Upon the Gears

Yes I know, Upon the Gears has been slow lately, and we apologize.

While I have a little time, I thought I’d post a short video I found. Keith Olbermann is good in my book, and although what he says here is already on our minds, I think he says it particularly well.

I’ve been thinking about Rev. Wright a lot lately, and I realized that few people, myself included, have actually heard the full context of his “God Damn America” sermon. So I found a video and watched it, and you know what? I have to say that I agree with him.

When the media covers this sermon, it usually does it in a 20 or 30 second video spot that shows an angry black preacher asking God to damn America. But it doesn’t show the first six minutes of the sermon that lead up to this fiery moment. Here, Rev. Wright makes references not only to how America has treated blacks, but how it has treated Native Americans and Japanese-Americans. As you can probably imagine, our nation has not treated these people very well.

And of course, since the media only shows a short clip of the sermon, few people know that Rev. Wright only calls on God to damn America if “she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme.” Sounds reasonable to me; I don’t think we or any other nation should be abusing our power in a God-like fashion.

So yes, the Reverend is frustrated. He is frustrated by the racial intolerance in America, and he is frustrated by the governments actions in general. He may be voicing his criticism in a more over-the-top way than we are used to, but it is still government criticism that we are all entitled to make. It appears that in our struggle to appear patriotic, we have forgotten about freedom of speech.

But don’t take my word for it. Take a look at the video yourself.

Today we mark the five-year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This war, which history will remember as a terrible mistake, has simultaneously shown us the power of the American military, and the inability of our leaders to understand the world.

Recently, we heard Senator John McCain make a confused speech regarding Iran’s role in Iraq. He, like many of his colleagues, seems to be confused by labels such as “Shi’ite” or “Sunni”. This is a problem. Our current administration and its supporters have completely failed to grasp the fact that Iraq is a “false nation”, one built by the British Empire after World War I. The people of Iraq belong to different groups that have hated each other for generations, and for most of the 20th century, they have been held together by force, most notably by Saddam Hussein.

This is not praise of Hussein’s dictatorship; it is the acknowledgement that we cannot expect the different ethnic groups of Iraq to live together peacefully just because we tell them to. This is why the Iraqi government has been relatively ineffective, to the point where even the troop surge could not help. When we finally admit this, we should be able to find a peaceful solution, that may very well involve the partition of the country.

Unfortunately, admitting mistakes and learning from them is not something that our current administration or its chosen successor (Senator McCain) do particularly well. They would like for us to keep troops in Iraq forever, just like our troops in Germany, Japan, or South Korea. But they fail to realize (or just don’t care), that Americans are not being killed in any of these countries, except for Iraq.

But I do not think I am in the position to preach about military strategy, so I will say only this. As you read this, remember that Americans are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations all over the world. Thousands of these servicemen and women have been killed or wounded in these past five years. I ask that your prayers and thoughts be with them, whether or not you agree with their mission. They have done everything we have asked for and more, and they deserve to be welcomed home with open arms.

I hope we all learn the lessons of Iraq. I hope we all learn that war is not something that we can rush into. The greatest service we could ever give the brave men and women who serve our country is to stop sending them into battle on a whim. War should be only used as a last resort, when there is a dire threat. Right now, our actions are only a threat to ourselves.

As you may have already noticed, we recently made commenting on our posts much easier. You no longer have to register with WordPress in order to leave a comment. We hope to inspire more discussion, so all you lurkers out there who have resisted going through a complex registration should feel free to leave your thoughts on any of our posts.

Lost in the huge media furor over the March 8th Wyoming caucuses (/snark) were the results of the special election on the same day in Illinois’s 14th Congressional District. The election was held for the open House of Representatives seat vacated by controversy-laden former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and, when the dust cleared, Democrat Bill Foster had defeated Republican Jim Oberweis. It’s always good to have a new Democrat in Congress, but this was a particularly sweet victory for several reasons.

First, the very nature of the district made this election an uphill battle from the start. IL-14 has a PVI of R+5, meaning that is has voted 5 points more Republican than the rest of the nation in the last two presidential elections. To win in such a district indicates that the Democrats have made serious gains and could presage a strong Congressional election cycle in 2008. And not only was this a strongly Republican district, it was one in which the last Republican Speaker of the House had most recently occupied. This gave the race a national profile that has resulted in a wave of positive press for the Democrats.

In addition, this election cost the Republican Party far more than just a seat in Congress. The National Republican Congressional Committee spent $1.3 million on Oberweis’s candidacy, about 1/3 of their cash on hand. The NRCC was already losing to the DCCC in the fundraising battle by a large margin, so even if they had won, they still would have severely handicapped themselves for 2008. The election might also cost NRCC head Tom Cole his job; rumblings of disapproval with his performance were brewing before this high-profile loss. This would throw the Republicans into disorganization just months before the general election, slowing their fundraising and candidate draft efforts.

