Florida Constitutional Amendments: Back of the Ballot Explained

I just finished voting, and I realized that one problem I almost always have, even though I pay attention, is decoding those Constitutional Amendments on the ballot. You know; YES ON 2! NO ON 4! All those signs and ads you see are normally put out by special interests that have a stake in these things passing or failing, and there's not a lot of good information out there without heavy spin. So, for your convenience, here are the Amendments you'll be voting on if you live in Florida, along with an explanation in English of what they'll actually do, and my opinion on them, which you can take or leave as you like.


Amendment 1
Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.

This non-controversial Amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature. It proposes to remove some language dating back to the late 1800's from Florida's Constitution about Asian immigrants not being allowed to own land. Most other States had similar provisions at some point, which have of course been removed, and this is basically just housekeeping for the State.

My Vote: Yes, because this archaic wording is already superseded by reality everywhere in FL.


Amendment 2
Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

This Amendment is fairly straightforward, and most people already have an idea of where they come down on gay marriage. It's worth noting that this is already effectively the reality in FL, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it much more difficult for future groups to propose changes to the law that would give same-sex couples more rights. The Amendment was proposed by a group that opposes gay rights.

My Vote: No, because I don't believe this needs to be in our Constitution, when it is at best a matter of personal preference, and at worst a blatant attempt to block people's rights. I don't believe in legislating what goes on in the bedroom, and I think same-sex couples are our Constitutional and Human equals, and should be treated with the same respect as other couples.


Amendment 3
Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Residential Real Property

Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property's value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect.

Huh? OK, this Amendment basically means the following: If you install home-hardening features like storm shutters, hurricane glass, etc, OR renewable energy features like solar panels, wind-gathering devices etc, the Property Tax assessment for your home would not factor these types of improvements into your home's value, and by extension your owed tax. Basically, it's an incentive to get people to install this stuff, because they won't incur a tax penalty if they do so.

My Vote: Yes. I like renewable energy, and part of the "Green Collar" job creation plan involves creating a bigger market for this stuff, creating jobs for installers, manufacturers, etc. I'm for anything that incentivises that. Plus: Lower taxes, and lower insurance premiums for storm features. All around win.


Amendment 4
Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation

Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010.

This is an environmental measure. It would lock in property tax exemptions for privately-held land being used for conservation purposes, and prevent future tax assessments on conservation areas from being based on "Best possible use," and keep them based on "Current use." Example: Say you've got a beach that's a designated conservation area. Now, from one extreme to the other; this land could be taxed at the rate that it would bring in if there were Condos on it, or it could be exempt from taxation at all, provided that it will be used as a conservation area permanently.

My Vote: Yes. I'm all for keeping Conservation areas undeveloped.


Amendment 6
Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use

Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law.

This is similar to the last Amendment, but deals with waterfront use. It would lock in taxes on "Working Waterfront" areas at rates based on their current use, rather than what their potential tax could be. For example, a marina with a few commercial fishing boats and various other uses would be locked in at the rate for those services, not what the potential tax revenue would be if you bulldozed them and built multi-million dollar yacht condos.

My Vote: Yes. Have you been down by Tin City lately? Two of my favorite local businesses and countless others were eliminated by the crazy taxes down there, torn down, and replaced by condos, most of which now sit empty, collecting no tax at all. I come from a long line of boat builders and fishermen, and this will protect real Floridians' livelihoods.


Amendment 8
Local Option Community Funding

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require that the Legislature authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax to supplement community college funding; requiring voter approval to levy the tax; providing that approved taxes will sunset after 5 years and may be reauthorized by the voters.

This Amendment would authorize local governments to raise sales taxes to supplement local Community College funding. Pretty straightforward.

My Vote: Yes. If we're going to have these services, we need to pay for them somehow, and I don't mind kicking in a little more to support education.


And that's it. I realize it's a lot to digest, but these are important measures, it's vital you understand what you're voting on. I'll be re-posting this as we get closer to the Election, but you may want to print it out for future reading, if you find it helpful. Your thoughts are welcome below, and please remember to vote early, request an absentee ballot and use it. It helps your chosen candidate, whoever they might be, and it makes your life easier, allowing you to sit down and research local candidates and issues like these.

