like Scalia want to further bastardize the Constitution. Scalia believes that unless a right is specifically enumerated... it does not exist. His only concession to expanding rights is to suggest those now deprived of rights can legally establish them though the legislative or amendment process.... something he knows can take decades if not generations. He believes it is not the role of the courts to rule that governments have unjustly violated rights.

If his views on rights aren't extreme enough... Scalia also has no use for the 10th amendment. Instead of government only having powers that have been granted it, Scalia believes it is free to do anything that is not prohibited. If no one thought of prohibiting the government from issuing a national ID card... Scalia believes it's permissible. Here's a critique of Scalia from the Right by Sheldon Richman:

"Scalia here is saying that the government legally may require everyone to carry an ID unless the people amend the Constitution to prohibit Congress from enacting such a measure. His point is painfully clear: the government can do anything unless the Constitution expressly forbids it. No surprise here; Scalia has long made his views known. They are horrifying nonetheless.

His views are based on an incorrect — indeed, a pernicious — notion of what the U.S. Constitution was and is supposed to be. In fact, he stands the Constitution on its head. Instead of a document that protects individual liberty by reining in government power, Scalia would make it one that protects government power by reining in individual liberty."

SOURCE: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0206c.asp

In the long run Democrats have made a strategic blunder by failing to expose the hypocrisy in the doctrine of Originalism and counter it with a similar over-arching philosophical approach to Constitutional law. They need to educate the public and inoculate them against the Right's game plan. Yet even when Kerry had the ear of the nation during the 2004 presidential debates, he stayed with traditional Democratic appeals aimed at particular Democratic constituencies and Republican women who want to protect the right to choose.

Tactically I believe that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee need to rethink their game plan. Alito will be well coached and his interactions with sympathetic senators will be choreographed for the cameras. He can also hide behind judicial ethics which requires nominees not give any clear answers about any specific issue might come before the courts lest they seem not to be impartial. While the latter can provide ample room behind which to hide his true judicial philosophy or political bias, a closet Originalist can't dodge a more general discussion about the original intent of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Sadly, Democrats don't have much more respect for the 9th than Scalia or Thomas... and it's putting all our rights in danger.

ulTRAX

For primary historical material on the origins of the Bill of Rights please visit this outstanding site: http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

Who Mourns American Democracy?

2006-01-03T15:49:00.001-05:00

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) writes: "A flourishing democracy presupposes citizens who care, who are willing to take part, and capable of helping to shape the common agenda of a society. Participation, whether through the institutions of civil society, political parties, or the act of voting, is increasingly being seen as an essential prerequisite of any stable democracy."

By that standard American democracy is on life support. According to IDEA during the 1990s, the US ranked 140th of 163 nations in voting turnout. On average, over the past 30 years 61% of the voting age population (VAP) have NOT participated in federal mid-term congressional elections! But just because the majority of citizens stay away from the polls meaning and the ruling party often represents about 19-20% of the citizens, does not mean the system will collapse. As long as the press, the major parties, or the public are not concerned, the system can continue to limp along on its own momentum. Yet that lack of concern shows a certain disdain for democracy itself.

The ability to fix what ails our system is entirely dependent on understanding the problem. Yet, despite the seriousness of the situation, real reforms are not on the radar. Those in the political mainstream such as http://www.yvoteonline.org/ and http://www.vanishingvoter.org/ try to engage young voters while the political parties concentrate on minor reforms like Motor-Voter to make voting easier, campaign finance laws to get money out of politics, and verifiable black box voting etc. All are of the above are desirable but all also miss the mark. What those who back these mainstream efforts refuse to acknowledge is that in our system we can have:

100% citizen participation
100% public financing
100% vote count accuracy

....and a candidate rejected by the People can still become president... and 17.6% of the population will still get a 52 vote majority in the Senate. Together they can hijack the federal judiciary and enter the US into international treaties opposed by the majority of the nation.

In a democracy the purpose of an election is to accurately measure the Will of the People in order to guide the direction of government. So if election losers can take office, and the minority can rule, what purpose do elections serve here in the US?

In a world where 86% of the other democracies have higher VAP participation than the US, it's not unreasonable to ask whether there's something about our American system that creates disincentives to voting.

Anyone who values basic democratic principles as the basis for self-government would immediately see four layers of dysfunctionality in our system:

The first is that our winner-take-all election system does not accurately measure the Will of the People. There are better systems that include instant run-off voting and proportional representation. As a result, many Americans realize that their votes just don't count. Voting their conscience might never get them any representation. Many Americans are just tired of voting the lesser of the evils. And with no run-off provision, a divided majority can lose to a united minority resulting in minority rule.

