Lakshmi Chaudry writes powerfully in Alternet about the pain of Tuesday's election:
All the blame-mongering in the world can't erase the pain or, more importantly, the fear. My mind can handle the body blow of defeat, but it's the slow, seeping chill of dread that is harder to fend off. . . .
No, it's not about losing an election, but the fear of losing faith. Liberals have always believed that if we did everything right – got the truth out; got the people out – we would prevail. In the past, I could tell myself it was the wrong candidate, wrong strategy, wrong party – some reason why people didn't show up at the polls or vote for the "right" guy. Not any more. . . .
John Edwards was right in a way. There are two Americas: one that values tolerance, justice, and equality; the other that believes in Divine Will. But now that the Democrats lost the election – and control over every branch of government – I get to live in their America. And Carville wants me to talk to these guys? Or is he really saying that I need to be more like them? After all, it's not like I have any values that might be worth holding on to. Why not just put my silly liberal preoccupations with choice or sexual freedom aside so we can all come together as one nation – one nation under God, Guns, and (hating) Gays.
In the aftermath of the election, it feels like I've not just ceded my country, but also my self. I've become just one among the sea of anonymous losers whose concerns and issues are simply not relevant any more. In the space of a single night, I've become invisible.
It's hard – right now, at least – to fight that sense of irrelevance, the loss of purpose. I was exhausted and in tears the night we dropped the first bombs over Iraq. But I was back at work the next morning, determined to do my best. The fight was still ahead of me.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
What if -- number 1
What if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had not, in Nobember 2003 ruled that barring two persons of the same gender from marrying violated the Massachusetts Constitution?
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Bush Accountability
Andrew Sullivan has a a useful perspective, which gives me comfort:
Exactly. My main fear with a Kerry victory is that the hard right would never have given him a chance in the war, and would have savaged him as commander-in-chief in order to pave the way for a victory in 2008. Ratcheting the country back to fiscal sanity would also have been a thankless task. Now, Bush will face the consequences of his own policies and we will be able to judge him on that. He has no excuses any more. I hope he succeeds in Iraq, in reforming social security. But no one should give him an easy pass if he fails.
ACCOUNTABILITY: Here's an email with which i (Andrew Sullivan speaking) concur entirely:
"I didn't vote for Bush for lots of reasons. But it seems to me that maybe the result, much as it was not what I wanted, will be good for the country. We are in the middle of a war whose outcome is very much in doubt. We have a fiscal policy that may or may not prove successful. Issues that have seemed remote to many like abortion and the Patriot Act's definition of rights and privacy are likely to become more immediate over the next few years. Had we changed leadershi now, it would have been difficult to assign accountability, for good or bad, for these policies and decisions. I always feared, in fact, that Kerry would have had little chance of success in the face of a conservative chorus of "everything was going in the right direction in Iraq when we handed it over to you". Whatever the result, over the next few years we all will be better able to asses the success or failure of many things that are unfinished now, and hold one team accountable."
"I didn't vote for Bush for lots of reasons. But it seems to me that maybe the result, much as it was not what I wanted, will be good for the country. We are in the middle of a war whose outcome is very much in doubt. We have a fiscal policy that may or may not prove successful. Issues that have seemed remote to many like abortion and the Patriot Act's definition of rights and privacy are likely to become more immediate over the next few years. Had we changed leadershi now, it would have been difficult to assign accountability, for good or bad, for these policies and decisions. I always feared, in fact, that Kerry would have had little chance of success in the face of a conservative chorus of "everything was going in the right direction in Iraq when we handed it over to you". Whatever the result, over the next few years we all will be better able to asses the success or failure of many things that are unfinished now, and hold one team accountable."
Exactly. My main fear with a Kerry victory is that the hard right would never have given him a chance in the war, and would have savaged him as commander-in-chief in order to pave the way for a victory in 2008. Ratcheting the country back to fiscal sanity would also have been a thankless task. Now, Bush will face the consequences of his own policies and we will be able to judge him on that. He has no excuses any more. I hope he succeeds in Iraq, in reforming social security. But no one should give him an easy pass if he fails.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Drug Czar playing politics, again, with methamphetamine plan
On Monday, October 25, 2004, in Missouri, White House "drug czar" John Walters unveilled a fancy "national action plan" two weeks after Senator John Edwards unveilled the Kerry-Edwards proposal in Newton, Iowa, on Oct. 11.