John Adams Doctor Atomic

opens October 13th at The Met.

From Alex Ross' fine blog:

Thanks to a generous $500,000 donation, the house is offering a slew of prime orchestra seats for $30 as part of its Rush Ticket program.

If you're anywhere near NYC, you should try to see this.

And this critique of the McCain campaign.....

is brought to you by our dear friend, Jordan C. Clark, who writes:

McCain's campaign has consistently seemed to rely on a warped philosophy that suggests that the truth is less important than what people are willing to believe.

The insulting fact of the way they've run the campaign is simple.

They banked on a majority of Americans to be the Fox News audience who trust and buy into the "spin-free zones" and empty polls, or choose the least articulate liberals to defend valid perspectives against any member of the right-wing elite willing to appear.

They lie, or, at the very least, mislead the public and the reach they have is stunning, but they gambled on a majority that just isn't there. Unfortunately for them, there are a fair number of Republicans with analytical, critically-thinking minds, who are not fooled by the same sources over and over again.

Perhaps, of the unthinking masses, this may be true, but in supposing that the dumbest sector of their voting base made up enough of a majority that they could win the election with only their votes, they abandoned the most valuable, thinking members of their party. (Example: George Will)

Maybe there is more to it.

If the candidate were able to back himself up, make a real case, then maybe he would have been able to win the intelligent republicans by speaking articulately, clearly communicating his strengths as a candidate. Instead, his opportunities to face off with Obama have been squandered with vague responses when he should have offered clarity, attacks where he should have tooted his own horn, and condescension when he should have been respectful. If his strength isn't policy, but rather his honorable character, then he should have worked harder at being more charismatic and less insulting, both to his opponent, and, in this longed-for town hall format, to those asking questions ("You probably never even heard of Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac before two weeks ago!")

McCain was vague and avoided questions, but wasted plenty of Tom Brokaw's time with condescending quips directed at question-askers and "that one."
Obama, on the other hand, directly and articulately addressed people's questions, like what the "Rescue Plan" (yeah, okay, sure) did for regular Americans, and why it was necessary. McCain didn't do that - he just pointed fingers and said that he had mentioned Fannie and Freddy two years ago, even though as recently as this spring, he was touting deregulation policies.

Another insult to the general public was his bet than the undecided women, following Hillary's loss in the primary, could be con over with another female on a ticket - any ticket, even one that favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the taxation of health insurance such that anyone with a comprehensive policy actually pays more money, drilling for oil when that is obviously not the way of the future, and as American innovation is falling behind in the changing scope of the global economy. (Did ANYONE read PART of Zakaria's book???)

Proposing a moratorium on spending, excepting Defense and Veteran's Affairs is maybe the WORST idea ever, since so many domestic programs are at or beyond the brink of failure. But maybe for a candidate who banks on ignorant voters, education shouldn't be a priority. Welfare? Who needs it! If the people who needed it actually got it, then it would only extend their life expectancies, granting them the opportunity to elect more Democrats. If they didn't get it, then they'd starve, die sickly and depressing, lonely deaths, and decrease the blue to red ratio on the maps, simultaneously decreasing the demand for said programs. Social Security? People today won't ever reach retirement anyway. In the economy post-crisis, they'll be working until they die. Besides, by the time we reform that program, generations who could actually see the benefits will never have even heard of such a thing. By then they won't even know it ever existed.

But maybe McCain's campaign hasn't been all wrong. Maybe they simply assumed that even though they were insulting the intelligent members of their party's base, they could count on those votes anyway, because the thinkingest Republican brains could be trusted not to vote for Obama's policies, just because they didn't like McCain. They'll still support McCain before they'd vote for Obama, for gosh sakes.

McCain's "maverick" reputation has thwarted fundamental Republican initiatives in the past, and his hasty decision-making has been a real head-scratcher. Barack Obama has shown a skill for being an inspiring and mobilizing force on both sides of the aisle. Maybe the intelligent Republicans can say, in the face of W's imminent departure from the White House, "No, it's time for intelligence, and it's time to do something that the country can be proud of." Maybe it will all be okay, and maybe McCain's biggest mistake was assuming the worst of the American voters. If he turns out to have been right in this gamble he's made, and enough American voters really are that thoughtless (and stupid), I fear for the future of this country, because with a McCain administration, education won't get the reform it needs, and Americans will never get smart enough to think critically about what's being said to them.

