Foleydog's blog

Antonio Villaraigosa's Big Idea

Now where did Christopher Arellano get that Big Idea from?

The Perils of Foster Care

Because rationalizations made in the criminal justice system drive me crazy.

I'm not a joiner, but . . .

I know, I know.  I can't draw, but I love making up political cartoons.

Talking after the close

To paraphrase Julian Bond; The Republicans are shameless, the Democrats, spineless. As it turned out, this was not the 'most important election of my lifetime.' That election was in November, 2000. That was the time to fight, to wail, to win. This year's campaigners and get-out-the-vote folks remind me of those people who doggedly watch CNN FN or subscribe to Money magazine. They'll hear that Google is the stock to buy, and there they are buying up stock at $190, when the time to buy was a month ago when it was $90 or $100. The time to fight is always NOW. We can't wait until 'things get bad' to fight the good fight. The time to fight was during the Clinton administration when certain Senators were blocking judicial nominations. The time to fight was during the Gingrich revolution. The time to fight was when the Florida recount hung in the balance. Now is the time to fight those who want to prevent gay marriage. Now is the time to fight those who would overturn a woman's right to choose. If not now, when? In 2008 when that becomes the most important election of our lifetime? Maybe $3 billion dedicated to stem cell research can lead to a cure for spinlessness in Democrats.

My First Time

I remember my first time. It was in 1990 and Republican William Weld was running for governor of Massachusetts. His opponent, Democrat John Silber (then President of the Boston University), was infamous for one thing -- his language -- he reportedly refused to campaign in Roxbury, a traditional black neighborhood referring to its residents as "drug addicts," referred to Jews as racists, that it was a senior citizen's "time to go . . . when they were ripe," and said that single mothers contributed to child abuse and neglect. So after years of making those November phone calls on cold Connecticut nights urging people to go to the polls and vote the party line -- before they removed the 'party lever' from the voting booth, that is -- and to let us know if they needed a ride to vote Democratic, of course -- I voted Republican. All my life Republicans were vilified, and here I was scratching out my absentee ballot -- for William Weld. Before that day in October, I had never considered voting for a Republican. After that, my party affiliation became much more blurry. I changed my registration from Democrat to Independent. I realized that I could vote for the person whose ideas I supported and I wasn’t required by peer pressure, by tradition, by rote -- to vote for the Democrat. Although I strongly believe voting is secret -- I'll tell you, I've swayed all over the map -- from the Green Party at the 'progressive' end to the other end of the spectrum. My latest -- voting for our current governor -- Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although, I generally can't vote in primary elections, my independence has been worth it.

What happened to the Great Society?

What happened to the idea of a great society? I was watching some kind of 'news' this morning, and a reporter/commentator was saying that either Bush or Kerry remarked that we could be out of Iraq soon. All we needed to do was stabilize the economy there, manage the oil revenues, build roads, and construct schools. Wait a minute. If I had known they were handing out free infrastructures, I would have been in line. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from a concerned Dorsey High parent. Apparently, in addition to not having new books, the schcool also lacks equipment for the football team. This parent said that her son and many other young men without fathers, without guidance, benefitted from this program -- and if I could see my way to sending in a few dollars, well then, it would save this program. On the one hand, I thought this woman had a point. Her child's high school should have the same sports equipment as high schools in more well-heeled areas. On the other hand, I thought, why doesn't she petition the state assembly for fairer funding -- so that her son and his friends could enjoy the same ameneties as other students. I wanted to, but didn't, write her back and tell her to call her local councilman, her assemblywoman, her congresswoman and ask them why can we afford to build schools for the children of Iraq, but not our own children. When I was growing up, I thought the purpose of the government was to provide public goods, roads, schools, bridges, and even health insurance. I thought the government could provide jobs -- building infrastructure -- to low skilled workers -- so that we could all benefit. Rather, the government has turned into a system of cronyism -- so skewed that children tens of thousands of miles away are getting schools -- ostensibly to make the Middle East more peaceful -- and in turn to make the world more peaceful -- and our children are only able to get education and job training by joining the military -- to build schools and infrastructure for others. Some choice.