Methamphetamine has been a growing epidemic in the western U.S. for a decade. Regulatory controls of the precursor chemicals -- not prohibition -- has been found, in an indepth study by Steve Suo of the Portland, Oregonian, to have been effective in reducing overdoses and crime related to methamphetime use.
So action is necessary.
But I have three points.
> "Drug czar" John Walters responded in a partisan political manner. He unveils the action plan accompanied by the Republican Minority Whip and issues a press release that quotes two Republican Senators and two Republican governors -- Taft from Ohio and Fletcher of Kentucky.
No Democrats were involved in the release of the "national" action plan.
> Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) has been working on methamphetamine abuse issues since at least 1986 when methamphetamine amendments he had to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 were enacted.
>Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (D) has been working on the problem of methamphetamine abuse since he took office in 1997. (His state is the immediate northern neighbor of Missouri where the press conference took place).
>There are two Democratic co-chairs of the Congressional Methamphetamine Caucus, Reps. Rick Larsen (2nd-WA) and Leonard Boswell (3rd-IA).
> California Senator Diane Feinstein (D) has worked on methamphetamine issues and sponsored control legislation for a decade.
> DEA Administrator Karen Tandy refused to answer questions from the Portland, Oregonian about DEA's regulatory and enforcement failures. One company kept shipping pseudoephedrine, a key methamphetamine ingredient, after 47 "warning" letters from DEA to stop. The most recent "warning" letter was sent in May 2003, the Oregonian expose says.
> The National Action Plan is filled with bureaucratic fluff: "assess" this, "develop guidelines" for that, "increase research" for something else.
> If the Administration was interested in substance, not partisan political fluff, in the time it took prepare the fancy "action plan," they could have told the DEA General Counsel, you have 30 days to prepare regulations for publication in the Federal Register to control the imports and distribution of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine -- and that could have been announced.
Sterlingpoints.com from Eric Sterling
Methamphetamine has been a growing epidemic in the western U.S. for a decade. Regulatory controls of the precursor chemicals -- not prohibition -- has been found, in an indepth study by Steve Suo of the Portland, Oregonian, to have been effective in reducing overdoses and crime related to methamphetime use.
So action is necessary.
But I have three points.
- Walters released this plan in a purely partisan political manner.
- Walters and the Bush Administration haven't done anything important on methamphetamine for almost four years.
- This plan exposes what they could have done and didn't.
> "Drug czar" John Walters responded in a partisan political manner. He unveils the action plan accompanied by the Republican Minority Whip and issues a press release that quotes two Republican Senators and two Republican governors -- Taft from Ohio and Fletcher of Kentucky.
No Democrats were involved in the release of the "national" action plan.
> Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) has been working on methamphetamine abuse issues since at least 1986 when methamphetamine amendments he had to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 were enacted.
>Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (D) has been working on the problem of methamphetamine abuse since he took office in 1997. (His state is the immediate northern neighbor of Missouri where the press conference took place).
>There are two Democratic co-chairs of the Congressional Methamphetamine Caucus, Reps. Rick Larsen (2nd-WA) and Leonard Boswell (3rd-IA).
> California Senator Diane Feinstein (D) has worked on methamphetamine issues and sponsored control legislation for a decade.
> DEA Administrator Karen Tandy refused to answer questions from the Portland, Oregonian about DEA's regulatory and enforcement failures. One company kept shipping pseudoephedrine, a key methamphetamine ingredient, after 47 "warning" letters from DEA to stop. The most recent "warning" letter was sent in May 2003, the Oregonian expose says.
> The National Action Plan is filled with bureaucratic fluff: "assess" this, "develop guidelines" for that, "increase research" for something else.
> If the Administration was interested in substance, not partisan political fluff, in the time it took prepare the fancy "action plan," they could have told the DEA General Counsel, you have 30 days to prepare regulations for publication in the Federal Register to control the imports and distribution of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine -- and that could have been announced.
Sterlingpoints.com from Eric Sterling
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)