Second... the above election system has given rise to our two party system. No it wasn't handed down on a slab. It's an accident of history. Sizable political minorities may exist nationally but can never muster a win in any district or state. The result is those citizens are perpetually deprived of representation. So neither does the election accurately measure, nor does the political system reflect, the Will of the People. Many citizens are disgusted that our "2 party" system offers so little choice and the parties refuse to deal with important issues.

Third, if the above wasn't bad enough, our system can be both un- and anti-democratic. It contains a number of vote weighting/dilution schemes that give SOME citizens bigger votes at the expense of others. It now gives 15% of the population 50% of the Senate seats. The anti-democratic EC can overturn the Will of the People and impose upon the nation a candidate who was REJECTED in an election. In a curious twist, the smallest 38 states needed to pass an amendment only contain about 38% of the population. Whenever there are vote weighting schemes there is the possibility of minority government. House and Senate rules compound the problem. Rules that permit seniority privilege give the constituents of SOME senators and members of congress more power than others. Gerrymandering can permit the minority party to hijack the House of Representatives. In 1991 the Texas Democrats rigged the state to get 70% of the votes with about 50% of the votes. Tom DeLay merely reversed that. We now have a situation where candidates are picking their voters.

Last, the federal system is virtually reform-proof. The Framers provided no protection against demographic trends giving a dwindling minority in the small population states increasing powers. Right now mere 3.8% of the population in the 12 smallest states can block any amendment.

As a result I suspect most Americans are stuck between the Jeffersonian ideal of self-government they learned in grade school, some need to put the Framers on a pedestal... and the reality of how poorly our system actually allows self-government. What's the point in having an election if it doesn't accurately measure the public will? Without either major party or the press discussing real reforms and given the inflexibility of our system, citizen apathy is a pretty reasonable response.

Sadly, the Democratic Party, where democratic reforms SHOULD be originating, prefers to game our anti-democratic and dysfunctional system rather than promote true democratic reforms.

revised: 3-13-08

ulTRAX

What If There Was An Election And Nobody Came?

2005-12-29T22:39:00.000-05:00

In the last article I raised the question whether US citizens have become disenchanted with our electoral/political system. If they are, what is the evidence? If citizen participation in their democracy is dropping, at what point is the system's moral legitimacy called into question? 90% 80%? 70%? Dare we go lower?

I suspect those who belong to the two major parties here in the US as well as those who can't articulate their dissatisfaction with our electoral/political systems suffer from a form of myopia. When it comes to elections they see only that the glass is half full: vote totals. They ignore the half that's empty: non-participation. The press is no better.

This myopia leads to elections being described as "landslides" when, for instance, Reagan in 1980 only received a mere 26% approval from the voting age population (VAP). Another aspect of this myopia is when the press artificially contrived the simplistic blue/red state dichotomy. Others think they bring a more sophisticated view by introducing shades of purple and pink. In reality, depending on the election, only about 40-50% of the voting age population (VAP)is voting for one of the major parties and 50-60% is not bothering to vote at all. So what great insights can the press bring us when they ignore 50-60% of the population?

Let's look at the numbers.

Here are some VAP voting statistics for the US from:
http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=US

This site does not yet cover the last 2 US elections. But since they do cover the previous 30 years they are, none the less, revealing. The numbers reflect the percentage of the total VAP that voted in each federal election between 1970 and 2000. If you've only looked at the glass being half full, you're in for a shock:

UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL VOTE
1970 46.6%
1972 55.2%
1974 38.2%
1976 53.5%
1978 37.2%
1980 52.6%
1982 39.8%
1984 53.1%
1986 36.4%
1988 50.1%
1990 36.5%
1992 55.1%
1994 38.8%
1996 49.1%
1998 34.7%
2000 46.6%

45.2% is the 30 YEAR AVERAGE VAP participation for ALL congressional races.

38.5% is the 30 year average VAP turnout just for OFF-YEAR congressional years.

There is a clear bump in the numbers during a presidential election year and rates. 51.9% is the average VAP turnout for congressional races in presidential years.

US PRESIDENTIAL RACES
1972 55.2%
1976 53.5%
1980 52.6%
1984 53.1%
1988 50.1%
1992 55.2%
1996 47.2%
2000 49.3%

The average VAP turnout between 1972 and 2000 for just presidential races is 52%.

So if the average congressional race turnout is 45.2%... what does that say about our system? It means that some 54.8% of the VAP is not voting. According to the http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/barredforlife.pdf some 4.7 million felons have been disenfranchised and while sizeable that makes up only about 2-3% of the VAP. The real explanation lies elsewhere.

But it also means that those elected to the Congress and the Senate do NOT have the approval of the majority of the US citizens. They are there at the behest of, and beholden to, a minority of US citizens. Worst, since Congress and the Senate are often split down the middle... the ruling party may only have the approval of 23% of the VAP and the president only about 26% approval!