The Debate on Russia tonight

Jesus. I....I really can't respond. It is so unbelievably discouraging to have the level of discourse in this country on such a monumentally important foreign policy question as Russia be so unbelievably entrenched in decades-old, dichotomous ideals disproved in the past two decades.

Why? Why are we resurrecting the Evil Empire meme? I hope that this idiotic back and forth doesn't lead me to be so hungover tomorrow that I can't point out how stupid LEAGUE OF DEMOCRACY and rambling "I can't really say that Russia is evil, but I think they are because you folk think they are" really is as a talking point.

I really don't know where to begin. This debate is ridiculous.

Uh...

So, it looks like Mikhail Gorbachev and really rich dude Alexandr Lebedev are forming a new Independent Democratic Party because "without independent political institutions" Russia can't progress a country.

So yeah. Great, I suppose. But this is bizarre and one reason why I love Russia so much:

Lebedev, a former State Duma deputy and a billionaire who describes himself on his LiveJournal blog as a "capitalist-idealist," said it was too early to talk about possible participation in the 2011 Duma elections.

Naturally, LJ - whose parent company is a Russian corporation - is big in Russia and it shouldn't be surprising that it's popular for those wanting to get their message out. It's just weird that literary figures and political operatives over there all use an online social network noted in America for its numerous communities devoted to slash fiction. Just saying.

Quote of the month?

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski sez:

Of course we don't like it when the Russian president or Russian generals threaten us with nuclear annihilation. It is not a friendly thing to do, and we have asked them to do it no more than once a month.

It's really seeing the small requests in life fulfilled that bring to us the most joy.

h/t: Joshua Keating.

Dear Keith Olbermann,

You mock McCain for stating that Pakistan is a failed state. This is kind of misplaced and there are a number of other things you could legitimately make fun of him for.

Pakistan is ranked eighth on Foreign Policy and The Fund for Peace's Failed States Index. A state is deemed to have failed by the following criteria:

• mounting demographic pressures
• massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples
• legacy of vengeance - seeking group grievance
• chronic and sustained human flight
• uneven economic development along group lines
• sharp and/or severe economic decline
• criminalisation and delegitimisation of the state
• progressive deterioration of public services
• widespread violation of human rights
• security apparatus as "state within a state"
• rise of factionalised elites
• intervention of other states or external actors

Now, that comes from the first goddamn thing my dumb, half-remembering ass typed into a popular, efficient search engine. And despite my miraculous laziness, I have figured this out; despite the tempting piece of fruit that is John McCain saying something stupid about foreign policy, I have resisted. Because, Keith, Pakistan has had a few bureaucratical snafus over the last decade or so. I've gathered as much from casual observation. So it didn't seem like that much of a stretch and lo and behold the marvels of the modern age have shown me the wonder of truth.

Thems the breaks, though. The ability to perceive grey areas and humility alone have yet to land me a high-ratings vehicle through which to bloviate and be incredibly condescending.

So please give me a job after this election, okay? When properly groomed I am quite decorative and especially suited in social functions to the distribution of small edibles with charm and with wit.

Thank you,

Benjamin Estes (age 8)

You're Being Robbed

This is going to be a bit of a downer. I'll preface it by saying this: The Democrats do not currently have a plan to replace the one the White House and Treasury Secretary proposed. This is because the Bush plan is just a money grab, not a real solution to what's wrong with our economy. The Democrats intend to fix our economic crisis the old fashioned way, by creating new wealth from the bottom up, by supporting American innovation and creating jobs. They also plan to roll back most of the irresponsible deregulation in the Finance industry that the GOP rammed through in 1999. This will prevent the type of speculation that got us where we are now from happening in the future. It's going to take time, not the "quick-fix" that appeals to the short attention span and unwillingness of most Americans to consider how government actions affect their lives. We are a country that needs to start paying attention. This is about preventing a massive theft from your pocket and mine, one perpetrated by our government on behalf of people who do not deserve it.