Finally (and most importantly), the election means that we have another great Democratic Congressman in Bill Foster.  Foster received a Ph.D. in physics from Harvard University and spent time working at Fermilab, one of the leading physical science facilities in the world.   He received several awards, both for research and for technology development, and he also co-founded Electronic Theater Controls, a leading theater lighting company.  Congress frequently seems rather backwards when it comes to science issues (global warming, stem cell research, creationism in schools), so to have a physicist of Foster’s standing is great; what makes him even better are his strong anti-war, anti-telecom immunity, pro-universal health care stances.  Foster isn’t perfect (he has expressed a willingness to join the centrist Blue Dog Coalition), but he has made his presence felt already.  On his first day in office, he cast the deciding vote to avoid tabling H. Res. 1031, a resolution which would establish an Office of Congressional Ethics within the House of Representatives.  Only four Republicans voted with the Democrats; the odds that Oberweis would have voted for the resolution are very small indeed.

One of the keys to Foster’s victory was a television advertisement released several days before the election featuring Barack Obama’s endorsement of Foster’s candidacy.  This has been jumped on by Obama supporters as proof that Obama offers longer “coattails” in 2008, meaning that voters who would come out to support him and who wouldn’t come out to vote for Hillary Clinton could make the difference in some close House and Senate races.  However, I don’t see any support for that theory in this race.  Obama is certainly to be commended for taking time out of his schedule to campaign for Foster.  However, the race occurred in Obama’s home state, one where he had taken 70% of the vote just four years earlier.  It is to be expected that Obama offers longer coattails in Illinois.

Regardless of where you stands on the presidential front, Foster’s victory is one that all Democrats can celebrate.  We have a House that is that much more progressive and yet more evidence that a candidate who takes strong, principled left-wing stances can win even in what can appear to be the most hostile territory.

Yeah, I know what your thinking. Another post about torture. But this is important (and scary), because there have been some recent developments that I have only just heard about.

Not long ago, Congress approved a large intelligence authorization measure that, among other things, would have required the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual, and would have banned many methods of physical torture (waterboarding, electric shocks). It was not a perfect bill, but it was a great first step in the struggle to rein in the CIA.

Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed this bill, and Congress failed to override. The President, of course, still claims that the US doesn’t torture, but he has refused to discuss specific techniques because he fears it will “tip off terrorists”. Translation: “My administration is up to something, but I don’t want the American people to know about it.”

Naturally, many Congressional Republicans are happy to give the CIA nearly unlimited power, since they believe that we are safer if we can beat our prisoners senseless and add to that worldwide anti-Americanism. However, I was most disappointed with Senator McCain, Vietnam veteran and Republican presidential nominee. Not only was he tortured while prisoner in Vietnam, but he has long spoken out against illegal torture methods. And yet, when the votes were cast he was standing with his Republican friends in support of the President. It’s sickening, how far he will go to appear more conservative.

Maybe Bush and the Republicans should listen to the military officials who understand that torture doesn’t work, and who have voiced their opinions as such. But who am I to assume that these guys will listen to intelligent advice?

I find all the talk of a joint Clinton/Obama ticket particularly interesting, especially since it was Hillary who brought it up. I guess optimism is never a bad thing, but I just can’t see her ever getting to the position of picking a vice-president. She would have to rack up some impressive wins while Obama’s campaign would have to collapse, and unlike Mike Huckabee, I don’t think Hillary majored in miracles in college.

But lets pretend for a moment that Hillary has just as much of a chance at winning as Obama, and lets take her offer seriously. She is considering Obama as her VP; Barack Obama, the man who she has labeled as “inexperienced” throughout this campaign. Now, I don’t pretend to know what goes on in Hillary’s head, but I would have thought that when you pick your VP, you want someone who is ready to assume the presidency at any given moment.

So what exactly is being attempted here? Does the Clinton campaign really think Obama is a capable leader? Or is this simply an act of desperation?

Maybe it just sums up the Clinton campaign. For months, she ran under this aura of inevitability, claiming that after all her hard work she deserved to win and dismissing her opponents. Now, as she sits in second place, she cannot accept the fact that she will probably lose, and she spends her days approving dirty political attacks that are, incidentally, right out of “Karl Rove’s playbook”.

So much for experience. Shame on you Hillary, we’ve had enough of this hypocrisy.

In 1932, President Franklin Roosevelt told Americans that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. This line has been immortalized by history; I remember learning about it in grade school. However, it was not until recently that I began to question the meaning of these words, and their relevance to the issues we face today.

President Bush seems to love it when Americans are afraid, especially if they are afraid of terrorists. Scared Americans support the President when he wants to invade foreign nations, or when he wants to be re-elected, or when he wants to illegally spy on us. Lets just say that Bush is probably the last person who will tell us that we have nothing to fear.