Which brings us back to my original questions. Have US citizens become disenchanted with our electoral/political system. If they are, what is the evidence? If citizen participation in their democracy is dropping, at what point is the system's moral legitimacy called into question? 90% 80%? 70%? Dare we go lower?

In a democracy the opinion of every citizens should count for something. Yet in the US the two Parties, the press, the system itself, are all ignoring between 48-62% of the population.

So what are those non-voters telling us?

ulTRAX

The Insidious Currents Of Anti-Democratic Government.

2005-12-28T14:19:00.000-05:00

The Electoral College might be seen as a curious feature of the US Constitution but it's in keeping with other Constitutional vote weighting/dilution formulas such as the Senate and the amendment process. All are designed to magnify the voice of small states in a manner not consistent with their actual populations. In the case of the EC, the formula provides for 100 wildcard votes out of 535 which are distributed equally, 2 for each state. Where tiny Wyoming would get 1 EC vote if House apportionment were used, it now gets 3 EC votes. The net effect is Wyoming citizen's vote for president weighs about 3.5X that of a California citizen's vote... and whenever there are vote weighting/dilution schemes... there is the possibility for a minority candidate to win an election.

But the effects of such vote weighting/dilution formulas are unpredictable. In Election 2000 this formula gave each citizen's vote in Bush's Florida lead 1013X the weight in deciding the outcome of a citizen's vote in Gore's national lead. Here are the official Federal Election Commission results for Election 2000:

GORE: 50,999,897 (48.38%)
BUSH: 50,456,002 (47.87%)

Gore won a 543,895 vote plurality in the national vote.

The Florida vote was:

BUSH: 2,912,790
GORE: 2,912,253

Bush won Florida by 537 votes.

Now the US does NOT have a popular vote and Gore did NOT win a majority. But if the US had a run-off system, no doubt most of Nader's 2,882,955 votes (2.74%) would have gone to Gore.

The effects of anti-democratic vote weighting/dilution formulas are both unpredictable and insidious. According to an article in Mother Jones Clarence Thomas was confirmed by Senators who represented less than 50% of the US population. Thomas became a deciding vote in Gore vs. Bush which freed the anti-democratic EC formula to take over "electing" Bush. While the nation clearly preferred a liberal/progressive agenda, it instead got a radical Right administration which pushed for irresponsible tax cuts, son of Star Wars, etc. Bush was then free to abuse the powers of his office to insure the GOP captured the Senate.

US and world history were changed not though a democratic process of self-government... but though the machinations of an anti-democratic system.

The world's only superpower is out of the hands of its own population and Americans just turn a blind eye. The real danger is the People have become so alienated from our system they are dropping out.

ulTRAX

How Democratic Is The US Constitution?

2005-12-27T19:02:00.000-05:00

"How Democratic is the American Constitution" is the title of a book by Robert Dahl, a distinguished political science professor from Yale. To quote the book liner: "Refusing to accept the American Constitution as sacred text, Dahl challenges us all to think critically about the origins of our political system and to consider the opportunities for creating a more democratic society".

This task is made more difficult because the principles underlying
American "democracy" are rather schizophrenic. On the state level the People are sovereign. On the federal level we have a system of dual sovereignty... where the states and the People have suffrage and are both represented in Washington. Given our origins from sovereign colonies and the hardball politics of the Constitutional Convention, dual sovereignty was probably the only alternative at the time. Yet did the Framers' endless system of checks and balances set the primitive politics of 1787 in cement? Is the structure of the Constitution so rigid it's virtually reform-proof? Does the concept of dual suffrage make the US Constitution un- or anti-democratic?

As I wrote in a previous article, we're raised to understand why the Constitution is as it is. We were never encouraged to critique it or ask what desirable principles were compromised away at the Constitutional Convention. We are also raised to think how states and citizens within those states are represented. We're not to think about how any given CITIZEN is represented. Yet if we do, we uncover a hidden political realm that calls into question the official justifications for our system... thus its moral legitimacy.

As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22 sophistry may require otherwise, but for all intents and purposes those sovereign states are merely the PEOPLE who live within. In actual practice the Constitution's recognition of state sovereignty is manifest as a series of anti-democratic vote weighing/dilution formulas that ultimately grant some CITIZENS a bigger vote than others based upon nothing else but their choice of state residence. These formulas underlie the Senate, the Electoral College, and the amendment process. In 1964 the Supreme Court ruled such formulas were illegal on all other levels of government. Was this the nation's first Affirmative Action plan?

The anti-democratic aspects of such schemes are mathematically verifiable. Currently about 15% of the population gets 50% of the Senate seats and it may soon be 10%. A Wyoming citizen's vote for president weighs about 3.5X that of a California citizen's vote. In 1900 the population ratio between the biggest and smallest states, California and Wyoming, was 16 to 1. Using 2005 US Census estimates it's now 70.9 to 1. This means any Wyoming citizen's vote for the Senate weighs about 70.9X that of any California citizen's vote. Here are the numbers. It shows a bumpy but clear demographic trend that is making the US Senate, therefore the Constitution itself, more and more anti-democratic.