The $700 Billion dollar bailout plan you've heard about in the last few days is a dangerous, horrible idea. Treasury Secretary Paulson says it's necessary to prevent a major liquidity crisis in the world financial market, but it's a lie. This plan is simply a parting gift from the Bush Administration to the financial industry, and a brazen attempt to saddle a possible Obama administration with a crushing debt that will prevent them from making any progress on the issues that matter most to Americans. I heard just the other day someone contending that Obama wanted $670 Billion in new spending. They didn't bother to mention that most of it is revenue-neutral, and won't cost the taxpayers a dime. This plan, on the other hand will cost every single American Citizen over $2000.

We are told that this "Emergency" plan is a reaction to the fluctuations on Wall Street last week. If so, why has the Bush Administration been planning it for months? WH Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto:

"Fratto said it would be “unthinkable” for Congress not to pass legislation this week, asserting the result would be a “very, very serious situation” for the U.S. economy. “It shouldn’t take much analysis to remember what happened last week, which was a very serious freeze-up in our credit markets,” Fratto said. “Our financial markets right now do not need uncertainty, they need increased certainty as to how this rescue plan is going to go forward — and that they can be sure that there is a plan to go forward — and that will begin the correction in our financial markets.” Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough. "

Source: http://www.rollcall.com/news/28599-1.html?type=printer_friendly

If the White House and Treasury saw this coming, why didn't they act earlier, or at least consult Congress as they were drafting a piece of legislation that represents the largest transfer of public funds into the private sector in history? Don't you think the people that represent you and I should have been allowed to help shape this plan? Why was it written in secret? I remember another Bush pet project that was cooked up in secret for years before being hastily announced and forced through Congress without meaningful oversight; we're still In Iraq, still presumably looking for those "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Our brave servicemen and women are still dying.

I'll tell you why this was a secret; it's because Congress never would have agreed to it. Among other things, it renders the office of the Treasury Secretary above the law. Decisions made by the TS would from now on be legally untouchable, and immune to legislative review. I don't know about you, but I want any decisions made about my tax dollars to be subject to scrutiny from Congress, the Supreme Court, and whoever else we've appointed or elected to oversee this stuff. That's why we elect them in the first place, right?

Another example of the foolishness in this bill? Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have asked that companies receiving assistance from you and I must limit their Executive's salaries to the amount of the highest-paid government employee. That would be $400,000 a year, that's what we pay the President. The corporations are pushing, with support from Bush, to keep salary caps out of the bill. I don't think it's right to expect taxpayers to foot the bill for Financial CEOs' extravagant lifestyles, especially when their "leadership" has put their companies in the position of needing a taxpayer handout. If they're on my dime, 400k is plenty. It's about 10 times the average salary in America. I refuse to cry for them because they have to sell a couple houses. I can barely afford gas.

The Bill also opposes something called "warrants," which are effectively stock options that would be owned by the federal government on the Mortgage-Backed Securities that you and I are about to purchase. There are two problems here; one is that the plan calls for taxpayers to purchase all this bad debt at ABOVE market price, for some reason, and the other is that at whatever price, we would not be profiting from those assets if and when they increase in value. To simplify:

You are being asked to loan a company money to buy a stock that's only worth $2. But they want you to pay $5, since they feel like it's worth more than the market dictates it's worth, and they need the capital. Then, after you pay $5 for the stock, if it eventually goes up in value to $10, they will be keeping all the money. And you've lost $5, they've earned $8. Good for them, Bad for you.

The bottom line is this: This is probably not a crisis. If it is, I'm sorry to say, $700 billion is not going to solve it. IF we are about to enter a period of severe financial depression, this plan only serves to give one last gift to the rich before it all comes crashing down, it WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. The problem is regulation, and the reckless attitude that allowed Wall Street to gamble away your home's value and your 401k. And giving these idiots more money to play with is not going to help.

