Be the water

Maine's gay marriage law was repealed last night.

It is little consolation I know but at times like this I try to keep a historical perspective. The fact that almost 50% of Mainers would support marriage equality is something to be proud of.

Ignorance is a powerful force. It is a mountain that appears insurmountable. But all mountains eventually are worn down by the water.

Be the water.

Will we be Health Care Reform's unwitting assassins?

(I'm going to tempt fate by doing some speculating about what will happen once Obama signs the HCR bill into law. May the gods forgive me.)

While there are still details to be worked out, the final form of Health Care Reform has come into focus. The public option is almost certainly going to be an opt-out, trigger-free, negotiated rates system that will be available realistically only to those who aren't already covered. We can wail and moan about this, but all of that is pretty much wasted breath at this point.

There will be floor amendments (all of which will fail). There will be reconciliation (which will could possible have some additional teeth grinding compromises). We should continue to fight for further reform in the final package (lightning can still strike). But what we will get in the end is no longer much of a mystery.

What we cannot do is let our disappointment stand in the way of defending the final bill. That is precisely what the opponents of HCR want.

The propaganda war that is coming will make the last few months seem like a small skirmish. You and I both know that the opponents of HCR (and the PO in particular) are already cranking up their machines to try and paint the worst picture possible of the enactment and execution of this bill. We cannot let them succeed, even if means defending what we consider to be a poor bill.

For example, we all know that the PO is only going to be available to a limited number of people. A lot of people outside the debate don't know this, but they will become aware of it soon enough when they ask their Human Resources rep what they need to do to switch.

When they find out that they can't, there is going to be a lot of outrage. And when the limited PO does not produce any great savings in insurance costs (as even its proponents expect), the propaganda machine will point at this and say, "See! We told you it wouldn't work!"

The worst thing we could do at that point is agree. We must not give their position weight. If they manage to convince the public that the public option is bad, it will die and will set back our efforts by another couple of decades.

We must be prepared to argue that the PO's weaknesses are entirely because it was hobbled from the beginning (suggested image: a horse leaving the gates with three of its legs chained to iron balls). We must be prepared to use the inevitable complaints about limited access to push for Wyden's proposal (or one like it) to open the exchanges to ALL Americans.

We must not let our bitterness over the limited nature of this reform get in the way of using it as the foundation for more profound reform down the road. We must not let our anger become our opponents greatest weapon.

Once Obama signs this bill, the fights of the last few months are over. The fights to come are waiting for us. Will we be ready for them?

I miss Carl Sagan

Self Awareness

I try to keep two things in mind:

(1) Political attention is a precious resource, when you get it, use it wisely. That means you should ask yourself, before saying anything or taking any action, "What am I trying to accomplish by doing this and is it worth the trouble to accomplish it?" Venting feels good, but does it actually help? If not, then do the venting with your close friends and family, but leave it out of the public debate.

(2) You are being watched. You are being watched, not just by those who agree with you, but also by those who do not. And among those who disagree with you are people who truly are your enemies. As such, they are looking for any advantage they can get from disagreements you have with those who are your allies. Don't think for a moment that political operatives aren't following public discussions closely, looking for some avenue of attack to use against you. If they can find a wedge issue that will divide you from your allies, all the better. If they can find a sound bite that will isolate you, even better. (Many of the worst talking points against Democrats came from other Democrats.)

Express your frustrations. Demand justice and what is right. But do it smartly and never offend anyone unnecessarily.

Fortune Cookie Patriotism

Defeating Reid is pointless

What people often forget when discussing the "failings" of caucus leaders is that caucus leaders do not represent the interests of the wider movement that elects that caucus. Their constituents are not the Democratic voters. Their constituents are the other members of the caucus.

That's why Nancy Pelosi, a liberal Democrat from a liberal district, had to be more moderate in her approaches to managing the caucus in the previous congressional term. She didn't just represent San Francisco. She also represent the Democratic congress people from the South.

Why do I bring this up? Because simply demanding the defeat of Reid is pointless if the caucus as a whole will just elect another Reid-like leader. If you really want to change the leadership of the caucus then you need to change the caucus itself. You do this by either persuading its members to vote differently, or you elect new members who will vote differently.

Reid's "spinelessness" is just a symptom.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Has Right-Wing News Doomed the Republican Party?

Such is the way of all reactionary movements. Once they defeat the enemy on the outside, the eventually turn on themselves. Eventually, only the purist of the pure, the true believers are left.

And then they lose.

And that's when they get really scary

Justice Sotomayer Questions the Foundation of Corporate Personhood from the bench

I haven't seen this anywhere else...

In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."

Wow!

If this is a real hint of her views on this matter than I think we have to applaud. Even if it doesn't change the ultimate ruling in this particular case, it is still good to have a new Justice who questions the corrupt foundation of law regarding the relationship between corporations and the government.

Of course, some people's heads started steaming when they heard her talk about the Santa Clara decision being a "mistake".

"I don't want to draw too much from one comment," says Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. But it "doesn't give me a lot of confidence that she respects the corporate form and the type of rights that it should be afforded."

The linked article has a very good background on the history of Corporate Personhood. It even mentions the little discussed (outside liberal circles) fact that the original court case on this matter (Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County) did not actually address this issue but instead that the whole foundation of "corporations are people" argument were the results of an off hand remark by the then chief justice that was written down by the court reporter as if it were part of the official decision.

Justice Kennedy, however, is not so enlightened:

On today's court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court's conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election," Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week.

Important

No one should die because they cannot afford healthcare. No one should go broke because they get sick, and no one should be tied to a job because of pre-existing condition. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.