Now before I allow myself to go off onto a further tangent, I should tell you about Big Republican Lie #1. This is the odd misconception that many Americans have; the idea that the Republican Party is tougher on terrorism and better suited to keep us safe from attacks. Where do people get this idea, you ask? Lets look back a few years…

After the 9/11 attacks, the nation, understandably, turned to President Bush for leadership. Many of us wanted war; we wanted those responsible for these attacks to pay dearly. And we got it. A two-front war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, all was not well. from the start, the war was managed badly, with some troops being forced to go into battle without necessary supplies, like body armor. Furthermore, the government’s lack of understanding of the region and culture it was dealing with led to chaos when the established regimes in both nations were toppled, and amid this chaos Al Qaeda entered Iraq.

At the same time, Americans learned that there was no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This was the last straw for many Democrats, who had at one time supported the war, but changed their position when it became clear how much of a fiasco it was. The Republicans, on the other hand, were not as easily swayed. And why should they have been? As the party that had initiated the war, they alone could take advantage of America’s fears of terrorism. So for years, the Republican Party pushed their new image, that of the “National Security Party”, regardless of the fact that they had made America far less safe by mismanaging the war and needlessly angering most of the Muslim world.

Come on, Bush called it a crusade. A CRUSADE!!! Way to rub salt into 700 year-old-wounds, George.

Even today, when the War in Iraq is getting nowhere and the War in Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse thanks to international infighting, the GOP is still convinced that they alone have made America safer. Forget the fact that House Republicans refused to extend the Protect America Act (immunity for telecom companies is sooooooo much more important). Forget the fact that Republican presidential candidate John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, and claims there will be more wars. These Republicans, they make great patriotic speeches and wear shiny flag pins (most of them, anyway), of course they will keep us safe!

It’s 3 AM… Your children are safe and sound in their bed, but in the White House a phone is ringing. Something is happening in the world. They don’t know where, they don’t know when, but the Republicans say someone is trying to kill us. Your vote will determine whether we fall for it again.

Back when the Democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida were initially moved up in front of New Hampshire and Iowa, things seemed simple.  The states had violated party rules, and so they had to be punished.  Their delegates were stripped and the other primaries and the Iowa Caucuses were moved up so these upstarts couldn’t steal the publicity.  Now, however, we are seeing some issues in this theory, and so is Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.  There are a couple of problems with the current setup.

1. The way things are looking, the delegates are going to be close enough that the delegates from Florida and Michigan could end up making a huge difference.
2. Florida and Michigan are two reasonably big states full of voters the Democratic party doesn’t want to alienate.  One possible way to alienate them would be to disenfranchise them in the primaries.

The second issue shows us why the Democrats have to do something about this, the first one shows why this is going to be difficult.  With such a close, hard fought primary season, everyone is looking for how Florida and Michigan can be used to benefit their particular candidate.  Obama supporters are looking to hold caucuses in the two states, while Clinton supporters consider the results from the primaries already held to be perfectly legitimate (Clinton won both states, with Obama not on the ballot in Michigan).  Had this problem been addressed before the primaries started, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess, but now it has to be solved without angering half the Democratic Party.  Good luck Dean.

What is unarguable is that this must be resolved and the delegates from Florida and Michigan must sit lest we surrender four more years of a Republican presidency.

The thing about economic news is that it can be incredibly boring and paralyzingly scary at the same time.  This certainly seems to be the case with something I read in the Times about how our economy resembles that of the Japanese economy in the 1990s.  For those of you not up to speed on your Japanese economics (shame shame) the Japanese stock market crashed in 1997, plunging the world into financial crisis.  We have had similar issues with bubbles popping and the Fed, Congress, and the President have taken similar steps to alleviate them.  These steps didn’t seem to help the Japanese, so it seems unlikely that they will help us.

One thing Stephen Roach, the author of the piece, mentions rings true with me.  He says that:

That’s not to say Washington shouldn’t help the innocent victims of the bubble’s aftermath — especially lower- and middle-income families. But the emphasis should be on providing income support for those who have been blindsided by this credit crisis rather than on rekindling excess spending by overextended consumers.

The package approved by Congress and the president to be a quick fix simply encourages the middle class to spend more when already they have spent far more than they can afford.  Our government is subscribing to a philosophy that as long as our big businesses are doing well, our economy must be doing well.  What about the regard for the citizens who are finding themselves in dire financial straits?  Roach’s idea seems more Roosevelt than Reagan (and we can remember which one was more successful as the steward of the American economy): invest in infrastructure improvements within our country and encourage exports.  America has to learn that the economy doesn’t just run.  It has to be managed with care, or we could find ourselves in a recession with no clear way out.