There are indications that the market is already self-correcting. Warren Buffet announced today he was buying $5B worth of Goldman-Sachs premium stock, and possibly more in common stock. Now, this may have been a reaction to the news that Goldman stands to benefit massively from the bailout, but the point is this: Some people gambled and lost. There are companies out there that are still strong, and they are absorbing the weak ones. A lot of people made bad decisions, and this is the beginning of the reckoning for them. I'm not interested in propping them up. These failures are either the beginning of a massive liquidity crisis, or they're not. Nothing we do is going to prevent it from happening, the market is what it is. If you think that $700B is a lot of money, google "credit default swaps." There's about $65 TRILLION dollars worth of heavily leveraged, crazily unpredictable debt floating around out there that could bring down the world financial system eventually. But it probably won't, because the market is ruthless, but not dumb. Companies that are strong will survive, and those that are weak will die. It's natural selection, maybe that's why Bush doesn't believe in it.

Call your Congressperson. Tell her that you oppose this gift to people who were incompetent and stupid at their chosen profession. Tell her that you demand oversight, not another blatant power grab by the Bush Administration. Here's the number:

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html

It is time to admit that Conservative Fiscal Policy, Reganomics, and "Trickle-Down" are all failed ideas. We have, for the better part of the last 30 years, been ruled by these ridiculous notions, and the events of the last 8 years have proven them to be false. The rallying cry against Liberal financial policy has always been that it is "Socialism" in disguise. That Democrats are "Communists" who want to take all the money and ruin the country by handing it out to the poor, or something. Who are the "Socialists" now, Mr. Bush? You have, in the last 8 weeks, taken over the largest Mortgage Company in the Country. The largest Insurance Company in the World. You are preparing to assume ownership of most of the Financial Sector as well. We, the taxpayers, now own these companies. But I'll tell you why it's not Socialism. Socialism implies public ownership of industry, with public distribution of profit. Your current policy is public ownership of industry with distribution of profit going to a select few in the private sector. There a word for that type of Government, too Mr. Bush. It's called Fascism.

There is a solution. But we have to wake up. The economy is broken because of Republican-backed deregulation that allowed it to get that way. Democrats have consistently opposed the laws that got us into this mess. We are at the end of the failed experiment with GOP fiscal policy. We must act now to elect the people that know how to fix it. I'm tired of being led by those that only know how to give more and more of our money to the rich.

Volunteer. Call your local Democratic party and ask how you can help. Florida People can find the number here:

http://www.fladems.com/content/county_organizations

If not there, visit the campaign website, sign up, and get moving.

http://www.barackobama.com/

Now is not the time to panic.

I think this is an excellent point:

At the Republican National Convention, McCain adopted Obama's rhetoric and has promised that he and Palin would be the true agents of change, though he declines to specify exactly which Bush-era policies he would change. Ironically, a common castigation of Obama is that he isn't setting the narrative of the race -- that the debate isn't on his terms. But it should be clear by now that this isn't true: The race is about change and who can bring it to Washington. Obama's campaign is betting that its message will be the one that resonates with voters, and McCain's will be seen for what it is: pure rhetoric. Maybe that's a bad bet, but nonetheless Obama's story has set the frame, and McCain is the one who's had to work within it. Obama should not get nasty because that undermines the entire narrative of his candidacy.

I have a lot of faith that Obama's an intelligent guy who's surrounded himself with intelligent people and that the recent polling and the Palin phenomenon are not really things to get doom and gloomy over. We'll see how this plays out, but I'd wager that we've finally got a candidate who knows what he's doing.

:(

I love this blog, but there's something about this post that strikes me as self important in the same way I can't really stand to watch Keith Olbermann's "special comments" - because their indignant tone completely misses the point of their intended message.

According to him, we've forgotten 9/11:

It's hard to remember the national mood right after 9/11. The pall that fell upon American life the moment the planes shattered the towers. Irony was declared dead. The late night comics went dark. Bush ceased to be a figure of fun. The world was dangerous, and existence was a heavy burden. It needed to be taken seriously.

Ezra forgot, apparently, about the wonderful semicolon - whose absence in the above passage is indicative of our neglect of one of the most fascinating, terror-inspiring and abused punctuation marks in our grammar.

on iTunes 8

The new Genius function, which creates playlists FROM MAGIC, is really stupid and obvious and pisses me off to the extent that the utter triviality of my displeasure towards it makes me that much angrier.