2005... 70.945 : 1
2000... 77.019 : 1
1990... 65.610 : 1
1980... 50.402 : 1
1970... 60.078 : 1
1960... 47.618 : 1
1950... 36.437 : 1
1940... 27.547 : 1
1930... 25.169 : 1
1920... 17.627 : 1
1910... 16.288 : 1
1900... 16.049 : 1

When it comes to the amendment process about 3.8% of the population in the 12 smallest states can theoretically block any amendment. Some might believe that this insures that there must be vast unanimity before any amendment is passed. Not true. There is NOTHING in the Constitution to insure this. In fact the 3/4 smallest states that can ratify any amendment now consist of less that 40% of the population.

Then there's Election 2000. The anti-democratic EC formula gave each citizen's vote in Bush's Florida lead 1013X the weight in deciding the outcome of any citizen's vote in Gore's national lead. More on this in a future post.

In my last article I listed the elements that I believed insured a government is morally legitimate. I started with these two:

* Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.
* Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.

The above was taken directly from a 1964 US Supreme Court voting rights case "REYNOLDS v. SIMS" which can be found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

"Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system."

It goes on to make the moral case for one person, one vote... where all votes weigh the same. Unfortunately this moral standard does not, can not under current Constitution, apply to the federal government itself. Yet unless it does, we'll have more Election 2000s where the anti-democratic EC allows the minority to legally seize control of the government against the will of the majority.

(revised 3-25)

ulTRAX

What Constitutes Morally Legitimate Government?

2005-12-26T21:24:00.000-05:00

What makes a system of governance morally legitimate?

Here in the US, we're brought up not to think of such things. We're brought up to understand why our system is as it is, never to critique it. The Framers of the Constitution got it right back in 1787... end of story. If everyone believed that to be true, we'd still have slavery and women would be deprived of the vote.

I believe that each generation has a moral obligation to critique our system to determine how it can be improved. As a nation we should be grateful for the moral courage of past generations to fight for reforms. But is our generation failing this task?

What questions should we be asking? What standards should be used to measure moral legitimacy?

I subscribe to the simple test put forth in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

What's most relevant to this discussion is this phrase: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

But just how is that consent measured? What principles should a morally legitimate government embody?

This is tailored for the US political system. I believe the following democratic principles are essential:

* Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.
* Legislators are elected by
voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.
* One person, one vote.
* All votes are of equal weight.
* Minorities should have their interests protected though constitutional protections... NOT by granting them a bigger vote.
* There should be a strong culture of civic responsibility.
* Majority rules but sizeable minorities have institutional tools to obstruct the majority.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* No citizen can be deprived of their vote.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.
* Electoral/political systems must accurately measure and reflect the will of the People.
* Electoral/political systems must encourage maximum citizen participation in elections.
* No candidate should win an election with less than 50% of the vote.
* Amending our Constitution should require a high bar, but not one so high that it makes the Constitution virtually reform-proof.

I also believe:

* Freedom of the press as an individual right is insufficient. The media must serve as the marketplace of ideas presenting all political perspectives not just the corporate/two-party viewpoints.
* The media must be free to serve as a counterweight to government.
* Money corrupts the democratic process and its influence should be limited.

I'll try to comment on each point in follow-up articles.

ulTRAX

It's A Fresh Wind That Blows Against The Empire.

2005-12-26T19:44:00.000-05:00

Greetings and welcome to the Reinvent America Blog.

My user name is ulTRAX. I've been a fixture in many political forums for years. Chances are we've met and whether you're a Democrat or on the far Right, most likely we've butted heads.

Since the anti-war movement of the 60's, I've been a political contrarian. I was a PoliSci/Sociology major as an undergrad and received a degree in Social Theory. While I've generally been to the Left of the narrow spectrum of US politics, I have also cherry-picked ideas from political traditions ranging from Libertarianism to Socialism. I would now describe myself as a Progressive... not to be confused with repackaged Liberal Democrats who as of late latched on to that same description.

Whether I've debated Democrats or Right-wingers my posts pulled no punches. But I've found that in a charged and often rancorous forum setting it's often not possible to fully explain one's basic values and approach to politics let alone develop ideas. Web debates are a flash in the pan... there's no lasting "end product". So one goal in creating this blog is to get off the treadmill, to slow down, and create a more structured and comprehensive presentation of what principles underlie my views. A second goal is to apply these principles to the ambitious intellectual exercise of reinventing America. Where would I, as a Progressive, want to take this nation in 50 years? Where would you? Why are changes desirable? What are the obstacles to change?

I hope you find these readings provocative and I look forward to your constructive and thoughtful comments!

ulTRAX