John Kerry vs. George Bush

In my mind's eye, I imagine this scenario. The main Democratic strategists are sitting around a table, it's late 2003. STRATIGEST A: "Dean is really firing up our base. Moreover, he's bringing new people into the fold, getting young people involved like never before as well as those disaffected by the political system." STRATEGIST B: "Yeah, this guy really energizes people, and has the real ability, I think, to make George Bush's greatest strength--national security and terrorism--a weakness. He says without reservation that (1) Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, (2) we had successfully contained Iraq for 12 years with no-fly zones, (3) Iraq had virtually no Air Force to speak of, (4) there was no Al Qaida in Iraq, as the president intimated, (5) Iraq was not about to acquire nuclear weapons, as the president intimated, and (6) we should not have gone to war." STRATEGIST C: "Word has it that the two main contenders for the nomination of our party in 2000--Bill Bradley and the eventual nominee Al Gore--are going to endorse him, along with a slew of other party leaders. This guy has what it takes." STRATEGIST D: "Yeah, that's why I've called this meeting. We've got to stop him." STRATEGISTS A, B and C: "Huh, why?!?" STRATEGIST D: "He'll never win. The Republicans are going to pain him, and us, as soft on national security. He'll lose like McGovern. It will be a humiliation. We need someone who is electable. A war hero. That way, we can run our war hero against George Bush, the draft dodger--the guy who pulled strings to get into the Guard. I say we go for Kerry." * * * What were they thinking? Not eight years earlier, the Republicans chose their own war hero--Bob Dole--to run against draft dodger Bill Clinton, and the strategy failed, big-time. As for McGovern, it wasn't exactly a peacenik running against a warmonger. Indeed, Nixon was the fellow who ultimately pulled the US out of Vietnam--a war inspired by the Democrats. Remember, the chant made famous during that war was "LBJ, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today." Democrat Lyndon Johnson was blamed, and when the Yippies protested the war outside the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Democratic Mayor Daley sent out his police force to beat them into submission. Vietnam certainly wasn't a Republican war. So why did the Democrats choose to forget history and pick a loser to run when there was real excitement for Dean? The answer lies in the identity of STRATIGEST D . . . Bill Clinton. Think about it. A loss in 2004 means Hillary can run in 2008, and he can get another shot at the famous "co-presidency." Hey Bill, way to put your interests above the rest of America. Forget about the "vast right wing conspiracy." I think there's an ineffective centrist conspiracy in the works.

Bush vs Kerry, Part 2

I had a dream . . . . Imagine the following scenario: "Good evening, this is Jim Lehrer, and welcome to the Presidential debates. Tonight, the debate will be one hour. Forty-five minutes will be dedicated to the Viet-Nam war. The Republicans have come out against the war. The Democrats have come out in support. Senator Kerry would you like to begin . . . ."

George W. Bush vs. John Kerry

Even without cable, I was able to watch much of both conventions. I saw John Kerry play out his war record and George W. Bush attack Kerry as a flip flopper. I'm an independent voter -- who always votes. The kind of person who used to be targed by campaings -- at least when I lived in Ohio. So, last night, I was thinking . . . . who am I going to vote for? Like choosing a school, or a house, I drew up a sort of pro/con list for each candidate. Here's my list for George W. Bush:

Pro	Con
Tax policy proposal which promises to reduce the tax burden.	Patriot act which promises to reduce the rights of everyone.
Legislation which aimes to curb punitive damages.	"GitMo" policy which curbs the rights of enemy non-combatant.
Allowing Americans to invest their own Social Security dollars.	Saddling Americans with Judical nominees in which they can't invest their faith.
A man who may not be smart, but was smart enough to avoid Viet-Nam.	A man who appointed three smart men to engage in a preemptive war.

Then, I readied my pencil, to make my list for John F. Kerry. Hmmm. I got up, took a bathroom break, checked e-mail. Then I was back, just me and a blank piece of paper. I couldn't really think of anything I liked about John Kerry. He supported the war in Iraq -- and would again -- not too high on my list. He celebrated his two tours of duty (in four months?!?) in Viet-Nam. All my life the Viet-Nam war mongering has been villified -- and now it's popular? I'm still trying to figure that one out. When Dean spoke at the convention, I thought I could possibly support his candidacy. Al Gore, well I think he's a quitter -- and I still haven't gotten over the Senate's refusal to sign an objection to the electoral vote. But, I digress. John Kerry. I've watched his speeches, watched his unblinking advisors. I'm not sure what he would do if he was president. When I ask friends who are Kerry supporters, I get the "anybody but Bush" answer. I don't know if that't enough. Thank goodness for Ralph Nader.

Code named Justice

Last night as I watched former President Jimmy Carter speak and the Democratic National Convention, I was disturbed by his semantics. He said, "All former presidents, Democratic and Republican, have attempted to secure a comprehensive peace for Israel with hope and justice for the Palestinians." It was at that moment that I knew that the fate of the Palestinians wasn't likely to be good. Justice is a much bandied about word these days. "We want to bring Saddam Hussein to justice." When you hear this phrase, a fair and impartial trial doesn't come to mind. Instead images of jail and the death penalty arise. In Cleveland, the criminal court's building was called the Justice Center -- but for such a lofty name, I wouldn't have wanted my fate decided there. When I'm watching the 'local' news in the evenings, and anchors speak of brining Scott Peterson to justice or bringing Michael Jackson to justice -- my first thought is not -- let's see the truth come out. More often than not, justice these days means jail or death. Webster's defines justice with words like fairness, impartiality, righteousness, or conforming to principles or ideals. The words death, jail, and punishment don't prevail. Like the word 'liberal,' justice has been perverted to serve the goals of conservative speakers and instead of challenging these uses, many have been swept up in the fervor of justice or the avoidance of liberal. Years ago, there was a movement of people who believed words would lose their sting if they were re-claimed -- words like nigger and dyke. I say that we reclaim justice. I'm willing to let liberal go -- because frankly the folks avoiding the label aren't living the label. But justice, I think that's a word worth fighting for.