Surrounded by weak neighbors and fish

David Frum wrote something. And some may ignore his histrionic accusations of elitism and think that he has a point beyond that. He doesn't, sadly.


He doesn't waste any goddamn time. The closing sentence of the opening paragraph is such an exquisitely envious jab at a foundation of liberal thinking - diversity - that I almost want to recommend that you read the article in reverse so that your reading pleasure can have the properly cathartic terminal sensation it deserves.

With wealth comes diversity — and what is inequality but diversity in monetary form?

What a goddamn opening salvo! This is seriously like the Beethoven Fifth of ridiculous, hand-wringing articles.

Because I'm a dick, I was going to quote these next two out of context. Imagine, I was going to tell you, that a very disgruntled, hippo-joweled manchild is furiously denying the possibility of being incorrect by pounding his fists on a Risk board, throwing pieces into the air in glorious suicide before having to face the humiliation of admitting one's wrong move. I thought it would make them that much more special. But then I realized there is no need for context because they're fundamentally true. The logical pillars which Frum has so carefully erected underneath them are nothing more than pathetic attempts to gloss over that simple, damning fact.

Equality in itself never can be or should be a conservative goal.

Well, maybe if it were more like what I was talking about, he'd have said that in modern conservative policy equality can not be a goal. No really, I suppose the one that must hurt Frum the most is:

Conservatives need to stop denying reality.

Well, having said that in 2002 and 2003 would have saved several thousand American lives and several trillion dollars or whatever the hell it's up to now.


But Frum doesn't want conservatives to confront the reality of their own failed policies. In fact, the overarching theme of the article is Frum's nascent leitmotif. In 2005 it was that if two men who may or may not possess the body type right-leaning, coddled war nerds salivate over in action movies were to somehow be able to kiss and hold hands in public, then the world would be engulfed in the subsequent celestial fury. Now, as Summer 2008 fades it's the old chestnut that Democrats are elitist. To insist that the divide in this nation is political and not economic, to insinuate that the rich only vote Democratic, is a pretty spurious argument. Elitism should not be bandied about as a weapon by someone who earns his living telling people what he thinks about things in major, national publications. Period.

There's understatement! Yay!!

Republican economic management since 2001 has not yielded many benefits for middle-income America.

Again: he's on the money, folks. This reminds me of the oft passed around Soviet bit of punditry that Brezhnev's policy of alternating the color and effectiveness of the fuzzy balls (made from his own hair!) which the dour Russian premiere would stick in his ears for months at a time was rather small comfort to the out of work factory laborer, living in near medieval conditions 60 kilometers east of Moscow.

There's also denial! Or ignorance! Maybe?

Indeed, the Democratic tilt of the very richest Americans could be exploited as a powerful conservative recruiting tool.

I love the usage of the past tense here, as if exploiting the resentment of the wealthy (often, shocking as it may seem, by wealthy people themselves!) were not the central theme of his present argument.

In summary, David Frum is going to be applauded for trying to "save" his beloved ideology without dropping the immature reliance upon bitter projection and manipulative logic nor - and this is bizarre - admitting his own culpability.

Try again, I guess.

Best PSA Ever?

Yes. The answer is yes.

?

Quaint.

By the way, the only country other than Russia to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is Nicaragua.

Celebrity

In lieu of posting anything of actual substance and because I have little time to actually write about the many ways in which Palin, Putin, and most of the rest of the internet is insane and wrong, I'll go ahead and quote - in its entirety - this great post by Anonymous Liberal:

Did anyone else notice that the primetime segment of last night's Republican National Convention began with a video tribute to movie star who later became president (Ronald Reagan)? And that was followed by a speech by an actor (Fred Thompson) who later became a senator, eventually returned to acting, and then ran unsuccessfully for president this year. And he was filling a speaking slot that originally belonged to another movie star turned politician (Arnold Schwarzenegger).

But remember folks, don't vote for Barack Obama because he's a "celebrity."

A story-link for you, Ben.

Amazing.

Oh, if it were true...

Funny stuff.

Via the always wonderful Ezra Klein.

Pandering with Palin

I disagree with this completely.

Sarah Palin may be one of the smartest tactical moves made by the McCain Campaign and the Democrats should be very careful in their line of attack against her. Depending on how she is defined at the Republican Convention she could be a game changer.

Palin was not a smart tactical decision, by any stretch of a normal, rational person's imagination. While it's true that sexism (check out the google hits for VPILF and Matthews' "sexy librarian" comment) in attacking Palin makes me want to vomit in my own mouth, and while there may be some legitimate concern that Biden could utter a gaffe that would exacerbate this, I don't think that the Obama campaign's current line of attack (that she's inexperienced and was a cynical pick made to pander to disgruntled Clinton supporters) is in any danger of backfiring.

Barack Obama is underperforming among female voters in the key states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin in our polling. In these states he is only leading John McCain by 2% to 3% among females where traditionally there has been a double digit lead for Democrats. If Palin can help keep these voters in play and then energize base Republican voters, these states have the potential to flip.

Except that Palin won't bring these voters into play. C'mon! Give me a goddamn break. Clinton is an incredibly smart, incredibly successful politician who is both articulate, witty and knows stuff about the position for which she was running. Palin, by contrast, stated a few months ago that she didn't even know what the VP office does. Clinton is pro-choice; Palin anti-choice. Palin is an extreme conservative who doesn't believe global warming is influenced by humans and she's a freaking creationist. Do you know many Clinton supporters that believe that? This is such a ridiculous debate that we have to have now! I know several Clinton supporters in my office, who in turn know dozens of Clinton supporters - all of whom are insulted by this pandering bullshit.

Finally, by attacking Palin as being inexperienced the Obama Campaign may actually help bolster McCain's own arguments of inexperience against Obama. If Palin is inexperienced to be Vice President based upon her record in Alaska, how can Democrats argue that Obama is experienced to be President based upon his record.

This has to be trolling. Let's see, Palin has been governor for less time than McCain has been a presidential hopeful. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored hundreds of pieces of legislation. Inexperienced, now? I don't understand how this could possibly "bolster" McCain's statements about Obama's supposed lack of experience. This indicates that McCain's judgement is suspect if he's putting someone with no understanding of the position to which he will presumptively appoint her to and then if McCain's health were to make him incapable of governing, she would take over. Does that make sense to anyone? Does that even compare to a ticket that combines someone who has had years of grassroots organizing and legislating under his resume with one of the Senate's most experienced foreign policy experts?

The answer is no. And the answer to the question of whether this was a smart tactical pick is no.

During the lull between meetings this morning....

Want to get back to what I'm sure will be the main focus of the blog for the immediate future, Russia and its relationship with the West.

Yulia Latynina, arguably the one Russian journalist most capable of picking up the mantle left by Anna Politkovskaya, has an excellent op-ed in The Moscow Times about what most in the Russian press are dubbing The Olympics War. There's an implicit message in it that the "blame game" over who started the war is utterly trivial: Sakaashvili's decision to send troops into South Ossetia was a colossal mistake, a tragic underestimation of Russia's response and a naive reliance upon American support. This is the kind of middle of the road take she's espoused countless times over the past week on her radio show on Ekho Moskvy. I don't have direct sources, so you'll have to take me on faith, but there are very few people in the Russian media - even the decimated "liberal" stations and those journalists who aren't government apologists - who are taking a similar stance; very few who are willing to admit the tragedy of it. Most journalists of this ilk are simply astonished by Sakaashvili's idiotic decision to invade and very few of them want to be aligned with Putin so they're taking the equally ridiculous position that the invasion of Georgia is on par with the invasions committed by atrocious men from the last century with ridiculous mustaches.

I don't know why there are so few people who are capable of sensing that the tragedy of this war was that it was so completely unavoidable, there's nobody to single out for blame, just a number of poorly thought out, easy to ridicule decisions.

RIP

Del Martin died.

Four years ago, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed marriage licenses to be issued to gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco in defiance of state law, Ms. Martin and Lyon were the first of some 4,000 same-sex couples to wed. Those marriages were later nullified by the state's high court but paved the way for the successful legal challenge.

"We would never have marriage equality in California if it weren't for Del and Phyllis," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat. "They fought and triumphed in many battles, beginning when they first bought a home together in San Francisco in 1955."